laitimes

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

author:Live it
"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

Live Bar October 11 News In the early hours of this morning, France won the championship with a 2-1 victory over Spain in the Uefa League final, and the third goal of the game caused great controversy.

In the 79th minute of the match, Theo directly stopped, Spanish defender Garcia reached out and touched the ball, and finally Mbappe got the ball and scored a single knife. In the end, France won 2-1 with this goal.

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

After the match, the Spanish player was dissatisfied with the penalty, believing that Mbappe was in an offside position at the moment of Theo pass, and the ball should be judged offside.

However, according to the Spanish players and the referee's coach, the referee believed that Garcia touched the ball first, and Mbappe was not considered an offside position, so the goal was judged to be valid. This view is not the same as our usual perception of the ball, so what is the basis for the referee's decision?

First of all, we must be clear: there is no foul play in offside positions. An international group responsible for discussing and deciding on changes to the rules of football, .

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

Mbappe is indeed in an offside position at the moment of Theo's pass, but whether he is an offside foul must be determined by the following rules: whether the player in the offside position interferes with the game, interferes with the opponent or profits at the moment when the teammate processes or touches the ball.

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

Based on the situation shown above, the referee team believes that Mbappe's movement before the ball cannot be considered as interfering with the game or interfering with the opponent. So is Mbappe's final goal a profit?

The rules established by the IFAB stipulate: "A player in an offside position who receives a ball consciously touched by the opposing player (except for any conscious save by the opposing player) cannot be considered to be an advantage." ”

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

It follows from this that the referees on duty determined that Spanish defender Garcia was consciously touching the ball and that the touch was not a save, so Mbappe's subsequent ball could not be counted as offside.

So how to determine whether the opposing player is an ordinary touch or an active save?

The rules explain it this way: "Saving a ball is when a player uses any part of his body other than his hand (except for the goalkeeper in the penalty area) to block a ball that is about to enter the goal or is close to the goal." According to this interpretation, then Garcia's touch ball obviously cannot be considered a "save".

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

In summary, according to the current rules of football, Mbappe's goal was not offside and was valid.

But as Garcia said after the game: "So what should I do?" Let go of a step and then let him run over? "The current rules seem to be less friendly to defenders and more clearly encourage attack.

"Obviously I should have done that. I hope they can change this rule one day, but the fact now hurts me. Garcia added.

"Offside rule bottoming out" "Receiving the ball that the opposing player intentionally touches cannot be considered a profit"

(Shirakawa)

Read on