At the beginning of the week I focused on further explanatory videos for the new offside rule and one special facet of it. One of them showed a situation having occurred in German Bundesliga in the match between Hertha BSC Berlin and 1. FC Nürnberg. While the pre-dominant emphasis was put on challenging an opponent for the ball and what this term means at all in this specific video, another question for debate was raised by a user's comment. Before unfolding it, please check the video again.
The - unfortunately anonymous - user canvassed the following scenario: Imagine the red-dressed defender on the goal-line would not have committed a deliberate handball in order to deny the obvious goal. Imagine that the blue #20 had not interfered with the goalkeeper in a way that made the assistant referee flag for offside. Given that scenario, the defender would have used another part of the body, most likely his head, to clear the ball and prevent the goal from being scored. Imagine the ball would have nonetheless arrived directly in front of the blue forward whose task to score a goal from that position would have been surely very easy in this case. It might claim some faculty of imagination from you.
Let's sum up the scenario:
1) The blue #20 is closer to the goal-line than the second last defender (the goalkeeper).
2) The high shot on goal obviously reaches the goal (if there is no defender).
3) The red-dressed defender clears the ball on the goal-line, let's say, with his head.
4) Blue #20 receives the ball from this clearance and scores.
Law 11 has a special facet that was already subject to debate in the blog: gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. Usually, attackers are in punishable offside as soon as they gain an advantage from being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender. However, the rule says that players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberate plays the ball, are not considered to have gained an advantage. Deliberately playing the ball means the clear intention to play the ball, mostly indicated by a clear movement towards the ball, regardless of whether the outcome exposes an advantage or disadvantage. But the rule makes one exception here: Players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately played the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. In other words: when a player receives the ball from a deliberate save, he is considered to have gained an advantage and is in a punishable offside position. A deliberate save is defined as preventing a clear goal from being scored and basically targets at protecting goalkeepers or defenders who block a dangerous shot on goal.
So...what we have to constitute here is that - in our fictive but possible scenario - the defender on the goal-line clearly and intentionally moves his head towards the ball. He therefore deliberately plays the ball. But, he does so in order to prevent a clear goal from being scored - if he does not make the header on the goal-line, it is a goal.
Two criteria are theoretically colliding here. On the one hand, Law 11 prompts that the goal would be scored legally (deliberate play), on the other hand, the same sentence in this new rule suggests that the goal would be scored illegally, i.e. from an active offside position (deliberate save). The important thing is that the rule calls the deliberate save an exception of deliberate play. So this means, in the presence of this deliberate save, the deliberate play becomes irrelevant. The goal should not have counted in this case, as the attacker has gained an advantage from being in that position by receiving the ball from a deliberate save. Even though the law seems to be precise in this case, it can be quite confusing. The law does not define that deliberate saves can also contain clear movements towards the ball and can be one sort of deliberate play. It rather prompts that they are two distinct things. This led me to irritation and I apologize for the previously wrong analysis of this situation. Anyway, this scenario illustrates "except a deliberate save" in a good manner and shows how much empathy Law 11 is demanding from assistant referees in the current form, since the intention of defenders is emphasized in an extra-ordinary manner.
Two criteria are theoretically colliding here. On the one hand, Law 11 prompts that the goal would be scored legally (deliberate play), on the other hand, the same sentence in this new rule suggests that the goal would be scored illegally, i.e. from an active offside position (deliberate save). The important thing is that the rule calls the deliberate save an exception of deliberate play. So this means, in the presence of this deliberate save, the deliberate play becomes irrelevant. The goal should not have counted in this case, as the attacker has gained an advantage from being in that position by receiving the ball from a deliberate save. Even though the law seems to be precise in this case, it can be quite confusing. The law does not define that deliberate saves can also contain clear movements towards the ball and can be one sort of deliberate play. It rather prompts that they are two distinct things. This led me to irritation and I apologize for the previously wrong analysis of this situation. Anyway, this scenario illustrates "except a deliberate save" in a good manner and shows how much empathy Law 11 is demanding from assistant referees in the current form, since the intention of defenders is emphasized in an extra-ordinary manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment