So what do we think about this practice of putting a player infront of the opposition goalkeeper, well behind the last man but apparently not offside cos they dont actually touch the ball.

Surely they are intefering in play tho by restricting the vision of the goalkeeper, that has to be inteferring with play

I havent seen yesterdays incident as I was watching the Spurs game and we dont get highlights until monday but Villa seem to have caught on and just put Carew infront of the keeper to restrict his view.

Other peoples views?

Surely they are intefering in play tho by restricting the vision of the goalkeeper, that has to be inteferring with play

Agreed with. Dont no how to quote that line so just copied and pasted it.

Id of said it was offside as he is intefering with play by intefering with the goalkeepers line of sight in an offside position, so as soon as the ball is kicked the whistle should be blown and a freekick awarded to the defending team.

This is my thoughts too.

If he's just standing there, I think it's fair play. Loss of vision/view of the ball isn't interfering. But if he was to move, or bump into the keeper; then it should be offsides by interfering with play by moving (possibly towards the ball) and/or bumping into the keeper and preventing the keeper from making a move for the ball.

If you do that in normal play and its fine, then dont see a problem.
Still, voted yes, interfering with play

the player is interfering and hes standing offside so it should be a freekick. Its a good idea to get an advantage but its not fair on the keeper because before he knows it, the ball is in the net if its on target. I think something needs to be done before other teams adopt this tactic. Nothing could be done if he wasnt offside, so they may need to do that the next time...

The rule needs to be clear. Because he could stand not infront of the goalie but at the side behind the wall and the ball goes in the net and it is a goal. So its up to the linesman to and ref whether or not the player is blocking the keepers vision

Got to admit that it was a bit cheeky.

In the womens world cup, the Japanese crouched in front of the wall, so the keeper could not see. That is acceptable

The keepers vision of the ball should have nothing to do with it though. There's times where the keeper doesn't have vision of the ball on a free kick till the ball is up and over the wall and the next thing he knows the ball is in the back of the net. It makes no difference if the keeper can see the ball or not.

Before a free kick, he knows roughly where the ball is, but there's no guarantee he can see it. Whether it be someone standing in front of him; the wall blocking his view; just a bunch of players around the ball preventing him to see it or even the sun being in his eyes.

No my point was say a player stands infront of the goalie and the ball goes over the wall and into the net. The keeper did not see the ball due to the player standing infront of him not the actual wall itself. So his vision would come into it if the player stands infront of him and he could not see anything?

Usually he cant see the ball through the wall which is true, but the players in the wall arent in an offside position.

Im not sure on the rule but isnt there a part which says if you are seeking to gain an advantage from an offside position then you shall penalised. IF this is so then its offside because they are gaining an advantage from a player blocking the sight of the goalkeeper from an offside position.

My understanding is that the rule doesn't apply to vision/sight of the ball, but more as a physical aspect (playing the ball). Which the person standing there in front of the keeper isn't playing the ball, he's just standing there.

What if the guy was to stand right behind the wall (in an offsides position) instead of standing directly in front of the keeper. What would happen then?


Here's another thing that can be put into play here. The free kick taker kicks the ball, which then gets deflected off the wall and trickles past (which in that case would play the guy standing in front of the keeper onside).

If he is blocking the keepers vision in an offside position, then he's offside.

If he's onside, then no problem in my book unless he is nose-to-nose obstructing the keeper.

I dont think Deflections like that would count as the defending team playing the ball. And for starters as soon as the freekick is taken the player is in an offside position so should be flagged.

i do see what papa5murf is saying, but if he is standing offside it has to be a freekick.

I think yes but the rules say it is at the referees appreciation so it's a toss of a coin at every free kick to see if the player is considered interfering or not.

Spot on.

If the player is blocking the keepers view then they are interfering with play, because the 'keeper doesn't know where the ball is going to be played, hence disadvantaged, hence the outfield player is offside.

Personally i think the "interfering" idea should only come into play if the player is well out of the picture - like if someone strikes the ball from 25 yards, and the player is near the corner flag, then it would be allowed. If they're in the 6-yard box it obviously would. The problem being you have black, you have white, and then there's a whole lot of grey.

Interference.

get a new aerial or television ....

So I did some more research on this whole issue.

Once it has been established the the player is in an offsides position, the second condition is evaluated to decide if the player is involved in active play by:

- interfering with play
- interfering with an opponent
- gaining an advantage from that position (which is irrelevant here because if it was to bounce off the woodwork and/or the keeper and he went for the ball, it would be whistled as offsides.)

The International Football Association Board defines interfering with play as playing or touching the ball when it has been passed or touched by a teammate.

The International Football Association Board defines interfering with an opponent as:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements. (which apparently vision/sight does matter which I was wrong about)
- or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent


So in the case of the Birmingham v Liverpool free kick. The player was in an offsides position but was not called offsides (which was the right call).
- Yes he was standing in an offsides position by standing in front of the keeper (but he wasn't next to the keeper by any means, he was a good 10 or so yards away from him)
- No he did not interfere with play (he never went for the ball or touched it)
- No he was not distracting the keeper, he was just standing there (he wasn't waving his arms, jumping around, making faces, yelling at Reina and so forth)
- No he was not blocking Reina's view/vision of the ball as shown on video from different angles.

YouTube home video It's not the greatest video but you get the idea and can clearly see how far away the Birmingham player is from Reina.

In the end, no offsides was called and it was the right call. (Every football review/highlights show I've seen since have all stated that it was the right call.)

Who the hell knows? The FA & officials make up the rules as they go along

Agreed the rules change each day so papa even tho your post could be wrong by next week it will be wrong

My facts are from Fifa.com. But you're right, a lot of it goes to the interpretation and judgment of the referee (and that obviously changes from game to game and from referee to referre).

Wow this would be cool:

K. Schmeichel (not too tall)
Crouch Koller

--------------------

C. Ronaldo


If 2 guys like Crouch & Koller stand in front of a keeper, especially a shorty, then it surely is interference?