If the rules are clear and unambiguously interpreted, then how can corrupt officials do their business?
I don’t think there was any murky background in this particular match, but in general the current state of affairs fully satisfies the officials and I see no reason why this will change.
Do you remember how long and painfully VAR was injected? When it was already clear to the most backward people that football was degrading relative to other sports (for example, in tennis, with the help of technology, they had long learned to determine the position of the ball with millimeter precision), UEFA and FIFA officials were saying some nonsense about the tradition of "mistakes are part of football."
As it stands, the rules currently state that 'a player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage. [
1] It's very impossible that refereeing decisions will never leave everyone pleased. We are aware that a lot of things have changed over the years, but others haven't. The introduction of VAR has changed the decision-making process. Mbappe was behind Eric Garcia but isn't deemed to have interfered with play. Eric Garcia could have let the ball go straight to Mbappe, then he would have been flagged up as offside. [
2] Summary for everything is that it is offside based on offside rule. [
3] But now the problem is that, that particular rule is shit in respect to that Gracia condition.
1.) The question of interpretation of the concept of "playing the ball" is important here. If by this we mean touching the ball, then any pass with a ricochet from the opponent to the out-of-play position should be considered as a normal occurrence, right? This is how I see how the football of the future: defenders dodge the ball so that the out-of-game rule would work, and those who give a pass specifically try to hit the defender by kicking the ball towards the attacker who is just standing in the center of the penalty area and waiting the ball. Nice!
2.) It turns out the picture that I posted in the previous message is completely correct? And everything's good?
3.) I think that it was not the execution of the rule that took place here, but the error of the judge based on a perverse interpretation of the rule.