When is he offside
- Thread starter Yoda_72
- Start date
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
So you are correct in that a player doesn’t have to touch the ball to be penalised for offside.
This exert should help
Attachments
If there is more than one attacking player moving towards the ball you must wait to see which player plays the ball. If there is only the 1 player following the ball and it is clear that only they can/will play the ball then an early flag is acceptable. See practical guidelines for match officials for offside diagrams
The image that @Runner-Ref has posted it hopefully explains it. There are some parts of laws that are quite obscure and you will potentially go years, if not forever, without ever needing to use them. The offside law is the polar opposite, it will come up in almost every game, and you won't just need to know it, you will need to be able to explain it, My advice would be commit that text to memory.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Really not enough detail here to give an opinion on whether what the player had done was enough without details like how close he was and where opponents and teammates were. Merely chasing a ball isn’t enough (unless he is the only attacker chasing and the R/AR think he is getting the ball before it goes out of play).
As @RustyRef said, you want to understand all the text of Law 11 forwards and backwards to really be able to apply the Law when the player doesn’t touch the ball. I’d add that you should go through the diagrams at the back carefully, and regularly, until they are second nature.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If we discount "interfering with an opponent" scenarios then the only other time that a player can be adjudged guilty of an offside offence without touching the ball is the scenario outlined above by @JamesL wherein:
I would say that's a relatively infrequent occurrence and when it comes to "interfering with play" scenarios (which are the majority of offside incidents) the player must touch the ball - apart from the specific scenario @JamesL and myself have mentioned.
I would say that's a relatively infrequent occurrence and when it comes to "interfering with play" scenarios (which are the majority of offside incidents) the player must touch the ball - apart from the specific scenario @JamesL and myself have mentioned.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No. Challenging involves an opponent. But there is the separate bullet for attempting to play the ball, it it only applies if it affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball. keep in mind this is all under the concept of interfering with an opponent.
No.
The definition of a challenge is when a player competes/contests for the ball with an opponent.
What you describe is interfering with an opponent by attempting to play a ball that's close, but that has to be wedded with that action impacting an opponent's ability to play the ball for it to be an offence.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
As others have said, no. However this is obviously a clear action by the attacker and on the vast majority of occasions it's an easy sell as an action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Overall, it's the type of action that football generally expects to be called as an offside offence
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Surely, it's not easy (nor should it be) to sell the idea that it's affected the ability of an opponent to play the ball if it clearly hasn't done so?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
You're right Peter, I poorly worded my response and confused the 'obvious action' clause in the Law with the 'clearly attempting to play the ball' clause. As did @socal lurker and @JamesL it appears!
- 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 question posed was about an attacker in an offside position attempting to head the ball unopposed. Typically, these situations arise when the ball is crossed and the attacker is beyond the last defender. The reality is that the potential header by this attacker will almost always impact a defender, usually the GK. And this particular action by the attacker doesn't actually need to impact the defender's ability to play the ball, merely impact them per se.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Um, no. You are assuming a lot of factors here that aren't contained in the scenario. Depending where the heading attempt takes place, it may or may not affect an opponent. If you are picturing it near the goal, than generally that is going to be true. But that isn't where all attempted headers by an OSP player are going to occur. An obvious example would be an OSP player attempting to head the ball in an unsuccessful effort to prevent the ball from going out of play. No opponent would be impacted, and an OS call would be completely improper.
Simply put, making a generalization about attempting to play the ball (or obvious actions) without taking into account the impact on the opponent is the kind of short-cut thinking that leads to mistakes. Both factors are required to complete an OS offense.
And generally speaking it's exactly these scenarios that have caused me the biggest headaches in games with ARs signalling incorrectly and my having to over rule and all the pain that comes with that, because "the lino" has his flag up.
@Russell Jones you make a valid point about my comment, I did say impact ability to play ball which was wrong when attempting to play ball just has to impact an opponent but I'm with @socal lurker here that there are lots and lots of scenarios where attempting to play a ball unsuccessfully just isn't even close to being an offence
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I think this is a really helpful and insightful debate. From my perspective, given the literally infinite number of potential scenarios that we as officials face, generalising is both helpful AND dangerous
. Understanding that certain types of situations are likely to result in a particular outcome is a helpful start point, so long as we avoid the temptation to default to this outcome without further thought.The most useful part of the discussion for me, has been the reminder that the burden of proof is significantly different between the 'attempting to play a ball' clause and the 'making an obvious action' clause. In the latter, not only does the action need to be obvious but the impact on an opponent needs to be CLEAR and needs to relate to their ability to play the ball (hence the endless debate about the Rashford / Fernandes incident). Whereas in the former, if an 'offside' attacker attempts to play a ball that is close, all that is needed is a belief that this has impacted an opponent. Leaving to one side your scenario about the ball going harmlessly out of play (which I agree with) in the vast majority of other cases the attempt by the attacker to play / head the ball WILL impact any nearby opponent(s), because it will make them unsure which direction the ball will go .. straight on if not played, or in a different direction if played
@JamesL , I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of those (undoubtedly annoying!) situations where your over eager ARs have incorrectly put up the flag have in reality been situations where attackers have been running towards the ball or 'nearly' challenged for the ball, rather than situations where the attacker has attempted to play a ball that is close?
A mixture, but I an specifically referring to attempting to play balls that are close.
Example, long ball, player from offside position jumps to head it, misses, ball goes out of play.
Correct restart, throw in. No flag required as no impact to anyone .
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Understood. Though surprised that these are the ones that have, as you put it in an earlier post, 'caused you the biggest headaches'. For me it's the incorrect flags when folk are either running towards the ball or not quite challenging for the ball that normally lead to the trickiest situations.
In situations like these, where the ball goes out of play, probably simple enough just to accept the flag offered, especially as there's almost always a defender in the vicinity whose actions might have been impacted by the attempted header ....
So in the case when there is only one player following the ball and it is clear that only he/she can play the ball, do you prefer an early flag or letting it run to the keeper or out for a goal kick or throw in (provided the ball has that much pace). This decision can make a big difference in where the restart takes place.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Look at the diagrams in the back of the book. If memory serves, it is diagrams 4 and 5. The OSP as the lone player chasing a ball that goes over the end line is a GK--that is one of the specific diagrams and clearly states that it is a GK.
The diagram about a lone player chasing says that the player can be penalized "before touching the ball" if no teammate is pursuing. The implication is that the player is going to get to the ball. Unless the AR believes the OSP player is likely to get to the ball before it leaves the field (or runs to the GK), the flag should be held. (Caveat: if an OSP player is running at a ball that is going to the GK and timing creates the likelihood of a collision, I believe the early flag is proper--especially in youth games.)
The diagram about a lone player chasing says that the player can be penalized "before touching the ball" if no teammate is pursuing. The implication is that the player is going to get to the ball. Unless the AR believes the OSP player is likely to get to the ball before it leaves the field (or runs to the GK), the flag should be held. (Caveat: if an OSP player is running at a ball that is going to the GK and timing creates the likelihood of a collision, I believe the early flag is proper--especially in youth games.)