Question Number: 32720

Law 11 - Offside 9/18/2018

RE: Pro Adult

Zach of Istanbul, Turkey asks...

A few months ago, all site contributors, uniformly stated that the goal in the game PAOK-AEK was offside.
A few days ago a similar (is it?) goal, at least according to PAOK fans, was awarded to Villareal.

Can you please comment on any differences, and why the Villareal goal is a goal, if you think it is different from the PAOK goal?

Villareal:
https://youtu.be/ugq2TQjVL1o?t=1m49s
PAOK offside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXCIWqcM9lc

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Zach
Yes this could indeed have been called offside yet the match officials on the day decided not to call it.
At the weekend Liverpool had its first goal disallowed against Tottenham for offside because Mane tried to play a ball while in an offside position somewhat similar to these situations Had he not attempted to play the ball it was a legitimate goal by Firmino. Now Mane did not touch the ball and Vorm the Tottenham goalkeeper did not move so it could be debated that Mane's action had no affect on play. The AR though flagged for offside on the basis of Law 11 which states ** clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent**. It is a judgement call what is meant by IMPACTS.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Zach,
there are two things EXACTLY alike in both games the PLAYER WAS in a 100% OFFSIDE position.

The LOTG read it is NOT an offence to BE in an offside Position!
That NEVER CHANGES

HOWEVER,
what IS different is the PERCEPTION of whether that PIOP ( Player in an offside Position) actually IMPACTS play by being ( ITOOTR) in the opinion of he referee) INVOLVED in the outcome by his ACTIONS.

We KNOW both Players made an attempt and either MISSED the ball on purpose or by accident but they both CLEARLY DID NOT TOUCH the ball thus by the LOTG can not be held guilty of interfering with play
.
It NOW becomes an assessment by the officials was an opponent INTERFERED with?

In the first incident the officials FELT there was. They felt the proximity & actions by that PIOP IMPACTED the outcome of play by interfering with the opponents', keeper or defender. The consensus was if that PIOP was not there if he was removed from the FOP things MIGHT have occurred differently!

In the second incident despite the theatrics of TRYING to be involved they arrived at the conclusion if the you removed this player from the FOP NOTHING would have changed that goal. THE PIOP actions were assessed as NOT interfering with an opponent thus the goal is good! He had no IMPACT on play! Nothing would have changed if he had been removed from the FOP. That was always going to be a goal.

Keep in mind that IF there had been ANY physical contact with the ball even if accidental or by deliberate means It is an INDFK out for interfering with play!

To summarize;
- in the 1st incident the opinion by the match officials was THERE was IMPACT, there was interference of an opponent INDFK out no goal!

In the 2nd incident the opinion by the match officials was there was no discernable IMPACT thus no interference of the opponent's good goal kick off!

Cheers