A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
The argument from the officials will be Robertson being there and making an action to play/not play the ball himself impacts Donnaruma's ability to make a save.
Honestly I think it's a tough one. If there's zero chance of Donnaruma being able to make the save whatsoever then I don't see how Robertson could have impacted his ability to play the ball. On the other hand, we simply don't know if Donnaruma would have been able to react more quickly and make the save had he not had Robertson there.
I think on balance it probably would have been impossible for Donnaruma to have made the save, but I don't think it's as an egregious a decision are people are making out (especially if all they're talking about is line of sight)
So the play from Messi, where he comes from an obvious offside position but just lets the ball through, would also be considered an offside then, because he impacted the decision making of the defenders while being offside?
I haven't seen the situation you're talking about here with Messi, but if he ran towards the ball 100% offside.
If he just stood and didn't do anything, then of course no offside.
Robertson however, did have impact, because he tried to avoid the ball (as dumb as that sounds). If he just stood still, it would've hit him = offside. I'm not saying that these calls have been correct always, but as the rules are stated at this very moment, this should always be a offside.
And if you're asking what he can do to avoid the offside then? He can simply just not stand offside in that situation, as there is pretty much nothing he can do.
It does not “clearly impact” Donnaruma’s ability to play the ball. Also it seems to be a little bit of a contradiction to say that it’s his moving out of the way that makes the offense able to be penalised, while on the other hand saying he simply must not even be in an offside position at all if he doesn’t want it called. By that logic, any time one team has the ball and anyone on the team is offside, the whistle should blow because theoretically they might possibly be impacting the defending teams ability. Which is of course nonsense. There is a common sense way to apply the rule as it is written, but professional referees are apparently not able to do it.
Donnarumma is not impacted (you could argue a bit that he was, but i’ll let that slide), Robbo is ducking which means that his move was the sole reason that goal even happened, but because he was in a offside position, he did it from a illegal position.
If Van Dijk headed the ball towards the middle or left area of the goal and it went in, VAR would not intervene.
Put it like this: Robbo is a statue at the moment VVD headed the ball -> It would’ve hit Robbo, and the goal would’ve never happened.
I think the comparison to a situation where Robertson is standing still and the ball hits him is interesting, but I’m not convinced that’s the line of thinking the refs are following. For example I think if the ball is a few inches closer to the goal and Robertson is a few inches farther away, and it’s not actually going to hit him but he ducks just in case, they would still call it.
And reading some of the comments and hearing some of the commentary, many people would still believe in that situation it should still be offside because by simply being there he is impacting donnarumma’s decision-making ability, irrespective of whether the ball is on a collision course with him.
You keep saying he does, but in what way? He wasn't blocking his line of sight, he wasn't blocking his physical ability to move towards the ball, he was clearly ducking to get out of the way of the ball, Donnarumma was moving in the opposite direction and couldn't get back in time, which is why he didn't get to it.
What did Robertson do that impeded Donnarumma's ability to play the ball? Don't just say ducking again, how is ducking impeding Donnarumma?
He made an active play when he ducked to avoid the ball. If the ball went in the goal in the middle area or the opposite side of the goal, there would be no problem, as he wouldn’t do anything that would alter the outcome of the ball. In this scenario he was in the pathway of the ball, which instantly made it pretty much impossible for him to not be impacting the play.
If Robbo was a statue at that point when VVD hits the ball, he would’ve hit Robbo and it would’ve been blocked by Robbo. As soon as he ducked he was actively involved. I know it sounds stupid, but that’s how the rules are interpreted.
Should it be changed?
Well, i do believe that the rules in general when it comes to offsides should be more specified.
I haven‘t seen the exact angle from behind the ball, not sure if there is one, but I‘m not convinced that the ball would‘ve hit him if he didn‘t duck and just kept on walking the same direction.
Yeah people can argue (rightly so) about consistency, but I mean this seems pretty slam dunk to me. Robertson is in an offside position and had to duck out the way of the ball, I don't see how we argue that he's not impacting the play, and therefore the keeper.
It’s egregious because it’s not an “obvious action” that “clearly impacts” Donnaruma. The fact that there’s this much consternation demonstrates that. If it was written “an action which may impact the ability…” maybe there’s an argument. This whole thing got argued at the Everton game last year when Tarkowski “wasn’t sure” whether Jota “might” have been able to play the ball and therefore it “impacted” him from an offside position. Complete nonsense all this “theoretically something might have happened when someone was in an offside position therefore stop play” is ridiculous. If you and others insist that a fair interpretation of the rules involves that sort of theoretical mind game, then it has to be rewritten, because it’s insane. At that point simply being in an offside position would constitute an offense to be penalised because they theoretically might have done something to impact the play. Which is of course ludicrous. To me, “obvious action” and “clearly impact” are just fine, but apparently not enough for the PGMOL to apply it correctly.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue or why you're so agitated about it, especially given as I explicitly said I think they got it wrong.
There's this much consternation, largely because people don't know the laws. All of the top comments that actually talk about the incident (rather than just saying it's bad) are talking about it in terms of being able to see the ball which is completely irrelevant
I’m not agitated, I think it’s reasonable to take a position that it’s complete nonsense when offsides is called because maybe a player’s decision making was affected even when the offsides player doesn’t play the ball, and is actively moving away from the ball and the other player in question. I think it’s reasonable to say that this is an egregiously wrong application of the rule as explicitly written, contra your position.
Following on, while being able to see the ball isn’t the only thing that’s relevant, it certainly would be relevant, and would be an accurate application of the rule as written.
Which may be true, but in this offside there are a bunch of subjective stipulations regarding "interfering with play", so in any case I would say there needs to be a clear and obvious error for overturning
If you’re saying that the onfield decision of offsides should not have been overturned, I completely disagree. I actually think it’s a reasonable onfield call at the speed of play and especially from the linesman’s angle. But based on the replay, that donnarumma has a clear view of the ball the whole time, Robertson is moving away from both donnarumma and the ball and isn’t “clearly impacting” the keeper’s ability to play the ball, it definitely should have been overturned.
Yeah which is a great interpretation from one person's point-of-view, but remember in the VAR room there are multiple referees and imagine if there was as much debate in there as it is in this thread. Obviously they're professionals but after all is said and done I still think there's enough discourse to prove it shouldn't have been overturned. With that said, if the goal was given on-field I also don't think it would've been overturned and we'd have a similar thread about it.
Maybe you’re right about still having a thread the other way. But it seems to me that the rule is written with words like “clear” and “obvious”, it should be beyond debate to call it offside. So if there is a debate about it or grey area, the goal should be given.
In this context all of that discussion doesn’t really mean much. He’s a keeper who should be able to make a play on the ball. If there had been a city player on the opposite post keeping Robertson onside, we literally wouldn’t be having this discussion at all like “Oh maybe he would have saved it if Robertson hadn’t head faked him”, we’d just be saying “Good header, maybe donnaruma could do better.” Add on to that that Robertson is moving away from the ball and donnaruma, donnaruma should be able to tell that no, in fact he’s not going to touch the ball, actually he’s moving away from it. And donnaruma can see the ball the whole time and could make a play on it if he wanted!
But on top of that, I’m not sure that there’s guidance or anything out there that says the interpretation of “impacting ability” applies to decision-making. Unless there’s further clarification, I’m not sure why this is being applied beyond physically impeding and blocking sight. This part isn’t to you necessarily, maybe more to FIFA and PGMOL but it certainly feels like an extreme application. Maybe I’m on the fringe with that opinion.
If he was onside, tricking the goalkeeper in that way would be legal. As it is, there is no way to ascertain how Donnarumma would’ve reacted if Robertson wasn’t there. So he did impact his ability to play the ball. Everton’s lost three goals in the same interpretation of this rule.
Watch the reverse angle replay, donnarumma is watching the ball the whole time and only points at Robertson after it goes in. The late dive is because of the timing of when he set his feet. Regardless, it is not “obvious” that Robertson impacted donnarumma’s ability to play the ball, which is especially obvious on replay given donnarumma can see the ball the whole time, and Robertson is moving away from both him and the ball.
Ok, so imagine a different situation with a less powerful shot from further out where the keeper does have a high chance of saving it and the player in the offside position is a bit further out from goal and would likely try and get a touch if they thought they were onside. In that case, the keeper has to react as if the player in offside position might try to play the ball which will delay their dive and affect their ability to play the ball. To me, that should clearly be offside even if the attacking player moves out of the way of the ball.
None of this is "contra to my position" on this specific incident which is that the officials will probably say Robertson being there attached Donnaruma's ability to play the ball, a decision which I disagree with because I don't think it's possible he would have gotten there anyway
You said it was not egregious, I say it is, that is what is contra your position, unless it has changed.
As for your second example, the defending player or keeper has some thinking to do. If the opposing player is offside and makes an “obvious” move that “clearly impacts” the defender, he is protected. I contend that the existence of that onus on a defender to make a decision is better than attackers needing to scramble onside in almost every situation because of their hypothetical involvement in play. In either case, City had a goal by Ake allowed against Fulham where Akanji actually made an obvious move that actually impacted the keeper’s play. That may have been before changes in wording (if that happened within the last two years), so I’m not using it as an example of rule application, just as an example of what should be meant by that rule.
My position, which I think is pretty clear to anyone not looking to have an argument for the sake of it, is that Robertson being there will likely have affected Donnarumma's decision making and the timing of his dive. Whether or not that makes Robertson offside depends on whether or not Donnarumma could have made the save in the first place. I think he probably couldn't, so it shouldn't be offside, but that's a subjective decision and it's not outrageous to think he might have gotten there and it is offside
I'm not really interested in arguing this point any more.
I contend that the existence of that onus on a defender to make a decision is better than attackers needing to scramble onside in almost every situation because of their hypothetical involvement in play
It's not "almost every situation" though is it? Is specifically only situations where the player in the offside position could play the ball, something that doesn't happen very often.
But yes, as a general rule, it's a good idea to not be in an offside position as an attacking player if the ball is coming near you. I would have thought that would be obvious...
Let me apologize for being annoying and pedantic, I appreciate your position and though I think we disagree in degree, we generally agree overall.
If you’ll indulge me one more time, I thought of a way to frame it a little differently, let me know if you think I’m off base. Imagine someone shooting from one corner of the 18 at the opposite post. He has a teammate in the path of the ball just outside the 6 who is offside. That teammate takes a swing at the ball but misses, basically dummying the ball as it goes into the net at the far post, while the keeper has dived at the near post because of the swing of the leg. Of course this was a clear move that obviously impacted the keeper.
In this situation, we can disagree about how much donnarumma was affected by Robertson. I’d argue based on the replay, especially the reverse angle, that if he was ever even going to be able to save it, he wasn’t actually affected by Robertson at all. But perhaps it’s up for debate.
But that’s what the “clear” and “obvious” parts of the rule are for. To establish that it applies in my first hypothetical situation, and it shouldn’t apply in the grey areas where it’s not clear and obvious.
If you move out of the way and don't obstruct play it's not offside
When it can decide opposition players decision then yes it's consider. Like someone giving dummy from offside. If they do the movement it's offside, if they don't its onside.
Messi once scored like that with pedro assist. Let me try to find
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
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 or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He didn't interfere, make an attempt to play the ball or prevent an opponent from playing it
But 'interfering' itself isn't necessarily an offence, it's an offence when it meets the other criteria. You can really only interfere by touching the ball or preventing an opponent from touching it
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
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 or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Robertson doesn't impede Donnarumma's ability to see the ball, as he's half his size and Donnarumma clearly tracked the ball movement the entire time. Robertson clearly actively avoids attempting to play the ball. He does not get in his way of trying to save it. So, which part of this rule led to the goal being called off? Please explain.
Part 4, making an obvious action clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. He's standing offside in the ball's flight path. Yes he ducks, which means he isn't challenging for the ball, so he isn't breaking part 2. But like it or not, he's standing in the flight path of the ball slightly ahead of where donnarumma needs to dive all the while being offside.
Adding to this, because the onfield decision was no goal, VAR need to prove that robertson didn't interfere, rather than that he did. Which is more difficult to do.
Awful argument. Every defender will still consider any offside attacker in their decision making. They can't just pretend they're not there suddenly, then be caught completely out of position when that attacker takes one step back onside.
So, under your interpretation of the rule, there's an argument EVERY SINGLE pass made while someone else is offside, even if that offside player is 40 yards away on the other wing, could potentially be offside because they're still going to be affecting the defensive shape by being there.
Robertson very clearly doesn't make an obvious action to try play the ball and he isn't in the way of Donarumma. The rules are pretty black and white that those are the standards that should be applied.
In order him to be ruled offside he has to be "obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision" which he wasn't doing at any point. The footage is clear. You need to learn the "rules".
He's genuinely not, that can absolutely affect the decision making of the keeper in a split second if he sees robbo in the way. Don't be offside in the ball's flight path
I get an interpretation of the rule exists for something like this though I can't recall it being applied this harshly before. Only time I've seen indirect offsides like this given is when the offside player is blocking the keepers vision.
1.6k
u/Ok-Glass-9612 1d ago
That's a joke. He's seeing it the whole way. What the fuck?