2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate
is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- 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 or
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used
It's a subjective application of this part of the Law. Souza is offside at the point the ball is kicked. He is then penalised as being involved when he runs across Patterson's eye line. My issue is with the word "clearly" as Souza doesn't do that.
The bottom line is that VAR shouldn't have got involved in that goal as it was a subjective application of the Law in an objective scenario. Souza is offside when Burrows shoots. However, Patterson is clearly demonstrated to have line of vision unobscured by anyone in an offside position at that point and given how well it was hit, he'd have had to have dived before the ball reached Souza to have had any chance of saving it.
Put it this way - had it been allowed, would there have been this level of uproar the other way? I somehow doubt it.
Souza isn't blocking Patterson's view of the ball, [the very much onside] Moore is. There's an argument that Moore may have got a faint touch on it too - obviously a factor not considered by those sitting in Stockley Park.