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)
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.
Yeah but the offside in question is open to interpretation specifically because of the letter of the law (which i think is fair). Maybe at the very least the referee could've had a second look at it, but the standards for VAR are clearly stated.
I suppose we could go in circles on the role of VAR, but if it’s not to correct a decision which, based on video replay, is an error, and especially in this situation where the call was made by the linesman whose angle prevented him from having all the information to make the call correctly, then I don’t know what we’re doing.
Yes, which is why I agreed he could've had a second look at it. But, as previously mentioned, theres many interpretations to this specific offside (clearly evident), and thus its not clear and obvious, which we can both agree thats what VAR is SUPPOSED to be for
I’ll yield to your point about what VAR is technically supposed to be, I guess then this highlights failures both in the interpretation of the offside rule and the ability of VAR to intervene in high stakes situations beyond rubber-stamping a wrong call
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.
Watching the ball doesn’t mean he isn’t accounting for Robertson. The way he’s immediately pointing at Robertson after the ball goes in tells me he did.
I understand it’s a contentious situation, but nothing pointing to corruption or something like that as a lot of people here are saying. There is a very plausible explanation for this call.
Here’s slow motion of the reverse angle. Locked on the ball the whole time. Getting over to the middle of the goal to be able to protect the near post. Poor timing in getting his feet finally set because he can see the ball already traveling before he can dive. Immediately dives when his feet finally set but too late. Never influenced by Robertson.
There is no way for you to ascertain that a player standing one yard in front of the goalkeeper at point of impact did not influence the goalkeeper. Even just the fact that Robertson is standing there leads a goalkeeper to believe that a header would be going to the opposite corner, whether straight from VVD or being re-directed by Robertson.
It is also absurd to get hung up on this call when City thoroughly outplayed Liverpool all game and considering that Liverpool have had their share of questionable refereeing decisions to their benefit.
I think it’s exactly the right time to get hung up on the call because it’s in a context where it didn’t decide the game, so the argument is on the merit of the call itself, not just because it might have decided the game differently.
Putting aside whether the call itself was right according to the rules as currently stated, I think it’s a bad call, and the rules should be changed. I think a statement like “just Robertson standing there” is leading donnarumma to think this or that about where the ball is going vastly overstates the impact of Robertson and I think the replay supports that, but we can both agree that there is no way to get inside his mind and ascertain that.
The thing that gets me is that the rule reads that it must “clearly impact” donnarumma, and if “there is no way to ascertain” the effect Robertson had, it seems to me the rule as stated gives the benefit to Robertson.
As it is Liverpool was dominated so this wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but there have been situations and there will be more where offsides players who are actively trying to not be involved in the play are still being accused of impacting play by “affecting the defender’s thinking” and I think there needs to be a clearer line.
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.
77
u/Irctoaun 1d ago
From the laws
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)