I wouldn't quite go that far. It's a bit of a stretch and he has a level of control. I think it's offside mind (though I don't think it should be - different discussion!)I don't think it's really a close decison when you look at the examples given from IFAB.
The defender is at a complete stretch and has no control on the ball. It's a deflection and therefore leads to an offside offense.
I think, again due to law change he is immediately challenging.Last season that is a goal, no doubt about it.
With the law change/clarification in the summer, it’s offside for me but very tight and subjective - hence the OFR following VAR check.
The play by the Forest defender centrally (cutting out the initial cross) is a deflection as the defender is stretching to cut the ball out rather than a deliberate, controlled play.
The more interesting one in the subsequent touch by the Forest player that deflects off Longstaff. For me there is 2 parts of this:
Hence the OFR as the decision on deliberate / deflection are subjective rather than factual.
- Is this a deliberate play or not? For me you can argue either way. It’s more likely a deliberate play that the previous touch as the player has time to run and intercept. However, he is still stretching to play the intercept so it’s arguable.
- If we treat it as a deliberate play, is Longstaff challenging an opponent at this point? Possible, considering he is very close and moving towards the player to close down. He could therefore be considered an impacting the opponent by challenging him.
I’m OK with the offside decision given that changes to Law 11 interpretation this season.
Regrettably not. Whilst it's clearly a deliberate action this doesn't automatically relate to being a deliberate play. As others have said, we also now need to take into account the amount of control in the defender's action and instinctive blocks / stretching to reach a ball are now likely to be classed as a deflection rather than a deliberate play.What does the law say now about a deliberate play ?
Surely if someone is stretching and making an attempt to play the ball thats deliberate.
Regrettably not. Whilst it's clearly a deliberate action this doesn't automatically relate to being a deliberate play. As others have said, we also now need to take into account the amount of control in the defender's action and instinctive blocks / stretching to reach a ball are now likely to be classed as a deflection rather than a deliberate play.
Agree with this 100%Defender was rewarded for keeping the ball in play when he had enough control to put it out for a CK? No?
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he had a bit of a stretch to play the ball.I wouldn't quite go that far. It's a bit of a stretch and he has a level of control. I think it's offside mind (though I don't think it should be - different discussion!)
I dont think it is a good goal. I would pay as little attention to former referees and especially pundits opinions as you can.So on the ref watch, you basically had Gallagher and the 2 pundits saying they got no idea why the VAR got himself involved and the goal should of stood yet 2 former FIFA referees(although classing Bankes as a true FIFA ref would be a bit misleading) saying the goal should be disallowed as it was not a deliberate play on the ball. Says it all about the laws doesnt it?
For me, it should of been a goal, I think Felipe passed the ball which another Forest defender touched it which hits Longstaff, it looks a deliberate pass to play themselves out of trouble.
In fairness though, I'm glad Tierney was able to review his decision and have the final say on the matter which is only right.