Wow, Graham Poll, just wow
- Thread starter deusex
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
He's got a point.
The defender deliberately plays the ball. It's a poor direction on the header, but there's a deliberate move to try to play that ball by the defender (white). The ball goes back to the player who happens to be in offside position, but the deliberate play removes the offence.
Play on.
The defender deliberately plays the ball. It's a poor direction on the header, but there's a deliberate move to try to play that ball by the defender (white). The ball goes back to the player who happens to be in offside position, but the deliberate play removes the offence.
Play on.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Taylor's header was a deliberate attempt to play the ball, so essentially no different from a defender playing a backpass straight into the path of an attacker. No offside, play on, good goal!
No offside
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
As far as I'm concerned, the following part of the law applies to this situation:
From what I saw, Taylor deliberately played the ball and it could not be considered a deliberate save.
From what I saw, Taylor deliberately played the ball and it could not be considered a deliberate save.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Know what you mean. There's definitely an 'imbalance', given that an inadvertent rebound off an attacking player WOULD be classed as offside
But I'm sure a man of your calibre would, in fact, uphold the (current) LOTG in a situation like this to avoid making life trickier for the rest of us
Just another ridiculous distinction in the laws. One player's deflection is another's deliberate play. The defender didn't mean to do what he did, he didn't deliberately (i.e. intend to) play it to Vardy, so whose interpretation is right? If it had just skimmed off his head, would that make it a deflection?
When the law was changed I wrote to Neale Barry and said:
Neale,
I see IFAB is considering amending definitions of offside, particularly to distinguish between a deflection and deliberate play.
If they’re going to do it, could I suggest a more radical way forward, as the definitions are a bit of a mess, and this just makes it messier, if a bit clearer. The main problem is that years ago someone saw the words “gaining an advantage” and used it for a scenario (the rebound) that it never used to have (and when any touch by an opponent would “play onside” an attacker).
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/ifab/02/00/08/29/finalifabagenda01022013.pdf
and I suggested losing the misleading "gaining an advantage" condition and just adding a clause:
Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent also apply when the ball rebounds or deflects from an opponent or from the goalpost or crossbar to a player in an offside position (when the ball was played by or was touched by one of his team). It applies to a rebound from a deliberate save, but otherwise a player can not be offside if the ball is deliberately played by an opponent.
As a rule of thumb, I've understood rebound to mean the ball goes in a different direction so if a defender plays it and it carries on toward goal (as in the Vardy case) it's a deflection and doesn't qualify as deliberate.
When the law was changed I wrote to Neale Barry and said:
Neale,
I see IFAB is considering amending definitions of offside, particularly to distinguish between a deflection and deliberate play.
If they’re going to do it, could I suggest a more radical way forward, as the definitions are a bit of a mess, and this just makes it messier, if a bit clearer. The main problem is that years ago someone saw the words “gaining an advantage” and used it for a scenario (the rebound) that it never used to have (and when any touch by an opponent would “play onside” an attacker).
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/ifab/02/00/08/29/finalifabagenda01022013.pdf
and I suggested losing the misleading "gaining an advantage" condition and just adding a clause:
Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent also apply when the ball rebounds or deflects from an opponent or from the goalpost or crossbar to a player in an offside position (when the ball was played by or was touched by one of his team). It applies to a rebound from a deliberate save, but otherwise a player can not be offside if the ball is deliberately played by an opponent.
As a rule of thumb, I've understood rebound to mean the ball goes in a different direction so if a defender plays it and it carries on toward goal (as in the Vardy case) it's a deflection and doesn't qualify as deliberate.
Last edited:
@bloovee you are confusing a player deliberately playing the ball with the outcome of the player not executing his action to the standard they would have wanted.
The player here has clearly intended to jump and head the ball. It is not a deflection or a rebound as a result of a different action, such as a ball deflecting off the player as they make a challenge for the ball with an opponent or where they attempt to block/save a shot. There is no impediment to the defender achieving the result they desired other than the player not executing the skill of heading the ball in the correctly.
As @Peter Grove points out, Law 11 clearly sets out that this is not an offside offence and IFAB have confirmed this interpretation on several similar scenarios in the past.
The player here has clearly intended to jump and head the ball. It is not a deflection or a rebound as a result of a different action, such as a ball deflecting off the player as they make a challenge for the ball with an opponent or where they attempt to block/save a shot. There is no impediment to the defender achieving the result they desired other than the player not executing the skill of heading the ball in the correctly.
As @Peter Grove points out, Law 11 clearly sets out that this is not an offside offence and IFAB have confirmed this interpretation on several similar scenarios in the past.
So if he executes his header with skill and gets the ball away it's obviously not offside, but if he doesn't have the correct skill and heads it in the wrong direction (to the PIOP) it isn't offside, but if he has even less skill and just barely grazes the ball with his head on its way to the attacker it is offside?
It's the difference between attempting to play the ball or not. You can attempt to play the ball, no matter how badly, and if you get a touch that counts. On the other hand, if the ball glances off a player who is not attempting to play the ball that would not "reset" offside.
It really is crazy. Defender on goal line sticks out a leg to stop ball entering goal. It deflects to an attacker who was in an offside position and he's offside. Defender makes exact same movement ten yards from the goal and he plays the offside player onside. Or if he's ten yards out when he sticks out the leg and it would otherwise have been a goal, does that make it a save?
"Deliberate", "save", difference between rebound and deflection, and the sheer grammatical incompetence of the wording * make this a recipe for inconsistency. Do we have links to where "IFAB have confirmed this interpretation on several similar scenarios in the past"?
* “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball ..... that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
I'd like to think the recast laws would improve things, but I doubt they will.
(And that's without the German version of the laws which has (literally) "a ball ..... that rebounds, deflects or is played to him in a deliberate defensive action by an opposing player" - which implies that a misplaced defensive header doesn't reset offside.)
"Deliberate", "save", difference between rebound and deflection, and the sheer grammatical incompetence of the wording * make this a recipe for inconsistency. Do we have links to where "IFAB have confirmed this interpretation on several similar scenarios in the past"?
* “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball ..... that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
I'd like to think the recast laws would improve things, but I doubt they will.
(And that's without the German version of the laws which has (literally) "a ball ..... that rebounds, deflects or is played to him in a deliberate defensive action by an opposing player" - which implies that a misplaced defensive header doesn't reset offside.)
If there "shot" is on (or very near) to target, then according to the IFAB interpretation from last summer, this is a "deliberate save".
The Spanish version is (reportedly) worse. My understanding is that Laws have been written in Spanish first, translated to English for the "master version"... then translated _BACK_ into Spanish.
- Status