A&H

WBA MANU

Yet we all ignore many aspects of the Law routinely. I've indicated that Laws with microscopic detail are arguably needed for VAR, but for the rest us (me), they're a framework (which I must have sound understanding of) around which I manage my games to an equitable and safe outcome
I really do see that argument, and I understand it’s the path of least abuse on a Saturday afternoon / Sunday morning. But laws aren’t a framework, they’re laws to be followed and we as referees really shouldn’t be picking and choosing which ones to ignore or not.
 
The Referee Store
If the ball isn’t nearby when the ‘offside’ attacking player is fouled then he/she can’t be penalised for the offside, abs the foul must be awarded.
I read the same passage. It says attempting to play the ball. Nowhere is there a qualifier for distance.
 
I read the same passage. It says attempting to play the ball. Nowhere is there a qualifier for distance.
Yes there is, I attached a picture but it may not have worked. The wording says
‘clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent’
 
I really do see that argument, and I understand it’s the path of least abuse on a Saturday afternoon / Sunday morning. But laws aren’t a framework, they’re laws to be followed and we as referees really shouldn’t be picking and choosing which ones to ignore or not.
In an ideal world, I make you right, but football is not like other sports. I'm also a golf Rules Official (although I've ditched that for Refereeing) with a 1000+ page rule book, all of which are applied with rigour, but golf adjudication is not an exercise of 'self-preservation'. I firmly believe that in football, the right decision is occasionally the 'right decision for the Referee'
It depends on the level of football (a sliding scale), but I don't want to be the only person in attendance on Hackney Marshes who can justify a decision

FWIW I agree that the OP is not offside (technically, according to wording that didn't envisage the exact scenario (with VAR))
 
In an ideal world, I make you right, but football is not like other sports. I'm also a golf Rules Official (although I've ditched that for Refereeing) with a 1000+ page rule book, all of which are applied with rigour, but golf adjudication is not an exercise of 'self-preservation'. I firmly believe that in football, the right decision is occasionally the 'right decision for the Referee'
It depends on the level of football (a sliding scale), but I don't want to be the only person in attendance on Hackney Marshes who can justify a decision

FWIW I agree that the OP is not offside (technically, according to wording that didn't envisage the exact scenario (with VAR))
I’m not uncomfortable with that approach, but for me personally I’d rather be correct in law as I could justify that to myself more easily. As my own harshest critic I’d have a hard time justifying to myself that I’d deliberately gone against law to aid my match control. But that’s just my internal compass I guess.
 
If the ball isn’t nearby when the ‘offside’ attacking player is fouled then he/she can’t be penalised for the offside, abs the foul must be awarded.

The one caveat is that if the attacker interferes in some way with the defender, that can be OS, too. The fouled player could be OS if either:
  • He challenged the opponent for the ball, or
  • "a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball;"
I think the second is the one that needs to be carefully considered any time an OSP player is fouled. (I also think it is pretty crappy drafting by IFAB that this concept really isn't up in the 4 ways to interfere with an opponent, but, well, it's IFAB . . . .)
 
I’m not uncomfortable with that approach, but for me personally I’d rather be correct in law as I could justify that to myself more easily. As my own harshest critic I’d have a hard time justifying to myself that I’d deliberately gone against law to aid my match control. But that’s just my internal compass I guess.
Some things are better communicated out on the FOP than on a forum... no doubt
AOL is ordinarily prerequisite for MC, but I reckon the relationship between the two is not always that clear
 
Yes there is, I attached a picture but it may not have worked. The wording says
‘clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent’

"Close" does not need to be "right next to the player". In this case, it was very clear that Maguire was attempting to play the ball and that led to the challenge. It's offside in law. If you don't call offside on this type of play when it's clear the defender is impacted, then you might as well not call offside until Maguire touches the ball.

Calling offside on this play is a judgment call, NOT one of black and white. Which leads to @socal lurker 's post below.

The one caveat is that if the attacker interferes in some way with the defender, that can be OS, too. The fouled player could be OS if either:
  • He challenged the opponent for the ball, or
  • "a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball;"
I think the second is the one that needs to be carefully considered any time an OSP player is fouled. (I also think it is pretty crappy drafting by IFAB that this concept really isn't up in the 4 ways to interfere with an opponent, but, well, it's IFAB . . . .)

The second bullet point is why I am very comfortable making a decision of offside that is correct in law (and not, as insinuated, some attempt to appease players for the sake of match control). Maguire is heading to where the ball is going. He can judge where the ball is going to land, and he's going to that spot. He's playing the ball and seeking to gain an advantage. Both items meet the criteria to call offside as in the photo.

We cannot be sucked into some binary, black and white determination of when the ball is close enough. Different factors will be in consideration that referees must determine. If the attackers play a through ball and two players (one onside, one offside) are running near the ball, I'm going to see which one plays the ball to see whether the offside player plays the ball. In a case like this play, I'm comfortable making a judgment that a player running toward a crossed ball is playing the ball and gaining an advantage by making the defender place himself in a position where he may foul the attacker.
 
"Close" does not need to be "right next to the player". In this case, it was very clear that Maguire was attempting to play the ball and that led to the challenge. It's offside in law. If you don't call offside on this type of play when it's clear the defender is impacted, then you might as well not call offside until Maguire touches the ball.

Calling offside on this play is a judgment call, NOT one of black and white. Which leads to @socal lurker 's post below.



The second bullet point is why I am very comfortable making a decision of offside that is correct in law (and not, as insinuated, some attempt to appease players for the sake of match control). Maguire is heading to where the ball is going. He can judge where the ball is going to land, and he's going to that spot. He's playing the ball and seeking to gain an advantage. Both items meet the criteria to call offside as in the photo.

We cannot be sucked into some binary, black and white determination of when the ball is close enough. Different factors will be in consideration that referees must determine. If the attackers play a through ball and two players (one onside, one offside) are running near the ball, I'm going to see which one plays the ball to see whether the offside player plays the ball. In a case like this play, I'm comfortable making a judgment that a player running toward a crossed ball is playing the ball and gaining an advantage by making the defender place himself in a position where he may foul the attacker.
The way you describe it is specifically covered as follows:

‘a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence’

So as per law, your example would require the ball to be ‘close’, and not just heading in the direction of the players but still further away than ‘close’.
 
The way you describe it is specifically covered as follows:

‘a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence’

So as per law, your example would require the ball to be ‘close’, and not just heading in the direction of the players but still further away than ‘close’.
Indeed in this one, the hand on Maguire starts when the ball is still 20-30 yards away. I don’t think that is ‘close’
 
I'm too lazy to chop this up, so interspersed in blue below. (Disclosure: the link to the play doesn't work for me, so I'm only aware of the descriptions and have not seen the actual play.
"Close" does not need to be "right next to the player". I disagree with what you seem to be saying attempt means. Attempt means an attempt to touch the ball, not an attempt to get in position to then be able to make an attempt later. It is designed to address the plays where the on-ball play effort doesn't touch the ball, but freezes a defender. In this case, it was very clear that Maguire was attempting to play the ball and that led to the challenge. I don't think this is possible for the reason above. If a defender reacting fouls him before the ball gets there, then there wasn't an attempt yet. If anything, I think with an opponent there, you'd have to get to challenging an opponent for the ball from what you're describing, not attempt. It's offside in law. If you don't call offside on this type of play when it's clear the defender is impacted, then you might as well not call offside until Maguire touches the ball. Well, that is the general trend of OS for the last many years. Anything other than playing (touching) the ball is very narrow.

Calling offside on this play is a judgment call, NOT one of black and white. Which leads to @socal lurker 's post below.



The second bullet point is why I am very comfortable making a decision of offside that is correct in law (and not, as insinuated, some attempt to appease players for the sake of match control). Maguire is heading to where the ball is going. He can judge where the ball is going to land, and he's going to that spot. He's playing the ball and seeking to gain an advantage. :eek: Can't be. "Playing the ball" requires touching it and "seeking to gain an advantage" left the LOTG a long time ago with "gaining an advantage" limited to the very narrow scenario of touching a ball that has rebounded or deflected. Neither can justify an OS call here. Both items meet the criteria to call offside as in the photo.

We cannot be sucked into some binary, black and white determination of when the ball is close enough. Different factors will be in consideration that referees must determine. If the attackers play a through ball and two players (one onside, one offside) are running near the ball, I'm going to see which one plays the ball to see whether the offside player plays the ball. In a case like this play, I'm comfortable making a judgment that a player running toward a crossed ball is playing the ball and gaining an advantage by making the defender place himself in a position where he may foul the attacker. I don't want to be aggressive, but this is really just wrong under the modern interpretations. I think that case could have been made a decade or so ago, but it's pretty clear that merely running towards the ball is not enough (and as noted above it cannot possibly be considered playing the ball or gaining an advantage as those terms are defined in the LOTG. I think the only ways you can get to an OS call is either finding him challenging an opponent for the ball (and it doesn't sound like that, but as I've said I haven't seen it), or more likely concluding that he got in the way of the defender, which would be enough under the second bullet I posted above.
I do think we have a core problem, especially below the professional level, that the player and coach understanding of what it takes to be actively involved and warrant a call is much more broad than the current LOTG, just as the expectation of what it takes for a defender to "play" the ball and reset OS is very out of date with the current Law 11 and teachings that go with it.
 
I'm too lazy to chop this up, so interspersed in blue below. (Disclosure: the link to the play doesn't work for me, so I'm only aware of the descriptions and have not seen the actual play.

I do think we have a core problem, especially below the professional level, that the player and coach understanding of what it takes to be actively involved and warrant a call is much more broad than the current LOTG, just as the expectation of what it takes for a defender to "play" the ball and reset OS is very out of date with the current Law 11 and teachings that go with it.
Brilliant post, and perfectly summed up. A lot of referees on here seem to be stuck in 2010 or even earlier...time to catch up to modern times fellas
 
We call out players all the time...we should be able to taste our own medicine
While many referees are behind the times (though fewer than coaches and players), I would posit the population on this board is much more current than the average referee population, and much more interested in being current and improving. For example, while I respectfully believe that @RefIADad is wrong in some of his interpretation in this thread, I would certainly not disparage his knowledge or efforts to remain current with the LOTG.
 
Ok, getting back to the debate (and not the debaters). For me the intent of the bit of law about foul before offside is very clear and why it is necessary to have it. I too think 'close' means more or less 'within playing distance'.

Lets say it was a clear foul on Maguire who was in an offside position. But there was also an onside Man U player who had a much better chance of playing the ball and in fact did play the ball. We would not even be having this discussion. It would have been an easy penalty. Intending to play the ball has never been offside. We often have PIOP intend to play the ball but leave it in the last second without interfering with anything.
 
I'll just take the high road here and not allow a poster to continue dragging this into the mud.
 
Last edited:
It's a penalty.
Shirt pull with left hand is a foul before even considering the second pull back
 
Back
Top