Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
For my taste, I reckon our American cousins have got these three aspects of this Law spot on - really helpful clarification to the most problematic of areas. Other thoughts / views?
US Interpretation of Updated Offside Law
- Thread starter Russell Jones
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
one
RefChat Addict
12min 30sec
"If the attacker is capable of influencing the goalkeeper's decision simply by being in an offside position then the attacker must be punished for offside for interfering with an opponent"
Strongly disagree. The LOTG definition of interfering with an opponent is significantly different. This implies if an attacker in an offside position runs for the ball but then stops a good distance away then he should be punished for offside as he is capable of influencing a defender's decision.
"If the attacker is capable of influencing the goalkeeper's decision simply by being in an offside position then the attacker must be punished for offside for interfering with an opponent"
Strongly disagree. The LOTG definition of interfering with an opponent is significantly different. This implies if an attacker in an offside position runs for the ball but then stops a good distance away then he should be punished for offside as he is capable of influencing a defender's decision.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Totally agree that this US advice extends the current interpretation of 'interfering with an opponent' into a new area. However in the specific case of a goalkeeper I totally agree with their point of view that (in light of the unique nature of the goalies role) it is easier for them to be distracted by the actions of a player standing in an offside position AND generally more match critical when this happens.
To be fair to them, their advice does not imply ANYTHING when it comes to reguar defenders being influenced by an attacker's actions as they are very clear that the goalkeeper is a special case.
To be fair to them, their advice does not imply ANYTHING when it comes to reguar defenders being influenced by an attacker's actions as they are very clear that the goalkeeper is a special case.
But the laws make no distinction between keepers and other players with regard to offside so it has to be the same for all players. Every week players move to cover a player in a offside position leaving an onside player free to score and I don't see that this is very different.
In the actual clip shown above, I would argue that the PIAOP was challenging for the ball and thus interfering under the definition of the law and therefore should be penalised. If he had just been stood still I would not give offside and I don't see any justification in the law as it is written for the US interpretation.
I think its a step in the right direction .
Only bit that worries me is the interpretation bit at different levels ?
if you get a Div 1 v Div 4 in the cup and the div 1 full back who has been accomplished for 80 mins makes a hash of a clearance !!! you don't call it .then the Slicer from div 4 does the same 5 mins later and you give it ?
Carnage will ensue
Only bit that worries me is the interpretation bit at different levels ?
if you get a Div 1 v Div 4 in the cup and the div 1 full back who has been accomplished for 80 mins makes a hash of a clearance !!! you don't call it .then the Slicer from div 4 does the same 5 mins later and you give it ?
Carnage will ensue
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'm broadly with you actually McTavish. And to be fair to those doing the blog I don't think they at any point suggest that simply standing in an offside position is a problem (unless it's done solely and specifically with the purpose of distracting the keeper at eg a free kick).
I think all that they are suggesting is that in the normal run of things the definition of interfering with play is applied more liberally when it comes to attackers doing things that impact on the goalkeeper. So a slight movement of a PIAOP's leg towards the ball which you'd let go in other areas of the pitch, you'd be much stricter on if you thought it had impacted the GK's decision making ....
I think all that they are suggesting is that in the normal run of things the definition of interfering with play is applied more liberally when it comes to attackers doing things that impact on the goalkeeper. So a slight movement of a PIAOP's leg towards the ball which you'd let go in other areas of the pitch, you'd be much stricter on if you thought it had impacted the GK's decision making ....
one
RefChat Addict
@Russell Jones what I posted was the exact quote from the clip "If the attacker is capable of influencing the goalkeeper's decision simply by being in an offside position" and that is what bothers me.
Lets say that it is not just simply in an offside position but also making movements that influence the goalkeepers decision. However a different scenario: A two on one against the keeper and every defender has given up chase. Attacker1 coming from the left with the ball and Attacker2 from the right in support (say 10 meters apart). The keeper is now positioned himself to cover a shot from A1 as much as possible but also cover A2 in case of a pass. Would you call offside if A2 gets in an offside position but the ball is kicked into goal by A1 directly? How about if he momentarily get into an offside position but come back onside before the ball is kicked into goal by A1 directly?
The US interpretation implies that it is an offside offence in both cases but IMO the LOTG wording implies neither is offside.
Lets say that it is not just simply in an offside position but also making movements that influence the goalkeepers decision. However a different scenario: A two on one against the keeper and every defender has given up chase. Attacker1 coming from the left with the ball and Attacker2 from the right in support (say 10 meters apart). The keeper is now positioned himself to cover a shot from A1 as much as possible but also cover A2 in case of a pass. Would you call offside if A2 gets in an offside position but the ball is kicked into goal by A1 directly? How about if he momentarily get into an offside position but come back onside before the ball is kicked into goal by A1 directly?
The US interpretation implies that it is an offside offence in both cases but IMO the LOTG wording implies neither is offside.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Think we can all agree that the exact quote you mention is an unhelpful overstatement from those overzealous Yanks 
.. and actually not in keeping with the clips they show to illustrate their point
For clarity, I would not be calling offside in either of the cases you describe
Reason I shared (apart from to generate debate!) was because all three of their suggestions (to a greater or lesser extent) seemed to move the interpretation of this law closer back to what might seem 'fair and reasonable' to both players and spectators alike
.. and actually not in keeping with the clips they show to illustrate their pointFor clarity, I would not be calling offside in either of the cases you describe
Reason I shared (apart from to generate debate!) was because all three of their suggestions (to a greater or lesser extent) seemed to move the interpretation of this law closer back to what might seem 'fair and reasonable' to both players and spectators alike
Quite. Our FA are so poor at this sort of training.
Y
Yacinho
Guest
So, something happened in my game..... of FIFA last night 
Thoughts ?
Thoughts ?
not offside. It appears the defender played the ball and not just touched granted he played it badlySo, something happened in my game..... of FIFA last night
Thoughts ?