Question Number: 35867

Law 11 - Offside 1/22/2025

Zluvka of Liberec, Liberec Region Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35866

Hi, I managed to find the video. The commission did not dispute the verdict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNgTHEXCzGI

Thank you, Zluvka

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Zluvka
Thanks for the video.

The decision with the involvement of VAR was 100% correct. The attacking player who was in an offside position interfered with an opponent which then resulted in a foul.
As there was an offside offence first that was the decision that the referee eventually went with which meant an overturn of the attacking free kick and caution.

As the PIOP interfered with the movement of the defender towards the ball and as there was no other onside attacking player in the mix there was likely to be only one outcome without the foul which was offside. If there was no interfering with an opponent close to the through ball or no potential for offside then an attacking free kick would have been appropriate.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Zluvka,
easy as pie if you have the correct information.
Yes the holding occurred, but it was adjudged as -after- the PIOP was identified as being restricted. Hence INDFK out is correct as the involvement aspect of play by challenging for the ball and by interfering with the defender was met. The card colour I saw was a yellow card thus a caution, for what was likely 1st thought of as breaking up the attack by a professional foul. You note the card was rescinded. Absolutely the correct decision.
Cheers