City v Newcastle

[RefereeX]

Law 11 is clear on this
“a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence”

So if the ball was in play it would be either a free kick or a penalty depending on the location.

It would in theory, but what if the push was deemed to be not strong enough to be a foul? In that case it would presumably still be offside, even though he was manoeuvred into that position whilst the ball was in play.

But Newcastle's gripe was that he was allegedly pushed in to the offside position and otherwise would have been onside. That makes all the rest irrelevant because obviously his position is only taken in to account as the ball is kicked, so if the push happened with the ball in play, there is no offside offence to penalise anyway (assuming it was only because of the push that he was offside)

 

[socal lurker]

The same push could take p,ace on a love ball rather than a FK

 

[bloovee]

.

When is a push not a push. On the Kolo Muani's goal that was disallowed for a push on Gabriel by comparison and using that bar this was without doubt a push. The game has now got itself into a right mess with determining legality. The amount of serious pushing, holding grappling now at set pieces is epidemic. Everton corners v Man Utd were a joke with no foul sanctions. Players are heedless to referee interventions. There were cards for Tarkowski and Yoro after both got into right pushing match with Yoro thrown to the ground in the back of the net. That was it. Players do this now with impunity knowing no action will be taken.		6

 

[bloovee]

The wording of law 12 allows a push or a trip etc that is not careless or reckless or with excessive force. If "careless" is now interpreted as something "more than trivial" then the use of hands to push or hold is entirely subjective, but may be the difference between a foul and a goal.

Why is this incident suddenly so important? It's relatively common. Perhaps law 11 should not allow players to stand in an offside position at a FK then try to push past defenders to try and get onside as the kick is taken.

 

[Johnson]

Nit pick: (I know you know, but just to not get a myth out there for newer folks reading). It would be a caution for USB, and the restart from that is the IFK. Cannot be an IFK for USB without a caution.

DFK no? Offence involves contact.

 

[one]

DFK no? Offence involves contact.

It is not the physical offence we are stopping play for. If we stop play for the sole purpose of cautioning a player for USB offence. Then the law requires play to be started with IFK.

To be clear, the push was not careless so it is not a DFK offence. And if we were not going to caution the player we would not have stopped play.

All this is hypothetical of course.

 

[Johnson]

It is not the physical offence we are stopping play for. If we stop play for the sole purpose of cautioning a player for USB offence. Then the law requires play to be started with IFK.

To be clear, the push was not careless so it is not a DFK offence. And if we were not going to caution the player we would not have stopped play.

All this is hypothetical of course.

Nothing better than discussing hypotheticals.

Accept that the push isn’t careless and play is stopped to issue a yellow card for unsporting behaviour. Don’t think we ever get to “any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws” though since there is a restart specified, a direct free kick as the offence involves contact. Even if the contact isn’t the reason the action is an offence, contact occurring at all is sufficient for a direct free kick.

 

[one]

Let's assume you are correct. This is the clause in law 12 under IFK restarts:

commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

So you are saying if that "any other offence" involves contact it has to be a DFK. I'd say the law would mention this if it was the case and the same clause would also appear under DFK restarts.

For me, I am clear that clause is there specifically for these situations, regardless of contact.

 

[socal lurker]

Personally, if I think there is enough of a push that I’m going to consider it USB, I’m probably also going to think it is enough of a push to consider it a pushing offense. So I’m most likely to give the DFK for the push and the caution for USB. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to just caution for USB and give the resulting IfK.

 

[bloovee]

---

Personally, if I think there is enough of a push that I’m going to consider it USB, I’m probably also going to think it is enough of a push to consider it a pushing offense. So I’m most likely to give the DFK for the push and the caution for USB. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to just caution for USB and give the resulting IfK.

Then, in the case cited (just to put a player offside), you're giving a penalty for a trifling offence in the context of players* being pushed, pulled and rugby tackled at corners with impunity.

Can of worms - what's a push, was it just pushing back, and for VAR another whole dimension: offside no longer just subjective, but could there be a C&O errot too?

* attackers... Easy to penalise attackers and just give a FK to the defence.

 

[RustyRef]

---

Then, in the case cited (just to put a player offside), you're giving a penalty for a trifling offence in the context of players* beinng pushed, pulled and rugby tackled at cormers with impunity.

Can of worms - what's a push, was it just pushing back, and for VAR another whole dimension: offside no longer just subjective, but could there be a C&O errot too?

* attackers... Easy to penalise attackers and just give a FK to the defence.

This wasn't a one off, defenders have been pushing attackers (and vice versa) into offside positions for years, this one just got more publicity as it led to a goal being disallowed.

 

[socal lurker]

---

Then, in the case cited (just to put a player offside), you're giving a penalty for a trifling offence in the context of players* beinng pushed, pulled and rugby tackled at cormers with impunity.

is it really trifling if it unfairly pushed an opponent into OSP? IMO the best think about caution/IFK instead of calling the push is that Rs might be more likely to make a call if it doesn’t result in a PK. (Of course, if defenders believed they were risking giving up a PK they’d be less likely to do it.)

 

[bloovee]

is it really trifling if it unfairly pushed an opponent into OSP? IMO the best think about caution/IFK instead of calling the push is that Rs might be more likely to make a call if it doesn’t result in a PK. (Of course, if defenders believed they were risking giving up a PK they’d be less likely to do it.)

But you're still disallowing the goal despite the push.

Thinking out loud now, but in the common (original) understanding of seeking to gain an advantage by being IOP (rather than what it's been restricted to in the laws now) players IOP at a FK are seeking to gain an advantage even before the ball is played. That might be made an offence - but then what about being pushed or held IOP in open play...

It's a problem not easy of solution.

 

[socal lurker]

Well, in current Law, there is no justification to allow the goal because the player was pushed into OSP. That as a so,union requires a Law change.

As far as players in OSP seeking to gain an advantage by being there before the ball was in play, that was never an offense, as OSP has always been measured only at the moment the ball was to used by a teammate, somOSP before the FK has always been irrelevant.

All that said, I agree the pushing in or out of OSP, particularly on FKs, is a hard solve. We can’t solve for the pushing at CKs without the added nuance of shifting OSP. I suppose we could say something like a player who is pushed by an opponent is deemed to be where the player was without the push for purposes of OSP—but without VAR, that is an awfully tough call for an AR or R to make except in extreme cases, but then perhaps that is OK.