Question Number: 34790

Law 11 - Offside 12/2/2022

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 34776

Hello,

Mr Dawson writes about Ronaldo's theoretical offside/onside:

'The thing was he TRIED to head (redirect the ball) but missed! The ball did NOT skim off his head it went directly into the corner of the goal so his attempt to play the ball fails and the fact is that ball was ALWAYS headed into the goal. Thus the goal would count.'

Mr McHugh writes about Bentekes's goal this:

'In the Liverpool goal the goalkeeper moved to anticipate the failed attempt to play the ball by the PIOP which then impacted on his ability to deal with the actual touch by the scorer. That would now be called as offside.'

It seems to me that Mr. McHugh's answer could apply to Ronaldo's action as well. The second striker is missing there, but Ronaldo certainly provokes some reaction from the goalkeeper.

(# clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent)

I'm starting to get a headache from offsides/onsides at this World Cup :-)

Gentlemen, I wish you a nice day!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr

The main point is that Ronaldo was not in an offside position when the cross was made so the goal was good.

Had Ronaldo been in an offside position the goal would have been disallowed for offside, touch or no touch, for interfering with an opponent.

The only point to consider was the goal credited to Ronaldo or to Fernandez? FIFA awarded the goal to Fernandez after the technology in the ball did not detect any contact by Ronaldo.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Petr,
When you theorize a maybe, IF he was offside restricted you need context. , If you read the line above when I was mentioning the missed touch & lines below I suggested he could be seen as interfering with the keeper. , As long as no defender was interfered with the fact the PIOP DID NOT touch the ball the goal would stand!

You are 100% correct if the referee felt the action of a PIOP involved freezing /affecting the keeper, then interfering with the opponent, NOT interfering with play is a correct distinction. The key point is offside attackers who try to play (TOUCH the ball) but FAIL as long as they have not been deemed guilty of affecting the opponent unfairly by interfering in their ability to participate.

I can see where it was confusing using Ronaldo's non touch to illustrate the attempt to interfere participate in play is NOT sufficient, he must in fact TOUCH the ball .

However, to be involved in the actions that directly affected the keeper the interfering with the opponent part of offside could apply so replace, would with could, as each situation is dependent on the circumstances of who is where and why. The question could be in the mind of the referee if that PLAYER if PIOP was removed from the FOP would that goal have occurred?

Cheers