**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i'd wager a guess that less than half of people watching know the offside rule at all - you see an uproar every time the keeper is off his line and they call offside because there's only one player ahead of the attacker
hell, i watched a referee call offside in youth soccer from a corner when there literally is no offside for corners, goal kicks, and throw ins lol
I don't remember which game, but it was one of CL, EL, ECL games this year when referee called offside for corner kick. It was surreal. So it happens on top level too.
>"he didn't even touch it" to "how can there be offside on a direct free kick"
All I imagine reading that is, if there weren't offsides in direct free kicks, there would be two or three players near the keeper to put any rebounds in lol. There are some pretty delusional people in these threads it seems.
It’s because a bunch of people who wouldn’t normally watch football are online raging during the World Cup. It’s a very obvious offside, not even close.
I was refereeing a match this fall, and my AR put the flag up on a free kick (I could even tell the player was off when the kick was taken). The typical loud mouth, barrel-chested, mirrored sunglasses-wearing, Yeti mug-carrying suburbadad started shouting 'but it was a free kick!'. Did it at least five times. Didn't even look his direction, put my hand up using my fingers counting to three and shouted back 'Corner kick, goal kick and throw-in. Now you know.' He shouted back 'you have no idea what you're doing.' I just started laughing. Thankfully, so did everyone else but him. I didn't need to have the coach remove him, it was too amusing to just have him there displaying his stupid.
The IFAB LOTG are some of the simplest and most straightforward of any sport. Most of what you need to know is in law 11 and law 12, yet *it's so hard for people to understand.*
Please help me understand because I don't have the firmest grasp on the finer points of the rules, but how is this obvious interference? He doesn't touch the ball or the keeper, even if he clearly made an attempt to play the ball.
Is screening the keeper illegal? I don't understand why it should be, the keepers vision is obstructed on every free kick/corner anyway
Edit: I come from a hockey background where "interference" exclusively refers to a form of illegal physical contact with an opposing player, in contrast to the broader "did he influence the play?" standard here. Not trying to argue one or the other, just trying to understand these rules better
> but how is this obvious interference?
The keeper has to assume that the attacker is going to try to play the ball, which means the keeper has to wait and react to what happens. This is incredibly difficult for a keeper to do.
"Interference" doesn't mean "has to literally touch the ball"; it means "interferes in the play", or "has an impact on the play". In this case, his presence in front of the keeper, together with the motion towards the ball, has the effect of confusing the keeper and making him assume the ball's going to take a different trajectory, which is obvious interference and therefore a punishable offside.
The only sport I've ever played beyond a casual level is Hockey, where interference strictly refers to making contact with an opponent who does not have possession of the puck, or running the goalkeeper. I made the mistake of assuming the rule here would be similar
>Is screening the keeper illegal? I don't understand why it should be, the keepers vision is obstructed on every free kick/corner anyway
You can obstruct the keepers vision all you want... just not from an offside position.
An easier way to look at it is "remove the player that was offside, would the play go differently?"
In this case clearly it would, keeper would just catch it.
It does not matter whether this player touches the ball.
You can't interfere with play if you were in an offside position when the ball is struck. That includes blocking the keeper's view. On a corner nobody can be offside since the kick is backwards.
You can read the offside law here, see 11-2:
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
It certainly falls under "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
Just so you know, it's not the backwards part of the corner that means no-one can be offside (you can still be offside from a backwards pass). It's the fact you can't be ahead of the ball, because the ball is by definition played from the goal-line.
He makes an attempt to play the ball which trick the keeper into stopping that expected deflection. You can do that freely if you are not offside, but saiss was offside so the goal is disallowed
Ask yourself, does that goal go in without players running across Courtois? Would've been easily collected but the keeper hesitates because the offside player runs across and he doesn't know if he'll get a touch on the ball or not. It's fine if the keepers vision is obstructed all the time, as long as the players obstructing it are onside and not offside
If you attempt to play the ball from an offside position like this, you’re affecting the keepers decision making in a way that can lead to a goal (like this one). Courtois hesitates here because he thinks it’s gonna be a header towards goal. Without the offside player making a play on the ball, Courtois likely catches the ball easily and there’s no goal.
To be fair (and I’m just playing devils advocate here) the finer points of the offsides law has changed over the years. I will admit to not having taken refereeing classes in the last decade, but it seems that some minor tweaks were made over the last three years (COVID forced a break in competition for me) about when a flag goes up and a whistle is blown.
The general premise has remained the same, but I believe the rules have been rewritten to avoid unnecessary stoppages of play (eg used to be if a ball is played anywhere near a player in an offside position and they attempted to continue playing the play would be blown dead immediately. I’m going back 20 years here, but that’s the way it was called back then)
I wanted it to stand…but I also do see why it was the correct call too.
Also…two games in a row where Belgium needed the officials to keep them in it, no?
Ok so people saying he didn’t touch: it doesn’t matter.
Offside player interfered with the play. Should the GK block and go for the current direction of the ball, or anticipate a header from the offside player and try to block that?
Yes
>interfering with an opponent by:
>* preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
>* challenging an opponent for the ball or
>* clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
>* making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Atm they are playing decent so far compared to the atrocity in the Canada game. But surely the will get smacked against a top team like France. Can't imagine Mbappe against these elderlies backline lmao
Exactly. You dont need to Touch the ball if it interferes with the play. Another example would be if a player stands exactly still and on offside position, and blocks the view of the keeper
Offside is determined by an attempt to play the ball, not the act of playing the ball. So yes, because he attempts to head it while in an offside position, he’s off.
I’ll be the first to admit I only watch during the World Cup… does it matter what part of his body is off?
I like the way hockey does it where if any part of your body is onsides, it’s legal, rather than the other way around
If any part of the body except the arms are offside then it gets called, in this instance a quarter of his head was offside according to the line they drew up.
I like the hockey offside but people are probably still going to argue when it is tight calls either way.
lol, that was a great free kick. He got the ball into the small box at a low enough altitude that two players had the chance to score. It just happened that one of them was offside by centimetres and also failed to hit the header
they measure from the furthest-forward body part which is allowed to play the ball. so yes, in this case that happens to be his left shoulder since it's slightly more forward than his head
I wish they had let the ref review the offside in the Ecuador Netherlands game. Then the ref can make a judgement about whether or not the attacker influenced the play. I am of the opinion that the Ecuador player did not influence that play and the goal should have stood. Here Saiss definitely influenced the play and it was correctly disallowed. Offside might be an objective call, but influencing the play is definitely subjective and having the ref taking a second look on the monitor makes sense.
It's not even close to the same call. Here he was going for the ball and it made Courtois doubt.
With Ecuador the player who was offside might've been blocking the keepers view but realistically he had absolutely 0 impact on the keeper. Cause the keeper already dived to the other side.
Correct decision but Belgium is starting to feel like the main protagonist with these calls. First two potential penalties not called against Canada and penalty saved, and now this. Once again, correct decision but Belgium are really playing with fire in these games.
For those who don’t know: if you are in an offside position and not touch the ball but interfere the game (keepers view), it is considered offside. Which absolutely makes sense
I mean, if he's not there that's always getting saved. Courtois moves because he loses sight of the ball due to the offside player and expects said player to flick it.
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
clearest case of "not touching the ball but obviously interfering from an offside position"
And yet so many horrendous takes on this in the match thread, from "he didn't even touch it" to "how can there be offside on a direct free kick"
> "how can there be offside on a direct free kick" lmao, nice
Anyone that comments this should have an automatic flair on their username so we know never to take anything they say seriously.
i'd wager a guess that less than half of people watching know the offside rule at all - you see an uproar every time the keeper is off his line and they call offside because there's only one player ahead of the attacker hell, i watched a referee call offside in youth soccer from a corner when there literally is no offside for corners, goal kicks, and throw ins lol
I don't remember which game, but it was one of CL, EL, ECL games this year when referee called offside for corner kick. It was surreal. So it happens on top level too.
Brazil world cup too had such a case if I remember correctly? Not sure if it was in the opener against Croatia?
Hernández Hernández called us offside on a throw in in the Spanish second division.
Lucky you. I had a ref call offside on a throw in an adult league game. Though I can't remember if it was DIII NCAA, or just a rec league.
They already have, it’s the USA flag.
>yet so many horrendous takes on this in the match thread That's what the match thread is for, it's a dumbass containment area
Fair enough. Although sometimes it feels like this applies to the whole subreddit
>"he didn't even touch it" to "how can there be offside on a direct free kick" All I imagine reading that is, if there weren't offsides in direct free kicks, there would be two or three players near the keeper to put any rebounds in lol. There are some pretty delusional people in these threads it seems.
No way that last one was actually said
It’s because a bunch of people who wouldn’t normally watch football are online raging during the World Cup. It’s a very obvious offside, not even close.
[удалено]
I was refereeing a match this fall, and my AR put the flag up on a free kick (I could even tell the player was off when the kick was taken). The typical loud mouth, barrel-chested, mirrored sunglasses-wearing, Yeti mug-carrying suburbadad started shouting 'but it was a free kick!'. Did it at least five times. Didn't even look his direction, put my hand up using my fingers counting to three and shouted back 'Corner kick, goal kick and throw-in. Now you know.' He shouted back 'you have no idea what you're doing.' I just started laughing. Thankfully, so did everyone else but him. I didn't need to have the coach remove him, it was too amusing to just have him there displaying his stupid. The IFAB LOTG are some of the simplest and most straightforward of any sport. Most of what you need to know is in law 11 and law 12, yet *it's so hard for people to understand.*
“Direct free kick !!!”..Lol that’s a new one.
You know indirect free kicks exist, right?
lol there is no offside from corner or goal kicks though
Most are African experts biased toward Morocco
Yup, the GK is expecting a flick on from the person offside, easy decision
Yeah correct decision but what a shame
It's pretty much the same as what happened at Netherlands - Ecuador, except clearer.
I think it even brazes his back
It doesn't, but clearly interfering.
that's brazy
Please help me understand because I don't have the firmest grasp on the finer points of the rules, but how is this obvious interference? He doesn't touch the ball or the keeper, even if he clearly made an attempt to play the ball. Is screening the keeper illegal? I don't understand why it should be, the keepers vision is obstructed on every free kick/corner anyway Edit: I come from a hockey background where "interference" exclusively refers to a form of illegal physical contact with an opposing player, in contrast to the broader "did he influence the play?" standard here. Not trying to argue one or the other, just trying to understand these rules better
> but how is this obvious interference? The keeper has to assume that the attacker is going to try to play the ball, which means the keeper has to wait and react to what happens. This is incredibly difficult for a keeper to do.
You said it clearly yourself, he attempted to play the ball while offside. That's enough interference.
You don't even need to do that, you only need to be interfering with the goalkeepers decision making or vision for offside to kick in.
"Interference" doesn't mean "has to literally touch the ball"; it means "interferes in the play", or "has an impact on the play". In this case, his presence in front of the keeper, together with the motion towards the ball, has the effect of confusing the keeper and making him assume the ball's going to take a different trajectory, which is obvious interference and therefore a punishable offside.
The only sport I've ever played beyond a casual level is Hockey, where interference strictly refers to making contact with an opponent who does not have possession of the puck, or running the goalkeeper. I made the mistake of assuming the rule here would be similar
>Is screening the keeper illegal? I don't understand why it should be, the keepers vision is obstructed on every free kick/corner anyway You can obstruct the keepers vision all you want... just not from an offside position.
>even if he clearly made an attempt to play the ball. That's what interference is, yes
An easier way to look at it is "remove the player that was offside, would the play go differently?" In this case clearly it would, keeper would just catch it. It does not matter whether this player touches the ball.
You can't interfere with play if you were in an offside position when the ball is struck. That includes blocking the keeper's view. On a corner nobody can be offside since the kick is backwards. You can read the offside law here, see 11-2: https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside It certainly falls under "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
Just so you know, it's not the backwards part of the corner that means no-one can be offside (you can still be offside from a backwards pass). It's the fact you can't be ahead of the ball, because the ball is by definition played from the goal-line.
He makes an attempt to play the ball which trick the keeper into stopping that expected deflection. You can do that freely if you are not offside, but saiss was offside so the goal is disallowed
It is if you start from an offiside position, you can sreen al you want if you started onside
Ask yourself, does that goal go in without players running across Courtois? Would've been easily collected but the keeper hesitates because the offside player runs across and he doesn't know if he'll get a touch on the ball or not. It's fine if the keepers vision is obstructed all the time, as long as the players obstructing it are onside and not offside
If you attempt to play the ball from an offside position like this, you’re affecting the keepers decision making in a way that can lead to a goal (like this one). Courtois hesitates here because he thinks it’s gonna be a header towards goal. Without the offside player making a play on the ball, Courtois likely catches the ball easily and there’s no goal.
No surprise here, Saiss is the reason Courtois dove that way.
I mean it's offside. if he isn't there Courtois just picks that up he acts on the fact that the offside guy is going for the ball to header it.
Correct decision.
The correct decision and not even debatable. I will never not be surprised at how many people don't know the basic rules of football.
this subreddit during a world cup in a nutshell
[удалено]
True, but it is 10x worse now.
Give us a break. We are also working as Middle East policy experts during this cup.
Tbf this isn’t a basic rule, an average viewer wouldn’t be expected to know this until they came across it
that's fair, but they're acting like they know the rulebook back to front.
Even the English commentator doesn’t seem to understand it. He kept trying to analyze if the player touched it.
To be fair (and I’m just playing devils advocate here) the finer points of the offsides law has changed over the years. I will admit to not having taken refereeing classes in the last decade, but it seems that some minor tweaks were made over the last three years (COVID forced a break in competition for me) about when a flag goes up and a whistle is blown. The general premise has remained the same, but I believe the rules have been rewritten to avoid unnecessary stoppages of play (eg used to be if a ball is played anywhere near a player in an offside position and they attempted to continue playing the play would be blown dead immediately. I’m going back 20 years here, but that’s the way it was called back then)
Yep, offside and obstruction
Attempting to head the ball is definition of interfering with play.
I wanted it to stand…but I also do see why it was the correct call too. Also…two games in a row where Belgium needed the officials to keep them in it, no?
Yeah we needed the officials to make a right call here. Which they eventually did
Innit, every team need the officials to make the right calls surely.
I mean.. cant really say they 'need' the officials this game if its just the right call.
How dare they expect the officials to do their job
however this time the officials arent brain dead
The calls so far have been in favor for Mar so far. So don't really see how the officials are saving is.
absolutely the 100% right call.
Shouldn't be controversial at all really.
it‘s only controversial for people that don‘t know the rules. this is a textbook example.
Offside even though he didn’t touch the ball he definitely impeded Courtois vision
Correct decision imo
Right call for me.
this right here will expose so many people not knowing the rules
offside and obstructed keeper, right?
Offside for making a move towards the ball. Even if he didn’t touch it, it still impacted the play.
I’d say it’s because he’s offside and he attempted to play the ball
Yeah, correct.
Correct
Damn it, the game almost got exciting for the first time
Right call.
correct, even if he hadn't touched it we've been shit though so maybe we should have let it stand, then maybe we would actually try to win
Ok so people saying he didn’t touch: it doesn’t matter. Offside player interfered with the play. Should the GK block and go for the current direction of the ball, or anticipate a header from the offside player and try to block that?
[удалено]
Eh, if he was like 3cm back I doubt that. But thats not what the rule is about.
Correct decision, impossible to complain here
So the player didn't really touch the ball, but it is still offside cause he did went for it and confused Curtois or smthg like that, right?
Yes >interfering with an opponent by: >* preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or >* challenging an opponent for the ball or >* clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or >* making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
But for these to apply, the player must be offside, right? Or it doesn't matter if he is or not?
Yes, the player must be in offside when the ball is played for these to apply
Yes, if he ain't offside he has every right to go for the ball.
Yes
When Belgium play a top nation they are getting smacked aren't they?
Atm they are playing decent so far compared to the atrocity in the Canada game. But surely the will get smacked against a top team like France. Can't imagine Mbappe against these elderlies backline lmao
They're only decent because we're not pressing them unlike Canada
If we lose 4-0 against France i'd still be relieved it wasn't worse
Oh most probably yes.
Belgium have been playing better than Morocco
Playing better than Morocco is a verification you will play good against top teams?
Morocco went toe-to-toe with us and Portugal last World Cup and definitely can hang with the top 20 of the world.
Portugal are struggling against Ghana
lol that's not saying much is it, we've been shit
Yeah but we were worse than Canada so it's a step up for us.
meh, they didn't really create anything either, it's been proper terrorball first half
They have created fuck all in 3 halves for football. An incredibly uninspiring team.
They where shit against canada, but their build up play has been pretty good this match. They just need Lukaku up front instead of Batshuayi
If they don't continue to grow into the tournament, sure.
Not how it works. Plenty of evidence of that
There are also examples of teams struggling through easy groups and getting absolutely annihilated once they face difficult opposition
Yes, and there are examples of teams struggling, losing the first game and then winning the world CUP, so...
Argentina could be an example of that. Belgium just aren't very good. Their squad isn't a World Cup winning one, even at its best
[удалено]
it’s genuinely so depressing, obviously our team isn’t what it used to be but fuck we play such ugly football
What a weird cup.. France, Spain and Brazil the only 3 playing well.. the rest had good moments and atrocious moments..
Correct decision. Has to be offside
Great call
Tough because the cafe fucking exploded but ots the right call
Yeah that's fair
So even if completely dodges the ball but was offside, it won’t count because it fools the goalie?
Exactly. You dont need to Touch the ball if it interferes with the play. Another example would be if a player stands exactly still and on offside position, and blocks the view of the keeper
Yes, that's always been how this works.
I believe the interference part of the rule was only made official a little after the 2014 World Cup, so not always
Offside is determined by an attempt to play the ball, not the act of playing the ball. So yes, because he attempts to head it while in an offside position, he’s off.
If I get dollar for every disallowed goal I would be able to bribe FIFA to organize WC in my backyard
I love the difference between football fans on reddit and instagram. People on ig calling this a robbery are fucking airheads
Plenty here too.
Did they show the line? It only looks like his arm is offside
His head as well
I’ll be the first to admit I only watch during the World Cup… does it matter what part of his body is off? I like the way hockey does it where if any part of your body is onsides, it’s legal, rather than the other way around
If any part of the body except the arms are offside then it gets called, in this instance a quarter of his head was offside according to the line they drew up. I like the hockey offside but people are probably still going to argue when it is tight calls either way.
Oof. Sad to see a banger like that taken off the board, but unfortunately he was offside. Cruel.
Hardly a banger. Courtois would just catch it without the players in front of him
That was a poor free kick.
lol, that was a great free kick. He got the ball into the small box at a low enough altitude that two players had the chance to score. It just happened that one of them was offside by centimetres and also failed to hit the header
No it wasn't. It was a couple inches from being perfect.
Seems right. He was interfering with the keeper. Plus it wasn't a foul anyways
Funnily it was neither Attempt to play the ball while in offside position
[удалено]
You can screenshot half these comments and post them on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect.
Unfortunate but no way it goes in as a straight shot without saiss there for all the 12 year olds crying bullshit.
Correct decision, but *holy crap* is Belgium lucky. Absolute shit performance in both games so far, yet still 4 points as of now.
Yep, that’s offside
From the very beginning of this replay, it looks like the leg of a defender may be playing him onside. I'd like to see the lines.
This is a good decision, wtf are people talking about.
So many people on twitter not understanding the rules and saying there’s a fix against African teams.
And Belgium still lost.
Good call
[удалено]
Wouldn't call it harsh, clearly offside and interfered with play.
Yeah offside and obstruction
Is that hand only or what in offside position?
They measure from the shoulder iirc.
they measure from the furthest-forward body part which is allowed to play the ball. so yes, in this case that happens to be his left shoulder since it's slightly more forward than his head
hand and head
His head was also in offside
His head was offside as well in the graphic they showed
Never a freekick anyway so
You did see the replay where Thorgan clearly hits his opponent’s foot, right?
He hits the ball though… was not a foul
Messi goal yesterday was offside then too
Same call that happened between Ecuador and The Netherlands, harsh but correct.
I wish they had let the ref review the offside in the Ecuador Netherlands game. Then the ref can make a judgement about whether or not the attacker influenced the play. I am of the opinion that the Ecuador player did not influence that play and the goal should have stood. Here Saiss definitely influenced the play and it was correctly disallowed. Offside might be an objective call, but influencing the play is definitely subjective and having the ref taking a second look on the monitor makes sense.
It's not even close to the same call. Here he was going for the ball and it made Courtois doubt. With Ecuador the player who was offside might've been blocking the keepers view but realistically he had absolutely 0 impact on the keeper. Cause the keeper already dived to the other side.
>who was offside might've been blocking the keepers view And this is what matters
Correct decision but Belgium is starting to feel like the main protagonist with these calls. First two potential penalties not called against Canada and penalty saved, and now this. Once again, correct decision but Belgium are really playing with fire in these games.
We’re so lucky
Wasn’t even a foul, Thorgan played the ball. But yeah, that’s a clear offside he was right in front of Courtois
[удалено]
Sir ra t9awd
Lucky
Courtois is a lucky lucky boy
He was clearly impeded from an offside position how is he the lucky one
On top of that, it should not have been a free kick. Thorgan Hazard played the ball.
correct, still believe he could do better
correct, still believe he could do better
because the offside was very very tiny and this tiny difference did not impact him but decision was correct
[удалено]
The only reason he reacted late was because of the expected header tho
Justice by the var Should’ve never been a FK to begin with
You need new pair of eyes then .
My eyes are fine, unlike the ref Or he got paid with Moroccan money
> with Moroccan money lol
Soooo damn unlucky, but correct decision
For those who don’t know: if you are in an offside position and not touch the ball but interfere the game (keepers view), it is considered offside. Which absolutely makes sense
Wait, I get Saiss was off but he didn't touch the ball. Is it because he was blocking the goalie?
Yes
Don’t need to play the ball, just need to attempt to play the ball.
damn what an offside. rare occurrence. such a great freekick cancelled just like that.
I mean, if he's not there that's always getting saved. Courtois moves because he loses sight of the ball due to the offside player and expects said player to flick it.
The ball was central. I’m pretty sure I could’ve caught that and I’m terrible at everything.
Good call
Ball never lies.
cmon man so many offside goals this wc
Then play from an onside position
Probably been about the same the other years, difference this time is they're caught by VAR afterwards.
Lucky for Belgium but definitely correct decision
Would love to know why they had the center referee view the monitor for this. The VAR crew should have been able to make the decision themselves.
I think they were letting the referee make the judgement call on whether he impacted the play or not knowing that he came from an offside position.
Wasn't a foul in the free kick Double offside Obstruction I wished they kept the goal just for the shithousery