Offside, or not?

[RefJef]

Apologies - I know this has been discussed (many times!) before, but I’m still not 100%, so your input is welcome.

Blues v Yellows, yellows attacking, yellow player passes ball forward from half way line, intended for yellow striker on edge of box.

Yellow striker is in an offside position.

Blue defender - approx 1 to 2 metres from yellow striker - intercepts ball, a deliberate play, but whilst controlling it and before he clears, yellow striker comes back and nicks the ball from him. S@ds law, for the only time all evening, he hits the target and scores.

CAR flagged, but I called for them to play on as ball had come off blue.

I think I was right to allow the goal, but
a) not 100% sure,
b) if the goal should stand, I can’t help but feel sorry for blues - I get that highly paid pros should have the wherewithal not to play the ball in this scenario, but at grassroots,
c) From a match control perspective, I’d have been better off disallowing the goal for offside - I think I was the only one at the ground who felt is was no offence as Blue played the ball, even if I was right, it would have been much easier selling the “wrong” decision.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[Big Cat]

Sounds onside
At grass roots (below Step 7), if one is not being observed, I'd argue a case for going with the CAR's flag because everyone in attendance will expect you to do so. I'll get shot down for saying that, but it's a lot of hassle for a technicality more befitting of a higher level
Coincidentally, I had the exact same thing twice at the weekend. First one I went with the flag and spoke with the CAR when the ball next went out of play. Same thing happened 5 minutes later and I waved the flag down and the CAR (and coaches) understood why I did so

 

[JH]

Apologies - I know this has been discussed (many times!) before, but I’m still not 100%, so your input is welcome.

Blues v Yellows, yellows attacking, yellow player passes ball forward from half way line, intended for yellow striker on edge of box.

Yellow striker is in an offside position.

Blue defender - approx 1 to 2 metres from yellow striker - intercepts ball, a deliberate play, but whilst controlling it and before he clears, yellow striker comes back and nicks the ball from him. S@ds law, for the only time all evening, he hits the target and scores.

CAR flagged, but I called for them to play on as ball had come off blue.

I think I was right to allow the goal, but
a) not 100% sure,
b) if the goal should stand, I can’t help but feel sorry for blues - I get that highly paid pros should have the wherewithal not to play the ball in this scenario, but at grassroots,
c) From a match control perspective, I’d have been better off disallowing the goal for offside - I think I was the only one at the ground who felt is was no offence as Blue played the ball, even if I was right, it would have been much easier selling the “wrong” decision.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

It's one for your discretion I think. It is not strictly in law but the expectation is that the defender is given reasonable time to control the ball before the PIOP can interfere with them. If it is almost exactly as the player controls, offside. If the player has controlled for 1/2 seconds, I'd say it's fair game.

As you know, in law offside 'resets' as soon as the defender plays the ball but situations like this can be tricky.

 

[cwyeary]

While I'd have to see your example to know for sure, refs have been taught lately that a defenders deliberate play to control the ball and who is immedialey challenged should be considered an offside offense.

 

[socal lurker]

While I'd have to see your example to know for sure, refs have been taught lately that a defenders deliberate play to control the ball and who is immedialey challenged should be considered an offside offense.

Taught by whom? I've seen internet references like that, but nothing remotely official. while on one hand it makes sense, in another it is crazy--if the defender controls the ball and is challenged it is OS, but if the defender flubs the effort to control the ball and it goes to the attacker, it is not OS? (As the Law is written, the only question should be if the challenge started before the deliberate play by the defender, but I realize the law does not always keep up with the teaching--and the teaching does not always stay consistent in different places.)

 

[cwyeary]

Taught by whom? I've seen internet references like that, but nothing remotely official. while on one hand it makes sense, in another it is crazy--if the defender controls the ball and is challenged it is OS, but if the defender flubs the effort to control the ball and it goes to the attacker, it is not OS? (As the Law is written, the only question should be if the challenge started before the deliberate play by the defender, but I realize the law does not always keep up with the teaching--and the teaching does not always stay consistent in different places.)

Im pretty sure it was in the 2018-2 UEFA RAP video collection.

 

[one]

As you know, in law offside 'resets' as soon as the defender plays the ball

Not sure about that. I can see where you are coming from but I wouldn't put it that way.

Apologies - I know this has been discussed (many times!) before, but I’m still not 100%, so your input is welcome.

Blues v Yellows, yellows attacking, yellow player passes ball forward from half way line, intended for yellow striker on edge of box.

Yellow striker is in an offside position.

Blue defender - approx 1 to 2 metres from yellow striker - intercepts ball, a deliberate play, but whilst controlling it and before he clears, yellow striker comes back and nicks the ball from him. S@ds law, for the only time all evening, he hits the target and scores.

CAR flagged, but I called for them to play on as ball had come off blue.

I think I was right to allow the goal, but
a) not 100% sure,
b) if the goal should stand, I can’t help but feel sorry for blues - I get that highly paid pros should have the wherewithal not to play the ball in this scenario, but at grassroots,
c) From a match control perspective, I’d have been better off disallowing the goal for offside - I think I was the only one at the ground who felt is was no offence as Blue played the ball, even if I was right, it would have been much easier selling the “wrong” decision.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

I have posted this video before which I think is a perfect example of your scenario (Sorry originally posted wrong video. Fixed now).

This is a case of what you would define as challenging an opponent for the ball. To make my point, change your example to attacker being one foot away from the defender but doesn't impact the defender... for his first touch. Then immediately after the defender touches the ball the attacker nicks it. This can be classified under "deliberate play" and then the attacker is free to play the ball but clearly its a challenge for the ball. I'd classify your scenario as challenging for the ball also. The distinction between the two is when you apply the "deliberate play" clause, the defender plays the ball to or towards the attacker. When you apply challenging for the ball clause the defender plays the ball away from the attacker and the attacker has to move towards both the defender and the ball.

Finally this from the video description (I don't have a FIFA or UEFA source)"
UEFA and FIFA have though stated that situations like this are OFFSIDE OFFENCES as the ball is not played to the attacker, but the attacker comes from an offside position to challenge the defender (very shortly) after the defender has "taken hold of the ball" or "controlled the ball".

 

[santa sangria]

I was thinking about that clip!

That’s a great explanation from @one

I think it also highlights that ”deliberate play” and challenging for the ball need to be much better explained in the LotG.

 

[RefJef]

Thanks @one a really useful post and video, very similar to my example (although the defender possibly had a moment longer on the ball before being challenged, but more to do with the athleticism (or lack of!) the players at my level.

I suspect I may have got this decision wrong, although still not 100% either way, but if that video above is offside, then mine should also have been offside.

Anyway that’s what pre-season friendlies and this forum are for - can’t change what happened last night, but can learn so I get it right next time.

Thanks to all,

J

 

[socal lurker]

Finally this from the video description (I don't have a FIFA or UEFA source)"
UEFA and FIFA have though stated that situations like this are OFFSIDE OFFENCES as the ball is not played to the attacker, but the attacker comes from an offside position to challenge the defender (very shortly) after the defender has "taken hold of the ball" or "controlled the ball".

These are the things that drive me nuts about how the Laws get communicated. If this is what IFAB wants the law to mean, why the heck isn't this clear in the magic book or some other official public source? Of course OS is inconsistent when there isn't clear guidance available to all refs--especially on what is not an uncommon play.

 

[JH]

I was thinking about that clip!

That’s a great explanation from @one

I think it also highlights that ”deliberate play” and challenging for the ball need to be much better explained in the LotG.

It does need better explanation because the expectation is that the above offense is offside, yet if a defender attempts to head the ball (making contact) and it goes through for the attacker, it is not.

 

[one]

It does need better explanation because the expectation is that the above offense is offside, yet if a defender attempts to head the ball (making contact) and it goes through for the attacker, it is not.

The distinction between the two is when you apply the "deliberate play" clause, the defender plays the ball to or towards the attacker. When you apply challenging for the ball clause the defender plays the ball away from the attacker and the attacker has to move towards both the defender and the ball.

My quote, or something to that effect, should be included in the LOTG to clarify the difference between the two.

 

[Peter Grove]

It does need better explanation because the expectation is that the above offense is offside, yet if a defender attempts to head the ball (making contact) and it goes through for the attacker, it is not.

I think the conceptual difference is that in the one case, the attacker has made an obvious action (challenging for the ball) which clearly makes them involved in active play whereas in the other scenario they have done nothing to make themselves actively involved in the play, the ball has simply been delivered to them by the defender's deliberate actions.

That's if you choose to see it that way - I think we've had plenty of discussions already on whether, when the ball skids of the top of a defender's head, it's a deliberate play or a deflection.

 

[JH]

That's if you choose to see it that way - I think we've had plenty of discussions already on whether, when the ball skids of the top of a defender's head, it's a deliberate play or a deflection.

I think the governing bodies and most referees are clear that this is a deliberate action. I remember seeing Bjorn Kuipers talk about it with his assistant referees.

 

[socal lurker]

so are we expecting next year that OS will get cleaned up the way handling was this year

 

[socal lurker]

I think the conceptual difference is that in the one case, the attacker has made an obvious action (challenging for the ball) which clearly makes them involved in active play whereas in the other scenario they have done nothing to make themselves actively involved in the play, the ball has simply been delivered to them by the defender's deliberate actions.

That's if you choose to see it that way - I think we've had plenty of discussions already on whether, when the ball skids of the top of a defender's head, it's a deliberate play or a deflection.

I don't buy the distinction at all. On the interfering play with scenario we don't ask if the attacker was actively pursuing the ball before it was played by the defender, but simply say if it was deliberately played by the defender the attacker is free to play the ball. (While there was for some time, I don't think there is any longer any doubt about the skid on the head--if the defender was making an attempt to play the ball, any contact is deemed a deliberate play.)

Conceptually, the same should apply to interfering with an opponent: did the OSP player challenge the defender before the defender deliberately played the ball?

To the extent that we are expected to call the player for OS for challenging an opponent shortly after the defender deliberately plays the ball, I think the law is internally inconsistent, and that inconsistency is not supported by the language of the law or the guidance at the back of the magic book. If that is to be the standard, it needs to be clearly communicated or it will be completely random how this is called at grass roots levels of play.

 

[santa sangria]

My quote, or something to that effect, should be included in the LOTG to clarify the difference between the two.

I hope David is listening and we get a line in the LotG: "as armchair flagsmith keyboard lieutenant and legend in his own lunchtime, one, once famously postulated in front of twelve quite heavily distracted but mildly pernicious fellow refereeing Kardashians on an obscure backwater of the armpit of the footballing internet..." what was it he said again...?

 

[one]

I don't buy the distinction at all. On the interfering play with scenario we don't ask if the attacker was actively pursuing the ball before it was played by the defender, but simply say if it was deliberately played by the defender the attacker is free to play the ball. (While there was for some time, I don't think there is any longer any doubt about the skid on the head--if the defender was making an attempt to play the ball, any contact is deemed a deliberate play.)

Conceptually, the same should apply to interfering with an opponent: did the OSP player challenge the defender before the defender deliberately played the ball?

To the extent that we are expected to call the player for OS for challenging an opponent shortly after the defender deliberately plays the ball, I think the law is internally inconsistent, and that inconsistency is not supported by the language of the law or the guidance at the back of the magic book. If that is to be the standard, it needs to be clearly communicated or it will be completely random how this is called at grass roots levels of play.

The problems is they want to keep the law short. So every time they try to fix it they just make it worse. Or at least while fixing some part they break another. Just look at the handball law and the way is has changed. A lot of the laws used to rely on referee interpretations based on what football expects. Now it has become too inter-national (for lack of the a better word) and there is too much money in it to ignore the inconsistencies that approach causes. In my opinion to have have a concise and constant offside law, we probably need a dozen pages of conditions and descriptions. They just don't want to do that. Even with what we think is clear now, there is room for interpretation. What is impacting on an opponent? If a defender chases an offside player isn't that impact? What does showing lack of attention mean for careless (think of a teacher saying that to a student in a classroom). The laws are full of vague words.

 

[JH]

I don't buy the distinction at all. On the interfering play with scenario we don't ask if the attacker was actively pursuing the ball before it was played by the defender, but simply say if it was deliberately played by the defender the attacker is free to play the ball. (While there was for some time, I don't think there is any longer any doubt about the skid on the head--if the defender was making an attempt to play the ball, any contact is deemed a deliberate play.)

Conceptually, the same should apply to interfering with an opponent: did the OSP player challenge the defender before the defender deliberately played the ball?

To the extent that we are expected to call the player for OS for challenging an opponent shortly after the defender deliberately plays the ball, I think the law is internally inconsistent, and that inconsistency is not supported by the language of the law or the guidance at the back of the magic book. If that is to be the standard, it needs to be clearly communicated or it will be completely random how this is called at grass roots levels of play.

Spot on.

 

[socal lurker]

The problems is they want to keep the law short. So every time they try to fix it they just make it worse. Or at least while fixing some part they break another. Just look at the handball law and the way is has changed. A lot of the laws used to rely on referee interpretations based on what football expects. Now it has become too inter-national (for lack of the a better word) and there is too much money in it to ignore the inconsistencies that approach causes. In my opinion to have have a concise and constant offside law, we probably need a dozen pages of conditions and descriptions. They just don't want to do that. Even with what we think is clear now, there is room for interpretation. What is impacting on an opponent? If a defender chases an offside player isn't that impact? What does showing lack of attention mean for careless (think of a teacher saying that to a student in a classroom). The laws are full of vague words.

I'd go a step farther. Part of the problem in Law 11 is decades of tweaking instead of re-writing, which leaves us with language being used in an unnatural way. Best example in OS is "gaining an advantage"--no literate human being would choose those words to mean what they mean. They are like the appendix--leftover from when it was good for something. The language in Law 11 used to be "seeks to gain an advantage," which pretty much covered anything more than breathing. That went to "gains an advantage," which eventually morphed to playing the ball after it deflects off an opponent or the goal frame--and which is utterly unnecessary as it still meets the definition of interfering with play. So instead of clarifying the law, the "advantage" language in Law 11 does nothing more than confuse the majority of newbie refs. They really should take apart Law 11 and put it back together (though I shudder at what it might look like if they did, given the frankenstein of hand ball they created . . .)

If I was going to re-craft it, I would do something like the following:

1. A player is in an offside position if:
• any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
• any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
[nope, we don't need to then redundantly say what isn't OS position]

2. A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate may not become involved in active play until
*an opponent deliberately plays the ball (which does not include a save), or
*a teammate plays or touches the ball with the player no longer in OSP, or
*play is stopped

3.Becoming involved in active play means:
• 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

The re-framing in 2 means that we can completely get rid of the archaic "gaining an advantage" mysterious language.