The Ref Stop

Interfering with play?

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Dave Cryer

Dave Cryer

New Member
Level 5 Referee
I just wanted to get everybody's opinion on the second goal in this game. It's around 2 minutes in to the video.

I'm the active assistant on the camera side
Ball crossed in.
Blue attacker is at the near post is clearly stood in an offside position.
I buzz the referee for a potential offside.
Player has an air shot. The ball goes through his legs for an onside team mate to tap in at the far post
I then keep my flag down, as I deem the attacker in the offside position not to be interfering with play.
Defender (who pushes the attacker in to the offside position) claims his vision is blocked.
In my opinion. He has not stopped any defensive player from challenging for the ball. Nor has his actions caused the defence to do anything different.

I am comfortable with the decision I have made, but I thought it may offer some good debate/learning points.

 
The Ref Stop
For me, this is clearly interfering with play by playing the ball and I would expect a flag here, doesn't need to impact a defender to be an offence. I would also argue the goalkeeper is impacted by this as he can't move across to the far post as the offside player plays at it.

I think football expects this to be offside and the player missing the ball unintentionally shouldn't detract from that.
 
Interfering with an opponent is what you're assessing here.

Could make an argument he interferes with the goalkeepers positioning as he has to wait; as an obvious action was made it would only need to impact an opponent to be an offence.

If offside was given I would have no problem giving a penalty against Number 5 for the push, not giving him any benefit of the doubt after he tries to cheat and push someone in to an offside position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
bester said:
Interfering with an opponent is what you're assessing here.

Could make an argument he interferes with the goalkeepers positioning as he has to wait; as an obvious action was made it would only need to impact an opponent to be an offence.

If offside was given I would have no problem giving a penalty against Number 5 for the push, not giving him any benefit of the doubt after he tries to cheat and push someone in to an offside position.
Click to expand...
1776204928549.png

In my opinion surely this is simply interfering with play by playing the ball, interfering with an opponent is a separate offence. You can also argue he does impact an opponent, which is why I mentioned the keeper. The defender's push is certainly a risk take!
 
If he touched the ball, he interfered with play, and nothing else matters.

If he didn’t touch the ball, he didn’t play the ball and the only consideration is whether he meets one of the provisions for interfering with an opponent.

As an obvious action, it needs to CLEARLY impact an opponent's ability to play the ball to be an offense.

(Many will recall that the “obvious action” was added following a sequence near midfield where an OSP attacker dummied the ball freezing the lone defender. OS was given in the game, though it wasn’t actually supportable under the LOTG at the time.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
On last months FA laws of the game test. An offside player leaps like a salmon to head the ball. But the ball whizzes slightly over his head, no touch. Then similar to this clip the ball goes out wide, and is put into the net by an onside player.

The answer is offside.
 
NoFoulsAllowed said:
On last months FA laws of the game test. An offside player leaps like a salmon to head the ball. But the ball whizzes slightly over his head, no touch. Then similar to this clip the ball goes out wide, and is put into the net by an onside player.

The answer is offside.
Click to expand...

Different provision. There is language about an attempt to play the ball and about an obvious action. The criteria are slightly different.
 
socal lurker said:
If he touched the ball, he interfered with play, and nothing else matters.

If he didn’t touch the ball, he didn’t play the ball and the only consideration is whether he meets one of the provisions for interfering with an opponent.

As an obvious action, it needs to CLEARLY impact an opponent's ability to play the ball to be an offense.

(Many will recall that the “obvious action” was added following a sequence near midfield where an OSP attacker dummied the ball freezing the lone defender. OS was given in the game, though it wasn’t actually supportable under the LOTG at the time.)
Click to expand...
Touching the ball is not the same as playing the ball?
 
Dummying the ball is playing the ball. Change my mind.

If this came up in a LOTG, I would absolutely answer this instantly as offside. If I got it wrong I would march on the FAs HQ and go on hunger strike outside their entrance.
 
Banged this one into ChatGPT and it is saying dummying the ball is okay. Looks like I'm on strike boys.

However, it does say you can't dummy it if it influences the defence or keeper. Which in this clip (in my opinion) it does.
 
Last edited:
If we are talking about blue 9 here then he is "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent" so in my opinion he commits an offside offence.

You say you buzzed for a potential offside. How was that resolved? As the referee I'd want to know what that was for
 
ocj1998 said:
In any case, its an obvious action which impacts an opponent and we should be giving offside 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
The difference between playing and touching is action. If tve player makes an action that makes contact it's a play, if the ball just hits them with no action it's a touch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
The difference between playing and touching is action. If tve player makes an action that makes contact it's a play, if the ball just hits them with no action it's a touch.
Click to expand...
But in the context of determining if a player is offside, any touch / play from the attacking team... it is irrelevant whether it is a touch or a play. (which I know you know, just clarifying for anyone who doesn't)
 
Great insights from everyone. Thanks. Now that we have the benefit of the video and hindsight, would the correct call be to award the goal because ref played advantage on the push in the back that put the player into an offside position?
 
ocj1998 said:
It makes no sense for them to state playing or touching if they mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

I believe they say both because most often in the real world it is a play by the OSP player so they want that word, but they want to be clear that it applies even if it touches without a play. But you are right that it would suffice to say touch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top