- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,195
- 64,011
He is interfering, the defender never tries to head it desperately if Griezmann isn't behind him.How can he be interfering with play if he’s never actually interfering with play?
He is interfering, the defender never tries to head it desperately if Griezmann isn't behind him.How can he be interfering with play if he’s never actually interfering with play?
Pretty amazing from the weakest (in terms of raw talent) Aussie World Cup side for decades...
Do you have a link to the update? Thanks...The offside is fun. It's 100% a goal before IFABs clarification update in August. Now it's offside.
Do you have a link to the update? Thanks...
Yee of little faith.never thought we'd get a point to be honest
He is interfering, the defender never tries to head it desperately if Griezmann isn't behind him.
Wish they'd stop tweaking this and handball as well. Getting to the stage where no one knows what the laws are anymore.Law 11 - Offside: ‘deliberate play’ guidelines clarified | IFAB
www.theifab.com
The videos are at the bottom of the page.
But in summary since the defender was backing up and wasn't in full control of his body when he jumped to head it, the instruction is to consider it a deflection.
Had he gotten under the ball and was able to have a controlled jump and scuffed the header, then it's a deliberate play.
It was a direct result of the widespread outrage of the Mbappe goal in the NL final.Wish they'd stop tweaking this and handball as well. Getting to the stage where no one knows what the laws are anymore.
Similar reasoning has been used for many changes over the years, including, but ifab shouldn't be focusing on legislating for every possible incident. It makes it impossible for the average fan to know what the law is, and players and even referees too.It was a direct result of the widespread outrage of the Mbappe goal in the NL final.
Everyone said this goal cannot stand and changes should be made. Well, these are the changes that were made after the global football community demanded.
Sure but most fans didn't understand the interpretations before the changes. (Read through the thread for proof) I don't think that should be used as a reason to not improve things.Similar reasoning has been used for many changes over the years, including, but ifab shouldn't be focusing on legislating for every possible incident. It makes it impossible for the average fan to know what the law is, and players and even referees too.
I think most fans would appreciate simplicity and consistency. The mindset of constantly trying to improve things is a big part of the problem. Imo, of course.Sure but most fans didn't understand the interpretations before the changes. (Read through the thread for proof) I don't think that should be used as a reason to not improve things.
I think most fans would appreciate simplicity and consistency. The mindset of constantly trying to improve things is a big part of the problem. Imo, of course.
Simplicity is the key word for me. I'd much rather take the word of Brian Clough (if a player isn't interfering with play, what the hell is he doing on the pitch?) and have a much more stringent offside rule than one that is so open to subjective interpretation.I think most fans would appreciate simplicity and consistency. The mindset of constantly trying to improve things is a big part of the problem. Imo, of course.