Would this have been offside 10 years ago? I'm going to have to have a look at an old copy of LOTG.
Yes, as from memory they changed what constitutes gaining an advantage.
Would this have been offside 10 years ago? I'm going to have to have a look at an old copy of LOTG.
Forget "gaining an advantage". It's a redundant, superfluous and confusing idea. If a player does something that would make him offside, i.e. interfering with play or interfering with an opponent, the offside position doesn't apply if the ball was deliberately played by an opponent (unless a rebound or a save) before the interfering.Hmm I sat through a training session 2-3 years ago - UEFA stuff I think - and I thought there was guidance that if the PIOP is within playing distance when the defender controls, and then makes the challenge, that's enough for the offence.
(And I'm aware that as Mings chests it, Rodri needs to take a stride before the challenge, so even "within playing distance" is arguable)
Letter of the law book says goal. Spirit of the game says offside for me (talk about gaining an advantage!). The book cannot cover everything.
But I'm really interested if anyone has had specific training on this?
Mostly agree with this, but I think it is important to note that gaining an advantage is expressly defined in the LOTG as receiving a rebound or deflection and nothing else. I agree that it is a ridiculous use of language for that purpose, as no one reads "gains an advantage" and thinks it means that.Forget "gaining an advantage". It's a redundant, superfluous and confusing idea. If a player does something that would make him offside, i.e. interfering with play or interfering with an opponent, the offside position doesn't apply if the ball was deliberately played by an opponent (unless a rebound or a save) before the interfering.
The Lovren example is a very good one to bring up. That was a sliced clearance, the end result of which was that the ball pretty much ended up going where it would have gone anyway if not for the touch. That was still considered enough to reset offside.As far as LOTG, offside law was not particularly designed to cover this scenario but does kind of point to it. I think IFAB got themselves in a tangle here and they tied the relevant bit for "deliberate play" by a defender to "gaining an advantage" while they meant it to apply to all offsides. Otherwise "deliberate play" does not reset offside for other offside situations. Remember the Lovren indecent for Liverpool? It had nothing to do with gaining an advantage but was considered deliberate play.
Law 11: "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball,..." The bold bit is in line with the interpretation that deliberate play only resets offside if the ball is played to the attacker by a defender not away from him.
Yes pleasePeter Walton should be fired
No way!Even Macca seemed to know the rule
Maybe Rodri had training.... and knew the law well enough to stand back and not challenge Mings for the ball until he'd played it without interference. We shouldn't penalise players for knowing the law.....Hmm I sat through a training session 2-3 years ago - UEFA stuff I think - and I thought there was guidance that if the PIOP is within playing distance when the defender controls, and then makes the challenge, that's enough for the offence.
(And I'm aware that as Mings chests it, Rodri needs to take a stride before the challenge, so even "within playing distance" is arguable)
Letter of the law book says goal. Spirit of the game says offside for me (talk about gaining an advantage!). The book cannot cover everything.
But I'm really interested if anyone has had specific training on this?
That was 4 years ago. The laws in relation to deliberate play hasn't changed in recent years. And that is not the only one. There are other similar ones that are given. In general when the laws are not clear on something specific, no matter what the decision, the FA or the RA would find a way to say it was the correct decision like the PL did for this one (kind of like VAR being 99.7 accurate ).That doesn't solve the conundrum of Son given offside in the other clip. When was that?
This makes sense.This type of offside has been discussed here a few times. It has been considered and given offside in the past.
The explanation given: UEFA and FIFA have though stated that situations like this are OFFSIDE OFFENCES as the ball is not played to the attacker, but the attacker comes from an offside position to challenge the defender (very shortly) after the defender has "taken hold of the ball" or "controlled the ball".
If the defender touches the ball first (not to the attacker), for me its a matter of judgment on how far the attacker has to be and how fast after the first touch he becomes active for it to be offside. My rule of thumb is if the defender is challenged for the second touch, or before the second touch, or ball is played by attacker before the second touch then I call offside. That is given the defender had the opportunity to play a decent fist touch and it was played away from the attacker. That makes the OP and offside for me.
I think where others are getting confused is that a player is deemed to be offside if "challenging an opponent for the ball" - now there is an argument here that this IS a 'challenge' albeit just after Mings' (poor) control with his chest - in the words of the non referee that 'deliberate touch' 'resets' the offside.The relevant part of law is below. There is no doubt whatsoever he deliberately played the ball, under the current law there is no requirement for him to control it. The only way it could be classed as gaining an advantage would be if the ball rebounded off him or he "saved" it, and that clearly wasn't the case here.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
Quibbling here. There is nothing in Law 11 as raw as "did the attacker impact the defender." (There was something closer to that years ago, but I'm too lazy to look it up.) There are 5 ways in Law 11 to interfere with an opponent:On plays like this, I think the key is whether the player who is in an offside position is impacting the opponent who is making a deliberate play on the ball. As an example, is the player "coming back from an offside position" forcing the player to make a rushed decision? Or, is the player acting as if the opponent isn't there?
I had a game a few years ago where a player came back from an offside position. The center back knew the player was coming and had to hurry a cleared header. This was a high school game with a moderate level of skill. I flagged the attacker as offside because his actions forced a rushed clearance from the defender. The coach was not happy with the call, saying (incorrectly) that the attacker had to touch the ball for it to be offside. I explained that the offside law didn't work like that.
The concept of "did the attacker impact the defender?" will undoubtedly change as the skill level of the game increases. The attacker would need to be a lot closer to the defender in the Premier League as opposed to our normal Saturday or Sunday morning games. In the case of the City-Villa match, I think the call on the field was right. I don't see how Mings ability to make his play was impacted in any way by Rodri coming back for the ball. This is a subjective call.
And how long "immediately" lasts is dependent on level of play. But I really think this concept needs to be further refined and formalized (or, I guess, abandoned) as its far too unclear to have consistent application, especially outside of leagues that may be giving additional instruction to refs to gain consistency.