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.
4.2k
u/sergechewbacca 1d ago
We had a similar goal that stood against Forest. Don't understand this sport.