Should that Benzema goal have stood?

[Olecurls99]

Ball falls between 3 players.
Valverde hits it forward
Konate knocks it back
Fabinho knocks it back towards Benzema

If Valverde's initial touch had grazed Konate and carried on to Benzema then that would be offside, but the fact that he cleared it, only to hit off Fabinho would put it into another phase for me, and the goal should have stood.

The rule to protect defenders trying to defend against a clearly offside player isn't relevant in this case because nobody is trying to stop the ball getting to Benzema. The last touch was Fabinho and it wasn't a graze. Fair goal

 

[weetee]

That depends whether you consider Valverde's touch a shot and Konate's action a block. To me Konate deliberately plays the ball away from goal.

Sure. But Valverde hits the ball ergo forces Konaté to do what he did (trying to reach the ball first since Valverde wouldn't have been offside if he'd scored a goal). And in that split second neither Konaté nor Fabinho had control over the ball at any moment (Konaté did have control over it before Alisson came along so if that would have bounced somehow to Benz it wouldn't have been offside) - that's what I'm thinking and obviously the VAR. Others might see that differently but no way is this such a

The more interesting case would have been if Valverde would go for the ball but wouldn't touch it but the rest occurs as it did. Imho it still should have been offside but that's a gut feeling.

 

[cyberman]

This is a good angle of it. To me Konate is attempting to play the ball and does so.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The more i see it the more I cant see Konate being a block. He goes through the ball ffs

 

[Offsideagain]

I’m convinced that a similar goal was given against United and the expert pundits ‘Shearer, Sourness’ etc’ said it didn’t matter if the player was in an offside position as it hit a United player.

 

[Bubz27]

I don't know what they saw

They saw the opposing team and a Liverpool Football Club badge on their shirts.

 

[Withnail]

Sure. But Valverde hits the ball ergo forces Konaté to do what he did (trying to reach the ball first since Valverde wouldn't have been offside if he'd scored a goal). And in that split second neither Konaté nor Fabinho had control over the ball at any moment (Konaté did have control over it before Alisson came along so if that would have bounced somehow to Benz it wouldn't have been offside) - that's what I'm thinking and obviously the VAR. Others might see that differently but no way is this such a

The more interesting case would have been if Valverde would go for the ball but wouldn't touch it but the rest occurs as it did. Imho it still should have been offside but that's a gut feeling.

Look at the replay I posted. Konate is chasing the ball after Allison knocks it away from him. Konate goes to play the ball. It's a bit of a 50/50 or 33/33/33 really and the touch by Valverde does not prevent Konate from playing it. He goes through the ball only for it to deflect back off Fabinho.

 

[golden_blunder]

Who cares? Evil was diverted anyway

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Who cares? Evil was diverted anyway

Benzema probably does, it puts the cherry on top of his case for Ballon d'Or.

 

[acnumber9]

No.

The decision is fecking clear as day.

Some of you sound like you've never watched a game of football.
First by questioning the goalkeeper offside rule, second by questioning common sense.

None of the touches were controlled in any way. Whether you deem them as deliberate or not.
The rules as simple and easily understood.
Can't fathom what you can't comprehend about them.

And yes, Valverde touches the ball first.

From IFAB:


A defending player (Team A) challenges an attacking player (Team B) and deliberately kicks the ball (no foul is committed). After that, the ball goes directly to another Team B player who is in an offside position. What is the correct decision?
The referee allows play to continue. There is no offside offence if a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball.

How have Konate and Fabinho not deliberately challenged for the ball? What do you think they were trying to do?

 

[acnumber9]

What is the difference with that goal and Coke's second goal here? I feel like the VAR room bottled it.

They absolutely did.

 

[GatoLoco]

Not even the referees agree on this

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Anustart89]

I don't understand that "behind the keeper but ahead of another player but still offside" rule.

For a player to be offside, he has to be ahead of the second-to-last defender. Usually, the last defender is the goalkeeper so the second-to-last defender is the last outfield player. The confusion stems from the fact that Alisson has gone past two outfield players, meaning that Benzema now has to be further from the goal than two outfield players in order to be onside.

Simply put: Pretend that Robertson is Alisson and Alisson is Robertson, and it becomes a very straightforward decision, yeah?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

From IFAB:


A defending player (Team A) challenges an attacking player (Team B) and deliberately kicks the ball (no foul is committed). After that, the ball goes directly to another Team B player who is in an offside position. What is the correct decision?
The referee allows play to continue. There is no offside offence if a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball.

How have Konate and Fabinho not deliberately challenged for the ball? What do you think they were trying to do?

The VAR gimps obviously tied them up in knots re deliberately playing the ball vs inadvertent deflection. They must have concluded that both Konate and Fabinho slid in to block Valverde’s shot, which subsequently deflected off them. Which is a different scenario to either of them beating Valverde to the ball and kicking it goalwards.

 

[golden_blunder]

Benzema probably does, it puts the cherry on top of his case for Ballon d'Or.

I’m sure he probably doesn’t think about it anymore as he polishes up his winners medal and bathes in champagne

 

[Longshanks]

Its the whole deliberate action thing again isnt it, if valverde has a shot and it hits a Liverpool player who isnt obviously trying to tackle him then fair enough that would be offside. But being as though both konate and fabinio are making tackles than they are both making deliberate attempts to play the ball it should be no offside and should stand.

 

[Spielmacher]

Hilarious the way professional pundits don't know the rules well enough to explain them and nothing events become 'controversial' . The amount of idiots on TV only really comes to light in times like this.

Or posters with thousands of posts on a football forum. There were an uncountable number of people who had never heard about the offside situation changing if it's the goalkeeper.

 

[Eriku]

So it was off side due to the Madrid player touching it initially? Didn't matter if it hit a Liverpool player after that?

As has been said a bunch in this thread, it has to be an intended pass. Same notion behind a goalie being able to gather up the ball after a tackle in the box even if the last person to touch it is on the same team, provided there was no intentional passing back.

 

[Withnail]

As has been said a bunch in this thread, it has to be an intended pass. Same notion behind a goalie being able to gather up the ball after a tackle in the box even if the last person to touch it is on the same team, provided there was no intentional passing back.

It doesn't have to be a pass and I've not seen that mentioned anywhere. The backpass rule is different.

 

[cyberman]

Its the whole deliberate action thing again isnt it, if valverde has a shot and it hits a Liverpool player who isnt obviously trying to tackle him then fair enough that would be offside. But being as though both konate and fabinio are making tackles than they are both making deliberate attempts to play the ball it should be no offside and should stand.

Exactly. Theres a set of criteria posted saying the outcome doesn't matter if the player intended to play the ball. Surely it coming off Fabinhos knee plays into the outcome being irrelevant?

 

[Eriku]

It doesn't have to be a pass and I've not seen that mentioned anywhere. The backpass rule is different.

“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.”

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

I guess there’s ambiguity there to bail out both views.

 

[The Purley King]

The VAR gimps obviously tied them up in knots re deliberately playing the ball vs inadvertent deflection. They must have concluded that both Konate and Fabinho slid in to block Valverde’s shot, which subsequently deflected off them. Which is a different scenario to either of them beating Valverde to the ball and kicking it goalwards.

But Valverde wasn't shooting

 

[Barnslig]

No, unless the ball is deemed to have been deflected off the opponent rather than deliberately played. That's the bone of contention here.

But both Konate and Fabinho are deliberately moving towards the ball with the intention to clear/play the ball, no? From the start the possession went as this, I believe? Benzema - Konate - Alisson - Valverde (I still haven't found any video where it's clear beyond doubt he touched it tbh) - Konate/Fabinho? I don't understand how two defenders can move towards the ball and actually become active in the play, but it not being deliberate?

 

[haru krentz]

Its a simple rule and one that hasn't changed in a very long time. You just always understood the offside rule to be that the attacker should be in line with the last defender, whereas the rule is that the attacker should be in line with the second to last opponent (and most times the second to last opponent is the last defender, with the keeper being the last opponent).

But who chooses a sport based on the simplicity of its rules anyway?

I did lolol but doesnt it mean an outfield player became goalie in that regard?

 

[Withnail]

“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.”

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

I guess there’s ambiguity there to bail out both views.

What I mean is that there's a difference between deliberately playing the ball and passing it. When you kick the ball anywhere to get it away from goal you're deliberately playing it but you're not passing it to anyone so it isn't a pass. There's no ambiguity there.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But Valverde wasn't shooting

What was he doing?

 

[Grande]

Technically I think they got this wrong. But I think that reflects how the rule is a mess and works against the spirit of what it is trying to achieve. It's nonsensical that a defender is punished for trying to block a through ball to a player they don't know is offside or not. That's not what the rule should be about in principle, rather it's a re-balancing of the rule in favour of attackers that leaves defenders in an impossible situation. Here both Liverpool touches are chaotic attempts to stop the ball reaching an offside player. They are not passes to an offside player which is the scenario the rule is trying to give attackers the benefit. They really need to sort out that distinction as, currently, the interpretation of 'deliberate' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But, the way the rule is written now, it ought to have been a goal.


Rule has changed since 2016.

I totally agree on the stupidity of the phrasing of the current rule. The distictions between ‘deliberately play’ ‘rebound’, ‘deflection’ and ‘deliberately save’ creates a muddled water. The rule should really just be about gaining an advantage from being in am offside position. so Benzema committed an offside offence from the perspective of the intention of the law.

I still think it is a clear offside even by the current wording. It is not a ‘deliberate play’ if it is a ‘deliberate save’, which is defined as trying to block or stop a ball ‘going into goal or close to goal’. Valverde’s touch i playing the ball toward the back post, so is close enough to goal in my opiniin. More decisively, the ball passes merely centimetres from Valverde’s foot before touching Konate’s foot, then centimetres to Fabinho’s foot, then knee. That is clearly three deflections or rebounds to me. Valverde is first on the ball, and that makes Konate’s touch a block or deflection. IFAB’s own illustrations (which I can’t post) shows a ball going at least ten metres as an example of a rebound/deflection.

So wether you go by what’s right, the intentions of the rules, or the rules as they are defined, I think it should definitely be rules offside. In addition I think they should simplify the rule again.

 

[Foxbatt]

The more i see it the more I cant see Konate being a block. He goes through the ball ffs

Yes it is a goal for sure. Konate was not a block. Alison messes it up after that. So no way Benzema is offside.

 

[Olecurls99]

As has been said a bunch in this thread, it has to be an intended pass. Same notion behind a goalie being able to gather up the ball after a tackle in the box even if the last person to touch it is on the same team, provided there was no intentional passing back.

Who intentionally passes the ball to an opponent? Absolute rubbish

 

[sullydnl]

How have Konate and Fabinho not deliberately challenged for the ball? What do you think they were trying to do?

Because there are guidelines for what constitutes deliberately playing the ball thay they don't meet.

 

[antohan]

Either it's offside or you just have to scrap the whole "who last touched the ball" stuff and make it offside regardless of allegiance (which wouldn't be a terrible idea really, Benzema was in an offside position).1

I hear a lot of theories about intent and accidental interventions... well yeah, only Steven Gerrard makes deliberate backpasses to opponents. If the defence is "he didn't mean to" just scrap the whole thing really.

 

[Mb194dc]

Because there are guidelines for what constitutes deliberately playing the ball thay they don't meet.

All those points are met in the attempt to play and clear the ball. In this case the pass is a clearance which the other Liverpool player gets in the way of. Go watch the video.

If the other Liverpool player doesn't get in the way, the defender would indeed have cleared the ball with a deliberate action.

Not sure what you're trying to argue.

 

[sullydnl]

All those points are met in the attempt to play and clear the ball. In this case the pass is a clearance which the other Liverpool player gets in the way of. Go watch the video.

If the other Liverpool player doesn't get in the way, the defender would indeed have cleared the ball with a deliberate action.

Not sure what you're trying to argue.

There is absolutely no way you can reasonably argue that the Liverpool player had time, options, space or distance when he touched the ball.

 

[Van Piorsing]

Alisson makes intervention, but at the same time he panics and cause troubling situation itself for his team by not catching the ball, as he sends it rolling near three players. That kind of mistake usually gets defending team punished, but suddenly not this time. These situation happen fairly often, but this instance interpretation was to save the team in trouble.

It's almost like Alisson screwed up a bit and got out of jail instantly, because of the supposed rule.

 

[acnumber9]

The VAR gimps obviously tied them up in knots re deliberately playing the ball vs inadvertent deflection. They must have concluded that both Konate and Fabinho slid in to block Valverde’s shot, which subsequently deflected off them. Which is a different scenario to either of them beating Valverde to the ball and kicking it goalwards.

That will be their excuse. But nothing in the rules say a blocked shot doesn’t count as a deliberate attempt to play the ball. If an attacker blocks a clearance and it falls to a player in an offside position you can bet the goal gets disallowed.

 

[BarcaSpurs]

What is the difference with that goal and Coke's second goal here? I feel like the VAR room bottled it.

Coke is clearly onside when the last Sevilla player touches it, completely different scenario.

 

[BarcaSpurs]

How did people feel about this? onside or off?

It feels like in this case sliding in was considered to be playing the ball, so the goal stood. Following that logic you could expect the Real goal to stand as well, but personally thought this goal should have been disallowed.

 

[acnumber9]

Because there are guidelines for what constitutes deliberately playing the ball thay they don't meet.

He meets number 1. Number 2, nobody forces him to play the ball. How much time is he allowed? Number 3 he blatantly has control of his actions, nobody pushed him into the ball. Number 4, how much space and distance is acceptable?

 

[christinaa]

Valid goal this.

I keep thinking of what the poor Liverpool fans were going through all those minutes waiting for the var result.

 

[Foxbatt]

I’m sure he probably doesn’t think about it anymore as he polishes up his winners medal and bathes in champagne

Just a correction. He is not going to bathe in Champagne.

 

[golden_blunder]

Just a correction. He is not going to bathe in Champagne.

Still don’t think he cares, they won