Expat Smoggie
Well-known member
Totally agree, defenders haven’t got a clue when it comes to push up on an opposing teams front line, and as many have said striker may as well sit in the penna area waiting for the ball.
United goal
- Thread starter ForssAwakens
- Start date
TeaCider
Well-known member
It doesn't say that at all.
- interfering with an opponent by:
- 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.
sherlock1969
Well-known member
Look at this pic. Defender is chasing Rashford. Keeper is looking at Rashford. Rashford is even shaping to shoot before thinking better of it. No way can this be said to not be interfering with play.
Remove him from the picture and they are concentrating on Bruno. Keeper at least gets out to that before Bruno gets his shot away.
It's offside and it's an absolutely terrible decision.
Remove him from the picture and they are concentrating on Bruno. Keeper at least gets out to that before Bruno gets his shot away.
It's offside and it's an absolutely terrible decision.
Fat_Dragon
Well-known member
No, a player can be offside and block a goalkeepers view and be interfering with play but they have not touched the ball.
The important thing to remember about interfering with an opponent is that according to the wording in the laws (and all the guidance issued by the IFAB in this regard) the offside-positioned player must have a direct impact on the opponent's ability to play the ball.
According to the law and the guidance, it doesn't matter if he affects their thinking or their decision-making, he has to affect their actual capability of playing the ball.
According to the law and the guidance, it doesn't matter if he affects their thinking or their decision-making, he has to affect their actual capability of playing the ball.
No, that's interfering with an opponent. It's not interfering with play unless they touch the ball.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
You said they had to touch the ball, so……
Zoophonic
Well-known member
Well Peter Walton explained through the interpretation as it now stands (ie the interference rule of the law as recently changed) that it was a goal. I don’t agree with this new interpretation but It was given by two referees. So yes you could argue it was awarded correctly in those circumstances. However I agree with Cardiff that the interpretation is flawed and should be changed.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Peter Walton hasn't got a clue.
He was getting things wrong every match at the World Cup.
He's just there to defend the referees.
Yes it can, because as already stated, interfering with play requires touching the ball.
TeaCider
Well-known member
No, it doesn't.
Fat_Dragon
Well-known member
Do you think we should just go back to the old days when offside was offside? Much more simpler although it would reduce the amount of time the ball is in play. Oh hang on, Ive just had a thought, why don't we do what Rugby do and stop the clock when the ball isn't in play? hmmmm 
I read at least parts of the law every day - and in fact I just re-read Law 11 in it's entirety before posting on this thread.
You might like to do the same, and if you do so, you'll find that everything I've written is in complete accord with the law as written. It's also in accord with all the guidance issued by the IFAB, most notably IFAB Circular no. 3, issued 17 July 2015, and which deals specifically with the definition of interfering with an opponent.
If you care to have a look at it (it's available on their website, www.theifab.com) I think you'll find it highly instructive - and directly relevant here.
Try reading the law. As stated in Law 11, the only way a player can be guilty of interfering with play is:
I think perhaps some of you are getting confused between what the law refers to as being "involved in active play" and what it defines as "interfering with play."
Being involved in active play covers all the different ways to commit an offside offence - including interfering with play, interfering with an opponent and gaining an advantage. However interfering with play is clearly defined as requiring the player to touch the ball.
Last edited:
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
I have never heard Walton contradict a decision made by the officals
TeaCider
Well-known member
- interfering with an opponent by:
- 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
I'm guessing you're just being a pedant here and differentiating between the words play and an opponent.
Which adds nothing to the argument as Rashford was clearly interfering with an opponent, the last point there specifically.
Lining up as if it shoot clearly impacted the keeper and defender's movement, and clearly impacted the keepers ability to make a save.
Read rule 11 again.
I posted this earlier. You do not have to touch the ball to be offside.
2. Offside offence
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:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- 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
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
You saying a link has been posted and he countered his own pointRead rule 11 again.
2. Offside offence
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:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- 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
It's not being pedantic, it's literally something that's absolutely essential to understanding, interpreting and applying the offside law correctly - something that I've been doing as a referee for over 30 years now.
Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two totally different things under the offside law. If you don't realize that, and differentiate clearly between them, you can't possibly interpret or apply the law correctly.