The Ref Stop

Offside Question (Yes the famous offside rules)

DaveTheRef

DaveTheRef

New Member
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
 
The Ref Stop
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.
 
Runner Ref said:
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.
Click to expand...
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"?
 
DaveTheRef said:
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"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
DaveTheRef said:
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"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unless he commits an offence before this, but it doesn't sound like he does from the written explanation
 
Runner Ref said:
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
Click to expand...
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 🙏🏾)
 
DaveTheRef said:
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 🙏🏾)
Click to expand...
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
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok I see. And great shout with the interpretation take. Makes perfect sense👍🏾

Cheers
 
DaveTheRef said:
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 🙏🏾)
Click to expand...
@JamesL covers it all in terms of law.

This idea of gaining an advantage by being there is just another myth that is pedalled by the media, and worryingly, ex-pros.

As long as they aren’t hitting any of the criteria in James’ message, they can stand wherever they want
 
A simple way of thinking about this is that OS position is revisited every time an attacker touches the ball.

With respect to gaining an advantage, this is a poor use of language in the Laws that is there because of the history of Law 11. Once upon a time, it was an offense to seek to gain an advantage from being in OS position. That made OS very broad and we called OS on players who had little to do with the play. To stop giving OS where it didn’t matter, that changed to actually gaining an advantage. And the meaning/scope of that also morphed over time. What we are left with is what others have posted above. And that can really be summed up by the idea that the ball rebounding off the frame or deflecting off an opponent does nothing to reset OS, so if you were in OS position when your teammate played the ball, you still can’t get involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top