Offside from off the pitch

[bloovee]

Classic illustration last night

But I was checking the wording of the law on this.

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

Does that really mean that if the ball is not cleared by the defence no attacker can be offside even if obviously "in an offside position"?

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.

Does that mean you have to follow that player for however long it takes and give offside whenever he next touches it? What if the attacking team "recycle" the ball by playing the ball back a long way? The player could be in his own half when he next becomes involved in play.

No definition either of the defending team playing the ball out of the PA - does that include a rebound from a block, or a deflection?

 

[GraemeS]

Classic illustration last night

But I was checking the wording of the law on this.

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

Does that really mean that if the ball is not cleared by the defence no attacker can be offside even if obviously "in an offside position"?

Don't forget you need two players - second-last defender rather than GK plus last defender. So in most cases, with a defender off the pitch, the offside line will be with the GK, which means there does exist potential "offside position" space.

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.

Does that mean you have to follow that player for however long it takes and give offside whenever he next touches it? What if the attacking team "recycle" the ball by playing the ball back a long way? The player could be in his own half when he next becomes involved in play.

No definition either of the defending team playing the ball out of the PA - does that include a rebound from a block, or a deflection?

I think in most situations you're imagining, the offside phase will have been reset. If the attacking team are passing it around on their half way line, what matters is where the "off the pitch" attacker is the next time the ball is player towards him, the fact he was once off the pitch is irrelevant.

 

[JamesL]

Classic illustration last night

But I was checking the wording of the law on this.

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

Does that really mean that if the ball is not cleared by the defence no attacker can be offside even if obviously "in an offside position"?

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.

Does that mean you have to follow that player for however long it takes and give offside whenever he next touches it? What if the attacking team "recycle" the ball by playing the ball back a long way? The player could be in his own half when he next becomes involved in play.

No definition either of the defending team playing the ball out of the PA - does that include a rebound from a block, or a deflection?

Every time the ball is played by an attacker a new, I hate the phrase, "offside phase" begins.

If he remains off the pitch each time that happens yes he is considered on the touchline or goal line for offside purposes, until the ball is played towards halfway line and out of the area.

At which point he can be removed from the equation for the next "offside phase".

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way, remember if a defender is trying to leave to make an attacker offside (basically cheating), then they remain on the field of play for offside purposes so there is no clearly offside as the attacker would still not be closer to goal line than 2nd last defender (as he is on the goal line eg.)

 

[bloovee]

Don't forget you need two players - second-last defender rather than GK plus last defender. So in most cases, with a defender off the pitch, the offside line will be with the GK, which means there does exist potential "offside position" space.


I think in most situations you're imagining, the offside phase will have been reset. If the attacking team are passing it around on their half way line, what matters is where the "off the pitch" attacker is the next time the ball is player towards him, the fact he was once off the pitch is irrelevant.

But this bit of the law provides wording ("until" / "before") that sounds like it overrides the idea of a reset phase (that isn't even in the law).

 

[bloovee]

Every time the ball is played by an attacker a new, I hate the phrase, "offside phase" begins.

If he remains off the pitch each time that happens yes he is considered on the touchline or goal line for offside purposes, until the ball is played towards halfway line and out of the area.

At which point he can be removed from the equation for the next "offside phase".

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way, remember if a defender is trying to leave to make an attacker offside (basically cheating), then they remain on the field of play for offside purposes so there is no clearly offside as the attacker would still not be closer to goal line than 2nd last defender (as he is on the goal line eg.)

Ditto.

 

[Big Cat]

I wouldn't even bother with the garbled book
Obvs offside assuming the AR is aware of what's happened

 

[Kref]

I didn't even know you could be offside in that position (never thought of it).

 

[bloovee]

I didn't even know you could be offside in that position (never thought of it).

History is that due to overzealous ARs flagging for players in an offside position after they've got to the goal line and pulled the ball back *, players then started stepping off the pitch to show they weren't interfering. Then defenders tried the same, trying not to be counted. The law was changed to reflect sensible refereeing, but this daft wording with its apparent possibility that, for these players coming back on, it's never reset.

* After one such goal was disallowed, someone remarked that Stanley Matthews would have been offside for half the goals he created.

 

[Kref]

History is that due to overzealous ARs flagging for players in an offside position after they've got to the goal line and pulled the ball back *, players then started stepping off the pitch to show they weren't interfering. Then defenders tried the same, trying not to be counted. The law was changed to reflect sensible refereeing, but this daft wording with its apparent possibility that, for these players coming back on, it's never reset.

* After one such goal was disallowed, someone remarked that Stanley Matthews would have been offside for half the goals he created.

So it basically became a p*ssing contest between attackers and defenders

 

[bloovee]

So it basically became a p*ssing contest between attackers and defenders

Not really. Attackers trying to avoid being wrongly penalised for offside, then defenders thinking being one of the players "nearer the goal line" didn't apply if they were off the pitch (and that had never been defined in the law).

 

[Kref]

Not really. Attackers trying to avoid being wrongly penalised for offside, then defenders thinking being one of the players "nearer the goal line" didn't apply if they were off the pitch (and that had never been defined in the law).

Well at least now we have this interesting law.

 

[socal lurker]

History is that due to overzealous ARs flagging for players in an offside position after they've got to the goal line and pulled the ball back *, players then started stepping off the pitch to show they weren't interfering. Then defenders tried the same, trying not to be counted. The law was changed to reflect sensible refereeing, but this daft wording with its apparent possibility that, for these players coming back on, it's never reset.

* After one such goal was disallowed, someone remarked that Stanley Matthews would have been offside for half the goals he created.

I'm not sure your history and blaming AR's is quite accurate (it would have been linesmen at the time, but that isn't really relevant). The concept about attackers stepping off the field came into the Laws way back when "seeking to gain an advantage" was part of Law 11. I agree that "seeking to gain an advantage" was sometimes overly applied--but that was also much more of the expectation. I *believe* that when the concept of leaving the field to avoid being considered for OS first came about, the player also needed to get permission from the R to return to the field.

With respect to " If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside." I think the situation envisioned is the player who deliberately leaves the field of play (not as part of natural run of play), and then tries to sneak into an advantageous position. I think what they are doing is giving the ability to call the player OS so that the defense doesn't have to track a player who has chosen to deliberately leave the field while not requiring the R to give permission to come back.

 

[bloovee]

I'm not sure your history and blaming AR's is quite accurate (it would have been linesmen at the time, but that isn't really relevant). The concept about attackers stepping off the field came into the Laws way back when "seeking to gain an advantage" was part of Law 11. I agree that "seeking to gain an advantage" was sometimes overly applied--but that was also much more of the expectation. I *believe* that when the concept of leaving the field to avoid being considered for OS first came about, the player also needed to get permission from the R to return to the field.

With respect to " If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside." I think the situation envisioned is the player who deliberately leaves the field of play (not as part of natural run of play), and then tries to sneak into an advantageous position. I think what they are doing is giving the ability to call the player OS so that the defense doesn't have to track a player who has chosen to deliberately leave the field while not requiring the R to give permission to come back.

If there wasn't a risk of being flagged offside, players wouldn't have needed to step off the FoP. I think your belief about needing R's permission is misplaced.

There was a big difference between (a) passing the ball from the goal line and a team-mate putting the pass into the net and an AR then flagging the "winger" offside, and (b) a player in an offside position running to receive a pass from a team-mate who was onside (which clearly used to be "gaining an advantage" when "gaining an advantage" meant what it says).

And the italics situation does not envision deliberately leaving the FoP and sneaking back on, as that's a YC offence (you left off that bit).

 

[socal lurker]

You’re right about the sneaking back/caution--I had in my head that was only defenders I. The context of OS.

I’m pretty sure the guidance way back was that leaving the field to remove from play did require referee permission, as it wasn’t just running over a line in the ordinary course of play but checking back, it wasn’t in Law 11, so it’s possible I‘m misremembering that.

I do think a lot of these awkwardly framed parts of the Laws are a combination of trying to tweak things instead of re-writing them completel, creating gaps or co language, and the inevitable challenges that come from drafting by committee.

 

[bloovee]

You’re right about the sneaking back/caution--I had in my head that was only defenders I. The context of OS.

I’m pretty sure the guidance way back was that leaving the field to remove from play did require referee permission, as it wasn’t just running over a line in the ordinary course of play but checking back, it wasn’t in Law 11, so it’s possible I‘m misremembering that.

I do think a lot of these awkwardly framed parts of the Laws are a combination of trying to tweak things instead of re-writing them completely, creating gaps or co language, and the inevitable challenges that come from drafting by committee.

Well yes, the whole CRUEF edifice as a replacement for "deliberately" has left us with a deliberate push is not necessarily an offence (and the meaningless "excessive force"), and "gaining an advantage" as a pointless relic in law 11.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

If there wasn't a risk of being flagged offside, players wouldn't have needed to step off the FoP. I think your belief about needing R's permission is misplaced.

There was a big difference between (a) passing the ball from the goal line and a team-mate putting the pass into the net and an AR then flagging the "winger" offside, and (b) a player in an offside position running to receive a pass from a team-mate who was onside (which clearly used to be "gaining an advantage" when "gaining an advantage" meant what it says).

And the italics situation does not envision deliberately leaving the FoP and sneaking back on, as that's a YC offence (you left off that bit).

"Gaining an advantage" /"Seeking to gain an advantage" was there to penalise an attacker in an offside position when the ball rebounded to them from the goalpost, crossbar, or a save by the goalkeeper.
Because of the change in respect of a deliberate play by a defender, the wording has been updated accordingly.

 

[bloovee]

"Gaining an advantage" /"Seeking to gain an advantage" was there to penalise an attacker in an offside position when the ball rebounded to them from the goalpost, crossbar, or a save by the goalkeeper.
Because of the change in respect of a deliberate play by a defender, the wording has been updated accordingly.

"Gaining an advantage" was there to penalise a player who was in an offside position and then got a pass from a team-mate who was onside, before IFAB invented the idea of different phases of play.

Now it's a superfluous and confusing relic from its original meaning. The law could easily be tweaked to get rid of it.

 

[RustyRef]

"Gaining an advantage" was there to penalise a player who was in an offside position and then got a pass from a team-mate who was onside, before IFAB invented the idea of different phases of play.

Now it's a superfluous and confusing relic from its original meaning. The law could easily be tweaked to get rid of it.

No it wasn't. Gaining an advantage has always been defined as receiving the ball after it rebounded from the goal frame or a save.

 

[socal lurker]

No it wasn't. Gaining an advantage has always been defined as receiving the ball after it rebounded from the goal frame or a save.

But seeking to gain (going way back) was interpreted more broadly. The removing of “seek” was part of the long trend to narrow down active Involvement. (I believe Evans and Bellion talk about that specific change in their excellent book.) It’s just unfortunate that they kept the “gain an advantage“ language, as it requires a definition that doesn’t really match the words used in the Law—confusing innumerable new refs who aren’t looking at the definition Who then either don’t call OS when they should (“I didn’t think he gained an advantage by being OS”) and calling when they shouldn’t have (“I thought he gained an advantage because the GK had to worry about him”).

 

[bloovee]

No it wasn't. Gaining an advantage has always been defined as receiving the ball after it rebounded from the goal frame or a save.

You must be quite young to think that's what it's always meant!

See Social Lurker's post - but between "seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position" (from the year dot) to the present silly wording, active play was defined as interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or "gaining an advantage by being in that position". That was the law (for at least ten years) until the change to the idea of different phases of play came in, leaving gaining an advantage from a rebound as the only relic of what it used to mean, so you can still be gaining an advantage by having been in an offside position for other reasons (and the law doesn't say that's not gaining an advantage) - just that the only gaining an advantage that can be penalised now is after a rebound.

If that's not clear, that's why the law should be changed. Law 11 is three pages now rather than the one page it used to be, and still doesn't mention "phases of play"!