Offside - deliberately playing the ball
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
The only definitions in the book are the loose terms like 'save', which are thrown in to explain a clause. All terms related to Law should be defined as the foundation of the book, such that their meaning is clear and consistent. The morons at IFAB might then produce a concise and coherent structure of a book, rather than a the fragmented, meandering dirge we've got. Let me know if i've bored the cr4p out of you officiators yet. This is my broken record...
Ja, the sticking point for me is it defines 'play' as:
So for offside, an attempted block, clearance or whatever that is deliberate counts as a deliberate play. But standing there and having the ball hit you isn't.
That's very wide in its scope...
I assume that Mark Geiger (about to go to his 2nd World Cup) and Howard Webb have both gained knowledge through seminars and training on how FIFA want this called. I've learned though many pro refs here in the US that this is supposed to be offside. The problem is the lack of information for us everyday refs. They've given us practically no information on how to call this. At least with deliberate handling we've gotten guidelines and documents over the years.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Sorry. I fundamentally disagree here. And Web is talking nonsense here.
The Lovren incident was not offside... and this (first incident) is not offside.
In Webb's statement, he is changing the laws from how they are written and how they have been interpreted (in a far bigger game, with respect) this season.
The law is bad on this, yes. The defender is being punished for doing what defenders are supposed to do, yes. But that is the law as it stands. Mythical circular, really?
That's why the Lovren incident (which preceded a penalty IIRC was not offside)... and that's why this cannot be offside. FFS. Guys, girls, really?
The Lovren incident was not offside... and this (first incident) is not offside.
In Webb's statement, he is changing the laws from how they are written and how they have been interpreted (in a far bigger game, with respect) this season.
The law is bad on this, yes. The defender is being punished for doing what defenders are supposed to do, yes. But that is the law as it stands. Mythical circular, really?
That's why the Lovren incident (which preceded a penalty IIRC was not offside)... and that's why this cannot be offside. FFS. Guys, girls, really?
This and the lovren incident are so different in my opinion, they arent really comparable.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
...just been trying to find video...
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I thought back then what I think now - both of these are technically onside under the current laws, and in both cases, "what football expects" is an offside flag. The player is in an offside position when the ball is played forward initially, and therefore as long as the initial forward motion put onto the ball by the passer is the main reason the ball reaches the striker, it "feels" offside, regardless of what happens on the way.
In fact, the initial MLS clip goes on to show another example (NE vs SKC) a few second later, which I think illustrates perfectly what the "deliberately plays the ball" clause is actually intended to ensure is still considered onside. In this case, the ball only reaches the striker because of the force imparted by the backtracking defender, so an offside call is wrong, and would have felt wrong.
It's a badly written law that is intended to ensure the NE vs SKC goal is allowed, but incorrectly justifies allowing the Atlanta and Lovren goals as well if you rules lawyer it too much. I imagine if/when a revision of this clause comes, we'll look back on those two incidents and say that the new laws would disallow both those goals, as I honestly believe that's what the laws intend.
In fact, the initial MLS clip goes on to show another example (NE vs SKC) a few second later, which I think illustrates perfectly what the "deliberately plays the ball" clause is actually intended to ensure is still considered onside. In this case, the ball only reaches the striker because of the force imparted by the backtracking defender, so an offside call is wrong, and would have felt wrong.
It's a badly written law that is intended to ensure the NE vs SKC goal is allowed, but incorrectly justifies allowing the Atlanta and Lovren goals as well if you rules lawyer it too much. I imagine if/when a revision of this clause comes, we'll look back on those two incidents and say that the new laws would disallow both those goals, as I honestly believe that's what the laws intend.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I totally agree with you. I think the law is an a** on this.
I do think Lovren had enough time to properly react, and as such he deliberately played the ball. This MLS instance is much more instinctive. I don't think he meant to play it (in our sense of the word) but rather stop the ball and deflect it somewhere, anywhere really
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Instinctive?
What sense of what word?
Stop the ball?
He meant to deflect it?
Apologies but I just don't get it. There's nothing in Law 11 about "instinctive". The idea of a deflection (though not defined in the LotG) is that it is a non-deliberate act. You have said he meant to stop the ball. That is a deliberate play. the guy has reached out his leg to play the ball... I'll stop now. I just hope there is new guidance on this soon as these two scenarios are just tragic as far as I can read from our collective wit here.
I honestly don't see the distinction between the two events and I think you need to consider what the player is trying to do. IMO, the law is intended to ensure that if a defender attempts a passback and underhits it, the attacker can't be offside. That's all that clause is for, but it's being (somewhat fairly, given the poor writing) extended to give unintended consequences.
Lovren is attempting to clear but slices it. The Atlanta defender is looking to block the ball, but doesn't get enough on it so it continues towards his own goal. In both cases, the intent from the defender is to play the ball in a certain direction, but because the defender is off balance/struggling to reach the ball, it continues roughly on it's initial trajectory. In both cases, an attacker passes the ball forward, and within a second or two it ends up at the feet of a player who was in an offside position when it was passed in their approximate direction.
For me, they both "feel" offside, and I honestly feel it's a failing of the grammar of the law that they can just about be argued to be onside.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, but there is the requirement for it to be a deliberate play. If something is instinctive, it is by definition, not deliberate. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, instinctive means 'done without conscious thought.' If no conscious thought is involved, it can't be deliberate.
You can still debate whether a defender's actions were instinctive or not but if you judge them as instinctive that means it was not a deliberate play.
one
RefChat Addict
I like that. Instinctive reaction vs conscious action. Much easier to work out than deflection vs deliberate play.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
So Lovren's was also instinctive?
I think you are going to have an awful lot of trouble finding any deliberate action on a football field that is not also instinctive. That's why we/they practice.
Come on @santa sangria ... dragging out this Lovren one now lol
Lots of factors to consider... instinctive. Time. Distance between player and ball etc. Etc. The one in the clip and the Lovren one are so hugely different. The Lovren one has been done to death.
You've got your champs league place. Let it go
Lots of factors to consider... instinctive. Time. Distance between player and ball etc. Etc. The one in the clip and the Lovren one are so hugely different. The Lovren one has been done to death.
You've got your champs league place. Let it go
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Ha!
Really though, I have three pretty nice games coming up on the line next week - and two important middles before that - and I want to know how to treat these. Luckily they happen once every three seasons but, right now, this is a mess. I will check in with my local ref sec and some senior colleagues and get local guidance.
(Nice header moment for Dejan, too)
Really though, I have three pretty nice games coming up on the line next week - and two important middles before that - and I want to know how to treat these. Luckily they happen once every three seasons but, right now, this is a mess. I will check in with my local ref sec and some senior colleagues and get local guidance.
(Nice header moment for Dejan, too)