A&H

Is this Offside or not?

newref

Active Member
If a player is offside and chasing the ball down but has not yet touched it. Is he offside? I've seen it so many times on TV a player is clearly a few yards offside and is clearly chasing the ball. The linesman doesn't raise his flag until the player touches the ball. So I've been questioning myself whether or not the player is offside only when he touches the ball or is he offside as soon as he tries to hunt the ball down? Please clarify.
 
The Referee Store
If a player is offside and chasing the ball down but has not yet touched it. Is he offside? I've seen it so many times on TV a player is clearly a few yards offside and is clearly chasing the ball. The linesman doesn't raise his flag until the player touches the ball. So I've been questioning myself whether or not the player is offside only when he touches the ball or is he offside as soon as he tries to hunt the ball down? Please clarify.
Being in an offside position alone isn't an offence - to be penalised, you have to become active and the most common way to do this is by touching the ball.

The reason the AR will wait is because if the player realises he was in an offside position and stops, an onside teammate could run past and collect the ball without being penalised. Sometimes when its obvious, of if there's a danger of a collision with the keeper, they might flag early, but most of the time they should wait for an offside player to become active.
 
Being in an offside position alone isn't an offence - to be penalised, you have to become active and the most common way to do this is by touching the ball.

The reason the AR will wait is because if the player realises he was in an offside position and stops, an onside teammate could run past and collect the ball without being penalised. Sometimes when its obvious, of if there's a danger of a collision with the keeper, they might flag early, but most of the time they should wait for an offside player to become active.
Yes, but surely the player can't be running towards the ball and then stop and allow his teammate to take over (once he has realised he is offside). Because the initial movement towards the ball means he is active doesn't it, i.e because of the movement he defenders would stop tracking back once the clearly offside player runs towards the ball? Since they would know he is offside. So how could this player then just stop and allow another team mate to come?
 
Yes, but surely the player can't be running towards the ball and then stop and allow his teammate to take over (once he has realised he is offside). Because the initial movement towards the ball means he is active doesn't it, i.e because of the movement he defenders would stop tracking back once the clearly offside player runs towards the ball? Since they would know he is offside. So how could this player then just stop and allow another team mate to come?
"Active" actually requires a lot more than most casual observers think. And "vaguely running towards the ball" definitely doesn't qualify - have a look at law 11 to get a better idea of what does.
 
"Active" actually requires a lot more than most casual observers think. And "vaguely running towards the ball" definitely doesn't qualify - have a look at law 11 to get a better idea of what does.
Yes, after reading the law in more detail. Your initial response seems correct. It's when the player touches the ball. The law needs changing because this loophole can be exploited. I.e a player can stand in an offside position while the ball is being played to him angling across and then another player who is onside comes to collect it. The defence switches off because of the initial player who is offside and the attacking team is away with the onside overlapping player. It requires a bit of chemistry but I've seen it happen a few times with some top teams like it's very deliberate.
 
"Active" actually requires a lot more than most casual observers think. And "vaguely running towards the ball" definitely doesn't qualify - have a look at law 11 to get a better idea of what does.

Graeme's point is spot on because words/phrases in the offside law do not mean what the casual observer thinks they mean!

Gains an advantage & interferes with play for example have specific definitions stated in specific circumstances
 
Yes, after reading the law in more detail. Your initial response seems correct. It's when the player touches the ball. The law needs changing because this loophole can be exploited. I.e a player can stand in an offside position while the ball is being played to him angling across and then another player who is onside comes to collect it. The defence switches off because of the initial player who is offside and the attacking team is away with the onside overlapping player. It requires a bit of chemistry but I've seen it happen a few times with some top teams like it's very deliberate.

Happens quite a lot and for me its up to players to understand the law & react accordingly.
 
Graeme's point is spot on because words/phrases in the offside law do not mean what the casual observer thinks they mean!

Gains an advantage & interferes with play for example have specific definitions stated in specific circumstances
The law states interfering with play by playing or touching a ball. It doesn't say anything about interfering by movement.
 
The law states interfering with play by playing or touching a ball. It doesn't say anything about interfering by movement.

Exactly - that's my point. You can't be giving offside just because you think a defender may been 'put off' by a forward's movement.

I've always said that the most important line in this law and one that should be put in every dressing room is that 'It is NOT an offence to be in an offside position'
 
Yes, after reading the law in more detail. Your initial response seems correct. It's when the player touches the ball. The law needs changing because this loophole can be exploited. I.e a player can stand in an offside position while the ball is being played to him angling across and then another player who is onside comes to collect it. The defence switches off because of the initial player who is offside and the attacking team is away with the onside overlapping player. It requires a bit of chemistry but I've seen it happen a few times with some top teams like it's very deliberate.

While you may think Law 11 needs changing to make more attackers OS, IFAB clearly disagrees. IFAB has had a long and steady path of narrowing when a player can be considered to have been actively involved. It is not oversight that means a player chasing a ball has not yet committed an offense--that was a deliberate choice by IFAB. A few years ago (I'd have to sort through books to tell you exactly when, but I think it would be 5-10 years ago) the play you describe could be considered OS for interfering with an opponent. IFAB does not want that to be OS--they operate under the view that the decision to switch to cover the OS player is a poor choice by the defender. We can debate how fair it is to expect players in dynamic play to now which opponents are in OSP at the time the ball was played (OK, there isn't really a debate--they often flat out can't tell), but IFAB wants goals and to get goals they are deliberately narrowing the scope of what it means to become actively involved--and have been for at least a couple of decades. (And yes, many of us see the irony of this compared to the toenail OS decisions being made by VAR.)
 
While you may think Law 11 needs changing to make more attackers OS, IFAB clearly disagrees. IFAB has had a long and steady path of narrowing when a player can be considered to have been actively involved. It is not oversight that means a player chasing a ball has not yet committed an offense--that was a deliberate choice by IFAB. A few years ago (I'd have to sort through books to tell you exactly when, but I think it would be 5-10 years ago) the play you describe could be considered OS for interfering with an opponent. IFAB does not want that to be OS--they operate under the view that the decision to switch to cover the OS player is a poor choice by the defender. We can debate how fair it is to expect players in dynamic play to now which opponents are in OSP at the time the ball was played (OK, there isn't really a debate--they often flat out can't tell), but IFAB wants goals and to get goals they are deliberately narrowing the scope of what it means to become actively involved--and have been for at least a couple of decades. (And yes, many of us see the irony of this compared to the toenail OS decisions being made by VAR.)
Good response. That's what I was thinking, I had a feeling teams do this deliberately. I mentioned this dynamic piece of play by teams (of staying within the offside laws but causing confusion in the defence) to a mate and he thought nahh and that I was overthinking it, but I really see teams using this as a tactic and it is fun to watch at times tbh.
 
... (And yes, many of us see the irony of this compared to the toenail OS decisions being made by VAR.)
There's no irony here.
IFAB wants to reduce the space that players aren't allowed to work within, in terms of law framework, but it wants those boundaries a lot firmer.

In effect, they've said that more of the grey area should be applied to the outside, but that means less grey area is available for decisions to swing from. Consider distance at a free kick, for example. The idea is to provide "enough" distance, but there's a lot of grey between saying just "too close to prevent the attack" and "far away enough to block it" - the imaginary line at 9.15 metres moves all the grey area to one side or another, exchanging more freedom for defenders (you need to be not here but otherwise you're guaranteed to be okay) with greater firmness of law (if you are here then you are in breach, no leeway).
 
A team that deliberately exploits this knows the laws of the game. A team that falls for it doesn't know the laws of the game. I know which team I would side with.
 
Agree with other posts above. Worth pointing out the below example though with reference to the OP

View attachment 4083
It's also perhaps worth pointing out that although it's not specifically mentioned there, one example of where this is used is when the offside-positioned player is running through, the keeper is coming out to collect the ball and there's a danger of a collision if you wait to see if the forward will actually touch the ball or not.

Edit: Oops, just noticed @GraemeS already mentioned this.
 
Last edited:
The diagram that probably most closely matches the OP's scenario is the following one - it's not exactly the same but it does make the point once again that running towards the ball but not actually touching it is not (normally) enough to constitute an offside offence. Incidentally, This is one that even top level AR's in the professional leagues frequently get wrong. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this happen in the EPL alone, and where the AR flags for the offside instead of letting it go for a goal kick.

IMG_20200220_104712.png
 
I think that overall, the document that best shows the IFAB's mindset on how to judge interfering with an opponent when it's just a question of the offside-positioned player's movement, was IFAB circular 3 issued back in July 2015.

It makes the point (several times) that in order for this to matter, it must have an actual effect on the opponent's ability to play the ball.

Again, it's not the exact scenario under discussion but the following passage from that circular embodies the principle.
j... just because a player is an offside position it does not always mean that he has an impact. For example:
• if the ball is on the right-hand side of the field and an ‘offside’ player in the centre of the field moves into a new attacking position he is not penalised unless this action affects an opponent’s ability to play the ball
 
I recently had a situation where the attacker was clearly in an offside position and sprinting after a thru ball. The GK takes off to get to the ball first. The attacker gets to about 5 yards of the ball when the GK gets to the balls first and....he picks it up...outside the box. I was AR. I raise my flag. The center blows the whistle and calls handling. I'm OK with it because I'm not sure what the correct call is. I feel like it could have been offside. I let it go. After the match, we discuss the play and the center and other AR are confident that the correct call is handling. I get home and read the laws and I feel the attacker interfered by:

challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to to play a ball which is close when his action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If you add in that no onside attacker could have played the ball (this is from the post above), I feel like it should have been offside instead of handling.

Thankfully, the attacking team played a quick restart that fizzled immediately.
 
At still 5 yards away, I don't think IFAB intends that to be a offense. The attacker wants to interfere with an opponent, but did not get close enough to actually challenge for the ball. He cannot attempt to play a ball form 5 yards away--attempt means an actual attempt at the ball, not trying to get closer to ball. Similarly, I don't think this is close to an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball--with the attacker 5 yards away, the GK could easily have kicked the ball, but made a poor decision to pick up the ball. As I picture the play, the R was correct to penalize the GK and not the OS. (As a former GK, I'm not fond of this, but I think this is what IFAB wants today.)
 
Back
Top