Ratings & Reactions: Villa v AZ Alkmaar

[The_Rev]

The whole debate around the Lenglet goal is yet another example of the law just being an arse.  It's like a couple of years ago when PGMOL or whoever calls the shots decided that the ball clipping the back of a players sleeve was handball and a penalty.  

[Enda]

1 hour ago, NeilS said:

I need to see it again from a better angle, but if Bailey is not on the goal side of the defender as the defender heads it he can’t be offside, same as if a team mate pulls the ball back to him. I think the ruling was made from Watkins header rather than the defender header, I don’t know if that is correct method anymore. 

My reading was:

- The “shot” is cleared off the line. By this point Bailey is offside because the keeper had strayed a yard out.

- The “save” is by the defender who never gains control of the ball, so it’s like a keeper pushing the ball away.

- Bailey receives the ball, as if he’d been offside from a shot and scored from the rebound. We’d all call that offside.

On the one hand, it’s madness. On the other hand, you have to hand it to the linesman. That’s US Supreme Court level of argument right there.

[Lichfield Dean]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

When the defender heads the ball off the line, Bailey is behind the ball, so not in an offside position.

Ah! Interesting. So the "play" of the ball for positioning purposes is taken as being the defender, not Ollie. Is that explained in the rules?

Edit - no I still don't get it. If being behind the ball means it isn't offside from the defender's action then what is the purpose of the "except if it's a save" clause of the rules, because then you could literally just stand in front of a keeper and scoop up any parried shots from what would otherwise be an offside position.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Lichfield Dean

[Lichfield Dean]

2 hours ago, mattyvilla said:

But it was last intentionally played by the defender?

The rules explicitly state that if it's a save by an opposition player then the "deliberate play" thing doesn't come into it. I assume this is to stop players from standing right by the keeper and nodding in any parried shots etc. 

[NeilS]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

My reading was:

- The “shot” is cleared off the line. By this point Bailey is offside because the keeper had strayed a yard out.

- The “save” is by the defender who never gains control of the ball, so it’s like a keeper pushing the ball away.

- Bailey receives the ball, as if he’d been offside from a shot and scored from the rebound. We’d all call that offside.

On the one hand, it’s madness. On the other hand, you have to hand it to the linesman. That’s US Supreme Court level of argument right there.

Haha, yeah you could argue both sides of this and be correct. We will be going round in circles on this one depending on your interpretation/viewpoint.

[El Segundo]

9 minutes ago, NeilS said:

Haha, yeah you could argue both sides of this and be correct. We will be going round in circles on this one depending on your interpretation/viewpoint.

Not really, the law is pretty clear and I don't really see any room for interpretation.  You could argue the law doesn't make sense, but that's a different argument.  The only way Bailey would not have been offside, according to the law, would have been had he been behind the ball when Ollie headed it towards goal (not when the defender saves it).  From what I saw, he wasn't, he was right on the goal line.  

[NeilS]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Not really, the law is pretty clear and I don't really see any room for interpretation.  You could argue the law doesn't make sense, but that's a different argument.  The only way Bailey would not have been offside, according to the law, would have been had he been behind the ball when Ollie headed it towards goal (not when the defender saves it).  From what I saw, he wasn't, he was right on the goal line.  

Ok fair enough, so they need to simplify the rule for the fans and referees in a match situation as there are quite a few people including the referees who are confused by it. Which is not good for the game.
 

For example say a player is standing goal side of the last defender when his teammate last touches the ball, he cannot be onside for a minimum of 10 seconds, that means no touching the ball or moving towards it. The offside would have been given, or the ball would have gone out of play, or the defender or an onside player get opportunity to play the ball. That takes out the need for interpretation and hopefully keeps the game flowing. 

[tinker]

10 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

The rules explicitly state that if it's a save by an opposition player then the "deliberate play" thing doesn't come into it. I assume this is to stop players from standing right by the keeper and nodding in any parried shots etc. 

Was this changed after Mings gifted a goal to a Man City player who was offside?