Offside, or not?

[one]

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.

Agree with the "tweaking" comment. I have worked in IT and software for many years. Every software has a shelf life. During ts shelf life the software is maintained with bug fixes and adding/removing functionality. After that it has to be replaced by a completely new software which delivers the same functionality. The old software is no good mostly because any modification to one part breaks another part and the functionality is not friendly any more (new functions are work around implementations). LOTG in its current form has passed its shelf life. Major changes (1997, 2016) are still maintenance not re-writes. We need a re-write keeping the existing principles (e.g. 17 laws) but independent of the existing wording.

A good example of recent tweaking is the latest change to goal kick. The new tweak covers offences relating to actions that happen after the ball is kicked but before it is in play. While that made sense in the past, after the latest change means the ball is in play when it is kicked. Its pointless covering anything that happens in between.

Your suggestion for offside... would still have many issues (tweak of existing wording). Define impact. How close is close? Grey area in ability. "Playing or touching" are they different? Just some examples which leaves them open to interpretations and inconsistencies.

 

[Peter Grove]

I don't buy the distinction at all.

I'm sorry, you don't see the distinction between a player in an offside position who actively challenges an opponent for the ball and one who gets the ball delivered to them by an opponent's deliberate play?

Yes, we can have a debate about the timing of the challenge and how that impacts on the decision in the first case and about deliberate vs deflection in the second but the basic distinction I'm making is between challenging for the ball and having it deliberately played to you, which is inherent to Law 11.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm sorry, you don't see the distinction between a player in an offside position who actively challenges an opponent for the ball and one who gets the ball delivered to them by an opponent's deliberate play?

Yes, we can have a debate about the timing of the challenge and how that impacts on the decision in the first case and about deliberate vs deflection in the second but the basic distinction I'm making is between challenging for the ball and having it deliberately played to you, which is inherent to Law 11.

I didn't say I didn't see the distinction, I said I don't buy the distinction.

The red is not what happens on these plays with the expansion of "deliberate play. The ball is not "deliberately played to" the OSP player. The defender makes a deliberate action and completely misplays the ball, which is what resets OS. And the ball doesn't have to go directly to the OSP player--the OSP player can actively pursue (just as he actively pursues the "defender" to challenge for the ball. There's no logical distinction between a ball coming at the defender who (A) cleanly controls the ball and is subsequently is challenged by an OSP opponent who pursues him and (B) botches the trap and the ball is collected by an opponent who is pursuing. That distinction is not supported by any rational interpretation of current Law 11 (of course, that doesn't mean it isn't what IFAB wants...).

 

[Nij]

I didn't say I didn't see the distinction, I said I don't buy the distinction.

The red is not what happens on these plays with the expansion of "deliberate play. The ball is not "deliberately played to" the OSP player. The defender makes a deliberate action and completely misplays the ball, which is what resets OS. And the ball doesn't have to go directly to the OSP player--the OSP player can actively pursue (just as he actively pursues the "defender" to challenge for the ball. There's no logical distinction between a ball coming at the defender who (A) cleanly controls the ball and is subsequently is challenged by an OSP opponent who pursues him and (B) botches the trap and the ball is collected by an opponent who is pursuing. That distinction is not supported by any rational interpretation of current Law 11 (of course, that doesn't mean it isn't what IFAB wants...).

In other words, the law does not distinguish between a defender successfully controlling the ball and being run down by the attacker, and a defender making an error in playing the ball that then goes to an attacker. Both are a deliberate play by the defender - both reset offside - both attackers are able to legitimately play the ball.

It's a hell of a cognitive dissonance to say the laws should be followed to the letter, and then ignore those laws because IFAB/FIFA/the local RA/"football" says they want something different from that letter.

If it's going to be left to referee discretion, like with a number of other things, they need to say that. Other sports manage to have a consistent worldwide understanding with far less stringency and far more trust in officials to make decisions that are for the good of the match regardless of lawfulness. Or they need to write the law to say what they mean, instead of writing the letter to be vague and short and hiding the spirit elsewhere for the enlightened to hopefully discovery and promulgate.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Law 11 states "" receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball "" which I interpret is a long way from challenging an opponent who has just controlled it.
In the OP the player in an offside obviously was close enough to 'nick' the ball from the defender.
For me coming back from an offside position can give the attacker a distinct advantage as he is blind side of the defender. I also believe that there is enough discretion to decide if offside was reset or not based on the time on the ball, manner of the play etc.
Whether we like it or not referees have to take account of the level of the game. In the PL this may not be called offside and the defender would probably not give the attacker the chance anyway yet at grassroots this for me is offside as the *challenge* was immediate enough for the offside position player to nick it away.
I am also struck by RefJef's comment about the *wrong* decision. I think referees should make the *best* decision which for me in this instance from what was described was to call offside. The attacker has come from an offside position to "immediately" challenge an opponent for the ball. In many way the attacker has benefitted from his offside position.

 

[one]

If it's going to be left to referee discretion, like with a number of other things, they need to say that. Other sports manage to have a consistent worldwide understanding with far less stringency and far more trust in officials to make decisions that are for the good of the match regardless of lawfulness. Or they need to write the law to say what they mean, instead of writing the letter to be vague and short and hiding the spirit elsewhere for the enlightened to hopefully discovery and promulgate.

I like this in theory but i don't think there is a practical solution either way.
Writing the law to say what they mean, being precise about it and cover all possibilities (like the two distinctions in this thread) would most likely means a book of over a thousand pages. And then there is a high level of complexity on how the wording is presented.
The other side of the coin of leaving everything to the discretion of the referee will have inconsistency and confusing issues as we have with HB right now.

I think there can be a good compromise made between the two options to keep the laws understandable and short, yet leave some discretion to the referees. However the current laws are not there yet.

@Goldfish I see your point and agree that OP is offside but I'd be wary of choice of words. Getting an advantage or benefiting from being in an offside position does not necessarily make it an offence.