Should Ayites header have stood

[snarks]

This is the Vardy goal I'm talking about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1bwAvSygs

Yes the defender tries to play it but the direction is unintentional. I thought Floyd was offside at the time and still do, I just don't understand the rule anymore

[Sting of the North]

No, he was offside when Anguissa took the shot. A deflection off a Liverpool player doesn't change that in any way.

But was he interfering with play? As was noted on another thread - if it had occurred at the other end it  would probably been given.

I concur with this.  He was in an offside position when a shot took a double deflection and it is therefore the opinion of the officials as to whether or not he was interfering with play.  The offside interpretations I have seen since the rule was changed are often a confused muddle, and very simply amount to 'offside' goals being given.

I agree that it is in many cases unclear how to interpret the rules as regards interference with play. I don't agree however that this one was unclear whatsoever. To my understanding throwing yourself to try to block a shot from a player just in front of you would never be deemed a deliberate play. But my understanding of the rules could be wrong of course, as I am not a referee and have not gone into detail on how the rule is meant to be interpreted.

[Sting of the North]

This is the Vardy goal I'm talking about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1bwAvSygs

Yes the defender tries to play it but the direction is unintentional. I thought Floyd was offside at the time and still do, I just don't understand the rule anymore

The fact that the direction is unintentional should not matter at all. Since he deliberately played the ball, he started a new play. The goal was correct if I understand the rules.

[Wolf]

This is the Vardy goal I'm talking about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1bwAvSygs

Yes the defender tries to play it but the direction is unintentional. I thought Floyd was offside at the time and still do, I just don't understand the rule anymore

The fact that the direction is unintentional should not matter at all. Since he deliberately played the ball, he started a new play. The goal was correct if I understand the rules.

Having run the line all season, albeit in youth football, this is also my understanding. If the defending team makes any succesful attempt to play the ball the attacker is not offside. However, if its a deflection, that the defender didn't try to play, the attacker is offside. It is difficult at times, as a lino, to see in a mass of players which team has played the ball and interpret whether there was intent (the referee should be better placed for the latter decision)

[toshes mate]

No, he was offside when Anguissa took the shot. A deflection off a Liverpool player doesn't change that in any way.

But was he interfering with play? As was noted on another thread - if it had occurred at the other end it  would probably been given.

I concur with this.  He was in an offside position when a shot took a double deflection and it is therefore the opinion of the officials as to whether or not he was interfering with play.  The offside interpretations I have seen since the rule was changed are often a confused muddle, and very simply amount to 'offside' goals being given.

I agree that it is in many cases unclear how to interpret the rules as regards interference with play. I don't agree however that this one was unclear whatsoever. To my understanding throwing yourself to try to block a shot from a player just in front of you would never be deemed a deliberate play. But my understanding of the rules could be wrong of course, as I am not a referee and have not gone into detail on how the rule is meant to be interpreted.

I believe referees work on the civil law remedy of probability meaning if controversy is probable then it is best for it not to be in favour of the mere mortal of a club rather than for the 'better' known (and supported) club.   That is why it is so questionable and muddled on interpretation (bit like most things) these days.   I blame the Attorney General.....

[Sting of the North]

No, he was offside when Anguissa took the shot. A deflection off a Liverpool player doesn't change that in any way.

But was he interfering with play? As was noted on another thread - if it had occurred at the other end it  would probably been given.

I concur with this.  He was in an offside position when a shot took a double deflection and it is therefore the opinion of the officials as to whether or not he was interfering with play.  The offside interpretations I have seen since the rule was changed are often a confused muddle, and very simply amount to 'offside' goals being given.

I agree that it is in many cases unclear how to interpret the rules as regards interference with play. I don't agree however that this one was unclear whatsoever. To my understanding throwing yourself to try to block a shot from a player just in front of you would never be deemed a deliberate play. But my understanding of the rules could be wrong of course, as I am not a referee and have not gone into detail on how the rule is meant to be interpreted.

I believe referees work on the civil law remedy of probability meaning if controversy is probable then it is best for it not to be in favour of the mere mortal of a club rather than for the 'better' known (and supported) club.   That is why it is so questionable and muddled on interpretation (bit like most things) these days.   I blame the Attorney General.....

I agree that in a case of doubt I do believe that the risk of controversy is likely a factor that (at least unconsciously) plays a role in the decision making of the referee.

[Arthur]

This is the Vardy goal I'm talking about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5r1bwAvSygs

Yes the defender tries to play it but the direction is unintentional. I thought Floyd was offside at the time and still do, I just don't understand the rule anymore

Watch the video carefully and it can be seen that Vardy is onside when the cross is delivered. It is as the ball is in the air that he moves beyond the last defender. In this situation, it matters not whether the defender's subsequent touch was unintentional; all that matters is that Vardy was onside when the ball was last played by a team-mate.

Our disallowed goal on Sunday doesn't bear comparison: when Anguissa strikes the ball, Ayite is offside.

[St Eve]

I missed it at the game and haven't seen any replays but it was clearly on side.