Hi Steveo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Indeed it is not as clear under the rules as it is not present in the rules
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.
Bookmarks