Offside.

[Dave992]

Hi all. Just some clarification - offside - a player is stood in an offside position, but not active, a defender brings down the ball and controls the ball. When can the offside player Challenge for the ball and tackle the ball? When do we determine it’s the next phase of play?

Thanks

 

[socal lurker]

The OSP player cannot "immediately" challenge the defender. A bit of that is in the eye of the beholder. In essence, I think, the defender who received the ball should have had time that they could have played the ball away before being challenged.

 

[Mr Dean]

The offside player must wait for an opponent to "deliberately play" the ball. What constitutes a deliberate play is anyone's guess.

 

[Peter Grove]

The offside player must wait for an opponent to "deliberately play" the ball. What constitutes a deliberate play is anyone's guess.

Actually, according to the advice issued two years ago, in the wake of an incident involving Mings and Rodri in an Aston Villa vs Man City, even if the opponent deliberately plays the ball, that still doesn't give the offside-positioned player (OPP) free rein to challenge for the ball. As @socal lurker mentioned, it depends on whether the OPP "immediately" impacts on the opponent.

After that incident, and in consultation with the IFAB, the following statement was issued:

"Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials shall prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offence of 'interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball' shall be penalised."

Man City goal vs Aston Villa causes Premier League to change guidance on offside rule

As for deciding what constitutes "immediately" well, since it's not specified, I guess it's left up to the referee to judge.

 

[one]

A little addition to the advice above in the eye of this beholder. If the defender deliberately plays the ball to or towards the offside player then the defender doesn't get the benefit of priority for me. For me this is a defensive mistake (provided no action by the offside player has forced that mistake).

Also adding that the laws of the game does not cover the specifics of this case and we go by advice and what we see as best practice in higher levels of the game.

 

[Kes]

The offside law has all become a bit of a cluster now (as we all know).

@Dave992 if it were me as the ref in the scenario you describe, I'd just make a decision based on whether or not I thought the offside player was able to use that offside position to the detriment of the defender. At grassroots, it's always easy to sell, especially when a player in an offside position stands out like a sore thumb and everybody is expecting you to blow for it anyway ...

 

[socal lurker]

A little addition to the advice above in the eye of this beholder. If the defender deliberately plays the ball to or towards the offside player then the defender doesn't get the benefit of priority for me. For me this is a defensive mistake (provided no action by the offside player has forced that mistake).

Also adding that the laws of the game does not cover the specifics of this case and we go by advice and what we see as best practice in higher levels of the game.

I think that no longer falls into the challenging an opponent bucket (interference with an opponent), and the ball is fair game once played away by the defender. (It's that intersection where I think things get particularly messy, as the "reset" starts differently for interfering with play and interfering with an opponent.)

 

[santa sangria]

Whatever decision you make, just sell it well. Something like… “yes, difficult decision but I recently had great training from a really good looking international referee training group… make all cheques payable to… etc.”

 

[Peter Grove]

A little addition to the advice above in the eye of this beholder. If the defender deliberately plays the ball to or towards the offside player then the defender doesn't get the benefit of priority for me. For me this is a defensive mistake (provided no action by the offside player has forced that mistake).

Also adding that the laws of the game does not cover the specifics of this case and we go by advice and what we see as best practice in higher levels of the game.

True, but just to be clear that is not what happened in the incident that triggered this advice and it is not the scenario covered by it.

In the incident in question, the offside positioned player was lurking behind the defender and as the ball dropped to the defender and he deliberately played it the OPP nipped in and stole the ball off the defender's toes. That's a little different to the defender getting full control of the ball and then playing a poor pass towards the previously offside positioned player who is still presumably standing some little distance away.

 

[bloovee]

Is this another case where PGMOL is doing its own thing? In the Super Cup there was an incident where a Sevilla attacker was given offside when "challenging" a City defender from about 5 yards away.

 

[Mr Dean]

Actually, according to the advice issued two years ago, in the wake of an incident involving Mings and Rodri in an Aston Villa vs Man City, even if the opponent deliberately plays the ball, that still doesn't give the offside-positioned player (OPP) free rein to challenge for the ball. As @socal lurker mentioned, it depends on whether the OPP "immediately" impacts on the opponent.

After that incident, and in consultation with the IFAB, the following statement was issued:


Man City goal vs Aston Villa causes Premier League to change guidance on offside rule

As for deciding what constitutes "immediately" well, since it's not specified, I guess it's left up to the referee to judge.

Good point. I wonder if this guidance is still valid now that the offside law has been amended to change the definition of deliberate play?

 

[socal lurker]

Good point. I wonder if this guidance is still valid now that the offside law has been amended to change the definition of deliberate play?

I think it remains good advice. The change in the definition of deliberate play was aimed at ending cheap goals by an OSP attacker who receives the ball. The challenge of an opponent immediately after receiving the ball is a different thought process.

 

[Peter Grove]

Is this another case where PGMOL is doing its own thing? In the Super Cup there was an incident where a Sevilla attacker was given offside when "challenging" a City defender from about 5 yards away.

It wasn't the PGMOL on its own though - this was issued in conjunction with the IFAB.

But I'm not sure I understand your reference to the example incident. If the player was five yards away and then immediately started challenging the opponent, giving the offside offence would be in line with the advice we're talking about.

The guidance says that when the challenge is immediate, "the match officials shall prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball" [rather than the fact that the opponent deliberately played it]. It kind of sounds like that's what happened in the incident you describe.

 

[Peter Grove]

Another thing that I think is inherent in this advice, is that they're drawing a distinction between a player "receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball", and a player taking the ball from an opponent who deliberately played it.

 

[bloovee]

It wasn't the PGMOL on its own though - this was issued in conjunction with the IFAB.

But I'm not sure I understand your reference to the example incident. If the player was five yards away and then immediately started challenging the opponent, giving the offside offence would be in line with the advice we're talking about.

The guidance says that when the challenge is immediate, "the match officials shall prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball" [rather than the fact that the opponent deliberately played it]. It kind of sounds like that's what happened in the incident you describe.

I mean he was five yards away from the defender when the flag went up even though the defender had time to play the ball away. Is that being "challenged"? If the defender trapped the ball and the attacker then challenged for the ball, is that "immediately"?

I think this one will run and run.

(On a side note, maybe a bit "fan", is it just my imagination or do Manchester City have more incidents which result in "clarifications" or actual law changes than other teams - like whether an opponent could head the ball out a GK's open palm?)

 

[RustyRef]

(On a side note, maybe a bit "fan", is it just my imagination or do Manchester City have more incidents which result in "clarifications" or actual law changes than other teams - like whether an opponent could head the ball out a GK's open palm?)

That was more than 23 years ago, most forum members won't even remember it.