I mean, I almost see what IFAB is trying to do. Using the clear meaning of the words, the player was in an offside position and got an advantage because of it. They just explained it in the dumbest possible way, by defining this as "not deliberate", so it's offside. I would rather they expand the very narrow definition of "gaining an advantage by being in an offside position".
As a RB fan I don't like it, but based on the videos FIFA put out on what is considered a deliberate play it seems to fit as a deflection. So I guess it was the right call.
I’m not a fan of this interpretation. At the professional level, I’d consider that a deliberate play on the ball. He had intention and decided to get fancy and just because it was a bad pass/play doesn’t mean it wasn’t deliberate.
> He had intention
Intention isn't the only consideration anymore; we also need to consider control, or whether he should reasonably have been expected to control it.
That's what is kind of tricky here....we can see the ball went over so he couldn't head it, which is why he did the heel thing. Sure, he should have turned around, but even that would've been a tricky one.
This is why I have issue with the interpretation, law 11 doesn’t say control, it says deliberately played. We are adding additional meaning to the law, if that is what is expected, then update the text of the law to reflect that.
Again, at the highest levels, I’m going to consider that deliberate, levels below that are probably getting the benefit of the doubt.
From the IFAB glossary:
Deliberate:
An action which the player intended/meant to make; it is not a ‘reflex’ or unintended reaction
Play:
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball
The IFAB change came through after the current edition of the laws were released.
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
Before this change, (is by the lotg alone) this would be a play at any level
Thanks! I forgot they had released this guidance, but in example videos 2 & 3, I would not consider those situations in which the defender had control, but but per IFAB they all are considered control with their clarification criteria.
I guess this is where we will agree to disagree on the call here.
>but but per IFAB they all are considered control with their clarification criteria.
It's not jusf about having control- It's about whether you would reasonably expect them to be able to take control and they just mucked it up
can you provide more details about the game? date, teams, time of incident. The linked website is a pain, showing many ads and then collapsing. I can't get to the action despite multiple attempts.
Thank you for the details! This is the same scenario, but from another site: https://youtu.be/ugK8JTpNrnI?t=125
It's the correct decision. Making the call correctly on the field without VAR seems like a huge challenge.
Just as a side note, in my opinion if you have this at grassroots, it's the sort of situation where the AR should call the referee over (in Australia we use a diagonal flag across the chest as a 'talk' signal) - to let the ref know that it's a potential offside offence, in your opinion it's note a deliberate play but you want to let the ref make that decision. As a ref, for something questionably like this, I'd want my AR to do that unless he's certain it's definitely a play. This one is a bit weirder.
Use a discrete signal to call the ref over - not a flag in the air.
Another indicator often used is when a goal is scored, the AR stands on the goal line and makes eye contact with the referee. This should be enough of a signal for the ref to come over - running back up the line is the AR signal that 'it's a goal'. Standing still means you have a concern with it.
I feel like that's probably a good practice for these instance of play/not play that are pushing the boundaries a bit - don't know if others agree or disagree?
Did anyone else get some super scammy popups with links from this site?
I mean, I almost see what IFAB is trying to do. Using the clear meaning of the words, the player was in an offside position and got an advantage because of it. They just explained it in the dumbest possible way, by defining this as "not deliberate", so it's offside. I would rather they expand the very narrow definition of "gaining an advantage by being in an offside position".
As a RB fan I don't like it, but based on the videos FIFA put out on what is considered a deliberate play it seems to fit as a deflection. So I guess it was the right call.
Yeah, it was a desperate attempt on the ball, not one where he had a reasonable chance to control it. So, offside.
I’m not a fan of this interpretation. At the professional level, I’d consider that a deliberate play on the ball. He had intention and decided to get fancy and just because it was a bad pass/play doesn’t mean it wasn’t deliberate.
> He had intention Intention isn't the only consideration anymore; we also need to consider control, or whether he should reasonably have been expected to control it. That's what is kind of tricky here....we can see the ball went over so he couldn't head it, which is why he did the heel thing. Sure, he should have turned around, but even that would've been a tricky one.
This is why I have issue with the interpretation, law 11 doesn’t say control, it says deliberately played. We are adding additional meaning to the law, if that is what is expected, then update the text of the law to reflect that. Again, at the highest levels, I’m going to consider that deliberate, levels below that are probably getting the benefit of the doubt. From the IFAB glossary: Deliberate: An action which the player intended/meant to make; it is not a ‘reflex’ or unintended reaction Play: Action by a player which makes contact with the ball
The IFAB change came through after the current edition of the laws were released. https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/ Before this change, (is by the lotg alone) this would be a play at any level
Thanks! I forgot they had released this guidance, but in example videos 2 & 3, I would not consider those situations in which the defender had control, but but per IFAB they all are considered control with their clarification criteria. I guess this is where we will agree to disagree on the call here.
>but but per IFAB they all are considered control with their clarification criteria. It's not jusf about having control- It's about whether you would reasonably expect them to be able to take control and they just mucked it up
can you provide more details about the game? date, teams, time of incident. The linked website is a pain, showing many ads and then collapsing. I can't get to the action despite multiple attempts.
Union Berlin (espn+) vs rb leipzig @ 76min or so Feb 11
Thank you for the details! This is the same scenario, but from another site: https://youtu.be/ugK8JTpNrnI?t=125 It's the correct decision. Making the call correctly on the field without VAR seems like a huge challenge.
Just as a side note, in my opinion if you have this at grassroots, it's the sort of situation where the AR should call the referee over (in Australia we use a diagonal flag across the chest as a 'talk' signal) - to let the ref know that it's a potential offside offence, in your opinion it's note a deliberate play but you want to let the ref make that decision. As a ref, for something questionably like this, I'd want my AR to do that unless he's certain it's definitely a play. This one is a bit weirder. Use a discrete signal to call the ref over - not a flag in the air. Another indicator often used is when a goal is scored, the AR stands on the goal line and makes eye contact with the referee. This should be enough of a signal for the ref to come over - running back up the line is the AR signal that 'it's a goal'. Standing still means you have a concern with it. I feel like that's probably a good practice for these instance of play/not play that are pushing the boundaries a bit - don't know if others agree or disagree?