RefSix

Offside or Goalkick?

Harey

New Member
#1
Hi,

I just wanted to get some feedback, to help with games in the future.

Last night I was a Club Lineman’s in a friendly game. During the match, ball comes over to a striker who is offside. I wait until he becomes active, and then flag offside. He became active by trying to control the pass, and not being successful, the ball went for a goalkick.

The ref decided to override my decision, and give a goalkick as he was “not interfering” with play.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Chris
 

alexgr

RefChat Addict
#2
Hi Chris,

It’s possible they were offside, but would need a bit more info. When you say ‘trying to control the pass’, did he touch it at any point? Were there any opponents around? Let’s take a look at the relevant law:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or (possible, but I don’t know if he touched it yet)
• 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 (doesn’t sound like it in this case)
• challenging an opponent for the ball or (doesn’t sound like it)
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or (possibly if there were opponents around)
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball (again, possibly)

Hope this clarifies things a bit - would need to know a bit more information first!
 

Harey

New Member
#3
Thanks Alex. They were a good 2m offside (slow returning from a previous attack). The striker did touch the ball, but his control was poor and it went out over the goal line. A defender had caught up with the striker at the point of touching the ball, and in fairness the pressure of a defender on him may have contributed to his poor touch.

I flagged, as the offside (and becoming active when touching the ball) was the first 'offence' and at the point of flagging, the ball was still in play (and he may have been able to recover or the ball may have stopped short of going over the goal line).

The ref knew I was also a ref, and I look puzzled at his call for goal kick. He communicated to me saying it wasn't interfering with play; and I can only assume he thought/meant it would have gone for a goalkick no matter what his touch was.

I didn't question the decision during the game, as he's the ref and I wanted to support his decision. However, for my own learning, I was keen to know what others thought.

Cheers
Chris
 

alexgr

RefChat Addict
#4
Then yes, if it was touched, it satisfies the first criteria I posted above so you’d be right to call offside! In the grand scheme of things, I think you’re probably right not to argue, if it’s gone out for a goal kick nothing too drastic has changed and there are bigger fish to fry. Sounds like you’re definitely right on this occasion though - just because it’s a poor touch, doesn’t negate the fact that they have indeed touched it
 

Harey

New Member
#5
Thanks again Alex, good for confidence in future. Agreed, I didn't want to undermine his authority. Also the same as you highlighted a there was little disadvantage from the goal kick versus the indirect free kick.
 
#7
What Spud said.

The IDFK/GK would be in very similar positions. The only difference is you can’t score direct from the offside restart but you can’t be offside from the GK.

GK is probably a nose more advantageous.

I was AR in a quite big game the other week and had this. I flagged instantly as an offside player shot wide from 7 yards. Ref waved me down for the GK.

I think it’s fine all round. The fans and defence are happy, they can see it would have been offside if it had gone in. Attacker is happy because his terrible finish will be forgotten. GK can take the goal kick from a clear position without further management.

Overall ref is in control which is good. AR has made the right call quick which is good. And the team is not ”broken” by this. There’s no conflict in the decision making.
 

Jtpetherick1

James Petherick
#8
I agree with all of the above. In law it should be an IFK but it makes no difference to the overall flow or pattern of the game if a GK is awarded - it is probably easier too than dragging it back and raising arguments from the player as to whether or not he was offside.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#9
The only difference is you can’t score direct from the offside restart but you can’t be offside from the GK.
You are making that sound like a trade off. They are both in favor of a goal kick.

In law it should be an IFK
Not necessarily. The law permits the referee to play advantage on any offence and if offside is deep into the opponents half then as @santa sangria pointed out a goal kick is more beneficial because:
1. You can score directly from a goal kick (unlikely) but you can't from IFK
2. (The more likely) You can kick the ball long to a team mate in an offside position from a goal kick but you can't from an IFK.

I have waved NARs down to take goal kick over offside on many occasions and have been waved down as a NAR the same.
 

Brian Hamilton

I am the storm
Observer/Tutor
#10
I have waved NARs down to take goal kick over offside on many occasions and have been waved down as a NAR the same.
By waved down, you of course mean acknowledged their signal but instructed a different restart. Waving them down makes it sound like you undermined them and made a dismissive gesture towards them.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#11
By waved down, you of course mean acknowledged their signal but instructed a different restart. Waving them down makes it sound like you undermined them and made a dismissive gesture towards them.
Good point and well made.

Most NAR's I work with would know the "team work" process for this. Any new NAR and it's covered in pre-match. As far as signal it is a hand signal as "put it down" and once down, followed by a smile and thumbs up to indicate they were right to flag it. Rarely there is protest from either side regarding the decision or an impression of undermining their assistance.

On the flip side there has been many times that I have changed my decision based on a flag or discrete signal (or comms advice) from my AR which players agree as the right outcome. The AR gets a loud "think you" from me to get the credit for the help he/she provided.
 
#12
Good point and well made.

Most NAR's I work with would know the "team work" process for this. Any new NAR and it's covered in pre-match. As far as signal it is a hand signal as "put it down" and once down, followed by a smile and thumbs up to indicate they were right to flag it. Rarely there is protest from either side regarding the decision or an impression of undermining their assistance.

On the flip side there has been many times that I have changed my decision based on a flag or discrete signal (or comms advice) from my AR which players agree as the right outcome. The AR gets a loud "think you" from me to get the credit for the help he/she provided.
I do the same for CARs, in both scenarios. At the prematch chat I always say that I will acknowledge their flag, even if I decide that it was not offside. Usually, I will say 'not offside, play on' for the player's benefit and raise my hand and smile to the CAR, with a thankyou. And certainly if they provide guidance on something I didn't see clearly or was obviously about to get wrong a clear 'thank you' and a hand raise.
 
#13
Most of the times, i would GK instead of offside. Its little more beneficial from restart of play. Also, at pee match talk and when coaching AR's, i ask them to take extra few seconds before raising flag, to let game continue... seems to work.. my 15yo son, finally, made very good decision last game, instead of raising flag for Offside, he waited, and another attacking player (not in offside) collected ball and continued attack..
 
Top