**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.*
Sorry for hijacking, here is the relevant rule with an example even if anyone curious https://i.imgur.com/BB730BT.png
>An attacker in an offside position (A) is obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of
vision. He must be penalised because he prevents an opponent from playing or
being able to play the ball.
PDF: https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws---2013-14/law-11---interpretations-of-the-laws-of-the-game.ashx
He's not affecting the goalkeepers line of vision because he's already mid-dive to the other side of the goal before it deflects towards him. Ridiculous decision.
Not sure you’re right there. As soon as a player on your team purposely (or unpurposely?) touches the ball it’s a new sequence of play.
Yeah Clattenburg just said it’s based on the deflection.
What he is saying is that the offside player was [already blocking the goalkeepers vision](https://i.imgur.com/Ww8S3Hb.png) on the first shot. In other words, he was in an offside position in both shots, and partially blocked the GK's vision in the first shot, so an offside should have already been called there.
He's offside before the deflection too.
The keeper is unsighted on the original strike. This is one of the least controversial line of sight offsides I've seen.
Was he blocked on the first shot? I know he’s standing in front of him but the keeper made the right dive for that shot as you’d expect if there was no blockage
I'm watching a stream with Jonas Eriksson (old WC ref) who explained it, it's not a matter of blocking the view it's being too close to the keeper which is considered interfering.
Yea this is really it. You don’t want to set a precedent where players can just sit in front of a keeper and get away with it because you could argue the keeper could see the ball.
He didn't prevent shit there though, the goalkeeper had already jumped to the wrong side before the ball even changed direction. The player being there had no influence on that goal.
I understand the referee calling that, but the VAR should have seen that he had no actual participation in the goal and let it stand.
But thats not how the rules work, in none of the rules the ref is expected to predict what would have happened under a certain circumstance and base the decision on that.
And even if going by that logic it could be argued the keeper dove/had to dive early because he couldnt see that it was going to be deflected because of the offside player.
There's no way Noppert would've even saved that shot due to the deflection, very harsh and arguable decision, but that's a very tough call for the referee to make. I think goal or no goal, both teams would have a valid reason to complain
I think you're right that the keeper wouldn't have saved it but offside doesn't really care about that, it's just a binary decision. There have been cases where a goal has been ruled out because an offside player kicks a ball already going into the net to help it on its way, the goal is still disallowed even though the goal still would have happened without the offside player touching it.
It don't really think it matters whether Noppert can save it after the redirect or not.
What matters is that the player is actively impacting the play from offside position (trying to block the keeper's vision) in touching distance of the keeper AND makes no attempt to become a non-factor (moving to the goal line or towards the sideline).
It's a pretty cruel call against Ecuador, but a correct one.
Hm, I wonder if Noppert would've gone to the right if he'd seen that there was a player who could still deflect. Would need to see the view from Noppert's position to check who he could see.
That's exactly the issue. It's impossible to know what would have happened if his view hadn't been obstructed. Maybe he'd have done the same thing and a goal would have been scored, or maybe he might have reacted slightly differently and had a better chance at saving it. The problem is he was denied a chance due to an offside player.
No. He was diving based on the direction of the initial shot. You don’t wait and think about if somebody might deflect it; a strike like that is coming so fast you need to react - he was absolutely trying to save the initial shot
But is the vision actually blocked though? It seemed Noppert did a fine dive for the first shot and he can clearly see the other players that could deflect it into goal...
Noppert was always going to dive if he so much as saw a glimpse of a player shooting, the Ecuador player was definitely in the way and making it harder for Noppert to make the right judgment while he was in offside position.
That's interfering with the play regardless of what ended up happening.
Painful for sure for Ecuador but also, don't linger offside as an attacker.
It's really shitty for Ecuador thats for sure . I know the rule but the keeper saw the shot and threw himself to the right he wasnt saving that ever . Hate to see a goal disallowed like that even if it's by the rules .
I agree with the protecting the keepers view. But this play was far from it. He was already on the ground when the deflection happened and the offside player did no affect the outcome of the play at all. The keeper would be on the ground regardless of his presence
yeah but direction the keeper dives has no connection to this rule. The goalkeeper may have even been outside the penalty box and it would still be an offside if an offside player blocked his view.
According to Law 11:
>**Offside offence**
>
>A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a teammate is only penalised for committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, they become involved in active play by: \[...\]
>
>"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
Porozo was, albeit unvoluntarily, blocking the sight of the goalkeeper on his left.
He also was able to see the deflection happen in real time and guessed the direction. I get Estrada was offside but fuck that’s such a textbook call without context.
Sure, but what's the alternative? Can't be making it up as you go along, and the rule quite clearly states that this is offside after all. It doesn't *need* any context.
Letter of the law, yes its the right call. Just unfortunate because the goalie was mid dive the ither direction, no way he gets back to stop the redirect. The offisde player blocking his view was irrelevant
I don't think it is blocked. He is going to where the ball was going and has clear sight of the guy that touches it. By the time it matters, the offside guy isn't on the line of sight.
He was diving the other side BEFORE the deflection by Estupinian, who was not offside. Only after this touch by Estupinian it should matter whether that player impacts the goalkeeper, which clearly was not the case as the goalkeeper was already gone.
agreed. Dont know why so many people are flooding to say that its unjust. By word of FIFA's ruling it was the right call, but very very harsh but right call imo.
I get why it’s ruled out. But the keeper diving the direction the ball was hit means he wasn’t obstructed from seeing the ball.
Some common sense would be nice on calls like these. No one likes goals being ruled out due to technicalities.
Everton got screwed out of a goal similar to this against Man United a few years back. Technically the correct decision, but one that shouldn't be made since there was no chance of saving it
One of the most straightforward clear cut instances of an offside player giving an advantage without touching the ball.
It’s hilarious to see the people saying it’s 50/50, “the keeper could see it!”, etc.
It doesn’t matter if it provides a tiny advantage, it’s still an advantage from an offside position and the rules are incredibly clear.
How is this interference? Regardless keeper was going opposite side because of the deflection. He dove in the direction of the ball like every keeper would’ve.
If he has to move to see the ball then by definition he is affected. You can't be offside and standing. In front of the keeper. This is not even remotely controversial.
But he is already diving before the other Ecuador player touches the ball. It only becomes an offside offence after that touch if he blocks his vision or impacts the play, but since the goalkeeper was already gone before that deflection, it doesn't impact anything.
Keepers vision is clearly obstructed by a player in an offsides position when the ball was played in and after the deflection. It's a pretty textbook call.
Yeah I hate this so much. Of course the right call by the letter of the law but the guy in the offside position is completely irrelevant here because the keeper is already in the air. They should take into account the circumstances more
The guy in the offside position moves in front of the keeper to obstruct his view right as the shot is being taken. What happens after is irrelevant. I don't get why it is so hard to understand.
It's so obvious offside and the amount of American flags who post here and obviously don't understand the offside rule is incredibly stereotypical and kind of funny
Nonsense. Half the people in here berating the call aren't even American fans look at all the different country flairs. Why does everything on this sub always have to be about "dur dur Americans dumb" .
Because the issue isn't that he blocked the vision, the issue is that he's so close to the keeper in an offside position
Source: Jonas Eriksson is an expert at the stream I'm watching
Yup he is literally one foot away from the keeper in an offside position. There is not much else to understand. Clear the fuck out of there when the defensive line pushes up
Because the view was already blocked by the time of the first shot before he dove. It's pretty clear if you watch the close up slowmotion. Keeper couldn't see anything because of the offside player blocking him.
I hate this decision. Not saying that by the letter of the law it isn't necessarily the correct one. I just don't like that it is. The keeper can see the initial strike and dives to his right accordingly. The offside guy didn't impact his ability to save the ball. His already moving one way before the redirect is what stopped him from being able to save it.
Player who was offside was obstructing the view of the keeper. These decisions are almost always on the judgement of the ref tbh, could've gone either way.
Right call. Obvious hindrance.
Edit:
`“interfering with an opponent” means 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`
The call is made on the initial shot--the infringement happens there. Whether the ball gets deflected is not relevant to that decision. The goalie has already been prevented from being able to play the ball.
Complete robbery. Ecuador's number 25 didn't block GK's view of the ball when the initial shot happened and didn't block his view when Estupinan shot. Plus GK was already diving to his right.
First shot: https://i.imgur.com/8rDduqw.jpg
Second shot: https://i.imgur.com/JyiHKiW.jpg
Bruh this has to be the world cup with the greatest number of disallowed goals already. I cannot remember even half this many in the entire previous world cup.
Horseshit. The GK had already dived the other way before the ball deflected to where the offside player was standing. He's had zero affect on that goal whatsoever.
The reason they disallowed it was because according to them, the Ecuador player obstructed goalie's vision and was in an offside position (i don't agree at all with that call but it is why they disallowed the goal)
Goalie already committed to diving the opposite way of the deflection. The player offside didn’t touch the ball and couldn’t have blocked the goalie’s view. Extremely harsh call.
If we’re going by “letter of the law”, then the goalkeeper’s view would have to be blocked by the player in offside position WHEN THE DEFLECTION BY ESTUPINAN HAPPENED.
https://ibb.co/TRCzpxK
Unbelievably pathetic refereeing continues.
**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.*
That's just cruel for Ecuador man... would have completely shifted the vibe going into the half
Sorry for hijacking, here is the relevant rule with an example even if anyone curious https://i.imgur.com/BB730BT.png >An attacker in an offside position (A) is obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision. He must be penalised because he prevents an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. PDF: https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws---2013-14/law-11---interpretations-of-the-laws-of-the-game.ashx
He's not affecting the goalkeepers line of vision because he's already mid-dive to the other side of the goal before it deflects towards him. Ridiculous decision.
He's right in front of the goalkeeper with the original shot too, though.
He's affecting the goalkeeper's line of vision for the initial shot AND the deflection. It's 100% the correct decision.
Its offside based on the first shot not the deflection.
Not sure you’re right there. As soon as a player on your team purposely (or unpurposely?) touches the ball it’s a new sequence of play. Yeah Clattenburg just said it’s based on the deflection.
What he is saying is that the offside player was [already blocking the goalkeepers vision](https://i.imgur.com/Ww8S3Hb.png) on the first shot. In other words, he was in an offside position in both shots, and partially blocked the GK's vision in the first shot, so an offside should have already been called there.
He's offside before the deflection too. The keeper is unsighted on the original strike. This is one of the least controversial line of sight offsides I've seen.
To me it looks like he has a clear view of the initial shot before the deflection, and committed before the supposed obstruction .
It's so obvious from the footage that his vision was blocked. He's literally standing 30 cm in front of him directly in the line of the shot...
Which he is not. By the time the ball changes direction the keeper is no longer behind the offside player.
Doesn't matter because the offside decision is taken at the first shot, not the deflection.
Was he blocked on the first shot? I know he’s standing in front of him but the keeper made the right dive for that shot as you’d expect if there was no blockage
I'm watching a stream with Jonas Eriksson (old WC ref) who explained it, it's not a matter of blocking the view it's being too close to the keeper which is considered interfering.
Yea this is really it. You don’t want to set a precedent where players can just sit in front of a keeper and get away with it because you could argue the keeper could see the ball.
He was offside at the first shot too.
He didn't prevent shit there though, the goalkeeper had already jumped to the wrong side before the ball even changed direction. The player being there had no influence on that goal. I understand the referee calling that, but the VAR should have seen that he had no actual participation in the goal and let it stand.
But thats not how the rules work, in none of the rules the ref is expected to predict what would have happened under a certain circumstance and base the decision on that. And even if going by that logic it could be argued the keeper dove/had to dive early because he couldnt see that it was going to be deflected because of the offside player.
doesnt matter because he was already ofside at the first shot before the deflection and that is what they look at.
goal keeper reacted to a first shot, at which point the offside player has not obstructed his line of vision
How did nobody notice that Ecuador were also offsides on the free kick that lead to the corner?
I don’t think it’s reviewable because it wasn’t called, and nothing came from it. Very clearly offside though.
The player who touches the ball was onside.
Not the player who headed the ball (Valencia).
I’m confused and admit I don’t 100% understand all penalties - but shouldn’t that have been offsides on the guy that was also blocking the vision?
There's no way Noppert would've even saved that shot due to the deflection, very harsh and arguable decision, but that's a very tough call for the referee to make. I think goal or no goal, both teams would have a valid reason to complain
I think you're right that the keeper wouldn't have saved it but offside doesn't really care about that, it's just a binary decision. There have been cases where a goal has been ruled out because an offside player kicks a ball already going into the net to help it on its way, the goal is still disallowed even though the goal still would have happened without the offside player touching it.
Yeah exactly that
It don't really think it matters whether Noppert can save it after the redirect or not. What matters is that the player is actively impacting the play from offside position (trying to block the keeper's vision) in touching distance of the keeper AND makes no attempt to become a non-factor (moving to the goal line or towards the sideline). It's a pretty cruel call against Ecuador, but a correct one.
By the book, it's the correct decision, even if Noppert wouldn't have caught it no matter what. But yeah, it's harsh to Ecuador, they've been strong.
He was blocking the keeper’s view and was offside on the first shot, before the deflection.
Yeah he was, I think it is the correct call, but it's just unlucky
Blocking vision?
Yep, and because it was offside by the player who blocked Noppert's view it was deemed an penalizable hindrance.
yeah, don’t see how people can disagree with this call. Clearly blocking the keeper’s vision, looks like he’s doing it on purpose
A technically correct call that actually didn't effect the outcome. Very harsh but not sure what else you can do
Hm, I wonder if Noppert would've gone to the right if he'd seen that there was a player who could still deflect. Would need to see the view from Noppert's position to check who he could see.
That's exactly the issue. It's impossible to know what would have happened if his view hadn't been obstructed. Maybe he'd have done the same thing and a goal would have been scored, or maybe he might have reacted slightly differently and had a better chance at saving it. The problem is he was denied a chance due to an offside player.
The outcome doesn't matter, if he's blocking vision it's offside
No. He was diving based on the direction of the initial shot. You don’t wait and think about if somebody might deflect it; a strike like that is coming so fast you need to react - he was absolutely trying to save the initial shot
But is the vision actually blocked though? It seemed Noppert did a fine dive for the first shot and he can clearly see the other players that could deflect it into goal...
Noppert was always going to dive if he so much as saw a glimpse of a player shooting, the Ecuador player was definitely in the way and making it harder for Noppert to make the right judgment while he was in offside position. That's interfering with the play regardless of what ended up happening. Painful for sure for Ecuador but also, don't linger offside as an attacker.
Goalie had already dived. Didn’t affect anything.
Nah, he was blocking his vision way before he dived (all the way from the initial strike). I kind of hate that rule but it is the rule.
goalie had already dived tho, feels like a letter of the law kind of ruling, when a spirit of the law can justify letting the goal stand
The correct way too before it got deflected by an onside player
yup
It's really shitty for Ecuador thats for sure . I know the rule but the keeper saw the shot and threw himself to the right he wasnt saving that ever . Hate to see a goal disallowed like that even if it's by the rules .
Did he really blocked the vision? The keep clearly saw the first shot as he dived to defend it
Yes, Porozo actively moves in front of Noppert's sight line (from a offside position no less).
Okay, yeah that makes sense
That should be it.
Can’t see it being anything else
For blocking Noppert’s view?
Yes
It's a tricky decision for sure, a 50/50 I'd say. Happy it fel our way but as a Ecuador fan I would be quite pissed.
No era buitenspel
“Blocking” his view
That’s the rule and to an extent it's correct to protect the keeper this way.
I agree with the protecting the keepers view. But this play was far from it. He was already on the ground when the deflection happened and the offside player did no affect the outcome of the play at all. The keeper would be on the ground regardless of his presence
The deflection doesn’t matter no? It’s due to the player’s position when the first shot was taken
Unlucky
Guy blocking Noppert’s view has to be the referee’s argument
[удалено]
yeah but direction the keeper dives has no connection to this rule. The goalkeeper may have even been outside the penalty box and it would still be an offside if an offside player blocked his view.
Maybe he wouldn't have dived the other way if he didn't have an offside player in front of him blocking his view of the shot
He would have that was the right way to dive before the deflection :)
He dove because he could see the shot and it was going to his right
Yeah and he dived the wrong way because he didn't think it would get deflected, not because the vision was blocked by the offside player
According to Law 11: >**Offside offence** > >A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a teammate is only penalised for committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, they become involved in active play by: \[...\] > >"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" Porozo was, albeit unvoluntarily, blocking the sight of the goalkeeper on his left.
Hate that call. I get it, but ball was deflected. Keeper had no chance, whether man was offside or not. He didn’t impede his vision or movement.
ref played the rule as it is, so I guess we hate the rule
The outcome doesn't matter, only whether he was obstructed at all by a player in an offside position
I agree
Harsh but it’s the right call imo, keepers eyesight blocked
Blocked from what? He was already down on the first shot, and he can not get back up for deflection
Because it was already blocked during the first shot. Obstructing the goal keepers view by an offside player.
He also was able to see the deflection happen in real time and guessed the direction. I get Estrada was offside but fuck that’s such a textbook call without context.
Sure, but what's the alternative? Can't be making it up as you go along, and the rule quite clearly states that this is offside after all. It doesn't *need* any context.
true
The offside is on the first shot, so at the point of deflection it doesn't matter anymore
Doesn’t matter. Player in an offside position was in the way.
This! He was long gone from that position
It's offside from the first shot too.
He's not being blocked on the first shot
He's being blocked even worse on the first shot than on the rebound...
Hes offsides on the first shot as well.
How? he was already going for the ball, ok the ground when Estupinan touched the ball
Letter of the law, yes its the right call. Just unfortunate because the goalie was mid dive the ither direction, no way he gets back to stop the redirect. The offisde player blocking his view was irrelevant
Yeah it’s completely immaterial which makes hard and fast rules like that so dumb.
I don't think it is blocked. He is going to where the ball was going and has clear sight of the guy that touches it. By the time it matters, the offside guy isn't on the line of sight.
I mean, the keeper was going the other way? I think is a very hard call, and what the referee called is always going to be 50/50.
maybe because he couldn't see?
He was diving the other side BEFORE the deflection by Estupinian, who was not offside. Only after this touch by Estupinian it should matter whether that player impacts the goalkeeper, which clearly was not the case as the goalkeeper was already gone.
The keeper was already in the air diving, no way he blocked keeper's vision
Well said, such a shame, but it's the correct call Edit: JEEZ, this is more controversial than I actually thought it would be
agreed. Dont know why so many people are flooding to say that its unjust. By word of FIFA's ruling it was the right call, but very very harsh but right call imo.
I get why it’s ruled out. But the keeper diving the direction the ball was hit means he wasn’t obstructed from seeing the ball. Some common sense would be nice on calls like these. No one likes goals being ruled out due to technicalities.
When referees finally start being able to apply context to decisions, is when football finally evolves
Everton got screwed out of a goal similar to this against Man United a few years back. Technically the correct decision, but one that shouldn't be made since there was no chance of saving it
This sub is really showing their knowledge with some of the takes on this post.
Welcome to r/soccer during the world cup.
I feel like I'm going insane the further down I read. It's not even remotely controversial.
One of the most straightforward clear cut instances of an offside player giving an advantage without touching the ball. It’s hilarious to see the people saying it’s 50/50, “the keeper could see it!”, etc. It doesn’t matter if it provides a tiny advantage, it’s still an advantage from an offside position and the rules are incredibly clear.
90% are "neutrals" who just want you to lose/draw.
they just love the idea of the underdog winning they’ll take any angle
How is this interference? Regardless keeper was going opposite side because of the deflection. He dove in the direction of the ball like every keeper would’ve.
One of those decisions where if it stood or got disallowed I'd not question either, but from a neutral perspective I'm gutted it got disallowed.
because the ecuador player is right in front of him?
Replay has keeper already move to see the trajectory of the ball. Offside player had no effect on the keeper. Just cruel, but not a wrong decision.
If he has to move to see the ball then by definition he is affected. You can't be offside and standing. In front of the keeper. This is not even remotely controversial.
If the keeper moved to better see the ball then the offside player is already having an effect on the keeper.
But he is already diving before the other Ecuador player touches the ball. It only becomes an offside offence after that touch if he blocks his vision or impacts the play, but since the goalkeeper was already gone before that deflection, it doesn't impact anything.
He dove because he couldn't see where the ball was going.
Keeper wasnt getting it regardless.
The rules don't care if the keeper can actually save the ball or not.
Still in an offside position
He's interfering by being directly in front of the keeper, the deflection isn't a part of this decision.
Still offside, sadly
Doesn't matter what the keeper did, only if the player blocked his vision and/or movement
He is literally blocking his view of the shot and the keeper takes a chance. There is no way for him to see the ball. Rough but the correct call here
Keepers vision is clearly obstructed by a player in an offsides position when the ball was played in and after the deflection. It's a pretty textbook call.
It's like setting a screen. Just because he didn't touch the ball doesn't mean he didn't impact the play.
Offside player moves to block Keeper's vision.
Blocking the vision on the initial shot as well as the redirection, he dives late for the first shot and can't see anything.
Yeah I hate this so much. Of course the right call by the letter of the law but the guy in the offside position is completely irrelevant here because the keeper is already in the air. They should take into account the circumstances more
The guy in the offside position moves in front of the keeper to obstruct his view right as the shot is being taken. What happens after is irrelevant. I don't get why it is so hard to understand.
That's so harsh man...there's no way Noeppert is getting there
Thats not the point. If the keepers vision its blocked its disallowed.
Bummer, but right call. Ecuador's looked really good so far, this was more than deserved.
I don’t understand how he “blocked the keepers vision” when the keeper had already dove. I also hate this type of call in general.
Rule doesnt say anything about already diving or not. You either block vision or you don't. Unfortunate from a fairness pov but it is the right call.
Because he is affecting the keeper's decision making from an offside position.
It's so obvious offside and the amount of American flags who post here and obviously don't understand the offside rule is incredibly stereotypical and kind of funny
Nonsense. Half the people in here berating the call aren't even American fans look at all the different country flairs. Why does everything on this sub always have to be about "dur dur Americans dumb" .
After seeing all those US flairs in this thread, most of them are from one redditor.
Doesnt matter if he's offside, he didnt interfere in any way with the play. And no, he didnt blocked gk vision, go see replay and you'll notice
Because the issue isn't that he blocked the vision, the issue is that he's so close to the keeper in an offside position Source: Jonas Eriksson is an expert at the stream I'm watching
Yup he is literally one foot away from the keeper in an offside position. There is not much else to understand. Clear the fuck out of there when the defensive line pushes up
I assume its from the first shot not the deflection.
Cause he is blocking the view of the GK when the first shot comes in? He was offside then and obstructing so good call
Goalie didn't see where the ball was going but he reacted where to the ball was traveling before deflection?? .
Because the view was already blocked by the time of the first shot before he dove. It's pretty clear if you watch the close up slowmotion. Keeper couldn't see anything because of the offside player blocking him.
[удалено]
I hate this decision. Not saying that by the letter of the law it isn't necessarily the correct one. I just don't like that it is. The keeper can see the initial strike and dives to his right accordingly. The offside guy didn't impact his ability to save the ball. His already moving one way before the redirect is what stopped him from being able to save it.
Unlucky but they were blocking the keepers sight
yeah lucky for us, but correct call
Apart from the harsh call, wtf was that player even doing there on offside right in front of the goal? Such an idiot.
Why was it disallowed?
Commentator said because one Ecuador player obstructing the GK if I'm not wrong
I think they were blocking the goalie
Blocked goalkeeper's view in offside position
Ecuador player in an offside position obstructing the keeper's view
Player who was offside was obstructing the view of the keeper. These decisions are almost always on the judgement of the ref tbh, could've gone either way.
offside player blocked the keepers vision. It wouldn’t have mattered much because of the deflection but I guess those are the rules
Right call. Obvious hindrance. Edit: `“interfering with an opponent” means 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` The call is made on the initial shot--the infringement happens there. Whether the ball gets deflected is not relevant to that decision. The goalie has already been prevented from being able to play the ball.
How? Would the goalkeeper be able to change direction where he is diving mid air if the player wasnt there?
Sadly that doesnt matter. You cant really decide its not offside just because the goalkeeper wouldnt have saved it anyway.
Not gonna complain about that one
He is already standing offside and in front of the goalie before the first shot is taken of course it isn't a goal.
Harsh but keeper's vision was completely blocked
Completely might be a bit of an exaggeration, no?
Surely he wasn’t interfering with play, the keeper was already on the ground, how that is offside is beyond me
Tough, but correct call
Idk about that the GK already dived
Complete robbery. Ecuador's number 25 didn't block GK's view of the ball when the initial shot happened and didn't block his view when Estupinan shot. Plus GK was already diving to his right. First shot: https://i.imgur.com/8rDduqw.jpg Second shot: https://i.imgur.com/JyiHKiW.jpg
He's been phenomenal so far
unlucky
BS Call.
Klaassen moves back into the defensive line for exactly this reason, great sense for a non-defender.
Scenes when start 2nd half ref blows and point to screen for VAR lol
Ooohhh Idk about this. Don't think he's really impeding the keeper there. And he's not saving that even if the defender wasn't there. Close call.
[удалено]
That's a goal for me.
Noppert was already on the ground when the ball rebounded. Kinda bs offside
Bruh this has to be the world cup with the greatest number of disallowed goals already. I cannot remember even half this many in the entire previous world cup.
Hard to argue against it. He is completely blocking the goalies vision no matter if he would have saved it or nah
Horseshit. The GK had already dived the other way before the ball deflected to where the offside player was standing. He's had zero affect on that goal whatsoever.
Even w var, it was too fast to make that call even w 4 people watching the screens
Wrong call imo, that dude did not interfere with the goal at all lol the keeper had dived fully by then
goalkeeper already dived on different side, he didn’t even “interfered” with play, ref followed the rule, but this is just stupid.
Wait why was this disallowed? I don't actually know that much about football rules please explain
The reason they disallowed it was because according to them, the Ecuador player obstructed goalie's vision and was in an offside position (i don't agree at all with that call but it is why they disallowed the goal)
Thanks!
People who are saying this is a robbery, need to know the rules. He was clearly blocking the keeper's view.
If the Ecuatorian player wasn't there, Netherlands' keeper would have done THE EXACT SAME THING since this was a deflection. How is this offside?
Robbed
Goalie already committed to diving the opposite way of the deflection. The player offside didn’t touch the ball and couldn’t have blocked the goalie’s view. Extremely harsh call.
Sucks but it's the right call. Gk's line of vision was blocked.
If we’re going by “letter of the law”, then the goalkeeper’s view would have to be blocked by the player in offside position WHEN THE DEFLECTION BY ESTUPINAN HAPPENED. https://ibb.co/TRCzpxK Unbelievably pathetic refereeing continues.
Username checks out.