As I said earlier, I just don’t know how you can have that language in the law and interpretations, but also have If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
Taken to the logical extension, a player forced to play the ball with their off-foot is also reacting instinctively.
I am not upset by that call, but it is just a mess. The interpretations specifically note a header as well - is a player heading the ball in control of it in some different way?
He absolutely had a clear view of it - he made contact with it behind his torso, but he watched the ball all the way in.
Was the ball moving quickly? Not especially, not the way a shot would be.
Unexpected direction? Not for him, he is clearly reacting to it (this is where the ‘instinctive’ is perhaps operative.
The crux for me is it really looks like a coordinated body movement, he is reaching back with that leg
it is just weird what different work the notion of deliberate movement does in this rule versus the handball rule
Well no, it seems somewhat contradictory doesn’t it.
They’ve backed themselves so far into a corner with it it’s hard for a regular match going fan to know what is and isn’t offside. I guess with this it’s a clumsy attempt to not penalise defenders who might deflect a ball in the process of blocking a cross or a shot whilst also not penalising attackers if a defender just makes a hash of a clearance. I think every football fan would just welcome a simplification of it and so would defenders particularly.
What I think we all just want is to be able to know what offside is without actually having to look it up. I’m pretty comfortable that the ultimate decision is the correct one. He’s offside, he sets up the goal and he knows it too.
The bit I don’t get is how it’s dealt with. It’s technically not a binary offside decision because the issue isn’t where Virgil is but how the ball gets to him. So having awarded the goal doesn’t the “error” need to be clear and obvious in order to overrule it. Would this meet the criteria for that given it’s a subjective decision and the bar required for him to change his mind?
See the example of the Japanese player I posted earlier. This clause is saying the ball doesnt have to go where the player intended it (i.e. he doesnt get away with it if he fucks up his kick), only that they are in control enough of their body when playing the ball that they have a reasonable expectation of being able to determine where the ball goes. I.e. it is a pass or clearance, not a block or attempted interception.
Headers are the most contentious part, but pretty much any time a defender has to jump to head it he is viewed as having to stretch and therefore not in control of where the ball is going to go.
It is a lot easier easier to understand where the line gets drawn if you focus on the spirit of the law they are trying to respect - you cannot be offside if the defender passes it to you. This guidance is trying to describe what actions constitute a pass vs a player just defending. As always, reading guidance is a work of art and the language needs to be understood in the professional context it is being used, which is often very different than the average person will understand it to mean.
Which seems like a very bizarre dividing line - frankly, I think it would make a lot more sense if all headers were considered as not negating offsides. Steer clear of judging intent and other mental states.
But the question is not whether he is making an attempt to block the ball or make contact with it. Its whether he controls the ball and deliberately plays it. The ball hits his leg just below the knee on the side of his leg. How can it be argued he was in control of the ball?
‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate; or
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).
So if you weighted it on whether you think he was in control of the ball or not in control of the ball, which way would you be leaning?
Over 50 league play is rather hilarious for that. Any interpretation or rules change post about 1994 is invalid in any given match, and there are usually at least 3-4 formerly qualified refs to say so
Should intent even come into it? I don’t think IFAB mention it in their guidelines. He could be thinking he’s going to flick it out for a corner, but if the ball bounces off the side of the knee, did he in fact take control?
‘Deliberate play’ inherently has some notion of intent - and consider how the idea of ‘deliberate’ works in the handball rule, where a deliberate movement not actually intended to bring the hand to the ball can nonetheless produce a foul. In that instance, the ‘deliberate’ is a lower standard than the intent, what they actually intended to do is not relevant.
No defender in their right mind would want to, or even attempt to, take control of the ball in his own penalty box, 6metres from his own goal-line…
As a defender he has deliberately played the ball… even if that playing the ball has come in him deflecting it with a flick…!
Deliberate in this context is big D as its not a standard language definition but IFAB guidelines specific. And ‘taking control of the ball’ is a requirement. As such, the criteria for ‘taking control’ must be met before any other consideration relating to Deliberate Play.
Imagine a cross comes in, and its a low cross. the ball dips to between waste and knee height. Virg is in the penalty box, and he both jumps and side foots it up field. IMO This would meet IFAB’s criteria for being considered ‘taking control of the ball’.
The ball came from distance, the direction of the ball was not unexpected, and he had time to coordinate his body movement, given that he’s shaped his foot to make a side footed kick upfield. He doesn’t meet all the criteria (the ball moving in the air for instance) but he meets enough of them I think for this to be considered ‘taking control of the ball’. I apologise for using the quotes each time but I am trying to emphasise that, just like Deliberate Play, its not the normal language use of taking control of the ball. You are right that defenders would rarely take control of the ball in the penalty box but they often ‘take control of the ball’ (as specified by IFAB’s criteria), like in my example above.
The main issue I have with the 5 criteria used for determining ‘taking control of the ball’ is that no threshold is specified. Does a situation need 3/5 of the criteria to be fully met? Could it be considered ‘in control’ if only 2 of the criteria was fully met but, say the criteria on distance, was in a bit of a grey area and the ball reached the player just above the ground? There is far too much interpretation allowed there and its why we are all getting angered in here about this situation. They need to make the rules a bit more water tight on ‘taking control’ IMO.