|
Post by Johnny on Oct 21, 2011 6:14:11 GMT 10
Just watching Spurs v Rubin Kazan live on SBS. The Spurs first half goal was interesting. Spurs free kick on edge of R K penalty area. Spurs attacker stood five yards off side directly in front of the keeper. As his team mate ran up to take the kick he sprinted sideways so as the kick was taken he was on the side edge of the 6 yard box.
Goal was allowed. Ref thought that he was not interfering with play. Does everybody agree?
|
|
|
Post by rhythmlynx on Oct 21, 2011 13:44:52 GMT 10
Hi Johnny and other forum contributors, I agree with the referee's decision to award the goal. At the time the free kick was taken by the Spurs striker, Pavlyuchenko, his team-mate, who previously stood in an offside position to block the opponent's goalkeeper's vision during the formation of Rubin Kazan's (RK) defensive wall, quickly moved well away from the goalkeeper so as to not be part of the shot on goal. It was a good ploy by the Spurs team to use a means of effective distraction and the result paid off. By the time Pavlyuchenko kicked the ball the RK goalkeeper was not hindered by any of the opponents and the offside player was not active in the shot for goal. What do others think of the set play?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Oct 23, 2011 9:05:39 GMT 10
Rhythmlynx
Thanks for the reply. I agree that you would have to say at the moment the ball was kicked the offside player was far enough away from the action to be considered inactive. It was a clever and calculated ploy by Spurs to take advantage of the current interpretation of the Law 11.
The law states:
'A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position'
Two questions need to be addressed in this scenario:
1) A player in an offside position distracted the goalkeeper so maybe he was 'gaining an advantage by being in that position'?
2) Was he gaining an advantage, 'at the moment the ball was played by one of his team'?
Surely there was an advantage or why do it?
Even if technically not an offence I think that this is an unfair tactic that should be discouraged by referees but would not go so far as to say that it was an incorrect decision under the current guidelines.
More opinions please.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Oct 25, 2011 15:06:44 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by one on Oct 26, 2011 15:49:58 GMT 10
IMO the phrase "at the moment the ball is played or touches" is not meant to be interpreted as at that very moment the 3 condition must occur. The very moment is used to decide if the player is in an offside position only. The three condition can occur anytime from that moment until the end of 'this' phase of play
Consider a scenario when the ball is crossed slightly backwards and a team mate in an offside position runs back a good distance to stop a defender from getting the ball. This is an offside offence but neither of the three conditions where true at the moment the ball was crossed. At the very moment of crossing the offside player was on his own so was not interfering with anything (the interfering occurred seconds later) and in reality he was at a disadvantage being in that position as he had to run back a good distance to get to the ball. The point again: The moment refers to determining if a player is in an offside position and not for the three condition.
|
|
|
Post by rhythmlynx on Oct 27, 2011 19:55:10 GMT 10
Johnny; please read carefully the occasions an offside player is penalised for being in that position. It is not an offence by a player to be in an offside position unless he/she is involved or active in play by committing any of the three points you quoted from the Laws Of The Game. A direct shot on goal was made from set play in this scenario and distraction, in this case, should not be considered as interfering because it was RK's goalkeeper who erred in judgment when he set his team-mates' wall to supposedly prevent any direct shot from going into the back of the net. The Spurs player who was offside did not personally gain any advantage by being in the position he was in because he was moving quickly away from the goal box area to allow the keeper a clear view of his opponent's free kick. Is there a referee here that would've disallowed the Spurs goal and for what reason?
|
|