England vs Canada

[Peter Grove]

For anyone who saw this, what did they think of Canada's first goal in this women's international friendly match?

The new clarification/guidance on offside (issued after the recent incident where Manchester City’s Rodri won the ball off Villa’s Tyrone Mings after being in an offside position) stated as follows:

“Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of ‘interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’ should be penalised.”

Surely that's precisely what happened here?

 

[one]

I think that clarification has a lot to be desired. How immediate is immidiate? There were two touches here the the second one was very controlled before the actual interference. And what is impact. In this case, was there impact for the first touch and no then do we apply it to the second touch as well?

In either case, I don't think this incident would apply as whatever reason we would give here would also apply to almost any deliberate play. The only exception possibly when the defender mistakes the attacker for a team mate and passes the ball to her. Even that can be considered 'impacting'.

I see the flip side as well. But that ventures into defender thinking attacker is on side and that has never been an good reason.

In summary I am not sure if the clarification covers this one way or other.

 

[santa sangria]

I think this is more in common with the Lovren-Kane type of play by the defender.
The question here is if the first touch is a deliberate play on the ball. To my eyes the first touch is not a deliberate play - the ball hits the trailing leg as she is running. I do not think it was a type of interception (like the Lovren case) or control of the ball (like the Rodri case).

IMHO the second touch is the deliberate play and the challenge is immediate to that so it is an offside offence.

But, my guess, and I am interested to know of there was an announcement, is that the officials decided the first touch was a deliberate play, in which case, it is easy to call no offence and give the goal - because the challenge is not immediate to the first touch.

 

[ASM]

For me there is nothing in the clarification that applies here.
The England player plays the ball twice before the Canadian player impacts and plays the ball.

 

[JamesL]

Wasn't there some guidance once upon a time that an offside player could only become active and challenge once the opposition had played the ball away and uptowards the halfway line?
Or am I imagining that?

 

[es1]

Wasn't there some guidance once upon a time that an offside player could only become active and challenge once the opposition had played the ball away and uptowards the halfway line?
Or am I imagining that?

never heard it, but i like it as a change to the law!

 

[Jtpetherick1]

That was about as onside as you’ll see. Definitely play on.

 

[ARF]

Wasn't there some guidance once upon a time that an offside player could only become active and challenge once the opposition had played the ball away and uptowards the halfway line?
Or am I imagining that?

Are you thinking of the stuff about players leaving the field of play?

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s
permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the
purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team
has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If
the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when
the ball is next out of play.

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in
active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in
play before the next stoppage in play or the defending team has played the
ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player
shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside.
A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the
referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage
must be cautioned.

 

[JamesL]

Are you thinking of the stuff about players leaving the field of play?

Yes. Yes I am. Thanks.

 

[ARF]

Yes. Yes I am. Thanks.

Thankfully I haven't had this happen ever since they brought it in, because I had definitely forgotten about it had it happen many years ago on the line for a Step 7 game, when a player who was annoyed he didn't get a free kick decided to walk off and sit down behind the goal line... I ended up stood in line with the goalkeeper for about five minutes until the ball next went out of play!

 

[Degnann]

Thankfully I haven't had this happen ever since they brought it in, because I had definitely forgotten about it had it happen many years ago on the line for a Step 7 game, when a player who was annoyed he didn't get a free kick decided to walk off and sit down behind the goal line... I ended up stood in line with the goalkeeper for about five minutes until the ball next went out of play!

I was also told this was the case for a player sliding off the pitch as part of a tackle. Don’t imagine this is ever used however

 

[socal lurker]

I was also told this was the case for a player sliding off the pitch as part of a tackle. Don’t imagine this is ever used however

I don't think that is correct. That is a normal part of play. If the player is coming immediately back to play, it's as if he never left the field.

 

[socal lurker]

I think that is sufficiently immediate that the new interpretation (which was also an old interpretation before it wasn't . . .) makes it OS. But I also think this needs more clarity as I can't really say that someone who disagrees with me is wrong. I think this one is going to take a few years to really settle in--if it doesn't change again before that . . .

 

[PinnerPaul]

What football expects? No one appealed?

 

[Peter Grove]

For me there is nothing in the clarification that applies here.
The England player plays the ball twice before the Canadian player impacts and plays the ball.

That doesn't makes sense. The whole reason that this new guidance was issued, was because of Mings-Rodri incident in which Mings played the ball twice before being challenged by Rodri.

So I can't see how Stokes playing the ball twice makes the advice inapplicable here. If anything, it makes the advice even more apposite.

 

[Peter Grove]

I think that clarification has a lot to be desired. How immediate is immidiate? There were two touches here the the second one was very controlled before the actual interference. And what is impact. In this case, was there impact for the first touch and no then do we apply it to the second touch as well?

Again, if we go back to the original incident that led to the new advice, Mings took two touches which were both controlled and so if the advice can be applied where there are two controlled touches, surely it can be applied with one (probably) inadvertent and one controlled.

I also agree with @socal lurker that there's sufficient immediacy here.

Then there's the point that he makes (and which I believe I did when the original incident was being discussed) that this advice really isn't new in a way and was already inherent in the part of the law that says it's an offence for a player in an offside position to challenge an opponent for the ball.

The main point, I think being highlighted by the advice (and which was possibly not clear before) is that even a deliberate touch by the defender does not override the prohibition on challenging an opponent from an offside position.

The other notable point about both incidents for me, is that the offside-positioned player doesn't just challenge the opponent, they actually succeed in taking possession of the ball and it leads to a goal being scored. This makes the result of the unfair use of an offside position even more impactful and even more against the spirit of the law, at least as far as I'm concerned (and apparently, as far as the governing authorities are concerned, too).

 

[one]

Again, if we go back to the original incident that led to the new advice, Mings took two touches which were both controlled

Does everyone who reads the clarification have this context? If the answer is no and the clarification makes sense with that context but is meant to be applied to many cases, the I stand by my comment. The clarification has left a lot to be desired... Immidiate, impact etc etc