Offside position
- Thread starter one
- Start date
Or a goal kick or a corner kick...
ABRef
New Member
Yes but that is from a dead ball situation, i'm guessing he means from open play?
one
RefChat Addict
The OP is about general play and free kicks. The law is clear on no offside on corner kicks.
Regardless of the OP, offside can occur when the ball is played backwards. All it takes is for a player in offside position to walk back to the receive the ball after it has been kicked.
To answer the OP correctly, No. To be in an offside position you have to be closer to the opposition goal line than the ball which you can't be if the ball is on the goal line !
What about if you are in the goal itself, i.e. between the posts but beyond the goal line?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
The LOTG states 'nearer to the opponent's goal line'. So if the ball is on the goal line, then it's impossible to be in an offside position as you can't be 'nearer'. Being over the line doesn't make you 'nearer' (that's the key word, not 'further away from own goal line).
If an attacker is off the field he's considered on the line for the purposes of offside. Which would put him level with the ball.
If an attacker is off the field he's considered on the line for the purposes of offside. Which would put him level with the ball.
one
RefChat Addict
Reference?
The law clearly states this for defenders but i cant see anything to that effect for attackers.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Common sense, and extension of the defender part. There's simply no other option that works.
one
RefChat Addict
Defenders and attackers are different species just like goal keepers and field players who have their own law applications. Specially in the offside law where for example a deflection of a defender does not 'count' but a deflection of an attacker does. The point being we cant always extend laws made for defenders to attackers.
If the law makers wanted to apply the same law (defender off the FOP is considered on the line) to attackers then they would have simply replace the word 'defender' with the word 'player'. Maybe they should have but they didn't so who knows.
As far as other options, how about just going with what I think is the intention of the offside law where any attacker 'in front of' the ball and the second last defender is in an offside position. This law, as with many other cases' is poorly worded and doesn't completely convey its intention.
If the law makers wanted to apply the same law (defender off the FOP is considered on the line) to attackers then they would have simply replace the word 'defender' with the word 'player'. Maybe they should have but they didn't so who knows.
As far as other options, how about just going with what I think is the intention of the offside law where any attacker 'in front of' the ball and the second last defender is in an offside position. This law, as with many other cases' is poorly worded and doesn't completely convey its intention.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's against the LOTG thought. The LOTG talk about being 'closer to the opponent's goal line'. You can't get closer than on it. Your proposal is completely throwing out that wording and inserting your own.
I also don't see the logic from a positioning perspective - why is positioning on one considered different to the other? The reason the deflection counts off one and not the other is specific LOTG text, which we don't have here. So we look at precedent and common sense.
And considering the players 'on the line' is the only thing that works. Otherwise, consider this scenario:
An attacker and 2 defenders are all sprinting for the ball as it approaches the goal line, and it's a wet day. Attacker is behind the defenders. One defender stops it just inside the goal line, oversteps the ball, gets tangled up with the other, and they both slide some 5 yards past the goal line. The attacker stops 1 yard past the goal line. Another attacker behind touches the ball again to stop it moving, then leaves the ball for the first attacker to run back and collect as he runs into the goalmouth.
2 defenders are clearly 'in front of' the attacker, yet if we're putting them on the goal line and not the attacker, that would make the attacker in an offside position. Which makes no sense.
Not to mention that given the IFK is supposed to be given at the player's location at the time of the touch, it would be impossible here.
So that's why I think applying the same for the attacker is the only option that makes logical sense.
I also don't see the logic from a positioning perspective - why is positioning on one considered different to the other? The reason the deflection counts off one and not the other is specific LOTG text, which we don't have here. So we look at precedent and common sense.
And considering the players 'on the line' is the only thing that works. Otherwise, consider this scenario:
An attacker and 2 defenders are all sprinting for the ball as it approaches the goal line, and it's a wet day. Attacker is behind the defenders. One defender stops it just inside the goal line, oversteps the ball, gets tangled up with the other, and they both slide some 5 yards past the goal line. The attacker stops 1 yard past the goal line. Another attacker behind touches the ball again to stop it moving, then leaves the ball for the first attacker to run back and collect as he runs into the goalmouth.
2 defenders are clearly 'in front of' the attacker, yet if we're putting them on the goal line and not the attacker, that would make the attacker in an offside position. Which makes no sense.
Not to mention that given the IFK is supposed to be given at the player's location at the time of the touch, it would be impossible here.
So that's why I think applying the same for the attacker is the only option that makes logical sense.
one
RefChat Addict
@CapnBloodbeard , you asked for options and I gave you one
To me its six one way and half dozen the other. The LOTG does not cover it. My argument about the word 'defender' used instead of 'player' still stands.
I accept your scenario for your explanation but i can give a scenarios where your interpretation makes play unfair. Consider the ball is an inch or two behind the goal line and a team mate is 5 yards beyond it. Two defender are also near the ball and in line with it (kind of reversing attackers and defender in your scenario). The teammate is at a disadvantage being that far away and the current wording as it is makes the teammate onside (correctly IMO). However your extension puts him offside.
Either way the offside law needs clarification for attackers beyond the goal line. And the same way as when the clarification for defenders was included, nothing it would not be done until this scenario happens in a big game and effects the result of the game.
To me its six one way and half dozen the other. The LOTG does not cover it. My argument about the word 'defender' used instead of 'player' still stands.
I accept your scenario for your explanation but i can give a scenarios where your interpretation makes play unfair. Consider the ball is an inch or two behind the goal line and a team mate is 5 yards beyond it. Two defender are also near the ball and in line with it (kind of reversing attackers and defender in your scenario). The teammate is at a disadvantage being that far away and the current wording as it is makes the teammate onside (correctly IMO). However your extension puts him offside.
Either way the offside law needs clarification for attackers beyond the goal line. And the same way as when the clarification for defenders was included, nothing it would not be done until this scenario happens in a big game and effects the result of the game.
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
The ball can be played backwards into open space, and a player in an offside position then runs backwards to retrieve the ball. That would be offside.
Make sense now?
Make sense now?
Oh, so the player who is offside is IN FRONT OF his teammate who plays the ball back, and then he collects the ball after running past his teammate to get it. - yes??
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Yes.