[Football] Not interfering with play

[Fat Boy Fat]

Mmm yeh - I assume what happens before N’didi heads it is irrelevant though as he’s only offside once he heads it and Barnes has moved out the way a bit?

But he is only in the position he was because he was seeking to impede Sanchez!

I think the ref/Lino got it right technically...

Anyway as the late great Bill Shankly apparently said, “if a players not interfering with play, or seeking to gain an advantage, he should be” (or words to that effect).

 

[Wardy's twin]

Have to say, having seen it all properly on MOTD I’m gonna back track.

Pen - foul by Maupay - but so was Tarkowski’s on Maupay at Burnley so evens it up.

Offside 1 - no question - offside.

Offside 2 - he does push Sanchez and get in his way but when N’didi heads it he’s not interfering at all - should have been allowed.

Agree with MOTD pundits here. But my word last season and the season before we had way more shit luck than most teams - so I’ll take it, obviously…!

I do also remember the cup game that was a bit sketchy when a few of our players thought the ball that had gone out was going to be thrown back on etc and they took a quick corner - I’m sure there are other decisions Leicester have got against us but can’t recall - so swings n roundabouts…

Offside 2 thought Barnes stops Sanchez going for the cross so interfering with play.

Thought penalty decision was probably wrong but Vestegard was waving his arm around and IMO did not have to...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Have to say, having seen it all properly on MOTD I’m gonna back track.

Pen - foul by Maupay - but so was Tarkowski’s on Maupay at Burnley so evens it up.

Offside 1 - no question - offside.

Offside 2 - he does push Sanchez and get in his way but when N’didi heads it he’s not interfering at all - should have been allowed.

Agree with MOTD pundits here. But my word last season and the season before we had way more shit luck than most teams - so I’ll take it, obviously…!

I do also remember the cup game that was a bit sketchy when a few of our players thought the ball that had gone out was going to be thrown back on etc and they took a quick corner - I’m sure there are other decisions Leicester have got against us but can’t recall - so swings n roundabouts…

Both MOTD pundits were strikers so usually give goal scorers the benefit of the doubt.
Offside 2 Barnes fouled Sanchez by pushing him and prevented him from moving into a goal saving position.

 

[BadFish]

Both Leicester players made questionable decisions that put the onus of the officials to make another one.

Maupay clearly fouled the Leicester player, but he broke free and somewhat bizarrely attempted to handle the ball.

( The actual handball came from a header onto his flailing arm after he had missed it )

What was he doing ? Trying to stop play ? Alert the referee to the foul ? Bonkers. You are running the risk of the officials missing the foul, which they did.

As for the offsides, well it's clearly a border-line "interfering/not interfering with play" tactic that Leicester employ. It will work for them sometimes and other times not.

My guess is that it usually works because usually the opposition have at least on player on the post. We normally do too don't we?

A little tactical credit needs to go to Potter here methinks.

The reasons a player goes on the keeper is to interfere with their control of the ball in front the corner.

Correct decisions all the way.

Maupay was lucky with the pen though. Watch his 'i wasn't doing anything' acting as Duffy heads it. Brilliant!!

We deserve a bit of luck after last season.

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

Offside 2 thought Barnes stops Sanchez going for the cross so interfering with play.

But the cross was a corner, and you can't be offside from a corner, and the offence was offside not a foul.

I think we got lucky, particularly on the second one, but we've deposited a heap of bad luck in the piggy bank, so I've got no issue with making a few positive withdrawals now.

 

[Dick Head]

If you are standing in front of the keeper you are stopping him from seeing the ball or moving to it and therefore you are materially affecting the game. The two decisions for offside were correct.

The question is whether Potter, in a moment of crazy genius, analysed that keeper blocking was a tactic and started the zonal line ahead of Barnes to draw the offsides or whether Barns, having fallen foul of the lino once, did the same thing again, which would make him incredibly thick.

Either way, once could be lucky but twice is a pattern.

Three times is a pattern.






#PedantAlert

 

[mreprice]

Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, but three times is enemy action [Mr Bond]

 

[mreprice]

The fact the waters have been so muddied with various rule changes and versions of the rule doesn’t detract from the point that Barnes was seeking to gain an advantage by giving Sanchez something to think about, i.e. interfering with, and wouldn’t have been in an offside position if he hadn’t.

A neutral friend of mine said exactly this: he wasn’t in his line of sight, he wasn’t hindering him getting to the ball, but he was interfering with his mind by giving him something to think about.

But neither of us had any idea whether mental interference is allowed.

 

[BadFish]

A neutral friend of mine said exactly this: he wasn’t in his line of sight, he wasn’t hindering him getting to the ball, but he was interfering with his mind by giving him something to think about.

But neither of us had any idea whether mental interference is allowed.

It looks to me that for both goals he is pushing and physically interfering with Sanchez just before the touch for the goal. Logic tells me that this is enough interference to be involved in the play.

It seems to be fairly simple to ask the question if he is not interfering then what is he doing there?

I hate this part of the offisde rule, for this reason.

“If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn’t be on the pitch.” - Brian Clough

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Three times is a pattern.






#PedantAlert

I thought three times was a lady?

 

[Goldstone1976]

I thought three times was a lady?

Three times is too many for me these days.

OT: I haven’t seen any replays yet, but I’m certain that my reaction will be ‘thanks for the 3 points Kasper’ when I do. By all accounts, it appears that I might hold a different opinion if I were a Fox, but I’m not.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

First time I can remember thinking we got the better of the decisions.
And we did.


Leicester will definitely feel aggrieved, it's not a nice feeling. Tough shit.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

But the cross was a corner, and you can't be offside from a corner, and the offence was offside not a foul.

I think we got lucky, particularly on the second one, but we've deposited a heap of bad luck in the piggy bank, so I've got no issue with making a few positive withdrawals now.

The point here, and clearly the way the ref and Lino saw it, was that Barnes was in that offside position as he had been impeding Sanchez prior to the kick being taken, ergo interfering with play.

Without full knowledge it is more than possible the officials talked about this sort of thing before the game started in their pre-match briefing. To happen twice in the same game appears more than a coincidence and I believe was being actively looked for by the officials.

Having said all that, the penalty should have been scrubbed by VAR, as Maupay was clearly holding his man, something which could quite clearly be missed in live play, but not with the aid of multi camera and slow mo views.

As many have said, it’s the rub of the green, and we were owed some luck!

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Three times is too many for me these days.

OT: I haven’t seen any replays yet, but I’m certain that my reaction will be ‘thanks for the 3 points Kasper’ when I do. By all accounts, it appears that I might hold a different opinion if I were a Fox, but I’m not.

If the boot was on the other foot I would be fuming at the ref for the penalty and fuming at our own player who was stupid enough to do the same thing twice, having already been pulled up for it...!

 

[Icy Gull]

Can’t see any more than the headlines in the Argus but was it the fact that Sanchez was claiming corners and crosses with ease that made Rogers tell Barnes to stand in front of him and put him off? If so case closed as he was put there to interfere with Sanchez ability to claim the ball and it worked, illegally according to the officials.

 

[Doonhamer7]

I’m still a believer in Bill Shankly statement - “If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.”

 

[tigertim68]

But the cross was a corner, and you can't be offside from a corner, and the offence was offside not a foul.

I think we got lucky, particularly on the second one, but we've deposited a heap of bad luck in the piggy bank, so I've got no issue with making a few positive withdrawals now.

You can be offside from a corner , the only dead ball situation you cannot be offside from is a throw in

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

You can be offside from a corner , the only dead ball situation you cannot be offside from is a throw in

Partly wrong, you cannot be offside from a goal kick, throw-in or corner if you receive the ball directly.

 

[Hugo Rune]

My guess is that it usually works because usually the opposition have at least on player on the post. We normally do too don't we?

A little tactical credit needs to go to Potter here methinks.

The reasons a player goes on the keeper is to interfere with their control of the ball in front the corner.

Correct decisions all the way.

Maupay was lucky with the pen though. Watch his 'i wasn't doing anything' acting as Duffy heads it. Brilliant!!

We deserve a bit of luck after last season.

I agree but we’re playing a high risk game. You can see that this tactic was done on purpose, our back line is very high on the corner, no players on the post.

But it seems high risk to me. Are we relying on an opposition player being offside? Dunk, Duffy or Burn should be stopping the header, Ndidi should have been marked tighter. I hope we don’t use this tactic again because it clearly gave the opposition an advantage in getting to the ball first as our back line seemed more worried about positioning (and playing the opposition offside) than marking.

 

[Nitram]

Marvellous watching the away fans celebrating the goals and then pundits and others moaning. Payback time and loving it.