There's far more to it than that, obviously. There's a bunch of other considerations.
Anyhow, here's the FIFA thing I mentioned before:
...receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately...
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Anyhow, here's the FIFA thing I mentioned before:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
So when you have the scenario where a defender has made a desperate lunge for a ball that's come from 15 yards away but he still struggles to reach it and he only deflects it, I would say 'not enough time to play the ball', as he didn't get enough time to get into a position to control it.
I can interpret that as it's only in some pretty extreme cases where you'd consider an uncontrolled kick/touch to reset offside....
I can interpret that as it's only in some pretty extreme cases where you'd consider an uncontrolled kick/touch to reset offside....
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Great table but still doesn't actually help with the scenario I started this thread with - an attempted clearance that is muffed and niked.
...Ball is moving towards player
But is expected
And the kick is deliberate
And enough time
And balanced and ready
...But the ball is not properly played and is "deflected"
"Deflected" is not a great choice of wording because, if I understand correctly, in the laws, deflection always refers to a shot and implies proximity to goal.
Anyway, the attempted clearance scenario gets 2/6 deliberate - though that might drop to 3/3 if the defender is perceived to be off balance.
It's still as clear as mud really!
The good news is that table is great to judge shots and related deflections.
Personally I think that if the defender has time and space to clear the ball but messes it up, that does reset offside. I compare it to if he's stopped the ball and then misplaced a pass back to the keeper - we wouldn't raise the flag in that case so also wouldn't if he tries to play it first time. Clearly the skill of the player/team also comes into play here - so perhaps if they are reacting slowly and off-balance we might consider that a 'deflection', rather than a 'muffed clearance'.
Does that help even a little?
Does that help even a little?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Yes and no!
I think the same.
But it super shades of grey when you take into account a mixed ability game etc.
What's really hard here is that most difficult decisions can be made correctly if they are "expected" by the players and easily "sold".
This offside stuff just doesn't work like though because the players do not know the laws - and their opinion/expectations cannot be used as a guide (IMHO)
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
how about a slight variation on the scenario,
long ball over the top, with attacker in an offside position, defender thinks he can leave it... but... he looks across at the AR who is 'waiting and seeing' in case the attacker doesnt play the ball.
defender assumes (incorrectly) that the AR isnt going to flag at all so makes a very late attempt to intercept the ball, unsuccesfully, with the ball pinging to the attacker.
not gonna happen very often, granted, but what happens there?
long ball over the top, with attacker in an offside position, defender thinks he can leave it... but... he looks across at the AR who is 'waiting and seeing' in case the attacker doesnt play the ball.
defender assumes (incorrectly) that the AR isnt going to flag at all so makes a very late attempt to intercept the ball, unsuccesfully, with the ball pinging to the attacker.
not gonna happen very often, granted, but what happens there?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Let's put that one down to not enough time 
Aside from the fact that this may be a justifiable view in the professional game but doing an O/35 or All Age grade 6 game on the weekend and punishing a defender for doing the right thing but simply lacking the skill to control the ball is absurd, and in my opinion grossly against the spirit of the game.
The other problem - which again shows how far removed IFAB are from the game that 99.99% of the world play - is the sheer inconsistency this will bring in.
Determining 'control' was already tricky enough in the old laws - now we need to make a subjective judgement that the player 'should have' controlled it? What the heck is that??
It's introducing another HIGHLY subjective decision that the referee has to make - and another reason why the AR may flag and the referee is left having to overrule, of course increasing abuse. Defenders already take it badly enough when they've kept a player onside, imagine trying to tell one that 'yeah, that attacker was 15 yards off, but you know how you're a crap defender and you don't know how to kick a ball? Yeah, it's pretty much because of that reason that your team's now losing. 100% on you buddy, enjoy the rest of the game"
Yeah, thanks IFAB.
And here's the other problem that would make one think that those responsible for writing the laws have never actually seen a game of football in their life.
Aside from the fact that this may be a justifiable view in the professional game but doing an O/35 or All Age grade 6 game on the weekend and punishing a defender for doing the right thing but simply lacking the skill to control the ball is absurd, and in my opinion grossly against the spirit of the game.
The other problem - which again shows how far removed IFAB are from the game that 99.99% of the world play - is the sheer inconsistency this will bring in.
Determining 'control' was already tricky enough in the old laws - now we need to make a subjective judgement that the player 'should have' controlled it? What the heck is that??
It's introducing another HIGHLY subjective decision that the referee has to make - and another reason why the AR may flag and the referee is left having to overrule, of course increasing abuse. Defenders already take it badly enough when they've kept a player onside, imagine trying to tell one that 'yeah, that attacker was 15 yards off, but you know how you're a crap defender and you don't know how to kick a ball? Yeah, it's pretty much because of that reason that your team's now losing. 100% on you buddy, enjoy the rest of the game"
Yeah, thanks IFAB.
So many times on this site (and others) I hear referees moaning that IFAB are fools, idiots...don't understand the game etc etc. Apart from the fact that this is clearly an unlikely possibility, do their actions actually bear this out? I am getting on in years, and before I became a referee, I was a club linesman (as we were called then) for twenty five years. I clearly remember the game as it was played in the seventies and eighties.
In those days offside was easy peasy. The moment the ball was played and a player was in an offside position....up went the flag, peep went the whistle. We all knew the stuff about not interfering with play, but in those days you only ignored a PIOP if they were 60 yards away on the other side of the pitch. I often flagged fifteen offsides in a game (as also did the other linesman). Players understood it, refs understood it ... and it was strangling all pace, flow and excitement from the game. So the apparent duffers at IFAB made changes. They introduced the "backpass" rule to cut down time wasting: I truly thought they'd messed up big time and broken the game, but once it settled down it turned out a brilliant idea.
They also went back to the idea that a player was only offside when they interfered with play. I say went back to, because this had been stressed as advice by the IFAB several times since 1904! And ignored by referees for almost ninety years. So they wrote it into the Laws. Cue howls of distress from defenders everywhere. But the excitement and speed of the game went up.
The problem is, we referees get so uptight about how difficult IFAB makes things for us, that we forget the main aim is to make the GAME BETTER, not make our lives easier. And, trust me, the game is incomparably better. When I started out, skillful forwards were ruthlessly chopped down in the opening minutes...no ref was gonna book you so early. Get a goal ahead? Then keep passing back to the goalie from the half-way line...no problems. And in the end, perhaps a dozen offsides given that would be ignored today. Lovely jubbly!
Trust me, gentlemen, offside has been a problem since 1863 when the the laws were established. Constant tinkering have made it easier on forwards. It was only designed as a tool to stop what we called "goal hanging" at school - forwards being able to wait near keeper for a long ball. It was never meant to be a tool for defenders to use. Originally you were offside anywhere in front of ball (like rugby). By 1866 you were OK if three defenders were in front of you. Throw ins, goal kicks and corners became exempt. Defenders got so good that forty or more offsides were happening every game. So in 1925 the (so-called) idiots at IFAB cut it down to two players - it must have seemed stupidity at the time, changing a Law that had existed almost a lifetime. But the game thrived. Goals increased. But by the eighties the defenders were getting on top again. Cue more changes. And again, the game thrives.
What we have now is a brilliantly balanced offside Law that attempts to carry out what was started in 1863 - prevent forwards loitering near the goal without giving defenders an easy tool. Is it perfect? Is anything. I realise it may be tougher to referee, and does call on us to make judgements on what is a deflection and what is a play on the ball, but that's why we are there...to make judgements. Let me end (finally!) with a little observation: many of you have talked about the annoyance of defenders when ill-timed attempts to clear their lines plays a forward onside. It is true. So back in the seventies there were no problems? Rubbish. I had HUGE amounts of grief, frustration and invective from forwards who were called offside ten times a match. Whichever way you draft this law, someone gets annoyed - and isn't it better for the game if it's defenders getting peeved, but goals getting scored? In my opinion the game has grown, improved and become far more skillful in my fifty odd years involved with it. And, unpopular though my view may be, huge congratulations to IFAB.
In those days offside was easy peasy. The moment the ball was played and a player was in an offside position....up went the flag, peep went the whistle. We all knew the stuff about not interfering with play, but in those days you only ignored a PIOP if they were 60 yards away on the other side of the pitch. I often flagged fifteen offsides in a game (as also did the other linesman). Players understood it, refs understood it ... and it was strangling all pace, flow and excitement from the game. So the apparent duffers at IFAB made changes. They introduced the "backpass" rule to cut down time wasting: I truly thought they'd messed up big time and broken the game, but once it settled down it turned out a brilliant idea.
They also went back to the idea that a player was only offside when they interfered with play. I say went back to, because this had been stressed as advice by the IFAB several times since 1904! And ignored by referees for almost ninety years. So they wrote it into the Laws. Cue howls of distress from defenders everywhere. But the excitement and speed of the game went up.
The problem is, we referees get so uptight about how difficult IFAB makes things for us, that we forget the main aim is to make the GAME BETTER, not make our lives easier. And, trust me, the game is incomparably better. When I started out, skillful forwards were ruthlessly chopped down in the opening minutes...no ref was gonna book you so early. Get a goal ahead? Then keep passing back to the goalie from the half-way line...no problems. And in the end, perhaps a dozen offsides given that would be ignored today. Lovely jubbly!
Trust me, gentlemen, offside has been a problem since 1863 when the the laws were established. Constant tinkering have made it easier on forwards. It was only designed as a tool to stop what we called "goal hanging" at school - forwards being able to wait near keeper for a long ball. It was never meant to be a tool for defenders to use. Originally you were offside anywhere in front of ball (like rugby). By 1866 you were OK if three defenders were in front of you. Throw ins, goal kicks and corners became exempt. Defenders got so good that forty or more offsides were happening every game. So in 1925 the (so-called) idiots at IFAB cut it down to two players - it must have seemed stupidity at the time, changing a Law that had existed almost a lifetime. But the game thrived. Goals increased. But by the eighties the defenders were getting on top again. Cue more changes. And again, the game thrives.
What we have now is a brilliantly balanced offside Law that attempts to carry out what was started in 1863 - prevent forwards loitering near the goal without giving defenders an easy tool. Is it perfect? Is anything. I realise it may be tougher to referee, and does call on us to make judgements on what is a deflection and what is a play on the ball, but that's why we are there...to make judgements. Let me end (finally!) with a little observation: many of you have talked about the annoyance of defenders when ill-timed attempts to clear their lines plays a forward onside. It is true. So back in the seventies there were no problems? Rubbish. I had HUGE amounts of grief, frustration and invective from forwards who were called offside ten times a match. Whichever way you draft this law, someone gets annoyed - and isn't it better for the game if it's defenders getting peeved, but goals getting scored? In my opinion the game has grown, improved and become far more skillful in my fifty odd years involved with it. And, unpopular though my view may be, huge congratulations to IFAB.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Great post, The other matter to take into account of course, is speed and fitness of the players - that is more of factor in making our lives more "difficult" than the nuances of certain laws IMHO.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
No, we are there to enforce/uphold/apply the laws.
The active/inactive part of the offside law is really vague. Far more vague than anything that has been in the law that you have listed
I love the IFAB.
What is the answer then - how do you interpret the law as given with regard to playing the ball deliberately - does the player have to make contact, does the player have to determine the direction of the ball, do attempted interceptions, clearances and blocks away from goal mean anything, please answer the question...?
Great post by the way 
I will try and answer as clearly as I can.
Lets say red are attacking and blue defending.
If the ball was last touched (a mere touch is enough) by a red player, then any red teammate in an offside position can be guilty of an offside offence if they enter active play (I am assuming you understand all the active play components)
However if a blue player touches the ball and it goes to the red offside positioned attacker then it counts as offside (Gaining an advantage). EXCEPT THAT:
"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.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops a ball which is going into or very close to the
goal with any part of the body except the hands (unless the goalkeeper within
the penalty area" LAW 11
This (to me anyway) is pretty clear and unambiguous. The Blue defender if they deliberately play the ball, negates the offside unless they are making a save. The save is very precisely defined above - if there's any chance the ball was even close to going in - it's a save, offside!. If not a save, so long as they deliberately make contact with the ball, then it does not matter if it spins off at a weird angle, or goes where they didn't intend - they deliberately played it ... no offside. It's not for us to judge whether they were stretching to reach it, or off balance or attempting to play a ball they should have left alone...all that matters is if we thought it was deliberate. You ask if "playing" the ball means actually touching it...yes it does. I know, because the new Laws have a lovely glossary at the end which defines it very clearly:
Played
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball
So our only judgement (so long as a save is not present) is: was it deliberate? A question we also have to ask about a handling offence...and generally similar criteria apply. Instead of "ball to hand or hand to ball" we can ask "ball hits player, or player hits ball". If the second, however much he screws it up...OFFSIDE.
So there we are. Easier to explain of course than to call it in a match situation, but the theory to me is clear and well defined.
On The Game
New Member
Reading up on the good book:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent
when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
Deflected off an opponent meaning not a controlled pass so I see what AlexF is saying, but I wouldn't ever compare it to HB - can of worms right there! Intentional block is still a deflection
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent
when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
Deflected off an opponent meaning not a controlled pass so I see what AlexF is saying, but I wouldn't ever compare it to HB - can of worms right there! Intentional block is still a deflection
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Very good post. And I agree with this. And you have answered the OP and the Capt's question about "what is played?"
The only thing is, I think a lot of people disagree with this - the idea of punishing a defender for trying to cut out a pass etc. - and the players are certainly not expecting deflections/nicks to "play an attacker onside"...I think you have explained very well... do you think this is even remotely commonly understood?
Answering Santa Sangria: this ought to be commonly understood. We had an entire session of our monthly referee coaching nights devoted to this, watching videos of so called "deflections" and being told which ones FIFA considered controlled plays. Our job (as has been pointed out) is to uphold the Laws, not just do what the players expect.
To On The Game: an intentional block is NOT necessarily a deflection. One very useful tip mentioned in our coaching session is "did the player ACT or REACT?". In other words, if their play on the ball was merely a reaction to it coming near them...then it is a deflection and offside still. However, if they had time to ACT...even if they messed up and the ball went totally not where they intended...no offside.
Wow! So much for clarity....
How can this (OP) not be offside? If this is not offside, then we're almost back to when any touch by an opponent "played on" the offside attacker. You really can't have a situation where a defender gets his body behind a shot and it rebounds to an opponent and he's offside, but a slight deflection from a miskick on a through ball and he isn't offside.
Defender on the line deliberately saves a shot with his leg - goes to an attacker in offside position - offside.
Defender on the line deliberately plays the ball with his leg - goes to an attacker in offside position - not offside.
We really shouldn't need the "deliberate play v. deflection" box or an evening of watching videos to know what to give.
How can this (OP) not be offside? If this is not offside, then we're almost back to when any touch by an opponent "played on" the offside attacker. You really can't have a situation where a defender gets his body behind a shot and it rebounds to an opponent and he's offside, but a slight deflection from a miskick on a through ball and he isn't offside.
Defender on the line deliberately saves a shot with his leg - goes to an attacker in offside position - offside.
Defender on the line deliberately plays the ball with his leg - goes to an attacker in offside position - not offside.
We really shouldn't need the "deliberate play v. deflection" box or an evening of watching videos to know what to give.
Had an incident today that could have been interesting - defender tries to clear the ball and blasts it into an attacker who's turned his back, ball comes loose and goes to another attacker, who slots it in. Turns out that second attacker wasn't in an offside position (according to my CAR, not totally sure how he wasn't, but anyway....), so there was no decision to give - but it made me think of this thread and how it's a bit "one rule for one, different rule for the other"
Blovee said:
Wow! So much for clarity....
How can this (OP) not be offside? If this is not offside, then we're almost back to when any touch by an opponent "played on" the offside attacker. You really can't have a situation where a defender gets his body behind a shot and it rebounds to an opponent and he's offside, but a slight deflection from a miskick on a through ball and he isn't offside.
Of course you can have such a situation. The Laws are full of instances where a small difference changes the result entirely: did the foul happen on this side of that white line or that side -- one is a free kick, the other a penalty; did that hand move towards the ball before it touched or not? One may be a penalty, the other just play on. These kind of decisions happen frequently and make for excitement and controversy (though they make life tough on us refs). So here is another: did the ball just bounce off his leg, or did he attempt to play it and miskick. It's not a lack of clarity you are complaining about, you just don't like the current offside law. And that's fair enough, you are fully entitled to hate any law you like (though you still have to enforce it). But don't hide that dislike under a smokescreen of "lack of clarity". It is just as much a judgement call as half a dozen other laws. Of course it is easily possible to make offside simple, black and white and uncontroversial...and as I said a few posts ago, we've seen exactly what that leads to.
Wow! So much for clarity....
How can this (OP) not be offside? If this is not offside, then we're almost back to when any touch by an opponent "played on" the offside attacker. You really can't have a situation where a defender gets his body behind a shot and it rebounds to an opponent and he's offside, but a slight deflection from a miskick on a through ball and he isn't offside.
Of course you can have such a situation. The Laws are full of instances where a small difference changes the result entirely: did the foul happen on this side of that white line or that side -- one is a free kick, the other a penalty; did that hand move towards the ball before it touched or not? One may be a penalty, the other just play on. These kind of decisions happen frequently and make for excitement and controversy (though they make life tough on us refs). So here is another: did the ball just bounce off his leg, or did he attempt to play it and miskick. It's not a lack of clarity you are complaining about, you just don't like the current offside law. And that's fair enough, you are fully entitled to hate any law you like (though you still have to enforce it). But don't hide that dislike under a smokescreen of "lack of clarity". It is just as much a judgement call as half a dozen other laws. Of course it is easily possible to make offside simple, black and white and uncontroversial...and as I said a few posts ago, we've seen exactly what that leads to.