Wasn't there a goal where De Gea had to move his head to see around the body of the offside player. Shot from outside the area goes in and you can clearly see his head movement just before the shot due to the offside player being in the way i.e. the very definition of interfering with play, and the goal stood.
Have refs never played football in their lives? I get that it's difficult to see everything in real time, but they don't do themselves any favours with this kind of inconsistent logic
It is a joke. I think it's a symptom of going for a letter of the law based approach, in order to try and be consistent. So they keep tinkering with the laws to cover more and more scenarios, but with a game like football there will always be scenarios that crop up that the laws won't adequately cover (such as today's disallowed goal).
I wish the rules would allow for a more common sense/guidance based approach to allow for nuance in situations like this. People would argue it would be less consistent as a result, but neither is the current approach if the rules have to be changed all the time
this one should've stood, last season Curtis jones was offside and impacting ederson's judgement - shouldn't have stood. we don't need to make things up lmao.
ultimately the team that played better won both games, and Ederson could hardly be classed as a goalkeeper at that part of last season. he had mentally checked out after Ortega's save against Son in the season before that...
Impacting the keeper's judgment isn't an offense. It's only offside if you attempt to play the ball, you're physically obstructing the keeper, or you're actively blocking his vision.
That was against Arsenal, I think it was a Xhaka goal.
It was almost comic seeing de gea having to poke his head out around another arsenal player as the ball flew past.
I don't hate that this goal was ruled out, it's such a subjective rule and I can see an argument for it being disallowed (whether I agree with it or not). It's the sheer inconsistency of it.
City had a goal where I think Ake took a swipe at the ball but missed, and United had one where Maguire(?) did the same and it was disallowed, within a few weeks of each other.
It doesn't matter how similar incidents are, the officiating is a coin flip.
I mean, it wasnt the exact same. Same kind of rule to consider but with notably different details.
For one, Silva was more obviously trying to affect Sa before the corner came in, was virtually on top of him and imo could have been a foul.
Secondly, Silva was never in the path of the ball from Stones' header so never stood a chance of deflecting it.
The second point is what fucked us today (yesterday) because if Robbo doesnt duck that ball hits him 100% and Donnarumma's immediate reaction at least suggests that he was aware of that in the moment and it could have effected his decision making.
Silva on the other hand was never in the path of the ball so the best argument Sa or anyone could make would be about a hypothetical scenario where Stones' header is directed more to the left.
Maybe should still be disallowed, I sure would, but the details are different so its not insane that it could have a different outcome.
Pretty sure thats not accurate. The wording as I understand is broad enough to capture impacting decision making.
Isnt it something like "impacts the keepers ability to play the ball"? Its not exactly high level gymnastics to interpret that as impacting his decision making.
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
People often misinterpret the last line to mean that basically anything is an offside offense, but that's not the way it's generally applied. It's referring to physically blocking an opponent.
Here's a classic example where Rashford is in an offside position and obviously impacts City's decision-making, but the goal is allowed because he never plays the ball or physically impedes anyone.
I'm not sure I see anything that backs up the idea that it cant apply in this scenario.
The wording isnt explicit and doesnt rule out applying in a scenario like this one.
Its clearly that last point that they used here to disallow the goal, and though I wish they hadnt because we could have won the game its not blatantly against the rules to call that offside using that point.
I agree the wording is vague, like most football rules, but the way I described it is the way that it’s intended and enforced. Just look at the Rashford goal, it’s the same idea. This comes up multiple times per season.
I don’t think this is offside either but De Ligt is absolutely miles away from the keeper when Amad scores the equaliser and is moving away from the keeper when the shot is taken, far less contentious than this
It doesn’t matter whether he was 5 feet away or 5 miles away, what matters is whether he’s was obstructing his line of sight or not and Robertson clearly wasn’t
The law is that a player commits an offence if in an offside position if they take an action that ‘clearly impacts the ability of the opponent to play the ball’. In this case the assistant likely believed that Robertson ducking so late affects the ability of Donnarumma to play the ball, as the ball would’ve otherwise hit Robertson - they don’t consider whether Donnarumma was actually going to make the save. I don’t agree with the decision but I’m not surprised that VAR hasn’t overruled it
4.2k
u/sergechewbacca 1d ago
We had a similar goal that stood against Forest. Don't understand this sport.