What is the Call? Offside Interpretation

rockindaddy wrote:Had a similar thing a few weeks ago. The forward would make a run but would not try and get back which would leave her often 10 to 15 yards offside. The attaching midfield would get the ball and the centerbacks would see the forward then coming back to try and get onside.The problem as I saw it was that the centerbacks where moving to try and mark the offside forward because they did not want to chance the offside call not being made and resulting in a goal. If the  forward was playing off the defenders shoulder that would be one thing but the problem is a midfielder with her head up would look at the offside forward as if to pass to her causing a reaction for the defense that caused space to open.To me even if a ball is played in the general direction ( In this case a onside player nearby) it should still result in an offside call because it was influencing the movement of the defenders. Before you ask no they wheren't doing it as a tactic just the forward was not getting back and it did not result in a shot or goal.

Then the defenders need to learn not to be influenced by where a forward stands. Trust me, a back line will ALWAYS look over at me as an AR to determine where my line is and check their positioning. Forwards will too. It's a constant game of inch up and back for forwards who try to play off the back shoulders and defenders trying to play a higher line.

Oh I get it since AR never make mistakes they should just blindly assume they will get it right. After all a CR will change he's mind if he get's it wrong right.Bottom line a player loitering offsides should not be an advantage.

Sorry offside, I don't want to offend the Ref god's by saying offsides.They might HANDLE it badly.

rockindaddy wrote:Oh I get it since AR never make mistakes they should just blindly assume they will get it right. After all a CR will change he's mind if he get's it wrong right.Bottom line a player loitering offsides should not be an advantage.

Is English your second language?

Nope typing is

Advice to Referee's states in:

11.3 ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT A player becomes "actively involved" in the play only when he or she is in the "area of active play." This area shifts, widens, narrows, lengthens, or shortens, according to where the ball is going and who is "involved."  Involvement includes attempting to play the ball or preventing others from having a fair play at the ball.  Active involvement can occur without the ball being directly nearby

11.4 INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT "Interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.  Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.
 
A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.

IMO, If the defender or the keeper is influenced by that player being in an offside position then they are "Offsides".  Regardless of whether you can read the players mind or not, the goal should NOT be allowed.  This is a call you can sale all day.

However, as everyone can tell sometime referees make the decision based on "their" interpretation.  It's kind of like common sense.  Some people have it and some people don't!

rockindaddy wrote:Oh I get it since AR never make mistakes they should just blindly assume they will get it right. After all a CR will change he's mind if he get's it wrong right.Bottom line a player loitering offsides should not be an advantage.

But it sure can be. Coaches who know how to exploit it will do so... and it's not always black and white:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/12/15/offside-goal/

The offside law was changed to require direct interference with an opponent or of active play, or advantage by position.  In the scenario described by the thread's creator, the forward in the offside position is NOT to be penalized and the goal stands.  Why?  She did not challenge for the ball or interfere with the defender (shield, pick, yell) or the goalkeeper playing the ball, interfere with the line of sight of the keeper or verbally distract her -the fact that the ball was  played towards her is irrelevant as long as the aforementioned conditions are not met.   There is no gaining advantage from position because she did not play the ball after a rebound from the keeper or the post or a deflection off the defender.  If the attacker had touched the ball (before it went into the goal) after the deflection by the defender, an offside offense would have occurred (advantage by position).  If the defender had missed the ball and the attacker then played the ball, normal offside offense for interfering with active play.

An attacking player, after the kickoff, may go stand against the goal  post or take a nap in the goal as long as she does not DIRECTLY interfere with an opponent or play.  Her presence in an offside position is not enough to penalize her, nor is the idea that a defender is  concerned (rightfully or not) by her presence.  Does this require the defenders to know where their back line is and the position of the ball? YES.  Does this require the defenders to identify which attackers to be concerned with at any given moment? YES.  Does this  require the keeper to not be immediately distracted by the (silent) attacker on the post but in an offside position? YES.

upper95 not saying anything you state is incorrect , I just don't see how that jibes with what is highlighted in red in Its Me's post.

Good discussion of the trap and Offside rule interpretation is shown at the link below.

https://andagain.websitetoolbox.com/post/Offside-trap-3656520

From that forum is the best example of how flawed the rule is.

Question:
This question concerns becoming involved in play in determining an offside infraction:

U15 boys game, attacking team is highly skilled. A pass is made by an attacking player to a team mate in the offside position. The ball actually passes between the legs of the offside player who turned toward the ball as it passed. The AR determined that a ball that close to a skilled player caused the player to be involved in the play, although he did not in fact touch the ball before it was touched by a team mate who came to the ball from an on-side position, and signified the offside infraction. Whether the player in the offside position misplayed the ball by being nutmegged by his team mate or whether he intentional dummied the ball is speculation. Had this been a ball played to open space with both an offside an onside player going for the ball, then clearly when the onside player first touched the ball no infraction would have occurred. Is it however reasonable for a referee to be of the opinion that this player was involved in play and be guilty of the offside infraction in this situation?

USSF answer (August 17, 2009):
If the player in the offside position did not interfere with the ability of an opponent to play or see the ball and did not draw undue attention from an opponent, then that player has not become involved in play. In that case, the assistant referee should have kept the flag down, and the referee should not have called offside. We recommend that the AR wait and see what happens.

Any defender who does not react to a forward receiving a pass in the on a scoring opportunity will not be playing long.  To assume a dummy move does not affect play because the ball is not touched goes against the whole idea of using the tactic to your advantage.

Like the Tuck rule in football it is a bad rule as interpreted in the Laws of the Game (LOG).  Having spent way too much time the last 24 hours reading various rule books, most are set up to not allow an advantage by the team committing them.  In fact the advantage "play-on" allowance does not allow the team who intentionally commits a foul to stop a goal scoring opportunity to benefit.  It goes so far as to allow the opportunity to play out and go back and punish the offender.  So there is a "Spirit" to not allow a team in violation of a rule to benefit.  The offside rule just seems contradictory to the "Sprit" of all the others.  In fact the way the rule is written allows for the interpretation to call the offside in the original instance due to influence on the play by the offside forward.  The examples given in the LOG do not support that.

Oh and the must touch the ball to call offside risks getting Keepers and forwards needlessly hurt.  If they are offside and running toward a collision with the keeper blow it early.  There is no reason to wait for impact.  I saw a keeper from a top 20 team in the Nation go off in an ambulance this year in one such collision.

Bottom line is it’s a stupid rule.  The player in the offside position is able to gain an advantage and not be penalized for it.  And Upper95 there is a big difference between laying or standing at the goal post than running onto a pass during the play.

rockindaddy wrote:upper95 not saying anything you state is incorrect , I just don't see how that jibes with what is highlighted in red in Its Me's post.

you are correct, it doesn't jibe with this:

"A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent."

This is NOT included in the current interpretation of the offside law and should be disregarded.

Not up on the LOTG but when was this changed and more importantly why?

rockindaddy wrote:Not up on the LOTG but when was this changed and more importantly why?

Rockindaddy - I agree with you.  The rule is much better with this statement in it;
""A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent."

Because anyone who says a defender is not influenced by other forwards in or near the box is not being truthful.  All those who tried to interpret what made sense by the "spirit" of the rule in this discussion and not specific rule line by line.  If you think about it it doesn't make sense to reward the team who is committing a violation.

It would seem better to me to treat it like the other rules I saw when reading that are not followed to the letter.  Call it the way that makes the most sense to the "Spirit" of the game.

upper95 wrote:

rockindaddy wrote:upper95 not saying anything you state is incorrect , I just don't see how that jibes with what is highlighted in red in Its Me's post.

you are correct, it doesn't jibe with this:  

"A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent."

This is NOT included in the current interpretation of the offside law and should be disregarded.

Upper95,
Since this is NOT the current interpretation do you have the current interpretation that you're quoting?

Definitions to Referees from latest LOTG, implemented June 1 2014:

Defi nitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is defl ected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is defl ected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.

2013-2014 USSF (Which we use in the U.S. NOT FIFA) Advice to Referees:

11.3 Reacting to the Flag

Referees must always be aware of but not react immediately or without thought to an offside flag signal from the assistant referee. A raised flag for offside is an indication that the assistant referee has seen an attacker in an offside position who is believed to be involved in active play from the assistant referee’s perspective. The assistant referee’s position provides a superior standpoint from which to judge offside position but the actual offense must be subject to the decision of the referee whose position often provides a more advantageous view of involvement. The farther away the involvement in active play is from the assistant referee, the more important it is for the referee to build on the assistant referee’s signal by making an independent assessment of involvement. Where events seen from the referee’s position do not support a decision for involvement, the referee must not hesitate to wave down the assistant referee’s signal. It should be rare, but fully within the referee’s authority, for the referee to whistle an offside offense in the absence of a signal from the assistant referee.


11.8 Not Interfering with Play

An attacker in an offside position should not be judged as interfering with play if he or she successfully moves to avoid contact with the ball. If an attacker in an offside position and another attacker in an onside position are each moving toward the ball, the determination of interfering with play cannot be made until one of them makes contact with the ball – only if that contact is made by the attacker coming from an offside position can an offside offense be given.

11.9 Interfering with an Opponent as Involvement in Active Play

Interfering with an opponent consists of clearly blocking an opponent's line of vision (this applies mostly to goalkeepers) or challenging an opponent for the ball. The concept of challenging an opponent for the ball includes physical proximity to the opponent while the ball is within playing distance. In other words, contesting for the ball must be actual, not theoretical. Physical proximity can mean actual contact or being close enough to prevent or interfere with the opponent's ability to play the ball. In this regard, an attacker in an offside position merely running toward the ball is not by this behavior alone challenging for the ball unless, in addition, the movement to the ball involves either contact with the opponent or interference with the movement of that opponent to play the ball. Note that playing distance is not defined by any specific distance but should be determined by the ability of the players and consistent with the game's competitive level.

Under the current guidance does the offside player rushing toward goal for a through ball have to touch the ball for offside to be called?

What is considered playing the ball without touching it?  I would think a Dummy move would be playing the ball but in the guidance above it is not.

Since I would think most of the referees out there were players first go back to those days.  As a GK or defender would you play a 2 on 1 breakaway differently than a 1 v 1?  If the answer is yes, the second player in an offside position has influenced the play.  I just don't get what the purpose was in changing this rule.  It seemed much better before.  It did require more thought from the referees.

As a Referee what do you say to the forward's or keepers parent who's child is hauled off in an ambulance in a collision that was completely unnecessary if the whistle was just blown before the contact?  Seems like at the Youth/amateur level safety should come first.

All I can tell you HP is that as long as there are the words "human", "judgement" and "opinion" are used together, there will always be issues. Things will never be black and white.

It's almost impossible to get through ANY game, mistake free. I probably get at least 1-2 throw-ins per game I CR, incorrect. They could be right IN FRONT of the AR, but if he is not sure, he is taught to keep his flag down. When that happens, after making eye contact with him, I have to pretty much use my best guess even though I am 15yds away. Final decisions always fall on the CR. All we can do is hope (as a ref team) that we catch as much as we can.

It is awesome to get games that decisions are very clear. Some games, of course are more difficult. And there are even those that are just "weird". By that I mean seeing things that you could go 100 games without seeing (e.g. A U16G GK had this weird flurry of up and down "happy feet" routine before she punted or took a goal kick. It took so long for the routine, that I had to actually start keeping a count for her releasing the ball. After the game, she said she knew it was weird, but had been doing it all her life.)

Found this. Don't like it, but it says what it says.

FIFA World Youth Championship Netherlands 2005 to pioneer use of offside rule clarifications
The FIFA World Youth Championship set to be played in the Netherlands between 10 June and 2 July 2005, will be the first opportunity to see the practical application of the changes made at the 119th Annual General Meeting of the International Football Association Board, held on 26 February in Cardiff, Wales, with respect to the laws relating to offside, unsporting behavior and players' equipment.
"Law 11, which relates to offside, has not changed in essence. The competition will see the new interpretations of the law as approved by the IFAB at their meeting in February in Wales," explains Fernando Tresaco Gracia, Netherlands 2005 Referees Coordinator.
For more information on the offside law, refer to the flash animation. (available on the web site listed below. ed.)
The text approved by the IFAB with regard to deciding whether or not a player is actively involved in play clarifies the three issues of interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. The text says the following:
• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
• Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.
"In essence, what it means is that if an attacking player is in an offside position, but not interfering with an opponent, the referee must wait until he touches the ball before penalizing him for being offside. We want the referee's assistant to wait a little longer before deciding if the player in the offside position is actively interfering with play," says Tresaco Gracia.
If the attacking player in an offside position is running towards the ball and touches it, only when contact with the ball has been made should the assistant raise his flag. If contact is not made, then play should continue.
"However, if a player's position interferes with an opponent, preventing him from reaching or playing the ball, or results in impaired vision for a goalkeeper or defender, the referee need not wait until said player touches the ball before sanctioning the offence," he clarifies.
The doubt has also been removed as to the question of whether or not a player is gaining an advantage from an offside position when a team-mate's shot rebounds off an opponent and falls to a player in an offside position. In such instances, play must be stopped.
"We believe that with these clarifications, there will be much more uniformity in the application of a norm that has caused quite a lot of confusion. Now it's much clearer," the Refereeing Coordinator says.
From these clarifications, it can now be seen that if an attacking player in an offside position is not interfering with an opponent, or in the line of sight of a goalkeeper, and not touching the ball, a foul is not committed.
editor's comment: he only thing different in this interpretation and what has been taught in Area K is that if a player from an offside position runs toward the ball, he is not to be sanctioned until he touches the ball.
This article and the flash animation are available at:
http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/index/0,2442,107252,00.html?comp=WYC&year=2005&articleid=107252

Still would like to know the actual reason for this.From a sporting perspective it makes no sense.Should be simple, onside position= good, offside position=bad.

The short answer is, to reward attacking. Here's a brief excerpt from an article on the history of the offside law. This law has changed numerous times over the last 100 years and in general, the trend is toward rewarding attacking.

Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him.

The modern law stops that, but brilliantly it does it without the side-effect of legitimising the offside trap. And that must, even at its most basic level, be a good thing. Surely nobody, not even George Graham, goes to a game thinking: "Hmm, I hope they play some good offsides today?" Making defenders defend, forcing them to mark or block or intercept or tackle, has to be a good thing.

rockindaddy wrote:Still would like to know the actual reason for this.From a sporting perspective it makes no sense.Should be simple, onside position= good, offside position=bad.

From sporting perspective, FIFA is trying to encourage attacking soccer...I.e the offense...see nfl rules making last 5 years.

They removed the language about "gesture or movement" being enough to "distract or deceive an opponent." Now the attacker needs to "challenge for the ball" or obstruct the defense from playing it to be considered interfering with play. This change was made in 2013 so a lot of the earlier posts are referring to prior versions of law 11.

In OPs scenario, EVEN IF the defender hadn't scored an own goal, and when she intentionally tried to intercept the pass to the fwd in offside position, she instead mangled the interception and the ball bounced to the fwd who then scored...it STILL should not have been called back...the defender intentionally played the ball and thus reset the offside. This happened to Gerrard in WC 2014 when suarez was clearly in offside position by a mile. Gerrard backpedals trying to head a long ball and it skips off his head and suarez runs on to it and puts England out of World Cup from an offside position.

All defender had to do in OP scenario, like Gerrard, was step up and let the ball go through. Fwd has no choice but to leave the ball alone or it's an easy offside call and indirect free kick coming out instead of a goal.

Control by a defender is not required. A deflection is when a ball inadvertently hits a defender who was not attempting to play it. In OP's case, the defender willfully (I.e. Deliberately) attempted to intercept a pass...they just hosed it. That is not a deflection. I watched the Suarez goal vs England live...I can assure you Gerrard's botched header never established control.

Here is a good article from a German pro ref that explains these concepts well from a FIFA perspective:

http://www.bundesliga.com/en/liga/news/2013/0000260038.php

Isn't it interesting that Krug and the interviewer were both using the term "handball" when referring to "handling". I think we should tar and feather them, run them out of town on a rail and revoke their credentials.

That's it Krug, no more beer for you......I mean, no more bier for you.