So you are correct in that a player doesn’t have to touch the ball to be penalised for offside.Had a game today when the manager said to me, he can’t be offside he hasn’t touched the ball.
My reading of the law is that if a player attempts to approach/chase after or play the ball in an offside position, it’s offside.
Am I correct?
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 diagramsHad a game today when the manager said to me, he can’t be offside he hasn’t touched the ball.
My reading of the law is that if a player attempts to approach/chase after or play the ball in an offside position, it’s offside.
Am I correct?
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.Had a game today when the manager said to me, he can’t be offside he hasn’t touched the ball.
My reading of the law is that if a player attempts to approach/chase after or play the ball in an offside position, it’s offside.
Am I correct?
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).Had a game today when the manager said to me, he can’t be offside he hasn’t touched the ball.
My reading of the law is that if a player attempts to approach/chase after or play the ball in an offside position, it’s offside.
Am I correct?
A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.
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.If a player in an offside position attempts to head the ball, unopposed, but and misses, does that count as "challenging for the ball"?
No.If a player in an offside position attempts to head the ball, unopposed, but and misses, does that count as "challenging for the ball"?
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 offenceIf a player in an offside position attempts to head the ball, unopposed, but and misses, does that count as "challenging for the ball"?
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?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
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!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?
Net, net, if an attacker in an offside position clearly attempts to head a ball which is close, then generally speaking (which is always dangerous!) an offside decision is likely and expected.
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.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.
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.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.
A mixture, but I an specifically referring to attempting to play balls that are close.@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?
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.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 .
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.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