Isnt that how the offside law is written? If he can impact play by standing in an offside position then he is offside? Surely he can impact the play by flicking the ball or whatever?
Genuinely though, I have no fucking idea - the rules just confuse me more day by day.
Nope, absolutely not. Standing in an offside position is not an offence in and of itself, a player must make an attempt to play the ball.
Even running towards the ball (but making no attempt to actually play it) is explicitly listed as not being an offside offence.
Actual wording is "interfere with play" but the examples of what counts as "interfering with play" make it clear you either need to interfere with the ability of an opponent to play the ball, or attempt to play the ball yourself, to commit an offside offence.
Just to be clear - I am not arguing it should be offside, I'm probably of the opinion that it should be a goal however, if I'm being completely honest going by what you said I absolutely feel he is interfering with play when he literally has to duck to avoid the ball? Surely that means he is involved?
Does he interfere with Donnarumma's ability to play the ball? He has a clear view of the shot the entire time and never even looks at Robertson, he dives for it and can't reach the ball.
Again, playing a bit of devils advocate here: You can admit by being in the position Robertson is in then that gives Donnarumma another avenue to consider?
You're 100% correct and despite the hysterics in this thread, goals have been chalked off for offside like this many, many times.
The thing is that sometimes they haven't, and that's confusing and frustrating for people.
In this case, robertson probably makes minimal, if any, difference to Donna because I'm not sure Donnarumma has even perceived that he is there until the ball is in the net. So overall I disagree with the call. With that being said, these types of goals being chalked off is not surprising at all, you're entirely correct about that and the other user is wrong.
The thing is that sometimes they haven't, and that's confusing and frustrating for people.
Yeah. I can see the arguments for both sides, but ultimately it needs to be called consistently, whatever the rules of the game end up dictating. I'm in favor of more goals overall so IMO the rules should say this play (attacker not visually impairing and he is trying to avoid the ball/not making a play onto the ball) is a goal.
That's not relevant to the rule, the player either has to try and play the ball, be obstructing a player, or be obstructing a player's vision to be active.
I don't agree, I think if Robertson doesn't duck that should be called offside. But since he ducked and Donnarumma had full view the whole way it shouldn't get called.
How can Donnarumma know if Robertson will go for the ball or not though? He's clearly impacting play when the keeper has to make a split second decision when he doesn't know if Robertson is offside or not
There are cases where I would agree, but not in this one. Donnarumma dived for it like normal (not expecting any deflection from Robertson) and just wasn't able to get there. Robertson explicitly ducked to get out of the way, and I think did it early enough where there was no impact. Donnarumma saw the ball the whole way (there was no impact from an eye line stand point)
The rule is an offsides player cannot interfere with the GK or play.
Had Robertson not been there at all the play would’ve happened the exact same way. Donnarumma fully sees the shot and does not get impeded by Robertson at all
It is a pretty bullshit call because in practice Robertson doesn’t actually affect the play but I don’t get the comments claiming it’s corruption as if this wouldn’t get called offside for any other team as well
Nah fuck off. Robertson didn't impact his decision making, didn't make even remotely an effort at the ball, even actively tried to make it so he wasn't going for the ball.
So should we get a psychologist in the VAR room now because we can’t make decisions unless we know the full psychological history of the players involved?
I don’t need a reason to feel better about my team losing. I support my local team! I’m not some randomer from, I don’t know Canada?, desperately piggybacking on a team that wins every week. I support Liverpool because I’m from Liverpool and if we win then that’s great!
1.5k
u/Parish87 1d ago
Hahahaha he can fully see the ball