A&H

Everton

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
The Referee Store
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.

It wasn't a deliberate play by the defender so Sigurdsson is offside.
 
It wasn't a deliberate play by the defender so Sigurdsson is 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.
 
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?

If ITOOTR that was a considered enough action to be a "play," then yes it would negate any OS.

The consensus is that it was either a deflection or a save, which would not reset. At times the line between deflection and play can be a quite fine one.
 
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.

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
 
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.

Like 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 ;) :D ).
 
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
Thank you for this. Plenty to think about.
 
Regardless, Sigurdsson was on the ground because he was fouled. If the goal is disallowed (imo, incorrectly), a penalty kick should be awarded to Everton.
 
Like 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 ;) :D ).
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 day :);)
 
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 day :);)
He's got nee hair :facepalm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
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.

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
 
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
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.

I would agree with those who say that with the law as it is currently written, this doesn't quite meet the criteria. What is interesting however, is that the VAR, PGMOL (through the Premier League) etc, said this was an offside offence, in an apparent attempt to apply the law as they think it should be, rather than as it currently is.
 
For me, OP not being offside is the spirit of the law right from the beginning. If you take him out of the picture, just removing him all together, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Him being there in an office position has not impacted anything.

What needs to be offside is when an offside player does not interfere with play or an opponent but a defender makes a genuine decision (which eventually works against his team) based on that player and there is no way for the defender to know if the opponent is offside or not. In practice the offside player impacts play but in law it is not an offence.

So if we were to change one of the above two offside, I'd much rather the latter case is made offside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top