The Ref Stop

Offside - PGMOL clarification (in discussion with ifab)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Degnann said:
I’m not sure if you have me confused with someone else from the other thread?
I never targeted anyone at all and actually quite surprised and offended you use the word aggressive.

I certainly owe no one an apology.
Click to expand...

Yep.
Mistaken identity @Peter Grove 😉
It was another (fairly new) member that sarcastically asked me "what other laws I'd ignore". 🙂
 
The Ref Stop
Peter Grove said:
Oops, then I'm the one who has to apologise to @Degnann, which I do unreservedly.

Somebody said that though and whoever it was, I think it was out of line.
Click to expand...

The erstwhile member hasn't actually graced us with their presence since as it happens. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I wasn't bothered Peter. Sarcasm isn't really crossing the line on here for me and it was no worse than some of the posts old @Padfoot (anybody miss him? :D) used to tap out on numerous threads. ;) :)
 
Peter Grove said:
Oops, then I'm the one who has to apologise to @Degnann, which I do unreservedly.

Somebody said that though and whoever it was, I think it was out of line.
Click to expand...
Might want to fact check before accusing someone 😂

i had to go back and counted my posts to see which one it was. (I only posted 4)
All is forgiven, I can appreciate the calling someone out.
 
And how about this just in from the Juve match the other night:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1352007887577616387

It was called offside on the field.
Strangely I have one my AR tutors saying he wants no offence here because the defender didn't control the ball. I don't think that's right. I'm firmly in the the offence camp, as it's a deliberate play and an immediate action (much more immediate than Rodri!)

Any takers?
 
I am going offside. Defender played it away from the PIOP.

If the same situation but the ball travels towards the PIOP, then I would play on.
 
one said:
I am going offside. Defender played it away from the PIOP.

If the same situation but the ball travels towards the PIOP, then I would play on.
Click to expand...
Great point. But... hmm... if it's a deliberate play and the balls travels towards the PIOP... if the challenge is immediate, it still has to be an offside offence. If the ball "runs through" to the PIOP after a deliberate play (Lovren) then no offence...

This would be very difficult to judge if the ball ended up behind the defender - it's such a weird bit of control - interesting.
 
santa sangria said:
Great point. But... hmm... if it's a deliberate play and the balls travels towards the PIOP... if the challenge is immediate, it still has to be an offside offence. If the ball "runs through" to the PIOP after a deliberate play (Lovren) then no offence...

This would be very difficult to judge if the ball ended up behind the defender - it's such a weird bit of control - interesting.
Click to expand...
Are you saying if the defender deliberately passes/plays the ball to the attacker and the attacker plays it it is offside?

To put it in other words, for me it's about if the attacker "receives" the ball from the defender or if he has taken it from the defender.

This bit won't make it to the LOTG guidelines but is part of the PGMOL press release:
"However, it is important to remember that where a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (e.g. a mis-placed pass or miskick), including by deliberate handball, the player is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
 
one said:
Are you saying if the defender deliberately passes/plays the ball to the attacker and the attacker plays it it is offside?

To put it in other words, for me it's about if the attacker "receives" the ball from the defender or if he has taken it from the defender.

This bit won't make it to the LOTG guidelines but is part of the PGMOL press release:
"However, it is important to remember that where a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (e.g. a mis-placed pass or miskick), including by deliberate handball, the player is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
Click to expand...
I think that part of the press release has been consistent with all training materials I've seen about interference with play. The US used to teach that a defender had to "possess and control" the ball to remove the "gaining an advantage" restriction, but that went away several years ago with guidance coming from on high that a deliberate effort to contact the ball was all it took, regardless of how ineffective or badly played the ball was. One of the useful criteria I've seen is to distinguish between a reflexive action at a ball coming close to the player, and a conscious action--taking a step to get to the ball generally being enough to establish a "play."

I think how @one puts in his second sentence above is a really good formulation--I don't think played toward or away from PIOP is as helpful or necessarily accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
one said:
Are you saying if the defender deliberately passes/plays the ball to the attacker and the attacker plays it it is offside?
Click to expand...
No :)

If the defender deliberately plays the ball... we know that resets offside - except in this new case we have! ... as you pointed out... if they deliberately play the ball, it stays close to them, in the direct of a PIOP... that is very tough area to judge.

In this situation, I think it is clear that it doesn't matter if the defender is in control of the ball or not, or which direction the ball goes, whether they are trying to pass to someone or not, if someone receives the ball or not... none of that matters here... it's all about deliberate play + timing of the challenge - is it immediate?

That guidance again: “Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of ‘interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’ should be penalised.”

It's an offence if the PIOP immediately challenges for the ball after a deliberate play, whichever direction the ball has travelled.
 
This is a wider issue and something I’ve been pondering for a while.
This law is, like my recent thread on ‘what is a wall?’ prompts a lot of law vs spirit discussion and a fair amount of ‘what’s the law there for?’

Is that really a sensible way to govern the planet’s most popular sport? If laws are so poorly written that they need mid-season clarification then questions have to be asked.
The Laws can either be 6000 pages long and cover every possible scenario, or the core bullet points without phrases like ‘for instance’ and ‘except for.’ We’ve got neither at the moment - half of decisions are written in the book, half are based on ‘spirit of’ - come on!
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
This is a wider issue and something I’ve been pondering for a while.
This law is, like my recent thread on ‘what is a wall?’ prompts a lot of law vs spirit discussion and a fair amount of ‘what’s the law there for?’

Is that really a sensible way to govern the planet’s most popular sport? If laws are so poorly written that they need mid-season clarification then questions have to be asked.
The Laws can either be 6000 pages long and cover every possible scenario, or the core bullet points without phrases like ‘for instance’ and ‘except for.’ We’ve got neither at the moment - half of decisions are written in the book, half are based on ‘spirit of’ - come on!
Click to expand...
You're right. Over the past decade or so, the Laws have been moving from the traditional broad set of laws to the micro. But IFAB can't seem to decide what kind of Laws it wants--perhaps a function of the process, which involves interests from different environments speaking different languages.
 
socal lurker said:
You're right. Over the past decade or so, the Laws have been moving from the traditional broad set of laws to the micro. But IFAB can't seem to decide what kind of Laws it wants--perhaps a function of the process, which involves interests from different environments speaking different languages.
Click to expand...
Truth be told I don’t care if they write a 500000 page document which outlines every possible outcome. I’m paid to read it. I also don’t dare if it’s 4 pages and 3 billet points each. But the half way house of being explicit for some and expecting Spirit for the rest is naff.
 
I know the law is applied differently to how it is written but looking at the law, as written, I make the following observations:

- There are three 'core' ways of committing an offside offence: "interfering with play", "interfering with an opponent", or "gaining an advantage".

- "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage". However, this player can still commit an offside offence by "interfering with an opponent", which includes challenging an opponent for the ball.

- Therefore, offside is not 'reset' by a deliberate play by an opponent, and is never truly 'reset' until a teammate touches the ball again. In other words, a player who was in an offside position at the moment a teammate last touched the ball cannot "interfere with an opponent" until a teammate touches the ball again; it matters not how many touches the opposition has or for how long the opponents maintain possession.

- Of course, the law is applied differently to how it is written.
 
santa sangria said:
It's an offence if the PIOP immediately challenges for the ball after a deliberate play, whichever direction the ball has travelled.
Click to expand...
I appreciate using direction of the ball being played is not particularly useful here. The key phrase in this case is "challenges for the ball". Generally if the ball is played in the direction of the attacker, the attacker can gain possession of the ball without "challenging" for it because it was given to him.

An analogy I can use here is a quick free kick and a defender who is within 10 yards. There is a fine line between legally intercepting the ball and when it becomes an offence. The former requires no effort by defender to get the ball. Similarly this is not very clear in law either. And if this happens in PL they take the easy solution of a retake (which is incorrect in law) rather than figuring out if it was a legal intercept or an offence. But i digress.
 
socal lurker said:
You're right. Over the past decade or so, the Laws have been moving from the traditional broad set of laws to the micro. But IFAB can't seem to decide what kind of Laws it wants--perhaps a function of the process, which involves interests from different environments speaking different languages.
Click to expand...
My two cents worth, its a function of the direction football has been going, from a sport to a business. The custodians (IFAB) want to keep it as a sport but the main stakeholders (FA, FIFA, UEFA...) want it as a business. One requires principles/framework with referee applying it at their own discretion. The other requires exact black and white outcome for every situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top