Quote:
Originally Posted by sbatten
Aren't both examples of IFAB Law 11, "interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate"? That is, both appear to be an offside offense.
The law doesn't specify whether the touch was intentional or not. And in case (1), it is speculative to say that that the offside player's touch had almost no effect -- it was a touch that (by virtue of touching it) interfered with the play.
Newbie ref here, so I may be missing some intricacies.
|
If it interfered with play by mere virtue of touching it, why did they write, "interfering with play by"? If the question of whether a touch interfered with play wasn't meant to be judged independently as a fact, why'd they include that language instead of just "playing or touching"? It would seem they anticipated touches that interfered with play, and touches that don't.