I assume you mean the defenders in both cases also made contact with the ball and didn't just try to get the ball? If not I am back to square 1 confused!
Translation of L11 deflection/deliberate play please?!
- Thread starter Aconman62
- Start date
Yes, both tried to clear it but it skimmed off the top of their heads and went on to those in an (initially) offside position.
I get why people don't like the law, because managers would need to coach defenders not to try and head it if they think someone is offside, but that's a high risk split-second decision to make. It can help to think how it would look if, instead of a poor contact, it was a deliberate attempt to head it back to the keeper but an attacker is waiting. Nobody would expect the flag in that case.
Macca
Active Member
I really struggled with this idea of deliberately playing the ball for a long time. What my mind kept picturing was the defender deliberately playing the ball to the attacker who was in the offside position. To me, that sounds fair enough. Of course, this is not in the book which states: "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent".
So, the idea goes that if an attacker is in an offside position and the defender intentionally touches the ball, in any way, as it travels from the attackers team mate to the attacker in the offside position, it's not an offside offense.
So, the idea goes that if an attacker is in an offside position and the defender intentionally touches the ball, in any way, as it travels from the attackers team mate to the attacker in the offside position, it's not an offside offense.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not too long ago, what you had thought would have been correct. The guidance used to be that to constitute a "play" the defender had to exhibit control over the ball. But as with many things in OS, that is no longer the case. Over past decade or two, IFAB has consistently been looking at ways to narrow OS so that more goals will be scored. This is actually one of the problems I see in doing youth games--dads who played years ago "know" OS (and other Laws) from when they played--but even if they are right about what the Laws were when they played, things have changed significantly. (And that problem is confounded by refs who don't keep up with the modern interpretations and apply outdated concepts.)
Think of it as if they make any kind of attempt to play the ball offside is reset, whereas if it just deflects off of them it isn't.
As an ex-defender I hate the law as it stands, it just seems wrong that they are expected to leave the ball and hope the attacker is given offside, but it is what it is.
As an ex-defender I hate the law as it stands, it just seems wrong that they are expected to leave the ball and hope the attacker is given offside, but it is what it is.
That is a useful way for me to remember thanks
IMO it is really poorly worded which is why it is hard to understand. It's written in 'double negative speak' when I'm sure there is an easier way to explain it....though I'm sure many have tried..and failed!
I am/was one of those dads! It is amazing how much it has changed over the years and unless you have to apply the law it is easy to fall back on 'this is how it isms'
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
You're right. It's because they keep tweaking old language instead of rewriting it to more simply say what they mean. (They did take it apart a bit a few years ago, but not enough.) Way back, the language was "seeks to gain an advantage," so a player who was even remotely engaged running forward might be called off even though no where near the ball. That was recognized as too broad, and "seeks" was taken out (I believe back in the 1980s or 90s). Since then, they keep tweaking, but the old "advantage" language remains and does nothing but confuse people. What they really need to do is drop that and instead specifically describe when OS restrictions end.
Thanks Rusty. As an aside I find some terminology confusing and 'back to front' although I'm slowly getting used to it! For instance 'offside is reset' Is there a reason refs don't just say' not offside' and 'offside'
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
"Reset" is not an offical term. It is just sometimes useful.
Another way to think of it is that we take a snapshot when an attacking player plays or is touched by the ball to tell us which players are at risk of OS if they are involved in active play.
If another attacker plays or is touched by the ball, we toss the old snapshot and replace it with the new one.
If a defender deliberately plays the ball or play becomes dead, then we toss the old snapshot and no one is at risk of OS until a new play/touch by an attacker.
They are just different tools to try to help with understanding.
Another way to think of it is that we take a snapshot when an attacking player plays or is touched by the ball to tell us which players are at risk of OS if they are involved in active play.
If another attacker plays or is touched by the ball, we toss the old snapshot and replace it with the new one.
If a defender deliberately plays the ball or play becomes dead, then we toss the old snapshot and no one is at risk of OS until a new play/touch by an attacker.
They are just different tools to try to help with understanding.
Thanks Rusty. As an aside I find some terminology confusing and 'back to front' although I'm slowly getting used to it! For instance 'offside is reset' Is there a reason refs don't just say' not offside' and 'offside'
It can be confusing, and the two main areas are offside and handball. That's why referees might use phrases or words like resetting offside, it isn't in law but it does help to explain things to players and managers.
Yes that is indeed useful!
one
RefChat Addict
Agree with Rusty. This is another occasion (along with handball, DOGSO...) You have to consider intent. If the defender intended to play the ball, as soon as he touches it, regardless of how the touch is, for the purposes of offside the ball is no longer last touched by his opponent (referred to as a new phase of play).
BUT... If you are not confused so far, there is an exception. If the defender's touch is controlled and away from the attacker, and the attacker challenges for or plays the ball immediately after, that is considered interfering. Here is an example.
(Offside and handball are the most complex and debated laws)
BUT... If you are not confused so far, there is an exception. If the defender's touch is controlled and away from the attacker, and the attacker challenges for or plays the ball immediately after, that is considered interfering. Here is an example.
(Offside and handball are the most complex and debated laws)
I never use the word reset.
Blue 1 kicks the ball and Red 2 heads the ball poorly and it goes to Blue 3 who was is in an offside position.
Blue 3 is in an offside position. It doesn't reset if the player is still in an offside position. It's just not an infringement.
The ball was last played by an opponent of the offside player, so no infringement.
To me, a 'reset' is a pass by Blue 1 to Blue 3, but the pass is weak and goes a yard or two. Blue 3 some 20 yards away was offside, realizes it, and moves into an onside position. Blue 1 passes it again. The 2nd pass is the reset as Blue 3 has moved between passes and infringement not judged by the 1st pass (touch) but the second touch.
Blue 1 kicks the ball and Red 2 heads the ball poorly and it goes to Blue 3 who was is in an offside position.
Blue 3 is in an offside position. It doesn't reset if the player is still in an offside position. It's just not an infringement.
The ball was last played by an opponent of the offside player, so no infringement.
To me, a 'reset' is a pass by Blue 1 to Blue 3, but the pass is weak and goes a yard or two. Blue 3 some 20 yards away was offside, realizes it, and moves into an onside position. Blue 1 passes it again. The 2nd pass is the reset as Blue 3 has moved between passes and infringement not judged by the 1st pass (touch) but the second touch.
Just in time for it to be changed again.
I think it's an extension of the old question of what's the difference berween "played" or "touched by". Being very cynical about moden interpretations, I suspect that (like "gaining an advantage") when someone said "What's the difference?", because there was no difference they thought they'd better create one.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That is pretty cynical. Touch is there to be clear that it doesn’t need to be deliberate.
It wasn't when they first made the distinction. Mind you, there's still no distinction mentioned for the "offside" team...
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not sure what you mean by this. Played or touched has been in the LOTG for a very long time.
And the concept of a defense play but not touch as well.
And long before the narrowing of what a defense play was in recent years, one of the explanations for why it took a “play” by a defender to erase the OS restrictions was that if a defender was touched by the ball, it had still been last “played” by an attacker. So it had still been last played or touched by an attacker.
one
RefChat Addict
Neither is for throw in, corner or goal kick. These are pretty clear. Play is inclusive of touch, vice versa is not true. I don't see the confusion or non clarity here.