A&H

Juan Mata FK... Offside?

Charlie Bruce

Charlie Bruce

New Member
Level 6 Referee
My understanding was that the offside rule changed (in proffessional football, not grass roots) to "making an obvious attempt to play the ball" rather than "interferring with play" - so why were all pundits and journalists saying that the goal was offside when they did not make an obvious attempt to play the ball?

Am I right about the amendment of the offside rule?
 
The Referee Store
Not sure, but in my opinion, all 3 players running straight towards the ball from an offside position as it came into the area, in front of the line of sight of the GK constitutes an obvious attempt to play the ball or at the very least is effecting the decision-making process of the goalkeeper/defence just by their proximity.
Offside. All day long. Goal should have been disallowed. :cool:
 
It looked to me as though the skill of the free kicker taker was far greater than that of the goalkeeper.

Plus, it's a law not a rule and the Offside Law (Law 11) applies through all levels of football. Therefore it applies the same to grassroots as it does the professional game.

Referees and Assistant Referees got it wrong before the 'amendment' and they will continue to do so after (they're human after all). If you look hard enough you'll find plenty of these incidents each and every week.
 
Tough one with lots to consider.

1: They scatter which for me eliminates any attempt to play the ball. Next!

2: Interfering with play by playing the ball? On the Memphis FK that hits Martial, undoubtedly. On the Mata one that's a definite no.

3: Are they making movements or gestures to distract the goalkeeper? If there's any justification it will be this. However they're moving away from him and in different directions rather than shadowing him. Hold that thought.

4: They're moving away before the kick is taken - ergo not offside when they start moving, because the ball is not in play. Arguably, when the ball is kicked they're still doing this so are not involved in active play.

Bolton under Sam Allardyce used to do similar with players running off the posts before the kick was taken, and legitimately so.

Overall I think its clever. I used to like Poll's column but sadly now it seems he has an axe to grind. I tend to ignore it now for those reasons.
 
Tealeaf said:

4: They're moving away before the kick is taken - ergo not offside when they start moving, because the ball is not in play. Arguably, when the ball is kicked they're still doing this so are not involved in active play.
Click to expand...

They're still in front of his line of sight and are moving towards the ball from an offside position as it travels into the penalty area. That's the salient point.
 
Kes said:
Can't see how that's relevant in a discussion about the technicalities of an offside infringement?
Click to expand...
It is if you believe that there was no infringement and can admire the quality of the free kick without debating the minutiae of the offside law. The goalkeeper was beaten by the shot on goal not by four players in front of him.
It appears as though the officials from last nights game agree me, too. At least on the no infringement part.
 
David Sutton said:
It is if you believe that there was no infringement and can admire the quality of the free kick without debating the minutiae of the offside law. The goalkeeper was beaten by the shot on goal not by four players in front of him.
It appears as though the officials from last nights game agree me, too. At least on the no infringement part.
Click to expand...

Can't agree.
Juan Mata is a highly paid international-standard football player. Kicking the ball into a goal from 20 yards away, unchallenged, doesn't, and shouldn't present any major dramas for him in the grand scheme of things, nor should it for any other player operating at that level. ;)
We digress.
The Man Utd players were placed there with the deliberate intention of causing confusion. Not against the laws in itself, but when you do it from an offside position, it's very questionable.
The fact that the officials didn't "give" the infringement is also irrelevant on here, because this thread exists to discuss just that issue.
You also know that officials on the telly do get things wrong - right? :)
 
Kes said:
They're still in front of his line of sight and are moving towards the ball from an offside position as it travels into the penalty area. That's the salient point.
Click to expand...

2 counterpoints here.

1: Can he really look in 3 maybe 4 directions at once? They scatter, yet the ball is fixed. Attention ought to be there.
2: Trying to get back onside - Are not all players doing this always by extension moving towards the ball?

~ I'm about to go into a lecture discussing counterpoints and arguments. I may or may not be using this as a warm-up. Intention and reception are such different things ;)
 
Kes said:
Juan Mata is a highly paid international-standard football player. Kicking the ball into a goal from 20 yards away, unchallenged, doesn't, and shouldn't present any major dramas for him in the grand scheme of things, nor should it for any other player operating at that level.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Shrewsbury goalkeeper is not at that level. Harsh as it sounds, he isn't a Cech, de Gea, Lloris or Neuer and therefore the greater skill won out.

Kes said:
The Man Utd players were placed there with the deliberate intention of causing confusion
Click to expand...
And who's to say that the Shrewsbury defender, who moved first, wasn't as much a trigger as the 3 attackers? So, if they were a distraction, how do you know which one triggered it?

Kes said:
You also know that officials on the telly do get things wrong - right?
Click to expand...
I said so in post #4. They have in the past and will in the future.

Put it simply, it was a well-taken free kick which beat the keeper and the officials thought there was nothing wrong with it regarding Law 11.
 
Tealeaf said:
2 counterpoints here.

1: Can he really look in 3 maybe 4 directions at once? They scatter, yet the ball is fixed. Attention ought to be there.
2: Trying to get back onside - Are not all players doing this always by extension moving towards the ball?

~ I'm about to go into a lecture discussing counterpoints and arguments. I may or may not be using this as a warm-up. Intention and reception are such different things ;)
Click to expand...

1. Possibly not. That's surely what his AR's are for though?
2. It's a fair point, but I still maintain that if that exact same scenario had occurred in open play, the assistant would have been flagging.
 
Tealeaf said:
[...]
3: Are they making movements or gestures to distract the goalkeeper? If there's any justification it will be this.
Click to expand...
You're almost on point there but that particular wording is no longer part of the law. There is new wording that amounts to something very similar and which I think is the most viable argument for this being an offside offence. The wording is "mak[ing] an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball."
Kes said:
They're still in front of his line of sight and are moving towards the ball from an offside position as it travels into the penalty area. That's the salient point.
Click to expand...
Are they really in his line of sight though?
2016-02-23 (1).jpg
2016-02-23 (2).jpg
From these two images, you can see the line of flight of the ball and it seems to me that all three players are slightly to the right (as we look) of the path of the ball and not blocking the keeper's view of the ball.

Another interesting thing to note is Bobby Madley's position. He is standing directly behind the kicker so he is in a perfect position to see whether the players obstruct the keeper's line of vision. I was wondering why he was there since it is not one of the more common positions for a free kick, until I heard the post-match interviews. Apparently, if we can believe Louis van Gaal (and why would he lie about this?) they told the referee before the game that they saw this in a Midtjylland game and were thinking of trying it, so they asked if it would be permitted and he told them to go ahead.

However for me, there is still a good argument that they all make obvious movements that impact on the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball.
 
Peter Grove said:
However for me, there is still a good argument that they all make obvious movements that impact on the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball.
Click to expand...

That last part is for me, the main point and is what I meant when I mentioned their "proximity" to the GK in my earlier post. I wouldn't like to say that their movement actually physically impacts his ability to play the ball, but I always understood the new amendment to Law 11 to still underline the importance of how close the "offside opponent" is to a would-be defender (ie proximity) when it comes to determining the likelihood of it having affected the defender's (or GK) decision-making process.
If you ask yourself the simple question of "why would they stand there and do that?" then the answer becomes straightforward enough.
Well, it does to me anyway..... :D
 
Kes said:
1. Possibly not. That's surely what his AR's are for though?
Click to expand...

The keeper has ARs? As in Attacking Rights or just his posterior? :p It was to him I was referring in the counterpoint post ;)
 
Peter Grove said:
Are they really in his line of sight though?.
Click to expand...
The angle of the picture above makes it look as if they are off to the right but in reality, 35 is very close to being directly between the keeper and the ball.
upload_2016-2-23_14-28-43.jpeg
Don't think that necessarily makes it offside but certainly not clearly on.
 
McTavish said:
The angle of the picture above makes it look as if they are off to the right but in reality, 35 is very close to being directly between the keeper and the ball.
View attachment 806
Don't think that necessarily makes it offside but certainly not clearly on.
Click to expand...

And that's only at the point shown. Those 3 had actually moved 2-3 yards forward by that time....... ;)
 
The law defines interfering with an opponent as preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball. See diagram 6.

First, the three attackers are clearly not standing there in order to play the ball - they are there intending to block the GK's view.

I think there may be an erroneous idea that the latest tinkering trumps the basic wording of the law. But the new definition says that offside can be given if a player clearly attempts to play the ball, which is close to him and impacts on an opposing player, OR if he makes an obvious action that impacts on an opposing player.

In live action the GK was clearly trying to see round the attackers so it seems fairly obvious they were, as they intended to be, obstructing his line of sight.

So the first question is whether, by running forward, they were not in his line of vision at the moment the ball was played.

Answer: probably not, but does the new definition extend to stuff that happens before the ball is played? The new definition was introduced to allow referees to call "moral" offsides, when, as Mike Riley put it, "we all thought, ‘That should be offside’." Could you have nine attackers lined up just in front of the GK for a FK and just because they all scatter just before the ball is kicked it's not offside?

As a side issue, should a referee be colluding in a tactical discussion?

I'm just grateful they wasted the surprise in this game rather than waiting for at 0-0 in the next Manchester derby.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top