Offside from off the pitch

[socal lurker]

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"!

I don”t think it would be that hard to re-write the language to say what it means instead of trying to keep the old language for old time‘s sake. Perhaps

A player in OSP at the time the ball is played or touched by a teammate (other than a CK, GK,or TI) is offside restricted until​

• another play or touch by a teammate,
• play is stopped,
• or the ball is played (other than a save) by an opponent.

An offside restricted player is penalized for an OS offense if the​

• player touches the ball or
• interferes with an opponent.

no need for anything about “gaining an advantage,“ just clarity on when the OS restriction ends. And no need for the directly from a restart debates, as we just don’t include that as a play that “counts” for OS. (We still would need the definitions for interfering with an opponent.)

​

 

[bloovee]

I don”t think it would be that hard to re-write the language to say what it means instead of trying to keep the old language for old time‘s sake. Perhaps

A player in OSP at the time the ball is played or touched by a teammate (other than a CK, GK,or TI) is offside restricted until​

• another play or touch by a teammate,
• play is stopped,
• or the ball is played (other than a save) by an opponent.

An offside restricted player is penalized for an OS offense if the​

• player touches the ball or
• interferes with an opponent.

no need for anything about “gaining an advantage,“ just clarity on when the OS restriction ends. And no need for the directly from a restart debates, as we just don’t include that as a play that “counts” for OS. (We still would need the definitions for interfering with an opponent.)

​

I hadn't thought of a drastic rewrite (I wouldn't trust IFAB not to introduce some new confusion), just a tweak to get rid of "gaining an advantage":

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

These criteria also apply when the ball has rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
or been deliberately saved by any opponent
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

In my 20 years as an assessor/observer the OP situation has occurred on just one occasion, so rather than long debates about revising the wording for something so rare I share William Shakespeare's view - Much Ado About Nothing.

 

[bloovee]

In my 20 years as an assessor/observer the OP situation has occurred on just one occasion, so rather than long debates about revising the wording for something so rare I share William Shakespeare's view - Much Ado About Nothing.

So the wording itself is pointless, for something so rare?

Or perhaps it's rare because most players now know it's against the rules?

It's stupid wording if taken literally, so probably never would be. So change it.

A defending player who leaves the field of play as part of the normal course of play shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

An attacking player may step off the field of play so as not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside.


I might add something instead of "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" if I knew what it meant. It presumably uses "gain an advantage" in a general sense rather than the unique sense of after a rebound. If there's some element of deception (e.g. staying off then coming on to commit an offence other than law 11) then just call USB.

 

[Peter Grove]

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.

No, it hasn't - it's only been defined that way since 2003. More precisely, it's only since FIFA Circular No. 874 was issued on 22 October, 2003.

It stated (in part) as follows:

Circular No. 874
Law 11 - OFFSIDE
Dear Sir or Madame,
We would like to inform you about a decision passed at the Annual Business Meeting of the International Football Association Board on 16 September 2003, in order to achieve uniform interpretation of Law 11 "Offside", based on the following principles.
[...]
How should we interpret "gaining an advantage by being in that position" ?
PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position.
PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.

Prior to that (since its introduction in 1995) ”gaining an advantage” had no specific definition in law. The same was true for its predecessor, "seeking to gain an advantage." It had no additional definition either.

 

[Peter Grove]

I don”t think it would be that hard to re-write the language to say what it means instead of trying to keep the old language for old time‘s sake. Perhaps

A player in OSP at the time the ball is played or touched by a teammate (other than a CK, GK,or TI) is offside restricted until​

• another play or touch by a teammate,
• play is stopped,
• or the ball is played (other than a save) by an opponent.

An offside restricted player is penalized for an OS offense if the​

• player touches the ball or
• interferes with an opponent.

no need for anything about “gaining an advantage,“ just clarity on when the OS restriction ends. And no need for the directly from a restart debates, as we just don’t include that as a play that “counts” for OS. (We still would need the definitions for interfering with an opponent.)

​

No need for any major rewrite. Simply remove the two phrases, "interfering with play by" and "gaining an advantage by" from the current wording. The law works perfectly well without them and is arguably clearer as a result.

 

[bloovee]

No need for any major rewrite. Simply remove the two phrases, "interfering with play by" and "gaining an advantage by" from the current wording. The law works perfectly well without them and is arguably clearer as a result.

"on becoming involved in active play" could go the same way...

 

[bloovee]

No, it hasn't - it's only been defined that way since 2003. More precisely, it's only since FIFA Circular No. 874 was issued on 22 October, 2003.

It stated (in part) as follows:



Prior to that (since its introduction in 1995) ”gaining an advantage” had no specific definition in law. The same was true for its predecessor, "seeking to gain an advantage." It had no additional definition either.

But everybody knew what it meant!

There was at one time "Advice to players" in an offside position to keep clear of play and opponents and not obstuct the view of the GK because "you cannot be offside unless you are gaining an advantage".

Oddly there was "Advice to referees" that what matters is where the player is when the ball was played, not when he plays it AND an IFAB decision saying the same.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

So the wording itself is pointless, for something so rare?

Or perhaps it's rare because most players now know it's against the rules?

It's stupid wording if taken literally, so probably never would be. So change it.

A defending player who leaves the field of play as part of the normal course of play shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

An attacking player may step off the field of play so as not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside.


I might add something instead of "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" if I knew what it meant. It presumably uses "gain an advantage" in a general sense rather than the unique sense of after a rebound. If there's some element of deception (e.g. staying off then coming on to commit an offence other than law 11) then just call USB.

The wording is necessary, although the occurrence is rare. An easy analogy is the inclusion in Law 17 of guidance that an own goal cannot result from the taking of a corner kick, as a corner kick is awarded rather than a goal. I doubt that has ever occurred, but it's there just in case.
The wording has been there for years, and only you seemed confused by it.
In the one example from my observing history, the AR and referee both got it right.
Away team right wing attack, attacker and defender crossed the goal line and ended up hitting the advertising hoardings after the winger crossed the ball to the penalty mark. There it was headed forward by the number 9 into the goal area, where the number 10 (the only player in the vicinity apart from the goalkeeper) kicked it into the goal.
The referee looked at the AR (as did I!) and the AR signalled "goal" and moved along the touchline. The Level 3 referee ran to the halfway line ready for the restart. Cue pandemonium in the stand, with home directors shouting at me, the video guy offering to show me "the evidence", and spectators screaming abuse.
In the dressing room after the game (pre-Covid, so could debrief in the dressing room) I opened with "Great lining on the goal" and watched the AR relax immediately.

 

[bloovee]

The wording is necessary, although the occurrence is rare. An easy analogy is the inclusion in Law 17 of guidance that an own goal cannot result from the taking of a corner kick, as a corner kick is awarded rather than a goal. I doubt that has ever occurred, but it's there just in case.
The wording has been there for years, and only you seemed confused by it.
In the one example from my observing history, the AR and referee both got it right.
Away team right wing attack, attacker and defender crossed the goal line and ended up hitting the advertising hoardings after the winger crossed the ball to the penalty mark. There it was headed forward by the number 9 into the goal area, where the number 10 (the only player in the vicinity apart from the goalkeeper) kicked it into the goal.
The referee looked at the AR (as did I!) and the AR signalled "goal" and moved along the touchline. The Level 3 referee ran to the halfway line ready for the restart. Cue pandemonium in the stand, with home directors shouting at me, the video guy offering to show me "the evidence", and spectators screaming abuse.
In the dressing room after the game (pre-Covid, so could debrief in the dressing room) I opened with "Great lining on the goal" and watched the AR relax immediately.

And if the shot had been saved and the ball is ricocheting around the PA and the defender comes back on and makes an intervention or is no longer the second last defender, how does that work with the present law?

 

[bloovee]

And then there's offside diagram 14, headed "gaining an advantage" - which has nothing to do with the present definition, but instead illustrates what used to be meant by "gaining an advantage", but no longer is. That is, it shows you can gain an advantage by having been in an offside position, but not be gaining an advantage as now defined.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

And if the shot had been saved and the ball is ricocheting around the PA and the defender comes back on and makes an intervention or is no longer the second last defender, how does that work with the present law?

As the defender is already considered to be on the goal line for offside purposes there is no issue when he comes back on.

 

[bloovee]

As the defender is already considered to be on the goal line for offside purposes there is no issue when he comes back on.

But until the ball is cleared, he is considered to be on the goal line for offside, even if he's then outside the penalty area. He could play someone onside even though he's 20 yards from goal and the only defending player outside the penalty area.

 

[GraemeS]

What? If he comes back onto the pitch, he's no longer a player who is over the goal line, therefore all the stuff about counting him as on the goal line no longer applies. You simply view his position as his actual position.

 

[bloovee]

What? If he comes back onto the pitch, he's no longer a player who is over the goal line, therefore all the stuff about counting him as on the goal line no longer applies. You simply view his position as his actual position.

"If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or [before] 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."

 

[GraemeS]

I'm putting that down to IFAB bad writing, because taking it literally, that's clearly nonsense and is nothing like how the law is ever applied.

I think they're trying to talk about the players position if he comes onto the pitch and receives a pass that was played while he was still off, because otherwise I don't see what that can possibly be trying to say.

 

[bloovee]

I'm putting that down to IFAB bad writing, because taking it literally, that's clearly nonsense and is nothing like how the law is ever applied.

I think they're trying to talk about the players position if he comes onto the pitch and receives a pass that was played while he was still off, because otherwise I don't see what that can possibly be trying to say.

It's desperately detailed wording if they mean it to mean something other than what it says. But at least you see what I mean in the OP!

 

[socal lurker]

"If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or [before] 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."

That is the language for an attacking player who has stepped off the field to avoid being in active play, not for a defending player.

the more I look at that, the more simple I think it is. If you want to step off the field to avoid OS, go ahead, but you can’t come back in until the attack (in a broad sense) is over.

But it also seems a bit pointless with the ver narrow modern definitions of involvement, as there is really no actual reason for an attacking player to step off the field to show lack of involvement. (It used to make sense when active involvement was more broad.)

 

[RustyRef]

No, it hasn't - it's only been defined that way since 2003. More precisely, it's only since FIFA Circular No. 874 was issued on 22 October, 2003.

It stated (in part) as follows:



Prior to that (since its introduction in 1995) ”gaining an advantage” had no specific definition in law. The same was true for its predecessor, "seeking to gain an advantage." It had no additional definition either.

Fair enough. Nearly 20 years ago, I still had a full head of hair and knees that worked, so I am forgiving myself for not remembering that

 

[bloovee]

That is the language for an attacking player who has stepped off the field to avoid being in active play, not for a defending player.

the more I look at that, the more simple I think it is. If you want to step off the field to avoid OS, go ahead, but you can’t come back in until the attack (in a broad sense) is over.

But it also seems a bit pointless with the ver narrow modern definitions of involvement, as there is really no actual reason for an attacking player to step off the field to show lack of involvement. (It used to make sense when active involvement was more broad.)

So it is. I should have quoted 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.

That means that (until the ball is cleared) a defender who left the FoP on the goal line is always going to be one of the last two defenders, no matter where he/she is on the FoP.

Glad you think this is simple. What you want to think is simple - but it's not what's in the book. I think it's not simple, it's stupid - where on the touchline would the defender be considered to be for the purposes of offside? Where the defender left the FoP, or at a point level with where the defender was on the FoP when offside needed to be judged.

NB it's only a stoppage in play or the defending team playing it out that resets - if the attacking team plays it back to their GK, the defender is still to be considered to be on the goal line or touchline...