Offside Question (Yes the famous offside rules)

[DaveTheRef]

Hi all,

Quick one, for those who watched Arsenal vs Southampton yesterday. If Martinelli passed the ball backwards to Kai Havertz (instead of going for goal), would Havertz have been flagged offside? Given he was offside when the ball was played in.

Many thanks

 

[Runner Ref]

Haven’t seen the incident, but it doesn’t matter which direction the ball is played in. You can be offside if the ball goes forwards, backwards, sideward or diagonal.

The confusion comes from the fact a player cannot be offside if they are behind the ball when it is played.

 

[DaveTheRef]

Haven’t seen the incident, but it doesn’t matter which direction the ball is played in. You can be offside if the ball goes forwards, backwards, sideward or diagonal.

The confusion comes from the fact a player cannot be offside if they are behind the ball when it is played.

Cheers for the reply. Please have a look at the incident when you have a minute. When the ball is played in, Havertz is offside, if Martinelli passes to him for a tap in, is Havertz still technically offside or is that considered a "second phase of play"?

 

[JamesL]

Cheers for the reply. Please have a look at the incident when you have a minute. When the ball is played in, Havertz is offside, if Martinelli passes to him for a tap in, is Havertz still technically offside or is that considered a "second phase of play"?

Also have not seen the clip.

Offside is judged at the moment the ball is last played/touched by a team mate and each time this happens. So provided that the following is true the no offside occurs:
1. Havertz in offside position
2. Ball played to Martinelli
3. Havertz neither interferes with play or an opponent (see law 11 to understand what this means)
4. Havertz moves into an on side position
5. Martinelli plays/touches the ball

Then no offside offence would have occurred.

 

[RustyRef]

Cheers for the reply. Please have a look at the incident when you have a minute. When the ball is played in, Havertz is offside, if Martinelli passes to him for a tap in, is Havertz still technically offside or is that considered a "second phase of play"?

I haven't seen, or can't remember, it but offside would only be judged at the time Martinelli passes to him, where he was stood for a previous cross becomes irrelevant.

 

[JamesL]

I haven't seen, or can't remember, it but offside would only be judged at the time Martinelli passes to him, where he was stood for a previous cross becomes irrelevant.

Unless he commits an offence before this, but it doesn't sound like he does from the written explanation

 

[Runner Ref]

He would have been onside as he’s behind the ball. Doesn’t matter where he was when the original ball came in. Martinellis touch basically resets that

 

[DaveTheRef]

He would have been onside as he’s behind the ball. Doesn’t matter where he was when the original ball came in. Martinellis touch basically resets that
View attachment 7639

Great thanks for the explanation.
Now a little view from another of the situation from me: Wouldn't it be correct to say Havertz gained an unfair advantage by being ahead of the opposition backline in an "offside position", although he doesn't interfere with play, but if the ball is then played to him there for a tap in, the defender would always be a second or so late to recover as Havertz was already ahead? (Maybe I'm thinking too much into this, apologies )

 

[JamesL]

Great thanks for the explanation.
Now a little view from another of the situation from me: Wouldn't it be correct to say Havertz gained an unfair advantage by being ahead of the opposition backline in an "offside position", although he doesn't interfere with play, but if the ball is then played to him there for a tap in, the defender would always be a second or so late to recover as Havertz was already ahead? (Maybe I'm thinking too much into this, apologies )

No. Not in laws.
This is where understanding what the laws of the game means by gaining an advantage is really important, but also confusing for those that don't really know the law. If you take everyday understanding of English language, a case could be argued.

However, the laws are clear in that gaining an advantage had to be by:

playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

Since neither of these are true at the point it was played to martinelli and him being onside when Martinelli plays it then I cannot be an offside offence for gaining an advantage.

The key principle to bear in mind here is that it is NOT an offence to be in an offside position

 

[DaveTheRef]

No. Not in laws.
This is where understanding what the laws of the game means by gaining an advantage is really important, but also confusing for those that don't really know the law. If you take everyday understanding of English language, a case could be argued.

However, the laws are clear in that gaining an advantage had to be by:

playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

Since neither of these are true at the point it was played to martinelli and him being inside when Martinelli plays it then I cannot be an offside offence for gaining an advantage.

Ok I see. And great shout with the interpretation take. Makes perfect sense

Cheers