FRANCE vs Spain UNL Final Mbappe Offside

[Murri O]

Stupid, stupid rule. All fine and dandy for games where there's the benefit of hardened match officials and VAR replays. Bad luck for poor old me and other blokes like me getting screamed at by players and coaches yelling 'HE'S PLAYED AT IT' in the lower leagues.

Now we're meant to determine whether he's actually played at it or it's just nicked his shoelaces on an air swing. If a defender jumps up for a ball and it just grazes his head has he played at it? Obviously he has because he's jumped up for it. Or not?!

Why so they make it so bloody hard? It used to be and still is 'when the ball is played' for determining whether or not the attacker is offside.

I understand the intent. Yes if the defender plays the ball across the back or a backpass to the GK and the attacker is there then he's entitled to get it but these other 'glances' are just ridiculous.

1st consideration: Does the intended recipient get the ball? Yes, then he's involved in play.
2nd consideration: Was he in an offside position when the ball left the foot of his team mate? Yes, then he's offside.

Done. Christ on a bike.

 

[Dan56]

Stupid, stupid rule. All fine and dandy for games where there's the benefit of hardened match officials and VAR replays. Bad luck for poor old me and other blokes like me getting screamed at by players and coaches yelling 'HE'S PLAYED AT IT' in the lower leagues.

Now we're meant to determine whether he's actually played at it or it's just nicked his shoelaces on an air swing. If a defender jumps up for a ball and it just grazes his head has he played at it? Obviously he has because he's jumped up for it. Or not?!

Why so they make it so bloody hard? It used to be and still is 'when the ball is played' for determining whether or not the attacker is offside.

I understand the intent. Yes if the defender plays the ball across the back or a backpass to the GK and the attacker is there then he's entitled to get it but these other 'glances' are just ridiculous.

1st consideration: Does the intended recipient get the ball? Yes, then he's involved in play.
2nd consideration: Was he in an offside position when the ball left the foot of his team mate? Yes, then he's offside.

Done. Christ on a bike.

I am sorry but I have seen the outcome of this kind of thinking. In the 70s and 80s the Law worked in precisely this way. It led to games with 30 offsides or more ( I know, I officiated in them) and dull low scoring outcomes. Offside is always gonna be unfair, either to attackers or defenders. Getting a perfect balance is impossible. So I say, yay IFAB, let's have a world where defenders moan and there are more goals and goalmouth incidents.

And it has not always been easy for referees either. Back in the 40s and 50s if the ball so much as "nicked the shoelaces" of a defender on its way, that was sufficient to play all attackers onside, whether the touch was deliberate or not. So they made it only deliberate plays, which led to the dullness I have just mentioned. We have now achieved a reasonable balance. However in occasional grey areas, such as the OP, it is an attacker's game - and all the better for it.

And to those who say "why have offside at all?" I should point out that Sheffield, back in the 1860s attempted to sell a game with no offside, and tried to persuade the young FA to include this idea. It led in Sheffield to each team including a couple of players killed "kick-throughs" who just stood near the opposition goal and waited for long balls. All midfield play disappeared. The FA rejected the idea, and Sheffield dropped it too shortly afterwards.

 

[Murri O]

I am sorry but I have seen the outcome of this kind of thinking. In the 70s and 80s the Law worked in precisely this way. It led to games with 30 offsides or more ( I know, I officiated in them) and dull low scoring outcomes. Offside is always gonna be unfair, either to attackers or defenders. Getting a perfect balance is impossible. So I say, yay IFAB, let's have a world where defenders moan and there are more goals and goalmouth incidents.

And it has not always been easy for referees either. Back in the 40s and 50s if the ball so much as "nicked the shoelaces" of a defender on its way, that was sufficient to play all attackers onside, whether the touch was deliberate or not. So they made it only deliberate plays, which led to the dullness I have just mentioned. We have now achieved a reasonable balance. However in occasional grey areas, such as the OP, it is an attacker's game - and all the better for it.

And to those who say "why have offside at all?" I should point out that Sheffield, back in the 1860s attempted to sell a game with no offside, and tried to persuade the young FA to include this idea. It led in Sheffield to each team including a couple of players killed "kick-throughs" who just stood near the opposition goal and waited for long balls. All midfield play disappeared. The FA rejected the idea, and Sheffield dropped it too shortly afterwards.

I don't understand this at all. For the past few years the rules have been fine until now we have this ridiculous situation where a tiny touch plays players in 'offside' positions on. For a thousand years the determining factor has been when the ball is played is (firstly) the player involved/interfering with play and then (secondly) where was he when the ball was played because as everyone who's ever been an AR will have been told 'it's not when he receives it, it's when it's played. (Not who it touched on the way through.)

The rule for the past few years has been fine until they tried to carve out this 'deliberately played at it' thing which is OK because I understand why. But 'deliberately play at' (as in a pass) is way different from instinctively throwing your leg out when the ball passes you by.

Again. In big matches with a thousand cameras and a match officials up the wazoo that's all fine but what about Joe Bloggs at a suburban ground?

Here's my question to you. If a defender jumps up and the ball just grazes the top of his head has he played the attacker on or not?

If not why? and
If so why?

Not trying to be argumentative and I apologise for the tone if it's coming across rude but have copped a bunch of grief from players and coaches this season here in Oz over this rule.

 

[one]

1st consideration: Does the intended recipient get the ball? Yes, then he's involved in play.
2nd consideration: Was he in an offside position when the ball left the foot of his team mate? Yes, then he's offside.

How do you deal with it if a defender in the middle intercepts it with a one touch pass to the keeper but only manages to pass it to the offside player. It was very controlled and intentional. But just failed to do what it intended.

 

[JamesL]

I don't understand this at all. For the past few years the rules have been fine until now we have this ridiculous situation where a tiny touch plays players in 'offside' positions on. For a thousand years the determining factor has been when the ball is played is (firstly) the player involved/interfering with play and then (secondly) where was he when the ball was played because as everyone who's ever been an AR will have been told 'it's not when he receives it, it's when it's played. (Not who it touched on the way through.)

The rule for the past few years has been fine until they tried to carve out this 'deliberately played at it' thing which is OK because I understand why. But 'deliberately play at' (as in a pass) is way different from instinctively throwing your leg out when the ball passes you by.

Again. In big matches with a thousand cameras and a match officials up the wazoo that's all fine but what about Joe Bloggs at a suburban ground?

Here's my question to you. If a defender jumps up and the ball just grazes the top of his head has he played the attacker on or not?

If not why? and
If so why?

Not trying to be argumentative and I apologise for the tone if it's coming across rude but have copped a bunch of grief from players and coaches this season here in Oz over this rule.

This isn't new BTW.
If in the opinion of the referee the defender has deliberately played the ball he is onside. That's it.

"Play
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball"

 

[Murri O]

This isn't new BTW.
If in the opinion of the referee the defender has deliberately played the ball he is onside. That's it.

"Play
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball"

From IFAB. 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.'

What is 'deliberately plays'? To be a pedant anything other than an unintentional deflection is 'plays the ball'. No?

Back to my example above or in the other post. What if a player jumps up and it just grazes the top of his head. Is that 'deliberately plays the ball'?.

 

[Murri O]

How do you deal with it if a defender in the middle intercepts it with a one touch pass to the keeper but only manages to pass it to the offside player. It was very controlled and intentional. But just failed to do what it intended.

I understand the grey area. Difficult for sure. The intent was to allow the attacker to be played on when they made these new rules. I get it.

I'm still not totally comfortable with attackers hanging around behind defenders because if the defender is keeping an eye on him and watching his runs then by definition he is 'interfering with play'. In fact if the intent is not to 'interfere with play' what are they doing there.

But to paint myself right into a corner here and be hoisted upon my own petard I would say that example above is more the intent of the law and I would be happy that that player is now onside. The Mbappe incident may be strictly correct but surely that was never what was intended?

 

[JamesL]

From IFAB. 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.'

What is 'deliberately plays'? To be a pedant anything other than an unintentional deflection is 'plays the ball'. No?

Back to my example above or in the other post. What if a player jumps up and it just grazes the top of his head. Is that 'deliberately plays the ball'?.

I posted the definition of play above. That is from the glossary.
I can't really answer your question without seeing a real life example. There could be times when it is and times when it isnt.

 

[JamesL]

I understand the grey area. Difficult for sure. The intent was to allow the attacker to be played on when they made these new rules. I get it.

I'm still not totally comfortable with attackers hanging around behind defenders because if the defender is keeping an eye on him and watching his runs then by definition he is 'interfering with play'. In fact if the intent is not to 'interfere with play' what are they doing there.

But to paint myself right into a corner here and be hoisted upon my own petard I would say that example above is more the intent of the law and I would be happy that that player is now onside. The Mbappe incident may be strictly correct but surely that was never what was intended?

He is not by definition interfering with play.
I've said this many times before, in everyday language they probably are but you need to use the definitions provided in the laws of the game.

 

[JamesL]

Where does it say that? (EDIT: Nevermind you said the glossary whilst I was typing that.)

Law 5

Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws
of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the
referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the
framework of the Laws of the Game.

Law 11
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who
deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered
to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

The definition of play is provided in the glossary.

 

[Murri O]

He is not by definition interfering with play.
I've said this many times before, in everyday language they probably are but you need to use the definitions provided in the laws of the game.

Can you please have a crack at a defender who jumps up to head the ball that an attacker(#1) has played through and it just grazes the top of his head and goes through the 'offside' attacker (#2).

I'm not trying to box you in. I'm genuinely interested.

 

[JamesL]

Can you please have a crack at a defender who jumps up to head the ball that an attacker(#1) has played through and it just grazes the top of his head and goes through the 'offside' attacker (#2).

I'm not trying to box you in. I'm genuinely interested.

If it was a deliberate action that made contact with the ball (and not a save or rebound or deflection) then the attacker is onside. Best I can give you

I think, football expects and our level of the game we would easily get away with an offside decision but laws of the game answer I believe would be onside.

Think Lovren onside call where he went to clear the ball, it brushed his laces and went through to attacker who scored. Correctly given onside.

 

[Murri O]

If it was a deliberate action that made contact with the ball (and not a save or rebound or deflection) then the attacker is onside. Best I can give you

I think, football expects and our level of the game we would easily get away with an offside decision but laws of the game answer I believe would be onside.

Think Lovren onside call where he went to clear the ball, it brushed his laces and went through to attacker who scored. Correctly given onside.

But you understand how at pleb level this causes all sorts of grief. Sometimes they need to think about the grassroots before lumping us poor schlubs in it.

Gotta run. Off to indoor football to kick some other blokes. No offsides to worry about.

Cheers

 

[Russell Jones]

Can you please have a crack at a defender who jumps up to head the ball that an attacker(#1) has played through and it just grazes the top of his head and goes through the 'offside' attacker (#2).

I'm not trying to box you in. I'm genuinely interested.

It's impossible to answer this question without seeing the play, because both outcomes (offside / non offside) are possible.

To give the two 'extreme' examples as illustrations ...

1) Long ball is played through, defender has loads of time and should be able to easily head it. Instead, completely mistimes his jump, ball skims off his head and goes to attacker. This is a deliberate play (despite the fact that outcome is completely different to what defender wanted) and attacker is onside

2) Ball is played at pace from very close to the defender who therefore makes an almost instinctive movement to jump up, ball grazes his head and goes through to attacker. This is not seen as a deliberate play and therefore the attacker is offside

Between these two extremes are various shades of grey and therefore a need for judgement from the officials. In a not dissimilar way to the need to judge the 'deliberateness' of a handball offence, depending on the closeness to the opponent and speed the ball is played at.

Hope that helps .. at least a little

 

[JamesL]

But you understand how at pleb level this causes all sorts of grief. Sometimes they need to think about the grassroots before lumping us poor schlubs in it.

I think I already alluded to that in my answer.

It's the same as when an attacker liters behind a defender who feels compelled to intercept the ball and it goes for a corner (eg) due to the OSP position.
Lots of folks think this is offside as interfering in everyday sense of the word in the English language (defender wouldn't have to put ball out if attacker. It there) but it is not as per lotg.

 

[one]

It's impossible to answer this question without seeing the play, because both outcomes (offside / non offside) are possible.

To give the two 'extreme' examples as illustrations ...

1) Long ball is played through, defender has loads of time and should be able to easily head it. Instead, completely mistimes his jump, ball skims off his head and goes to attacker. This is a deliberate play (despite the fact that outcome is completely different to what defender wanted) and attacker is onside

2) Ball is played at pace from very close to the defender who therefore makes an almost instinctive movement to jump up, ball grazes his head and goes through to attacker. This is not seen as a deliberate play and therefore the attacker is offside

Between these two extremes are various shades of grey and therefore a need for judgement from the officials. In a not dissimilar way to the need to judge the 'deliberateness' of a handball offence, depending on the closeness to the opponent and speed the ball is played at.

Hope that helps .. at least a little

NO2 more and more is seen as onside nowadays. Especially at top level. Basically deliberate action + contact = deliberate play. Mots plays by players at top level are instinctive.

 

[Martiju]

NO2 more and more is seen as offside nowadays. Especially at top level. Basically deliberate action + contact = deliberate play. Mots plays by players at top level are instinctive.

And that's one of the key points too, you do have to take skill levels into consideration.

I had one of these a few weeks ago in the WNL, in my mind the player deliberately tried to intercept the ball, it grazed the top of her head and went to the attacker (in an OS position) who went on to score. I was worried that perhaps it was impossible for her to do otherwise, but was pleased to see on the video afterwards that there was no doubt it was a deliberate play just not executed quite well enough.

 

[one]

And that's one of the key points too, you do have to take skill levels into consideration.

I had one of these a few weeks ago in the WNL, in my mind the player deliberately tried to intercept the ball, it grazed the top of her head and went to the attacker (in an OS position) who went on to score. I was worried that perhaps it was impossible for her to do otherwise, but was pleased to see on the video afterwards that there was no doubt it was a deliberate play just not executed quite well enough.

Ah. I actually meant to type onside. I have changed it now. If you remember Lovren incident in game a few yes ago Liverpool vs ???. A few others in a similar way when a defender instinctively stuck their leg out to block a shot/pass but it only skimmed their foot. They all seemed to have reset offside.

 

[Macca]

I had two incidents over the past month that come to mind for this thread:
Exactly as was mentioned earlier - center half of attacking team plays long ball. Defender jumps for ball, barely grazes their head but continues through to two offside attackers, one of whom went on to score. Defending coaches go mental - two offside players etc. I shout "came off number 5, no offside offence". I could/should have said "deliberate play by defender" but that probably would have confused the coaches. Either way I was chuffed I managed to spot the touch by the defender as it was just a graze. Interestingly, the defender looked immediately at me when they realised they just grazed the ball as I think they knew the rule and that he just played two offside attackers onside.

The other one was a player who was such a gentleman and incredibly good player for age/level (u16). He never complained or shouted for anything in the matches I have ref'ed him, but he did in this recent one. He claimed the ball nicked the defender as the defender challenged for the ball, but the ball continued on to a player who was in an offside position. I called offside but the player wasn't happy because "it touched the defender". I didn't see the touch hence I called it, but even if I had of, I probably would have called offside anyway as the defender was challenging for the ball, so I wouldn't see that a deliberate play of the ball.

Whatever way you call it, someone won't be happy. Story of our lives.

 

[NOVARef]

I don't understand this at all. For the past few years the rules have been fine until now we have this ridiculous situation where a tiny touch plays players in 'offside' positions on. For a thousand years the determining factor has been when the ball is played is (firstly) the player involved/interfering with play and then (secondly) where was he when the ball was played because as everyone who's ever been an AR will have been told 'it's not when he receives it, it's when it's played. (Not who it touched on the way through.)

The rule for the past few years has been fine until they tried to carve out this 'deliberately played at it' thing which is OK because I understand why. But 'deliberately play at' (as in a pass) is way different from instinctively throwing your leg out when the ball passes you by.

Again. In big matches with a thousand cameras and a match officials up the wazoo that's all fine but what about Joe Bloggs at a suburban ground?

Here's my question to you. If a defender jumps up and the ball just grazes the top of his head has he played the attacker on or not?

If not why? and
If so why?

Not trying to be argumentative and I apologise for the tone if it's coming across rude but have copped a bunch of grief from players and coaches this season here in Oz over this rule.

I'm in the US and this exact scenario was provided in a webinar a year or two ago as an example of NO OFFSIDE. The reason....because the defender deliberately played the ball even though it was only a graze off the top of his head. I'll try to find the video.