A&H

Final Boro Goal- Save or Attempt to Play the Ball?

The Referee Store
CapnBloodbeard said:
It really is a stupid aspect of the law, isn't it?
Let's go back to unless it's a clear, controlled play, then the offside stands. It's absurd that we're punishing defender for trying to stop the ball. You know, their job.
Click to expand...
Once again, I think we may be looking at the law of unintended consequences. When the IFAB introduced the clause about players not being offside from a deliberate play from an opponent in 2013, it was apparently in a well-intentioned attempt to remedy the fact that (although I thought the old wording was sufficiently clear) some non-referees were confused by the wording and felt the law did not state this explicitly enough.

Prior to this amendment I think it was a fairly widespread interpretation that, in order for it not to be classed as a deflection or rebound, the defender had to exhibit a fairly clear amount of control over and/or possession of the ball. Once the IFAB used the phrase 'deliberately plays the ball' I think the interpretation of what kind of action by a defender precluded an offside offence, was skewed in a different and not necessarily better direction. Now it seems that almost any attempt that seems to show an intent to play the ball, no matter how little control the player really has over the ball and where it goes, is seen as resetting offside - as in this case.

For me, under the old wording and the control/possession interpretation, this would have been much more likely called as an offside offence - which I still think it should have been (even though I'm a life-long Boro supporter).
 
Peter Grove said:
Once again, I think we may be looking at the law of unintended consequences. When the IFAB introduced the clause about players not being offside from a deliberate play from an opponent in 2013, it was apparently in a well-intentioned attempt to remedy the fact that (although I thought the old wording was sufficiently clear) some non-referees were confused by the wording and felt the law did not state this explicitly enough.

Prior to this amendment I think it was a fairly widespread interpretation that, in order for it not to be classed as a deflection or rebound, the defender had to exhibit a fairly clear amount of control over and/or possession of the ball. Once the IFAB used the phrase 'deliberately plays the ball' I think the interpretation of what kind of action by a defender precluded an offside offence, was skewed in a different and not necessarily better direction. Now it seems that almost any attempt that seems to show an intent to play the ball, no matter how little control the player really has over the ball and where it goes, is seen as resetting offside - as in this case .
Click to expand...

Your point is valid. Except "this case" is clearly a save, no?
 
santa sangria said:
Your point is valid. Except "this case" is clearly a save, no?
Click to expand...
For me, it could be either a save or a deflection (it skids off the sole of his boot in a way which should not be seen as a deliberate play in my eyes). "You pays your money and you takes your choice," as the saying goes. Either way, I think it should be offside - but that's just my opinion
 
If he'd let it hit him, I'd have happily said deflection and offside. He didn't. He tried to play and miskicked it. Defender's foul up and for me goal is good.

That was my thinking in real time and reinforced upon seeing the reverse angle replay.
 
So if a defender doesn't move to save the shot and it hits him and goes to the "offside" player it's offside.
If the defender does move to save the shot and it rebounds to the "offside" player it's offside.
If the defender does move to save the shot and it deflects to the "offside" player it's not offside.

What's the dividing line between a good contact to make it a deliberate save / rebound (offside) and a bad contact to make it a deliberate play (not offside)? Is the leg fully extended - was it the intention to block the ball or kick it clear - etc etc

As I said, the law is an ass. If any of the laws were designed to give rise to the "last week's ref" scenario, this is it.
 
If the ball is going towards the goal, by the letter of the law and the definitions it gives, it has to be a save.
 
alexgr said:
If the ball is going towards the goal, by the letter of the law and the definitions it gives, it has to be a save.
Click to expand...
Not quite...

An action by a player to stop or attempt to stop the ball when it is going into
or very close to the goal using any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless
a goalkeeper within their own penalty area)
 
JamesL said:
Not quite...

An action by a player to stop or attempt to stop the ball when it is going into
or very close to the goal using any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless
a goalkeeper within their own penalty area)
Click to expand...

Apologies should have been clearer. If the shot is going into... Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top