Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[CCTV]

The rules/laws for obstruction have changed over time.
My particular gripe is over what we see described as "shepherding the ball" where a player shepherds the ball over the goal line or bye line while preventing opponent(s) access to the ball. The shepherd in my opinion is obstructing the opponent from accessing the ball. Now totally legal and acceptable.

Justin will be delighted if we move on to Law 12 after concluding the discussion around law 11

[Taksin]

Hi Steveo

You need to explain how Bobby does not attempt to play the ball,

No I don't. The ball was not reachable which renders his attempt meaningless (within these rules). He is not challenging anyone who has the ball, the ball was not intended for him, it was out of his reach, it was out of the defenders reach. There was no contest and therefore no impact on another player.

and also how he has no impact on the opponent.

How he has no impact is by not taking it off someone, not beating someone to it, not blocking their path to it, or obstructing the free movement of their body as they attempt to play the ball. As he couldn't reach the ball, he could not stop it getting to anyone.

NOW.... 'interfering' is the term used it relates to movement as much as anything else. Read the rules if you don't believe me.

according to the rules interfering doesn't relate to movement it relates to;

"preventing an opponent from playing"
"or being able to play"
"by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
"challenging an opponent"
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

Again, it does not relate to movement 'as much as anything else'. The emphasis is all on what he does to impede the opponent. That's what makes it offside or not.

So if an offside player is standing/running/jumping to my left
he absolutely IS interfering with my ability to move towards the ball and also to play the ball!

Not if it's too high for him, it's going to someone else and I am free to find my own way to the ball, unmolested by this player.

If I choose to run along side him and not at the ball, that's my problem.

Given that Firmino is not watching the defender, impeding him, or getting between him and the ball (as the ball is too high) he has not impacted upon him according to these rules.

I am baffled because you seem to be suggesting that Bobby did not attempt to play the ball?

No I'm not. I'm suggesting he didn't impact upon the player in the way outlined by these rules.

As it happens, I think Bobby stops trying to play the ball midway through the jump when he realises its too high, but that's irrelevant and doesn't affect the ruling.

Once again surely it is either an attempt or a block/dummy attempt to occupy the defender from an offside position.

There is a difference between a block, a dummy, or a failed attempt. You are choosing your verbs to skew the emphasis. It wasn't a block or a dummy.

The defender cannot even get a proper jump because Bobby jumps first.
Bobby is on his left and DIRECTLY in his line of vision. Just watch the video. 100% interfering with an opponent.

The defender followed Bobby to a ball he cannot reach. If he had concentrated on reaching the ball at a reachable point in its trajectory, he would not have been impacted by Bobby or by his movements. You're entire case rests on the blindsiding of the defender. But the rule says this

"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"

He didn't clearly obstruct his line of vision. He was running in the wring direction to reach the ball, away from the defender who was following him. The defender was free to look at the ball at all times, especially as Firmino was offside and the ball was coming from behind them. Obviously he couldn't be in his line of vision when the ball was kicked.

Also the keeper cannot defend Oxlade OR crucially come off his line to play the ball WITHOUT ignoring Bobby.
He HAS to account for Bobby.**This is also interfering - not as clear under the rules

Indeed it is not as clear under the rules as it is not present in the rules

How can anyone say Bobby is not materially impacting-affecting-interfering with this play?

Anyone can say it after reading the rules carefully and understanding them. And best not to conflate all your verbs - it leads to a lack of clarity.

[Steveo]

"The ball was not reachable"..? Ok so this isn't simply your description of what happened because he didn't meet the ball to head it home? Seriously...?


So every time a player makes a play for the ball and fails to reach this is the breakdown is it??? He cannot be guilty of going too soon - jumping too late or simply missing the ball. No in the world of Taksin "the ball was not reachable" end of story..

The fact the player attempted to play the ball is immaterial despite this clearly being listed as a rule broken WHEN in an offside position...?

You sir are ignoring the rules because it is convenient.
I think we should leave it at that.

[Taksin]

You sir are ignoring the rules because it is convenient.
I think we should leave it at that.

What's the rush, Steveo? We've come this far, why not continue, especially when your preference is to leave it with an errant summary of the situation that is most unsatisfactory in my eyes. If you want to leave it for your own reasons, please feel free..

"The ball was not reachable"..? Ok so this isn't simply your description of what happened because he didn't meet the ball to head it home? Seriously...?

Not simply that he didn't meet the ball or head it home (which does look impossible as it happens), no. I think the fact that it was an accurate cross for someone else in a different part of the pitch would have played a part in making his jump appear to be irrelevant - not 'close' to use the term from the rules - both in real time to the referee and linesman, and in slow motion to the VAR officials.

So every time a player makes a play for the ball and fails to reach this is the breakdown is it???

I doubt it would apply every time no. 'Every time' hasn't played any part in this discussion so far. For instance I would imagine that, in most examples where offside is given, the pass would be intended for the offside player, which it wasn't here.

He cannot be guilty of going too soon -

Not according to the rules, Steveo

jumping too late

Not according to the rules, Steveo

or simply missing the ball.

Not according to the rules, Steveo. This illustrates the point well as I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where an attacker makes a total hash of an attempt, misses the ball completely and clearly even though he should have hit it, and play on is waved as he didn't make contact. That seems to be in keeping with the new rule.

No in the world of Taksin "the ball was not reachable" end of story..

We're not discussing the world of Taksin, we're discussing the rules. You are appealing from the world of Steveo and the world of the pundit, but we are trying to see beyond common sense into a rule that is intended to make possible what previously was impossible.

'not reachable' has a bearing on this part of the rule (for the umpteenth time);

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

If its not reachable, that does impact both on the definition of what is close and whether it qualifies as a genuine attempt.

But this rule is qualified beyond the attempt (which you are constipated on). An attempt is not enough to make the player offside, as you keep imagining. It has to be

1) a ball which is close
That means an unreachable ball going to a different player can qualify as not close
but not only that - it has to be close
when this action impacts on an opponent
So closeness is not enough either. It has to be the kind of close that the attempt impacts on the player.
Your desire to expand the definition of impact has undermined your ability to understand what this means.

or

2) making an obvious action
No such obvious action was made other that jumping away from the defender

which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
No such clear impact was made. Firmino was not between the ball and the defender when it was played and did not move towards the defender.

The fact the player attempted to play the ball is immaterial despite this clearly being listed as a rule broken WHEN in an offside position...?

It is not listed as being a rule broken without two qualifications, each with with two stipulations as I have highlighted above.

So, unless you get to grips with the stipulations you will be forever exasperated about this 'attempt', which is not enough to activate the offside rule by itself.

[CCTV]

"The ball was not reachable"..? Ok so this isn't simply your description of what happened because he didn't meet the ball to head it home? Seriously...?


So every time a player makes a play for the ball and fails to reach this is the breakdown is it??? He cannot be guilty of going too soon - jumping too late or simply missing the ball. No in the world of Taksin "the ball was not reachable" end of story..

The fact the player attempted to play the ball is immaterial despite this clearly being listed as a rule broken WHEN in an offside position...?

You sir are ignoring the rules because it is convenient.
I think we should leave it at that.

If you took each stipulation of the offside rule and applied them as writ, then you would be applying the rules.
Bit seeing as you don't do that you are ignorant of the rules.

interfering with an opponent by:
1•preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
2•challenging an opponent for the ball or
3•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
4•making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
or

That's 4 stipulations and Firmino does not meet the criteria.

Your claim to a rule, about a pass from the left going past an opponent to the left of a defender does not exist.

You have the Kane v Lovren goal, Cities goal and many more examples where the criteria for having a material impact on a defender are clearly laid out in the rulebook.

When kane touches the ball he would have been active and offside, but for Lovrens attempt to play the ball and connecting making contact whilst having had attempted to play the ball.
Had Lovren known Kane was offside he lets the ball run through and collects the ball with ease.
As was he panicked and swiped/miscued his play due to the impact Kane had on Lovren.
Kane however did not have a material impact on play.

Kane had made an obvious action but it did not have a clear impact on Lovrens ability to play the ball.
So when Lovren played it in a panic and was marking/defending against an offside player it did not count.

Being offside is not an offense. Defending against an offside player does not meet the criteria as and of itself.
There are clear stipulations which decide where that applies.

[redebreck]

Are we there yet?

[ianlfc]

Have we had the points deducted yet ?

[Taksin]

Have you two got nothing better to do with your time?

[Kev0909]

Have you two got nothing better to do with your time?

Ain't you?? quite funny tbh considering you've both repeated shit for 30 pages or so.

[Taksin]

Ain't you?? quite funny tbh considering you've both repeated shit for 30 pages or so.

I was joking, smart guy.. are we not allowed to find this interesting?