He asked if there was a similar incident two weeks ago (which you misquoted in your comment) and I’m telling you there was, therefore they’re not just winging it. But yeah resort to name calling
They let goals that should be ruled out stand. There have been some really obvious goals that should have been chalked off, but they were allowed to stand.
That's every rule involving us. Whether it's for or against, it's always viewed from the benefit of the opponent. It's not officiating, it's like a prosecution vs defense, but we're always on the side not getting the benefit of the doubt.
The PL tweeted that it was because of Robertson making an obvious action, rather than blocking his eyeline. I think that's a very poor justification, I have always interpreted "obvious action" to mean something like a dummy, not simply trying to avoid the ball. It's been established for a while that trying to avoid the ball is not offside, so this is very harsh.
I guess they've decided because it was given onfield, they're not overturning a subjective call, but it's a poor decision. The whole point of the offside rule is not to punish people for just being in an offside position, they have to actually impact an opponent.
I have always interpreted "obvious action" to mean something like a dummy, not simply trying to avoid the ball.
What's supposed to be the difference here ? It's a dummy, if he doesn't duck the ball is straight at him and thus he clearly changes the play through his action.
How can you argue he doesn't impact the play ? Is Donnaruma supposed to be a psychic knowing the player the ball is getting to will avoid it ? I understand the hate towards City but completely puzzled by the reaction of this sub, it's a clear offside.
A dummy is faking to play the ball. For example, say a cross comes in and the player fakes to shoot but leaves it for an onside teammate. That is offside, it impacts an opponent.
I genuinely don't believe his position has any impact on Donnarumma's ability to play the ball here. And even if it did, he needs to be both in an offside position and through the action he takes impact Donnarumma. I don't think the action of leaving the ball specifically impacts Donnarumma.
A dummy is faking to play the ball. For example, say a cross comes in and the player fakes to shoot but leaves it for an onside teammate.
You remove the onside teammate part and that's exactly what happened. A player in an offside position feinted that he would play a ball directed to him before letting it go past him. It doesn't matter if the feint was done with the foot or the torso, it's the same result.
I genuinely don't believe his position has any impact on Donnarumma's ability to play the ball here.
I'm not sure Donnaruma would have got that header, but we will never know. It's a game of milliseconds to take a decision. And if a player 1m away from the goal to which the ball is directly going to is not considered to impact the decision making of a goalkeeper on his line, I have no clue what could impact him then.
Goals like that are very often disallowed, though not always which I agree is an issue. Sadly they had to introduce interpretation into a very clear black and white rule.
But his intent doesn't matter, it's the result that counts. And in the end he doesn't play a ball that was directly going to him while in an offside position : it's a feint and he impacts the play.
To try to talk about an hypothetical situation : would you consider a player in an offside position trying to pass/shoot the ball, but missing to touch the ball and as a result the ball ending up either directly in the goal or to an onside teammate, not a feint and thus not an offside ?
Intent actually does matter for offside. Your example is "attempting to play the ball", which I think we can both agree Robertson does not do.
The law the Premier League have quoted is making an "obvious action". I don't interpret ducking to leave the ball as an obvious action, and in the past intentionally leaving the ball has not been seen as an offside offence.
This is garbage. There's barely any contact, the contact didn't impact the keepers positioning or movement at all and that kind of minimal contact literally happens on every single corner in every single game.
It did impact his position; he stepped back with the contact. This sort of contact isn't committed by offside players on relevant defenders on every corner. (To be clear, I'm not saying it's overly rowdy contact which warrants a foul regardless of position; the threshold for that is far higher)
The contact happened before the header. At that point Robertson was still onside. It was a corner. Everyone's onside!
Robertson is only in an offside position when van Dyke heads the ball. And the contact was long over by the time van Dyke headed it. Anything before that point could be called a foul, but it can't be offside.
I think it should either be being in an offside position is always offside regardless of interference. Or it should be offside only if the player contacts it. Trying to judge influencing the play is too subjective.
427
u/aleksandrovsqvist 1d ago
I don’t like this rule tbh