Not short of a minor revolution: IFAB's new interpretation in Law 11 will have big ramifications on the work of assistant referees during the upcoming 2022/23 season.
 |
| American Katheryn Nesbitt, selected amongst the assistant referees at the upcoming World Cup 2022 - the first major tournament where the officials will be tasked with implimenting these LotG revisions |
After big internal irritation in UEFA (refereeing) after the situations which arised in Spain vs. France Nations League final, and also the first Belgium goal in their EURO 2020 tie against Russia, football's stakeholders have revised the interpretation of the key deliberate play vs. deflection when determining offside.
Accordingly, IFAB have released fourteen clips to illustrate the new vision in Law 11, see below:
Examples of Deliberate Plays, and therefore (still) to be given Onside.
New Examples of Deflections, and hence (now) to be given Offside.
The changes seem mostly orientated in common-sense, but with some doubts perhaps: using this Belgium vs. Russia scene as the example of an unexpected ball seems quite bizarre to me (much more satisfying if it had changed places with the Qarabag vs. Sivasspor example, eg.). The clip from the recent Germany vs. England game is an important illustrative example too.
Certainly, one can say that it will keep assistant referees on their toes this season! :)
Certainly, one can say that it will keep assistant referees on their toes this season! :)
My biggest questionmark is behind the INTBAR example (deliberate play, 1:30), because I would have said that the defender didn't have the chance to play the ball differently and therefore the control condition for deliberate play couldn't apply. But apparently being in a duel is not relevant and the situation needs to be assesses as if the opponent didn't exist?
ReplyDeleteOnly looking at the 5 conditions from the screenshot, it makes indeed sense to evaluate it as deliberate play.
I agree with you Philipp. It seems harsh and a missed opportunity to include situations like these (under pressure from opponent, every defender would try to do something there). I would assume, that common sense would also want an offside there. As a rule of thumb (simplifying of course) the rule says: Did the defender mess up? Yes: no offise. No: Offside. For me, the defender in Belgium vs. Russia messes up way more than the Inter defender.
DeleteMy idea for a simplified rule would be: Did the defender have a realistic chance to play the ball well?
DeleteAnd "well" here means a mixture of "controlled" and "optimal".
BTW, as I am reading elsewhere that there was surprise about this change so shortly before the start of the season in some associations:
ReplyDeleteDFB already published the change a month ago. Not with the exact wording, but with the general idea, that playing the ball by the defender needs to be done in a controlled manner to cancel an offside position.
So it can't be a brand-new idea by IFAB, which they were hiding until yesterday.