Matchday 34: TFC at New Englnd Sat., 7:30pm

[Ajax TFC]

I was always under the impression that if the defender plays the ball in an attempt to stop if from getting to an attacker who was in an offside position, then it's called offside because the offside player still influenced the play. I must admit I've never read the official rules, it just seems to get called that way.

[PAOK17]

no, that is a headed back pass, not a deflection. Look at the rule book, it's clear page 116

Well if we go by page 116's exact wording (I'm being devil's advocate here), thats for the case of a shot where clearly it's a deflection. I agree the video I posted looks kind of like a flicked on back pass but again, I believe the defender was trying to do exactly what Oduro was and that was to head the ball away. Problem was, he was too short/ball was too high for him to do so.

I think the rule is far too vague and the explanation/clarification is even worse. If they want to ensure it means a clear back pass, I am pretty sure there are better examples of a defender's brain fart of literally passing the ball to an opponent on a blooper reel somewhere.

Personally, if I was a ref, I'd call this offside 100% of the time. If FIFA actually cared that the correct call is made, they'd do a better job of explaining their own rules.

[Ajax TFC]

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

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...fthegameen.pdf

I would say that this definition definitely applies to the play last night. The ball was being played to him when he was in an offside position, which means he was interfering with play, and he definitely gained an advantage from being in that position when the the ball was played to him. I don't see how the fact that Oduro touched it changes anything. If a player intentionally moves to block a shot, and it falls to an attacker who was offside at the time of the shot, it's still called as offside every time.

[JuliquE]

Shit call changed everything.

BUT


Defence was shaky and probably should have given up at least one more including a stone cold penalty.

I feel like the goal, and the circumstances surrounding it, killed their already weakened spirits, in an already meaningless game and coming off the disappointment of not making the post-season.

To be fair, they actually DID have a go, following the goal, if maybe lacking that bit of sharpness, when you know something's on the line. Because they had to take the game to NE, it opened them up to be caught on the counter, which lead to the odd gilt-edge chance for the opposition.. so, it's difficult for me to take too much away from this performance, in evaluating where we stand.

[JuliquE]

This is a grey area for a player gaining an advantage. Yes it's played by Oduro but it's to prevent the ball going through to the offside player. If he was taller or could jump higher, he would have done what he intended- clear the ball. He failed to do that because the ball was too high for him so I can't say he deliberately played the ball though he made a deliberate attempt to play it. My interpretation is that this is more of a deflection than a deliberate play. Oduro wasn't trying to play the ball in the path of the running player so I wouldn't say it was that deliberate. Kind of how the pass back rule leaves the referee to use his/her discretion of whether a ball coming of the foot of a defender is allowed to be picked up by the keeper. How many times have we seen a defender intercept a pass with his feet and his body positioned towards his goalkeeper, the keeper pick it up and the ref allow play to go on?

If FIFA were to come out and say this isn't offside because Oduro played it deliberately, then I'd ask for a change in the rule. This would mean defenders should not make attempts to intercept passes that could be going to an offside player- kind of hurts the defending team as it leaves it all in the hands of the assistant to call something offside.

I would say this falls more under page 108 and 116 of the Rule Book:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27%5f06%5f2014%5fnew--lawsofthegameweben%5fneutral.pdf

I'd want clarification on the term "deliberate".

You're BANG on, here, and jloome said it best: the laws say "deliberate play" vs. "deliberate play ATTEMPT/ATTEMPT to play the ball"; Oduro ATTEMPTED to make a deliberate play, as you say, to stop the ball going to a player in an offside position, only to have come up short (read: it's not as if he got a clean contact, and then his deliberate play were intercepted by someone previously in an offside position).

Interesting conversation, this. Just sucks we have to be in the middle of it, albeit better now, than when there's something on the line.

[Qman]

Have a heart shwade, Kraft is worth only $4 Billion. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...aft-net-worth/

all it shows is he doesn't give a shit about futbol

[Yohan]

http://www.proreferees.com/news-play...014---wk33.php

official PRO explanation

[JuliquE]

http://www.proreferees.com/news-play...014---wk33.php

official PRO explanation

"Play to the whistle" -- hilarious.

Posted the following in the Instant Replay video comments:


The laws say it isn't offside, if the player makes a "deliberate play," not an "attempt to play the ball."

It's clear that Oduro's objective (or his intended "deliberate play") was to stop the ball going into the player in an offside position, via a clearance, JUST in case he was onside. The ball being too high, he doesn't get a clean contact, and fails to make said play -- I mean, nothing of what resulted looked deliberate from him, and it's not as if he cleanly caught the ball, only for it to be intercepted.

By PRO's interpretation, a defender will now be penalized for "playing to the whistle," as it were, because, now, if they're not sure and scuff an effort to clear their lines, someone, say, standing next to the 'keeper can capitalize.. where as, had they been able to see the future, they could have left it and been safe -- magical implications, this, if true!

Should be treated like the law regarding a back-pass to the 'keeper; if a low cross or a cut-back comes in, and a player slides to block it, doesn't get a clean contact, and the ball winds up in the keeper's hands, the play is allowed to carry on, every time. Another way of viewing it is by possession; if the player takes a touch, and then makes a pass, or catches a ball cleanly, it's viewed as having been in possession of the ball.. so, it's fair if the opposition intercepts any resulting "deliberate play" -- a deflection is not possession of the ball.