I agree Russell - I think it's handball. His arms are raised in a very unnatural position, and he makes a movement almost like a volleyball shot with his arms. If he'd given handball and a defensive FK, it would have been forgotten 30 seconds later.
Cup Final..
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
I agree Russell - I think it's handball. His arms are raised in a very unnatural position, and he makes a movement almost like a volleyball shot with his arms. If he'd given handball and a defensive FK, it would have been forgotten 30 seconds later.
When we think of all the stick AARs get for doing nothing when in fact they're mic'd up and talking away to the referee about incidents etc, I don't think it does any harm in these situations to do it the old fashioned way and show the referee and AR talking it over before a decision is made. Perception is often everything.
We had a complete new draft of simplified Laws with thousands of words removed to help referee and yet they still leave in the words Playing OR Touching in the texts and you casually brush over that (saying they mean the same thing) like they've made a blooming mistake.
We all know, well the cleverer ones, know that it's a different thing and so do the lawmakers. To make a play for the ball and to actually kick the ball are clearly not the same thing! How you can say the initial actions didn't impact on the goalkeepers thoughts is laughable, Look at the photo, who's he chasing out to to block any angle created???. Had this been correctly given we'd be discussing other stuff that he missed (Ozil foul) or Costas kick out...
Last edited:
I'd like to offer the view that the arms raised are in a "natural" protective position, inspired by the perceived threat of either the ball coming directly at him with speed. Or the oncoming challenge of the opponent. Also the motion of the ball after impact is fortunate rather than deliberate. No infringement for me. However if other refs disagree I can completely understand why. I think this one is about gut feeling rather than letter of the Law.
I'll consider it a learning curve if incorrect, but I'm struggling to find the line because of
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Wouldnt Ramsey's 3 yard sprint to stand right next to the ball be considered an obvious action which in turn, changes Courtois mind to come or go?
I agree. Play is defined in the lotg as a deliberate action that makes contact with the ball. Thats a direct quote from the laws themself. As you say the lawmakers havent made a mistake. Therefore, we know that to play or have played then the player must make a deliberate action that could be a kick, a shin, a knee, thigh, chest or head but not limited to. But a deliberate action that makes contact is one thing that doesnt change.
A touch can be non-deliberate and it is clear to me this is why we must have this distinguishment. It says that if a player deliberately plays or deliberately or accidentally touches the ball e.g. a deflection then they should still be penalised. If we just had played we could then interpret that we shouldn't penalise non deliberate actions.
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
SF, 'making a play for the ball' is not a concept that exists in the Laws. As has been pointed out several times already, under the definitions given in the Laws of the game, playing the ball means an "action by a player which makes contact with the ball."
Since Ramsey did not attempt to make contact with the ball, I don't see how he can be guilty of an offside offence under a clause that talks about attempting to play the ball.
Also, in the circular that introduced the concept of "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent" the IFAB made it clear that this refers to having an impact on the opponent's ability to play the ball. Based on this, it appears the IFAB's view is that merely impacting on the opponent's thoughts would not be enough.
There is the clause that talks about "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" but once again, it does not seem to me that anything Ramsey does, clearly impacts on Courtois' ability to play the ball.
one
RefChat Addict
Why do you need anything "other than "playing implying intent"? That is precisely why laws distinguish between 'playing' and 'touching' the ball. There are many cases this distinction is important. for example:
- Ball going out of play: The opponent of the player who last 'touched' the ball restarts regardless of if he played (intended) it.
- Offside: (in loose terms) defender 'playing' the ball resets the phase of play, defender 'touching' the ball does not necessarily do so.
one
RefChat Addict
I am a little confused here. On the one hand you say its offside. On the other you say the AR should not have raised the flag. Had the comms not been working, how is the referee to know there was an offside (or a PIAOP with a possible offence). Surely we don't expect the referee to go and consult with the AR on every goal.
The correct protocol for the AR is to raise the flag if he is unsure a PIAOP has committed an offside offence. The referee then makes the decision from there. This is a classic example of following correct protocol.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
My understanding is that the AR should first: wait and see, and then, seeing that a goal is quickly scored, second: the AR should stand to show the ref that he/she is not sure that an offence has been committed.
But this is all with hindsight. Given the angle of the AR and the movement of Ramsey towards the ball it is understandable that the AR flagged. Still though, there was no risk of collision, and given that the ref later decided it was not offside, with hindsight again, it is doubly clear to me that the AR should have adopted "wait and see".
I am pretty sure 4 out of 5 of this incident I would flag. But I would regret it at half time
Great argument / discussion this Lads, its what this forum is all about, we don't have to agree, we can all get a bit nerdy, but at the end of the day we move on and get on with the job. Football should always be about opinions, without that it would be sterile and boring....
Well said SF. Couldn't agree more!
i don't agree with the current law, but as it is written that cannot be offside. He hasn't played the ball, he hasn't made an obvious move to play the ball, and he hasn't prevented an opponent from playing the ball. The referee and assistant will be backed 100% on it as it was totally correct in law.
Personally, I'd be giving handball though. You have to ask what his arms are doing up there, and if they weren't then the goal would simply not have happened. I wonder if a goal would have been given if the handling offence was closer to goal and the ball went directly in? I very much suspect not, so I don't see that it would be any different here.
Personally, I'd be giving handball though. You have to ask what his arms are doing up there, and if they weren't then the goal would simply not have happened. I wonder if a goal would have been given if the handling offence was closer to goal and the ball went directly in? I very much suspect not, so I don't see that it would be any different here.
I wonder if the VAR was employed here (as in the future) whether it would have been scrubbed for the handball incident? if so, then the offside call is irrelevant!!
This is fairly debatable IMO. He's run a good 4 or 5 steps towards the ball with the clear intention of playing it, got within about 20cm of the ball and, in the end has only avoided making contact by pulling his stomach away from the ball and arching his head over it. Running towards the ball and getting that close to it meets the criteria for "clearly attempting to play the ball" in my book. The absence of a swing is irrelevant as he's already made the mistake of putting in an effort to try and play it by that point.
Obviously there's also the second part of this clause that is required for it to be offside - "when this action impacts on an opponent" (interestingly, not "impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" in this case). Courtois is coming off his line and then hesitates a yard of two from Ramsey in order to try and block the shot he thinks Ramsey is about to hit and/or because he doesn't want to actually challenge Ramsey and risk giving away a penalty. Sanchez then swoops in from a few yards further back and puts the ball in the net.
It doesn't matter what the effect would have been if Ramsey wasn't there and it doesn't matter if it would have made a difference or not - if Courtois did ANYTHING differently because of Ramseys presence, he's "impacted on an opponent" and has to be flagged offside. It's an incredibly difficult one and took me multiple replays to be sure that Courtois hesitated when he thought Ramsey was going to take a shot, but I think the referee on the day got this one wrong.
Last edited:
Haha, a fair point! I spent the whole time writing that post trying to work out if I'd spelt his name right and I had the wrong name the whole time!
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Except that, as I mentioned earlier, the IFAB memo that introduced this clause goes on to explain that the impact being talked about does indeed refer to the impact on the opponent's ability to play the ball. But seeing as they had spelt it out in full in the clause about an obvious action, I suspect they just didn't want to be repeating the same phrase over and over.
I would have to disagree - for me, if there's one thing you can take from all the various wording additions, clarifications and memos that the IFAB has come out with in the last few years, it's that their overall philosophy on the "interfering with an opponent" aspect of offside is that the PIOP has to do something that clearly, directly (almost physically) impinges on the opponent's capability to play the ball. Based on everything I can glean from the IFAB's guidance, merely affecting the opponent's thinking is not enough to cause an offside offence to occur.
Last edited:
First of all let me commend highly the standard of debate in this thread. So nice to see thoughtful and intelligent discussion that does not descend into cheap insults and backbiting. Give yourself a pat on the back guys!
For my own part, I tend to side with those who say deliberate handling, but this is a real judgement call.
On the offside question, there is a subtle point about the difference between the following parts of the Law: Interfering with an opponent can mean blocking line of vision, or challenging for the ball. It also means (my numbers added for clarity):
1 - clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
or
2 - making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
GraemeS asked why the difference in phrasing, and Peter Groves says it makes no difference. But in fact (though Mr Grove is 100 per cent correct in IFAB's general attitude towards affecting play), there is actually a reason for this difference in phrasing.
In number 1 above, any attempt by the PIOP to actually play the ball (and by play it does mean attempted contact, not just running towards the ball) can "impact an opponent" even if that opponent is not in a position to play the ball. For example an attempt to shoot that just misses the ball but sends the keeper (five yards away) diving the wrong way. This "impacts" his action and leads to offside call.
In the second instance we DO deal with a PIOP who may just be running towards the ball rather than attempting to play it. In this case just impacting an opponent is not enough, he has to actually physically affect the defender's ABILITY to play the ball (basically by getting in the way somehow, as Peter Groves correctly states, just affecting the defender's mindset is NOT enough).
This is subtle stuff, but, as a large number of people have pointed out, by this reasoning, the Arsenal goal was NOT offside .