The Ref Stop

Offside Clarfication

micky2001

micky2001

Well-Known Member
2 questions here.

First, black v blue with the blues defending. There is a black player in an offside position when his teammate plays the ball through to him. On the way through though, blue defender deliberately attempts to kick the ball but scuffs it and it then makes it's way through to the black striker. Offside or onside? I can't get my head round the new deliberate touch part of the laws.

Second, 2 blue players attacking with just the black goalkeeper left to beat. Blue player with the ball plays it backwards to teammate with second last defender nowhere near. Onside?
 
The Ref Stop
These sound like exam questions, with huge obvious clues to the answers in both questions!! The first one is still open to some interpretation and you had to be there, but the second is beyond debate...

1. 'deliberately' if he plays it deliberately rather than deflects it, or it just happens to hit him, then yes onside. The tricky part is identifying that it was clearly deliberately played by the defender.
2. 'backwards' this is a key requirement of offside, you must be closer to the goal than the ball (or ahead of the ball if you like) to be offside, so regardless of defenders positions, this is always onside.
 
1. the player is offside from the first pass, any subsequent touch by the defender is irrelevant in this scenario whether deliberate or not.
2. onside - what Jimmy said.
 
1) I don't like the new law definitions. If the defender has deliberately played the ball rather than just stuck out a leg (deflection) or the ball has struck him (rather than the other way round) then it is not offside - play on and prepare for the inevitable onslaught of dissent! Played deliberately does not take into account whether it is a good pass or not, just that he meant to play the ball.

2) what jimmy said.
 
1.) Same as what everyone else has said, remember he has to be gaining an advantage by standing in the offside position, I would give offside in this situation
2.) Onside if the teammate receiving the ball is behind the ball when it is played backward. If he was in front of it and the ball was played backwards then he would be offside.
 
First one is definitely trickier then the second. Scenario 2 can't be given as offside as player is behind the ball. As for the first one, if the attacker is more the two yards away from the defender and the defender attempts to play it then no offside; if the defender leaves the ball then offside. I say more than two yards because if the defender attempts to play the ball because the attacker is in close proximity to him the it would come under 'interfering with an opponent' and that would be offside. Hope that helps :)
 
HullRef said:
1.) Same as what everyone else has said, remember he has to be gaining an advantage by standing in the offside position, I would give offside in this situation
2.) Onside if the teammate receiving the ball is behind the ball when it is played backward. If he was in front of it and the ball was played backwards then he would be offside.
Click to expand...
The definition of gaining an advantage is very restrictive from FIFA's and the IFAB's point of view. Gaining an advantage can only apply if the ball rebounds off a defending player or the goal frame. In #1, you have to consider whether the action by the defender was deliberate and to do this you need to consider the skill level and age of the defender. I think in a Sunday League game in Division 4 you'd be ok saying offside. At Old Trafford on a wet Wednesday, you might be expected to adjudge the attacker as not committing an offence.

It is however definitely a YHTBT moment.

In #2 - not offside, depending whether he was nearer the goal line he was attacking than the ball, when the ball was played. Just because the ball was played backwards, doesn't mean the player was actually behind the ball when it was played. Many times I see a player run from an offside position to an onside position to control a ball. ARs correctly signal that an offence has been committed.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
The definition of gaining an advantage is very restrictive from FIFA's and the IFAB's point of view. Gaining an advantage can only apply if the ball rebounds off a defending player or the goal frame. In #1, you have to consider whether the action by the defender was deliberate and to do this you need to consider the skill level and age of the defender. I think in a Sunday League game in Division 4 you'd be ok saying offside. At Old Trafford on a wet Wednesday, you might be expected to adjudge the attacker as not committing an offence.

It is however definitely a YHTBT moment.

In #2 - not offside, depending whether he was nearer the goal line he was attacking than the ball, when the ball was played. Just because the ball was played backwards, doesn't mean the player was actually behind the ball when it was played. Many times I see a player run from an offside position to an onside position to control a ball. ARs correctly signal that an offence has been committed.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian, I think I'm having a dull moment working out your second point. Do you mean an attacker could be in front of the ball e.g. ball is on 18 yard line, attacker on 6 yard line and as the ball is played backwards i.e. to point 25 yards from goal, the attacker runs from the 6 yard line to the ball? I agree with everything you said but having a hard time visualising it haha :confused:
 
Mikysaints said:
Hi Brian, I think I'm having a dull moment working out your second point. Do you mean an attacker could be in front of the ball e.g. ball is on 18 yard line, attacker on 6 yard line and as the ball is played backwards i.e. to point 25 yards from goal, the attacker runs from the 6 yard line to the ball? I agree with everything you said but having a hard time visualising it haha :confused:
Click to expand...
Exactly that but maybe not as extreme as goal area to penalty area. He would only need to be a foot in front of the ball and take control only a foot behind for an offence to occur.

Got you thinking on a Friday :lol:
 
The new offside definitions really add a lot more interpretation than before. Fine maybe if your a team of officials but a lone ref trying to apply it accurately is a nightmare. Hang on, offside without NARs is a nightmare regardless!
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Exactly that but maybe not as extreme as goal area to penalty area. He would only need to be a foot in front of the ball and take control only a foot behind for an offence to occur.

Got you thinking on a Friday :lol:
Click to expand...

I know haha, at least I'll be prepared if it happens during my game tomorrow!
 
Supermonkey said:
Hang on, offside without NARs is a nightmare regardless!
Click to expand...
I have to disagree - I usually find it easier and get less dissent BECAUSE in my pre-match to the players I tell them "I'm calling offside, and while I won't be in the best position to judge the LOTG tell me I have to give benefit of the doubt to the attacker - so don't stand there with your arm in the air, get after him until you hear the whistle!" You get a very different attitude from defenders during the game when you say that.
 
3 seasons of saying that (or something very close) provides me with a different experience!
 
Our local RA did a session on the new offside rule updates, and we were told that there is a difference between the defender "deliberately" playing the ball and having a swing at it, and the ball deflecting off them. Basically, the attacker is only onside if he receives the ball from the defender who has sent the ball in somewhere near the direction he intended it to go, if that makes sense? Merry Christmas everyone by the way!
 
it's a judgement call, every time - and whoever invented offside clearly wants lynching :)
 
I am still confused by the answers for the first scenario.
Many are suggesting it is onside, but surely, at the moment the ball was played the attacker was offside (assuming he was the only person the ball could go to and therefore didn't have to touch it for it to be given).
Isn't it irrelevant whether the defender touched it or not if the attacker was the only attacking player that the ball was intended to go to?
 
Nope, the touch by the defender is entirely relevant.

Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself.
So, when the player A passes to player B in an offside position, there is no offence UNLESS certain criteria are met.

If a defender plays the ball on the way, then by doing so, he plays attacker B onside. The ball has to be played to Attacker B by a team mate to be offside, in this case the defender has played the ball and it has gone through to B who was in an offside position but, due to the touch by the defender, is not committing an offence by being there.

The interpretations comes when you have to decide whether the defender touched it intentionally, or whether it was a deflection, or a rebound.

If the defender makes a move towards the ball, with a leg, or head or chest, makes contact but doesn't significantly alter the course of the ball, then it is surely 'intentional'. If it hits him and ricochets off then it's a deflection.
 
I am not saying the touch is irrelevant, I am asking whether, if there is only one attacker, and therefore he does not need to touch the ball for it to be declared offside, is he offside the moment the ball is played (ie before the defender touches it).
IMHO he is offside as he doesn't have to touch the ball, therefore being in an offside position AND having the ball played to him makes him offside.
That offence happened before the defender touched it.
 
I am not saying the touch is irrelevant, I am asking whether, if there is only one attacker, and therefore he does not need to touch the ball for it to be declared offside, is he offside the moment the ball is played (ie before the defender touches it).
IMHO he is offside as he doesn't have to touch the ball, therefore being in an offside position AND having the ball played to him makes him offside.
That offence happened before the defender touched it.
Click to expand...
But it is not an offence to be in an offside position so the offence simply cannot take place before any subsequent touch by a defender.

An attacker can be in an offside position for the whole game and should not be penalised unless he subsequently plays the ball (either immediately or by gaining an advantage from a rebound/deflection) or interferes with an opponent. By simply being in an offside position they have done nothing wrong, even if any pass by a team mate was intended for them.

The judgement on what constitutes a deflection from a defender can be difficult and, in most cases, you need to see an incident to be able to make a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top