defender blocking shot diverts ball to attacker in offside position

[Padfoot]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you clearly did because it renders your attachment and the point you were trying to make utterly irrelevant.

If a defender is stood in position when an attacker strikes the ball.....the ball hits the defender, who hasn’t made any attempt to play the ball (i.e. stood still) and it ‘deflects or rebounds’ to another attacker stood in an offside position......this is offside / gaining an advantage....

If the same defender tries to play the ball (play being defined in the LOTG as ‘Action by a player which makes contact with the ball’) and it hits their outstretched leg and goes to an attacker in an offside position......this is not offside, nor is it gaining an advantage.

In the OP the block by the defender is clearly playing the ball therefore no offside offence is committed.

 

[Ben448844]

I'm not sure how having such a complex and confusing law can be of any benefit to both the referee, fans and the players. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that if the attacker was offside when the ball was originally played then he is offside?

 

[one]

I'm not sure how having such a complex and confusing law can be of any benefit to both the referee, fans and the players. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that if the attacker was offside when the ball was originally played then he is offside?

No because you don't want to reward lousy play by defenders. E.g. what if the defender's first touch was to flip (pass) the ball back to the keeper and he did exactly that but didn't notice the attacker in between who was in an offside position?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

No because you don't want to reward lousy play by defenders. E.g. what if the defender's first touch was to flip (pass) the ball back to the keeper and he did exactly that but didn't notice the attacker in between who was in an offside position?

At the moment though, we're punishing defenders for doing their job. Make a desperate attempt to stop a ball but can't get more than a touch on it? Too bad, that attacker who was 20 yards offside now has a 1-on-1 with your keeper. Absurd.

 

[one]

At the moment though, we're punishing defenders for doing their job. Make a desperate attempt to stop a ball but can't get more than a touch on it? Too bad, that attacker who was 20 yards offside now has a 1-on-1 with your keeper. Absurd.

I hear you. And if you read my previous post, if it was "Make a desperate attempt to stop a ball but can't get more than a touch on it" then I would count it as a deflection and I am pretty sure the intent of the current law is as so.

 

[Padfoot]

I hear you. And if you read my previous post, if it was "Make a desperate attempt to stop a ball but can't get more than a touch on it" then I would count it as a deflection and I am pretty sure the intent of the current law is as so.

No it would count as playing the ball as per the definition in the LOTG.

 

[Martiju]

At the moment though, we're punishing defenders for doing their job. Make a desperate attempt to stop a ball but can't get more than a touch on it? Too bad, that attacker who was 20 yards offside now has a 1-on-1 with your keeper. Absurd.

I agree. Had one on the weekend, where I was assisting. Red 12 easily 10 yds offside, having tried to beat the offside trap and his teammate (R9) too slow to play the ball! When the pass from R9 does come, the defender tries to stop it with a header, which he mistimes and the ball goes on to R12. I'm contemplating whether this is a deflection, but I know it's a deliberate attempt to play the ball (not a 'save') so keep the flag down. Uproar from the benches, defenders, etc. including complaints to the ref about my ineptitude and inability to see someone so obviously offside. Sigh.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

You’re on form today @Padfoot, have they upped your medication?

 

[GraemeS]

When this came up with Lovren, I thought it was ridiculous that the law considers this kind of "attempted defence" by a defender to reset offside, but unfortunately, I think the conclusion we reached is the correct reading of the laws as currently written. And that;s what applies in the situation written in the OP here.

Definitely think this is something that should be changed though - make a distinction between "plays the ball" and "makes contact with the ball while attempting a block" and make the former reset offside and the latter not. Would make the law much more intuitive and in line with what "feels" on/offside IMO.

 

[one]

I agree. Had one on the weekend, where I was assisting. Red 12 easily 10 yds offside, having tried to beat the offside trap and his teammate (R9) too slow to play the ball! When the pass from R9 does come, the defender tries to stop it with a header, which he mistimes and the ball goes on to R12. I'm contemplating whether this is a deflection, but I know it's a deliberate attempt to play the ball (not a 'save') so keep the flag down. Uproar from the benches, defenders, etc. including complaints to the ref about my ineptitude and inability to see someone so obviously offside. Sigh.

The key with your description is "mistimes" which means it was a poor attempt on his behalf. Had he been better at his job he would have got it right. As you described it, its a play at the ball.

Also see note my earlier post about if you consider what he did an action or reaction.

 

[one]

You’re on form today @Padfoot, have they upped your medication?

Save your popcorn for another day SF

 

[QuaverRef]

The key with your description is "mistimes" which means it was a poor attempt on his behalf. Had he been better at his job he would have got it right. As you described it, its a play at the ball.

Also see note my earlier post about if you consider what he did an action or reaction.

Just to add to this, if you don’t ‘reset the play’ you’re almost punishing the attacker for the defenders mistake and giving the defender a safety net.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Save your popcorn for another day SF

No problem, this isn’t a row, it’s more of a nerdy referee lawyer shindig!

 

[zarathustra]

Classing a player deliberately sticking his leg out to block the ball as a deflection is a bit generous, in my opinion.

To try and spin it as a deflection or save is, to me, just looking for the easy way out of a difficult situation.

Whether we think the law as it is currently written is unfair in this regard is irrelevant

 

[one]

Classing a player deliberately sticking his leg out to block the ball as a deflection is a bit generous, in my opinion.

To try and spin it as a deflection or save is, to me, just looking for the easy way out of a difficult situation.

Whether we think the law as it is currently written is unfair in this regard is irrelevant

Nothing to do what I think is fair or unfair. It is more about what the law intends to be interpreted as a deflection. It's on a case by case basis and YHTBT for all the ones that can be close.

I'll give you an example of what can be counted as a deflection for an easier decision (in compared to Kane, Lovren incident last season being a hard one). A cross is about to be made from a right-mid to the left-wing who is onside and 50 yards away. Before the shot makes contact, a defender running in and a yard away from the ball reads the cross and sticks his leg out to block it. The ball makes contact with the defenders foot (I deliberately did not use the word deflects) and ends up with the right-wing (not the intended left-wing) who is in an offside position 20 yards away. This would be interpreted as a deflection in my book every time. Did he deliberately stick his leg out? Yes. Did the ball make contact with his leg? yes. Did he play the ball? not for me. It was a reaction not an action.

 

[Padfoot]

Nothing to do what I think is fair or unfair. It is more about what the law intends to be interpreted as a deflection. It's on a case by case basis and YHTBT for all the ones that can be close.

I'll give you an example of what can be counted as a deflection for an easier decision (in compared to Kane, Lovren incident last season being a hard one). A cross is about to be made from a right-mid to the left-wing who is onside and 50 yards away. Before the shot makes contact, a defender running in and a yard away from the ball reads the cross and sticks his leg out to block it. The ball makes contact with the defenders foot (I deliberately did not use the word deflects) and ends up with the right-wing (not the intended left-wing) who is in an offside position 20 yards away. This would be interpreted as a deflection in my book every time. Did he deliberately stick his leg out? Yes. Did the ball make contact with his leg? yes. Did he play the ball? not for me. It was a reaction not an action.

Except that the LOTG clearly defines what ‘played the ball’ is; An action by a player which contacts the ball.

So no ‘interpretation ‘ is required. Unless you’re trying to self justify bottling a difficult decision.

If a player sticks a leg out to block a shot, is that not an action by a player which contacts the ball?

 

[zarathustra]

Nothing to do what I think is fair or unfair. It is more about what the law intends to be interpreted as a deflection. It's on a case by case basis and YHTBT for all the ones that can be close.

I'll give you an example of what can be counted as a deflection for an easier decision (in compared to Kane, Lovren incident last season being a hard one). A cross is about to be made from a right-mid to the left-wing who is onside and 50 yards away. Before the shot makes contact, a defender running in and a yard away from the ball reads the cross and sticks his leg out to block it. The ball makes contact with the defenders foot (I deliberately did not use the word deflects) and ends up with the right-wing (not the intended left-wing) who is in an offside position 20 yards away. This would be interpreted as a deflection in my book every time. Did he deliberately stick his leg out? Yes. Did the ball make contact with his leg? yes. Did he play the ball? not for me. It was a reaction not an action.

The laws of the game specifically say:

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage. "

and

"A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area). "

So unless your player is sliding in to block the ball from going into or very close to the goal then he has deliberately played the ball and any player in an offside position who receives that ball would not be gaining an advantage and any goal would stand.

So, it seems the issue is whether the defender in question could be classed as having performed a deliberate save.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence

 

[santa sangria]

When this came up with Lovren, I thought it was ridiculous that the law considers this kind of "attempted defence" by a defender to reset offside, but unfortunately, I think the conclusion we reached is the correct reading of the laws as currently written. And that;s what applies in the situation written in the OP here.

Except the OP said shot which implies on target/close therefore save

 

[Justylove]

Except the OP said shot which implies on target/close therefore save

Except at grassroots, a shot doesn't necessarily mean its going into or very close to the goal. More likely closer to the corner flag...

 

[zarathustra]

Except the OP said shot which implies on target/close therefore save

Possibly, but the OP also said "...attackers shot from outside penalty area. defender is about 4 metres away...", unless the defender was the only player back in the penalty area i.e. the rest of his team had gone up for a corner and got caught out by a quick break, I'd not be classing that as a "save"