Or saveHe hasn't played the ball. It is a deflection.
He sets up to defend, the shot is taken, he turns his leg, but doesn't get a clean block, and the ball deflects off his foot and into the goal. That doesn't count as playing the ball that negates offside offence? Thanks.
I tidied up your comment for youIt wasn't a deliberate play by the defender so Sigurdsson is in an offside position but not committing an offside offense.
Can you elaborate on how that wasn't a deliberate play by the defender? In my opinion, he moves in to defend and, when the shot is taken, he deliberately turns his leg to block the shot, and it deflects into the goal. I appreciate it.It wasn't a deliberate play by the defender so Sigurdsson is offside.
I apologize. I'm not even at the interference part of this.....can someone explain why this was an offside offense even though the defender played the ball? Doesn't the defender playing the ball negate offside?
Can you elaborate on how that wasn't a deliberate play by the defender? In my opinion, he moves in to defend and, when the shot is taken, he deliberately turns his leg to block the shot, and it deflects into the goal. I appreciate it.
Can you elaborate on how that wasn't a deliberate play by the defender? In my opinion, he moves in to defend and, when the shot is taken, he deliberately turns his leg to block the shot, and it deflects into the goal. I appreciate it.
I tidied up your comment for you
Thank you for this. Plenty to think about.The green is a pretty good description of a save. Save's don't have to be by a GK, that is just the most common example. And if you put the GK here on the exact same action, no one would even consider the possibility it reset OS.
Whether the purple is enough action to be a play instead of a deflection is where I think things get gray. A minor action on a ball coming towards a defender is not enough to be a play. this is a pretty good description of where to draw lines: http://www.law-11.com/delib-play--deflection
To be honest, I would like the offside law to be harsher on attackers lurking behind the defensive line because it can be off-putting for defenders but I don't see this incident as an offense in the laws as they are currently written.He did commit an offside offence mate - cos the goal was disallowed.
Mwah!!
Your alter ego posting sense on your account this week @Big Cat ?We need a new acronym
ITOOTVAR,
AKA The Re-Referee
Being in an offside position has nothing to do with what the defender does. It's only about where the defenders are. But somehow I think you knew that, just having a bad hair dayLike you mate I just have my own opinion. In my opinion he just turns his leg slightly in order to block, but hasn't actually "played" the ball. It's considered a deflection or a "save" which means that Sigurdsson is in an offside position (thank you @Mr Dean ).
He's got nee hairBeing in an offside position has nothing to do with what the defender does. It's only about where the defenders are. But somehow I think you knew that, just having a bad hair day
So says his profile pic.He's got nee hair
To be honest, I would like the offside law to be harsher on attackers lurking behind the defensive line because it can be off-putting for defenders but I don't see this incident as an offense in the laws as they are currently written.
I was going to say something along these lines earlier. A couple of decades ago this would have been absolute stonewall certainty of an offside decision and no-one would have even batted an eyelid about it. The IFAB has gone to some lengths in recent years in an effort to ensure that (in terms of interfering with an opponent) only a player who is actually and clearly preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, is penalised. They have arguably gone too far in that direction now, with this possibly being a case in point.Just hop in your time machine and you'll be happier . . . but IFAB has been taking the game the opposite direction from what you want for many years now