Offside Offence Or Goal?

Graham B said:

Thank you for your help & clarification. Hopefully it helps others as well as me

A quick side question if you have the time. - In this scenario could the attacker ever have been offside for interfering with play?
- For example, would he have had to have touched the ball, run infront of the keeper to distort view, or how close to the ball and keeper without touching the ball would he need to be to be considered offside interference on the keeper, would he have to have touched the keeper in a challenge?
I hope this makes sense ok.

Kindest regards
Graham

Click to expand...

Refer to Law. First paragraph of 11.2 gives you the exact answer(s).

(You’re on the right lines)

In practice this is getting given as offside by nearly every referee including I've no doubt some who would argue there is no offence on this forum

He's running towards the ball and is a body length away, football expects offside.
An obvious action that impacts on the goalkeepers ability to play the ball (where he wants to)

bester said:

In practice this is getting given as offside by nearly every referee including I've no doubt some who would argue there is no offence on this forum

He's running towards the ball and is a body length away, football expects offside.
An obvious action that impacts on the goalkeepers ability to play the ball (where he wants to)

Click to expand...

That’s not what obvious action is aimed at. The language obvious action was an addition that was added after a famous play where an attacker dummied the ball, freezing a defender. The R gave OS. But the Laws as written didn’t actually support the call—he didn’t attempt to play the ball, challenge an opponent for the ball, or blocking vision. Obvious action came after that. Moving towards the ball isn’t captured by this.

If you want to get OS on the initial play, you need to get there by having the opinion that the player was close enough that he was challenging for the ball. Though I do agree with you a lot of people, probably even most players expect this to be called OS.

I think this is one of those examples where this clearly used to be an OS offense and IFAB clearly does not want this to be an OS offense.

JamesL said:

Wow this is tricky. This all rests upon whether the goalkeepers action is a save or a deliberate play.

Click to expand...

While I am only quoting this, there are also other posts here that imply if it's deliberate play it can't be considered a save, or that a save is not considered (and hence not offside).

This is not the case. The laws are clear.

This basically says deliberate play is not offside unless it was a save.

OP point 2 says it was a hard kick towards goal satisfying a save definition making the decision offside regardless of it being deliberate play. Touch by the second defender is clearly a rebound so no impact on the decision.

Really not that complex of a decision

Graham B said:

I saw this as a 'offside offence'. I justified this as the Attacker in an offside position forced a hasty save from the goal keeper and not a deliberate play, possibly interfering with play at this stage and consequently got the ball

Click to expand...

You need to be careful with the law definitions here or you risk getting confused and making a decision based on a mistaken interpretation of the offside law. The player can't be "interfering with play at this stage" because he hasn't touched the ball.

Peter Grove said:

You need to be careful with the law definitions here or you risk getting confused and making a decision based on a mistaken interpretation of the offside law. The player can't be "interfering with play at this stage" because he hasn't touched the ball.

Click to expand...

Indeed, if you deem the goalkeepers action to be a save, then the offside offence committed by the attacker is 'gaining an advantage'.

(I know you know this Peter, this is for the benefit of the OP)

Peter Grove said:

You need to be careful with the law definitions here or you risk getting confused and making a decision based on a mistaken interpretation of the offside law. The player can't be "interfering with play at this stage" because he hasn't touched the ball.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, he was consequently an offside offence when he gained an advantage from a save, as I saw it.
Really helpful great input and advice from you and everyone. This was a great opportunity for me to share and get advice.
‐-----------
This was my full comment.
I saw this as a 'offside offence'. I justified this as the Attacker in an offside position forced a hasty save from the goal keeper and not a deliberate play, possibly interfering with play at this stage and consequently got the ball and goal from a deflection whilst in an offside position in addition from a 'save', making this a 'gaining advantage offside offence'.
‐-‐--------
- The save and offside gaining advantage is my final decision.
I agree with comments made and I am grateful for the advice, it's great.

I have seen loads of referees incorrectly call offside offences when the attacker hasn't got to the ball with the keeper having a clear view of the ball too, so I understand the point. I also understand that if the keeper did not make a save, then it's a goal too. Interesting scenario this one

Great help and comments and learning curve too. I hope this helps other referees.

Thank you for your help.
Graham