...receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately...

[santa sangria]

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

This line is still in the new laws and I hate it.
Today, I had a defender swing at the ball. He just caught it but not much, due to a lack of technical proficiency.
He deliberately played the ball. But not much. And it went through still to an attacker. He barely changed the direction of flight. You could call it a little clip, even a nick, but he deliberately played it.
My AR flagged and I over-ruled him and told the players to get on with it.

But I think most refs give offside here...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Well, what does 'plays' mean? It could mean anything and the LOTG haven't defined it.

Though I do think the idea of punishing defenders for trying to do their job is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of, completely unfair.

 

[SM]

If it clearly looks like he tried to play it, then no offside, play on as you did.

As far as the laws go, it's a necessary evil unfortunately.

 

[RustyRef]

I was once told by a contrib assessor that unless your assistant is completely and utterly incorrect in law on offside then never overrule him as effectively you are killing him for the rest of the game and throwing him to the wolves. (I'm assuming it was a neutral rather than club assistant I should add). Whilst it sounds like the assistant was wrong to put the flag up, perhaps it might have been better to just go with him and then have a chat at half time / full time?

 

[santa sangria]

I was once told by a contrib assessor that unless your assistant is completely and utterly incorrect in law on offside then never overrule him as effectively you are killing him for the rest of the game and throwing him to the wolves. (I'm assuming it was a neutral rather than club assistant I should add). Whilst it sounds like the assistant was wrong to put the flag up, perhaps it might have been better to just go with him and then have a chat at half time / full time?

In this case I had paid ARs but a a beginner at the other end and I had already told the captains to play to the whistle, and I had already spoken to the other AR twice to instruct on basic flagging... so I had wiggle room Otherwise, yes, agree.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If it clearly looks like he tried to play it, then no offside, play on as you did.

As far as the laws go, it's a necessary evil unfortunately.

Where is that supported though?

Problem is, even FIFA/IFAB have released directly contradicting videos on this.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Sometimes regardless what decision you give, even if you know that you are 100% correct, there will always be that one clown who is adamant you are wrong! Usually the sort of idiot that thinks any contact whatsoever by a defender is "a pass back"

 

[Jacko]

That sounds offside to me. If it felt wrong at the time it probably is. Play it safe, go with the offside. He didn't mean to slice it.

If it's going to take more effort explaining you're right after a dodgy goal than an offside no one will really question it isn't worth it in my opinion.

 

[SM]

Where is that supported though?

If it clearly looks like he tried to play it, then no offside, play on as you did.

It's this;

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

To clarify my meaning, if the player looks to everyone watching (including the referee) like he has deliberately attempted to play the ball then there will be no offside against the player who was in the offside position. I was stressing the "looks to everyone watching" bit as the key element IMHO in selling the decision.

Taking on board some of what was posted above, what Rusty said sits uneasily with me (even though I would stress I agree 100% in theory) as I have had an assessor who hammered an AR who did a match with me, then proceeded to hammer me for going with him on some relatively straightforward offside decisions he had apparently gotten wrong. From the middle you might suspect someone is wrong, but overruling from the middle because you think an AR is wrong without being 100%? Now that is one brave referee!! you will need to be teflon coated in the bar after the match explaining those decisions (not to mention the bad feeling you will endure in the changing room post match)!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

My point is, where are you getting your definition of 'plays' from?
If, for instance, I have a different definition - who's to say you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa?

As for the assessment you had - what was the nature of the allegedly incorrect decisions?

 

[SM]

I see your point. Plays isn't defined officially and while I would define it as making an effort to make deliberate contact with the ball via kick, head, knee or with any other legal body part, the laws don't clarify.

With the assessment; Just that he was wrong, out of position and flagging inaccurately or not flagging when he should have. No interpretation of any new law needed, just straight forward, old fashioned, getting it wrong.

 

[Russell Jones]

I would define it as making an effort to make deliberate contact with the ball via kick, head, knee or with any other legal body part

.
Would you include in your definition a defender simply trying to block a shot?! That's trying to make deliberate contact with the ball, often using 'any other legal body part' but I don't think I would be calling that as a deliberate play of the ball ...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I see your point. Plays isn't defined officially and while I would define it as making an effort to make deliberate contact with the ball via kick, head, knee or with any other legal body part, the laws don't clarify.

With the assessment; Just that he was wrong, out of position and flagging inaccurately or not flagging when he should have. No interpretation of any new law needed, just straight forward, old fashioned, getting it wrong.

Well the assessor absolutely cannot blame the referee for going with the AR when the AR has made a wrong judgement due to positioning.
If you should have overruled because the player wasn't actively involved in play then that's fair enough.

And personally, I can define play as something controlled....

 

[santa sangria]

.
Would you include in your definition a defender simply trying to block a shot?! That's trying to make deliberate contact with the ball, often using 'any other legal body part' but I don't think I would be calling that as a deliberate play of the ball ...

I think "block a shot" is covered under the law by "(except from a deliberate save by any opponent)".
If an attacker becomes active in an offside position from a blocked shot then there can be the offence.

It's blocks, interceptions, clearances, and attempted blocks, interceptions and clearances not connected with shots that are the problem and not covered under the laws IMHO

 

[On The Game]

This seems too big and too common a situation to not have clear directives for us referees and is rather unsettling....

I suppose seeking clarification from the FA would be best? There are so many variations that would fall under the same umbrella that probably happen once a week and it's definitely a thing about last weeks ref that could come up. Any ideas how to get something like this clarified?

 

[AlexF]

Instruction we've been given is to relate deliberate play vs deflection to the deliberate handling stuff. Such that, distance, reaction time, etc should all be taken into account.

So, if a defender tries to stick a foot out 3-4 yards away from an attacker as the ball is going by, that might not be a deliberate play, but rather a reactionary play (which often suggests deflection).

Either way, one thing we do try to teach is that the referee should try to communicate that a play was deliberate for situations like this. That phrasing, yelling, etc will also help the AR, who wouldn't signal in that case.

 

[santa sangria]

Instruction we've been given is to relate deliberate play vs deflection to the deliberate handling stuff. Such that, distance, reaction time, etc should all be taken into account.

So, if a defender tries to stick a foot out 3-4 yards away from an attacker as the ball is going by, that might not be a deliberate play, but rather a reactionary play (which often suggests deflection).

Either way, one thing we do try to teach is that the referee should try to communicate that a play was deliberate for situations like this. That phrasing, yelling, etc will also help the AR, who wouldn't signal in that case.

This makes sense... and we have had the same instructions.
But it is very harsh on a defender that is "just doing their job" who attempts a clearance and only succeeds in touching the ball onto an attacker (formerly) in an offside position...
When it comes to attempted interceptions etc. it seems like most officials will give the offside, even though we haven't been clearly instructed...

Any more?

 

[On The Game]

Instruction we've been given is to relate deliberate play vs deflection to the deliberate handling stuff. Such that, distance, reaction time, etc should all be taken into account.

So, if a defender tries to stick a foot out 3-4 yards away from an attacker as the ball is going by, that might not be a deliberate play, but rather a reactionary play (which often suggests deflection).

Either way, one thing we do try to teach is that the referee should try to communicate that a play was deliberate for situations like this. That phrasing, yelling, etc will also help the AR, who wouldn't signal in that case.

Is sticking their foot out not intentionally playing it though? Much like a hand going up would be handball because they've used their hands the make them self bigger?

 

[AlexF]

Is sticking their foot out not intentionally playing it though? Much like a hand going up would be handball because they've used their hands the make them self bigger?

It's all about reaction...

If you're 3 feet from the play, your instinctive reaction is to move the hands/legs/whatever... there's actually a cool table that FIFA put out a handful of years back -- I'll see if I can't find that this evening and add it in here for deflection v deliberate.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's all about reaction...

If you're 3 feet from the play, your instinctive reaction is to move the hands/legs/whatever... there's actually a cool table that FIFA put out a handful of years back -- I'll see if I can't find that this evening and add it in here for deflection v deliberate.

Yeah but stick your arm out to the ball from 3 feet away and it's a foul.
I think this is just highlighting that the instructions you've been provided don't work because the reasoning behind it falls down.

Here's one: Is it really "In the spirit of the game" to punish a defender for trying to do the right thing and stop a ball when he may not be able to control it? Defenders are expected to lunge for any ball that's going past, yet the offside interpretation of 'move to the ball and you've played it' is actually expecting defenders to stand and watch the ball go past and hope it's offside.