callmemyref
Well-Known Member
Is it an offence to try to kick the ball and be unsuccessful for the player being in an offside position when there are no defenders around impacted ?
Offside offence
- Thread starter callmemyref
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It can’t be interfering with play if the ball is not touched and it cannot be interfering with an opponent if no opponent is affected. So no.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Its similar and sees appeals (even from professionals) when a player is standing say 5 - 10 yards behind the 2nd last defender, who heads the ball away. If the defender had left it and it lands at attacker's feet, its offside, if he plays it, under no pressure at all from attacker its not.
As I said though, players from all levels will stick the arm up!
As I said though, players from all levels will stick the arm up!
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I saw an interesting example last week. The red attacker on the right played the ball to his left, quite hard. The red 9, in an offside location centrally, ran towards the ball, at which point the blue right back moved inside (he was around 15 metres from the 9) to cover the 9. The 9 stretched for the ball but missed it. The ball continued going left towards the red 11.
The referee blew for offside.
The referee got all the usual arguments and ill-informed moans and groans from players and management, as did I as the observer (as usually it's my fault)
I supported the referee, as he was right in law.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I agree with you, but that isn't the OP, where the poster says no defenders impacted.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
He said "defenders around" which I took to mean "nearby" - the defender in my case was around 15 metres from the player who was offside and became impacted.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
This is a bit like two equal offences happening at the same time. It might be tempting to justify but it’s not smart refereeing. If an attacker swings and misses at the ball, it is pretty safe and smart refereeing to infer that someone was impacted and call the offside offence.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That is overstated for me. Context is everything. While I will err on the side of it impacting an opponent when there is an attempt to play the ball, I'm going to identify someone who could have been impacted before making the call. Usually an opponent has to be reasonably close to the attempt to be impacted.
one
RefChat Addict
I'm not sure if I am picturing this right. But I think while you can interpret the law in a way to support this, it was never meant to support an offside here. If PIOP runs toward the ball or even attempts to play it and a far defender decides to follow him, this is not considered impact as long as the attacker has not 'phisically' prevented the defender from playing the ball. Effecting the defenders's thoughts and decision making is not considered impact.
The only exception here (not worded in law the best way) is when the defender has a chance of defending that ball without the PIOP actions. A good example of this exemption is when a goalkeeper has to make a choice between defending the ball without PIOP touch or with it (eg an attempted header from a cross that eventually goes directly into goal) and make the wrong choice.
There are lots of educational videos around this and your example sounds like one of those that is taught to be not offside.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
It’s an interesting debate - you have added "physically" as a requirement for an offside offence, but Law 11 does not mention "physically".
The PIOP's action dictated the offender's thought process and he left his post to cover the PIOP, leaving the left winger free, so I go with the referee's decision (whilst understanding yours)
one
RefChat Addict
As I mentioned I am fairly certain PIOP's action changing the offender's thought process is not cause for calling the offence with the exception mentioned. Here are some examples:
Here two defenders' thought process is impacted by not marking black 10 because a PIOP has ran towards the ball. This is never offside.
vimeo.com
This is even a better video. Two offside incident candidates. The first one attacker lets the ball through his legs while defender tried to defend him first. This is not offside because PIOP does not impact physically impact defender's ability to play the ball (I think you consider this offside, due to thought process impact). The second is the final shot where PIOP jumps over the ball. The referees here put that under the exception I talked about. I prob wouldn't have.
vimeo.com
This video is a clear case of the exception where impacting thought process counts. There are loads more examples at https://vimeo.com/offsideexplained for
Impeding by movements 6
Offside. In such situations on the field it is very hard to detect the amount of impeding and see the difference between them. There are 2 episodes of possible…
vimeo.com
Impeding by movements 18
The goalkeeper is waiting for the action of attacker nr 8 who is in an offside position, very close to the ball, makes a deceiving movement and is also in the line…
vimeo.com
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
There is an oddity lurking in this. Attempt to play requires impact; obvious action requires clear impact on ability to play the ball. So for an obvious action that is not an attempt to play the ball, you need more clarity on the impact than for a clear attempt to play the ball. In @ChasObserverRefDeveloper ’s example, if the attacker hadn’t made the clear attempt to play the ball, I don’t think it could qualify as a an obvious attempt, but with a clear attempt to play the ball, we have a lower standard for the impact on the opponent. Yeah, IFAB is keeping it simple . . .
(Aside: if I recall correctly, “attempt” came before “obvious action” and was at least in part in response to a play where an OSP player dummied the ball a few yards from an opponent. Couldn’t be challenging for the ball and couldn’t be an “attempt” as he deliver didn’t play the ball. But also certainly not within the spirit of OS as he had a distinct impact on play as an OSP player that sh not be permitted. I *think* IFAB was concerned about the “obvious action” element being too broadly applied, resulting in the clear impact requirement that goes beyond the requirement for an attempt.)
text
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
(Aside: if I recall correctly, “attempt” came before “obvious action” and was at least in part in response to a play where an OSP player dummied the ball a few yards from an opponent. Couldn’t be challenging for the ball and couldn’t be an “attempt” as he deliver didn’t play the ball. But also certainly not within the spirit of OS as he had a distinct impact on play as an OSP player that sh not be permitted. I *think* IFAB was concerned about the “obvious action” element being too broadly applied, resulting in the clear impact requirement that goes beyond the requirement for an attempt.)
text
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