Bristol City v Wrexham

[DavidObs]

Was Wrexham’s 2nd goal offside - certainly in an offside position when the ball was played within the penalty area with the AR having stopped to presumably signal, but didn’t raise his flag before the ball entered the net. The offending player didn’t gain/take possession of the ball, but interfering with play! Discuss

 

[Pembroke]

Goal is at 2.07. Is the Wrexham player who was in a offside position attempting (?) to play the ball committing an offence?

 

[RefereeX]

Was Wrexham’s equalising goal offside - certainly in an offside position when the ball was played within the penalty area with the AR having stopped to presumably signal, but didn’t raise his flag before the ball entered the net. The offending player didn’t gain/take possession of the ball, but interfering with play! Discuss

I'm gonna have to correct you before someone else does (sorry)

He can't be interfering with play if he doesn't touch the ball in that phase of play, but he can be interfering with an opponent (or gaining an advantage if he then plays it after a rebound in the same phase of play).

If it's the same clip I've just watched, I think allowing the goal is 100% correct, and a good decision. He doesn't touch the ball from his offside position and has no impact on the defender who is a couple of yards in front of him. He's then back onside (behind the ball) by the time it's played back across for him to score.

 

[bester]

8m30. Attempted to play the ball. Goalkeeper has to hold position to see the result of that. Goalkeeper could've went and closed down the angle if he didn't have to delay.

Defender behind him takes himself out of the game by appealing too early

 

[RefereeX]

8m30. Attempted to play the ball. Goalkeeper has to hold position to see the result of that. Goalkeeper could've went and closed down the angle if he didn't have to delay.

Defender behind him takes himself out of the game by appealing too early

For me this has no impact on the goalkeeper. Defender appealing too early is his own problem. Goalkeeper still gets across to his near post before the ball is played back across.

 

[DavidObs]

I'm gonna have to correct you before someone else does (sorry)

He can't be interfering with play if he doesn't touch the ball in that phase of play, but he can be interfering with an opponent (or gaining an advantage if he then plays it after a rebound in the same phase of play).

If it's the same clip I've just watched, I think allowing the goal is 100% correct, and a good decision. He doesn't touch the ball from his offside position and has no impact on the defender who is a couple of yards in front of him. He's then back onside (behind the ball) by the time it's played back across for him to score.

Nothing to apologise for - what you have said is what I meant, but I just didn’t spend sufficient time writing it.

I understand what you are saying, but does the player in an offside position have an impact on the goalkeeper. Also, wouldn’t it have been good practice for the AR to have kept on the move?

 

[RefereeX]

Nothing to apologise for - what you have said is what I meant, but I just didn’t spend sufficient time writing it.

I understand what you are saying, but does the player in an offside position have an impact on the goalkeeper. Also, wouldn’t it have been good practice for the AR to have kept on the move?

I gathered that you knew what you meant, but just talking law for any less experienced people who read

Only my opinion but I don't think we can call that impact on the goalkeeper, but yes, it absolutely would be good practice for the AR to keep moving until he knows there is impact as ultimately the team may determine no impact there but then the player could have been offside from the ball back across where, if he were, I would say there definitely is impact.

 

[DavidObs]

I gathered that you knew what you meant, but just talking law for any less experienced people who read

Only my opinion but I don't think we can call that impact on the goalkeeper, but yes, it absolutely would be good practice for the AR to keep moving until he knows there is impact as ultimately the team may determine no impact there but then the player could have been offside from the ball back across where, if he were, I would say there definitely is impact.

Agree with all of that.

 

[es1]

don't think this is that controversial, goal is correct in law

 

[DavidObs]

Goal is at 2.07. Is the Wrexham player who was in a offside position attempting (?) to play the ball committing an offence?

View attachment 8553

Being discussed on another thread. General view is didn’t gain possession/no impact with defender or goalkeeper, though AR should have continued to align himself with the 2nd rear most defender.

 

[DavidObs]

don't think this is that controversial, goal is correct in law

Not for us perhaps, but Bristol City spectators going bonkers on social media - not surprising since to them offside is offside, period. lol

 

[Pembroke]

Being discussed on another thread. General view is didn’t gain possession/no impact with defender or goalkeeper, though AR should have continued to align himself with the 2nd rear most defender.

Thanks. Seen thread now. I agree. Checking my why I agree.

 

[es1]

Not for us perhaps, but Bristol City spectators going bonkers on social media - not surprising since to them offside is offside, period. lol

i can agree that i think it should be offside (if the laws were rewritten)

the defender plays the ball because of the presence of the attacker behind him, without the player there i dont think he does the same action therefore no goal...i'd like the laws to reflect that players in offside positions cause other players to behave differently and not penalise defenders for not knowing if a player is on or off

if you get what i'm saying...

 

[bester]

For me this has no impact on the goalkeeper. Defender appealing too early is his own problem. Goalkeeper still gets across to his near post before the ball is played back across.

He gets to the near post just as the player coming in crosses it, he then has to immediately go back the other way
Without the delay he's set earlier, and can go back the other way faster without his momentum working against him.


When we're saying players ducking under the ball coming towards them is an obvious action that CLEARLY impacts an opponent from playing the ball then I've got a low bar for an attempt to play the ball which just has to impact an opponent.

 

[one]

i can agree that i think it should be offside (if the laws were rewritten)

the defender plays the ball because of the presence of the attacker behind him, without the player there i dont think he does the same action therefore no goal...i'd like the laws to reflect that players in offside positions cause other players to behave differently and not penalise defenders for not knowing if a player is on or off

if you get what i'm saying...

I get what you are saying and I think it is too 'dangerous' to rewrite the law to such effect. Defenders, to get a free kick, would deliberately behave differently when an attacker is very obviously in an offside position and not even impaction play.

I think the current laws is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[es1]

I get what you are saying and I think it is too 'dangerous' to rewrite the law to such effect. Defenders, to get a free kick, would deliberately behave differently when an attacker is very obviously in an offside position and not even impaction play.

I think the current laws is the lesser of the two evils.

...if you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch...

yeah i get what you're saying but it's not palatable when goals like this are scored imo

that said this isnt new, fans etc should know that this is/has to be a goal

 

[RefereeX]

He gets to the near post just as the player coming in crosses it, he then has to immediately go back the other way
Without the delay he's set earlier, and can go back the other way faster without his momentum working against him.


When we're saying players ducking under the ball coming towards them is an obvious action that CLEARLY impacts an opponent from playing the ball then I've got a low bar for an attempt to play the ball which just has to impact an opponent.

I hear what you're saying, but the player has to make an obvious action which impacts an opponent. Here, he makes an obvious action, and you could argue (or have argued) that the goalkeeper is impacted by the players presence, but the 2 aren't related IMO. I don't think the goalkeeper is waiting because of the striker's attempt to play the ball, if he's waiting, it's to see what happens generally with the ball in the middle with his CBs and the attacker, but I don't think he reacts to the attempt to play the ball by the striker.

Again, in such situations, I've said elsewhere, I have very little sympathy with players being given offside, because if you're not in an offside position, you wouldn't be given offside (barring errors) but I just don't think this is what is intended by interfering with an opponent.

 

[Russell Jones]

He gets to the near post just as the player coming in crosses it, he then has to immediately go back the other way
Without the delay he's set earlier, and can go back the other way faster without his momentum working against him.


When we're saying players ducking under the ball coming towards them is an obvious action that CLEARLY impacts an opponent from playing the ball then I've got a low bar for an attempt to play the ball which just has to impact an opponent.

I have a great deal of sympathy for this view. And will be very interested to learn the 'official' perspective on this. For me, if the attacker in an offside position doesn't attempt to play then the ball, then there is no offence as his obvious action (running towards the ball) does not clearly impact any opponent. However, as you say, the impact threshold is lower once an attempt is made to play a ball which is close, and that tips the balance IMO.

AR should absolutely remain level with second last whilst play continues. Once the goal is scored, he rightly holds his position and is likely to be communicating with the referee regarding the potential impact.

Likely to be seen as controversial whatever decision is given, especially in a world where the nuances of Law 11 remain somewhat of a mystery to most involved in football!

 

[Pembroke]

...if you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch...

yeah i get what you're saying but it's not palatable when goals like this are scored imo

that said this isnt new, fans etc should know that this is/has to be a goal

I agree with the decision, but similar would be a hard sell at my Sunday levels to players, linos and coaches.

 

[Pembroke]

Not for us perhaps, but Bristol City spectators going bonkers on social media - not surprising since to them offside is offside, period. lol

The Bristol City fans have the pitchforks out.