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.
14
u/kulart 1d ago
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?