Players and management moaning at referee when he is following new offside law procedures.

[PinnerPaul]

There are a few scenarios where it is considered good practice to blow early - to prevent unnecessary attacker/goalkeeper collisions and to save an attacker chasing a long ball are two where I've been told to flag early by experienced referees. Essentially, if it's clear that the "offence" part of offside is definitely going to occur, you are allowed to be sensible and blow early. But if there's even a hint of doubt, it's always best to let it play out and see what actually happens.

Also, don't get thrown off by what you're seeing on TV. There is a lot of waiting on flags in the PL, but some of that will be VAR-related, which obviously don't apply at the levels we all work at!

Spot on - there was one in the Women's World Cup Final that was a classic how not to do it. AR let USA forward run about 50 yards to just keep the ball in play before flagging - player (rightly) not impressed.

 

[Eddie]

Haha exactly. So to sum it up, I think overall, most times in grassroots its probably best to just blow. That way none of this happens. Those refereeing higher up L4 and above can abide by and follow the law and little things like this 100% because I'm sure the players and coaching staff in those teams higher up would be better educated about the laws and would not complain as much in such scenarios.

No I’d advise against that. The law should be applied correctly regardless of the level. You’re making a bigger rod for your back by not applying the law correctly. Don’t worry about whether the players like it or not, if they don’t know the law then that’s their issue.

You give the correct decision by law, explain it to anyone who wants to know why you didn’t give offside (in this case), then get on with it knowing you’ve done your job correctly. If they don’t like it, tough! They don’t have to, but they have to accept it. If they cross the line then it’s sin bin city.

I appreciate you’re new but your priority really shouldn’t be appeasing the players. You’ll get complaints no matter what you do. What if one of them knows the law and asks why you gave offside when you shouldn’t have? You don’t have an answer.

I always enjoy giving an on-field lesson for the more ignorant players.

 

[socal lurker]

I'd suggest that, at any level, the key is to understand the difference between diagrams 3 and 4 in the Practical Guidance (pg 216 of the 19-20 magic book). Diagram 4 addresses when interfering with play can be penalized even though the ball has not been touched.

The essential element of the distinction between the two scenarios is the permission for the referee to call early when an OS call is the only thing that can happen--what's the point of waiting? But if there is another attacker who has any chance of getting there first, we cannot call early.

(And it is not "new"--those exact two diagrams have been in the magic book for many years. The 2008 book is the oldest I have handy, and it has the same two diagrams.)

 

[SW20]

Haha exactly. So to sum it up, I think overall, most times in grassroots its probably best to just blow. That way none of this happens. Those refereeing higher up L4 and above can abide by and follow the law and little things like this 100% because I'm sure the players and coaching staff in those teams higher up would be better educated about the laws and would not complain as much in such scenarios.

I wouldn't do this, clubs and coaches need to be educated where possible on the LOTG. If they don't choose to listen then that's their problem but as a Referee, you need to do your job first and foremost. There's no chance I'm blowing if a player hasn't interfered with play, the LOTG state that being in an offside position isn't an offence. It is only an offence if the player in question interferes with play as the LOTG state. It's up to us as Referees to correctly enforce that.

 

[one]

I'd suggest that, at any level, the key is to understand the difference between diagrams 3 and 4 in the Practical Guidance (pg 216 of the 19-20 magic book). Diagram 4 addresses when interfering with play can be penalized even though the ball has not been touched.

The essential element of the distinction between the two scenarios is the permission for the referee to call early when an OS call is the only thing that can happen--what's the point of waiting? But if there is another attacker who has any chance of getting there first, we cannot call early.

(And it is not "new"--those exact two diagrams have been in the magic book for many years. The 2008 book is the oldest I have handy, and it has the same two diagrams.)

Those diagrams started from 2005 (prior to that there were different illustrations). Up until 2008 the text for the second diagram said "An attacker in an offside position (A1) runs towards the ball and plays it (A2). The assistant referee should raise the flag when the player touches the ball (A2)."

In 2008 it changed to "A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball."
so I'd say if its new or old depends on how old you are .

 

[Peter Grove]

Actually, it was 2006 when it changed and the new wording came in.

 

[Keeday]

There is a difference between a player in an offside positioning standing still/walking back and clearly not involved to one chasing the ball and putting pressure on a defender but not intending on touching the ball (though how you would prove they don’t intend that I do not know). In the latter it is reasonable to assume that there is only one purpose and that is to have some sort of involvement in play (even indirectly by pressuring the defender to make a mistake) and that should be penalised for offside.

 

[JamesL]

There is a difference between a player in an offside positioning standing still/walking back and clearly not involved to one chasing the ball and putting pressure on a defender but not intending on touching the ball (though how you would prove they don’t intend that I do not know). In the latter it is reasonable to assume that there is only one purpose and that is to have some sort of involvement in play (even indirectly by pressuring the defender to make a mistake) and that should be penalised for offside.

Not always...

 

[one]

There is a difference between a player in an offside positioning standing still/walking back and clearly not involved to one chasing the ball and putting pressure on a defender but not intending on touching the ball (though how you would prove they don’t intend that I do not know). In the latter it is reasonable to assume that there is only one purpose and that is to have some sort of involvement in play (even indirectly by pressuring the defender to make a mistake) and that should be penalised for offside.

Agree with @JamesL and his illustration of not always.

Here is when you do. As long as you can fit your description into one of these three.

• 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

 

[Keeday]

Not always...
View attachment 4608

In your diagram I don’t see where the “putting pressure on a defender” part of my post applies, which is critical to my example IMO?

If an offside player is chasing a ball with no defenders nearby alongside an ‘onside’ team mate then you wait to see which one touches the ball, likewise if they stop running and allow a team mate coming from an onside position to take over then then you keep the flag down.

 

[socal lurker]

In your diagram I don’t see where the “putting pressure on a defender” part of my post applies, which is critical to my example IMO?

If an offside player is chasing a ball with no defenders nearby alongside an ‘onside’ team mate then you wait to see which one touches the ball, likewise if they stop running and allow a team mate coming from an onside position to take over then then you keep the flag down.

Law 11 says nothing about "putting pressure" on a defender. Nothing.

The early flag where only the OSP attacker is pursuing and is likely to get the ball is an example of interfering with PLAY being flagged early as it is the only thing that is going to happen.

If an OSP attacker and an onside attacker are pursuing, to flag for interfering with PLAY, the AR/R must wait to see who gets there first.

@one posted the only ways (other than the inapplicable here blocking vision or impeding the path of a defender) in which an OSP player can interfere with AN OPPONENT. Running toward the ball is not considered an "obvious action" in this context. Law 11 is looking for something more concrete, such as a dummy. The expectation on all three is that the activity happens near the ball.

 

[Big Cat]

Trouble with these Laws, is I doubt very much that the Law makers have given them anywhere near as much thought as the Law Inspectors that frequent this site. In many, if not most cases, I don't think Supply League Refs (for arguments sake) have any clue about the detail spoken herein.
I'm not convinced some of this theoretical stuff is all that real, especially as Elite refs and VAR seem ignorant at times. It's just filling in gaps in a book, gaps which weren't intended to be there (classic product of too many contributors imo). The minute detail doesn't interest me anymore as it wasn't meant to be of interest

 

[Keeday]

Law 11 says nothing about "putting pressure" on a defender. Nothing.

The early flag where only the OSP attacker is pursuing and is likely to get the ball is an example of interfering with PLAY being flagged early as it is the only thing that is going to happen.

If an OSP attacker and an onside attacker are pursuing, to flag for interfering with PLAY, the AR/R must wait to see who gets there first.

@one posted the only ways (other than the inapplicable here blocking vision or impeding the path of a defender) in which an OSP player can interfere with AN OPPONENT. Running toward the ball is not considered an "obvious action" in this context. Law 11 is looking for something more concrete, such as a dummy. The expectation on all three is that the activity happens near the ball.

I’ve read your post three times. I’m still not sure how to reply. I’ve not mentioned anything about the laws I’m merely giving one (of many possible) practical example of how a player in an offside position chasing the ball could be penalised.

 

[newref]

I’ve read your post three times. I’m still not sure how to reply. I’ve not mentioned anything about the laws I’m merely giving one (of many possible) practical example of how a player in an offside position chasing the ball could be penalised.

The OS player "putting pressure" is a tricky one. 2 points of discussion :-
1 - what if the OSP only intends to close down the space (initially it would appear like he is "putting pressure") but what if he does not intend to impact the defender in any way to play the ball. We would need to let play go to see this and not flag early as the OSP is entitled to do this by law.
2 - what if the OSP is putting pressure on the defender. I'm with Keeday on this one because "putting pressure" would come under -

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

This for me does not merely mean stops the defender from playing the ball, it means its impacting his ability, therefore the OSP could force a mistake or win a throw in by putting pressure on. Therefore the OSP should be penalised rather than gain an advantage from it and hence flag should be raised in this case. I think that's what Keeday was getting at ☺

 

[socal lurker]

I’ve read your post three times. I’m still not sure how to reply. I’ve not mentioned anything about the laws I’m merely giving one (of many possible) practical example of how a player in an offside position chasing the ball could be penalised.

Not mentioning the Law is exactly my point. If you want to discuss how a player can be penalized for OS, you have to tie it the Laws, not just make up your terms—the definitions in Law 11 can be confusing enough without adding more undefined terms to the discussion, Merely running toward the ball is not enough. Once it becomes challenging the opponent for the ball, it becomes enough. (I disagree that clear action is going to be applicable in these contexts clear action was added to the Laws to address things like dummy’s or feinting at the ball, which did not fall within the definition of attempt to play the ball.)