Question Number: 22708

Law 11 - Offside 1/7/2010

RE: club Adult

kevin dunn of South Pasadena, california USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 22420

I really appreciated the last referee's explanation. If offside is determined at the time the ball is played by a teammate doesn't the attacking team gain an advantage with the deflection off the defender? If the deflection had gone directly to the attacker that would be considered offside, right? How does not calling offside equate with common sense or the spirit of the law?
I look forward to your response,
Kev

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Offside is NOT determined at the time the ball is played by a teammate, only the POSITION is identified for a possible future restart! The criterion of offside has been started as a conditional phase of play! The attacking player, now RESTRICTED from further active involvement must be on the AR radar !

The attacking team can not gain an advantage with the deflection of the ball off the defender because if the ball is played or an opponent interfered with, then involvement has occurred an an INDFK results!

The deflection has gone directly OUT OF PLAY if the offside player was NOT up to that point and time involved in active play the restart is a throw in and the defenders must adjust to that fact of play!

The throw ?in restart has NO offside criterion attached as one of the three exempt restarts.

Common sense is not at all common and the spirit of the law was never in jeopardy because you as a neutral AR hold the opinion if there was or was not active participation! You consider the attacking player?s restriction BECAUSE of the former position to the current involvement PRIOR to the ball going out of play and base your decision on that!

Life is not always fair!
Offside is criteria based!
Offside is STILL an OPINION on a fact of play!
Once the ball has gone out of play for the throw -in the criteria are no longer present! Those defending need to defend against the possibilities.

Offside involvement requires more than just position. If there was no active involvement in play by the offside positioned player prior to the ball going out of play then play continues!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4257136&name=chang_jen

If you watched the Italy versus USA match when the AR flagged the Italian attacker Camoranesi for offside as the pass was initially played into the space but the USA defender Bornstein deflects the ball past Howard who had no chance in the net -- This was a hot button incident as many referees felt the own goal by the USA should have stood!

The point to be made here is the goal would have stood if no flag had been raised. The AR raised the flag BECAUSE in his opinion the attacker interfered with PLAY or the OPPONENT!

There was no doubt that Bornstein knew he was stopping a through ball and was at full stretch to do so!
There was no doubt that Camoranesi would have run onto the through ball eventually.

The point of contention is we do not judge offside on what the defender does or did but by the the actions of the offside attacker who was in pursuit of the ball!

(a) Interfering with Play!
While he NEVER touched the ball, FIFA interactive video #19 specifically states!
The player may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball!

FIFA has tried diligently through repeated memos and circulars to ensure the flag is not raised if there is no true active involvement! This exemption mentioned in the video of non physical contact with the ball is when there is
NO REASONABLE Doubt that an onside attacker is even close to the area of active involvement
Based on the video one could make that assumption!
NO REASONABLE Doubt that the ball is not going to GO OUT OF PLAY before the offside positioned attacker could get to the ball!
Based on the video one could make that assumption!
NO REASONABLE DOUBT that an opponent will not get to the ball without danger of being run into or having ANY effect on the ability for the receiving opponent to have an opportunity for clear control and possession of the ball
I think based on the video one MIGHT see the opportunity for clear control and possession of the ball was affected by the movement of the offside player as distracting which then points to

(b) Interfering with an opponent!
Although the attacker was NOT preventing his opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by being behind and off to the side as the FIFA interactive video #25 suggests he could be perceived as making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee/AR, deceived or distracted his opponent.

USSF and FIFA officials agreed it WAS offside but failed to state the reasoning, prompting the debate. I believe the USSF prefers contact with the ball to apply interfering with play so do we assume they must use interfering with the opponent as the criteria met?

The point here is you need to have the opinion the offside criteria was met before the ball goes out of play! The proximity and movement of the offside player is your call whether it is active involvement in play!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

IFAB has very narrowly defined gaining an advantage:
-----------------------------
"gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position
-----------------------------
So if the ball had deflected from the defender to the offside-positioned attacker who then played/touched it, that would be an offside call. But that's not what happened in Q#22420. The ball deflected off the defender and went out of bounds. The fact that the formerly-offside-positioned attacker was near enough to grab the ball and take a quick throw-in does not mean he should have been called for offside. Offside considerations ended when the ball went out of play.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Kevin
Thank you for the question and allowing the opportunity to expand on the original answer. The first sentence in Law 11 is "It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position". That is the starting point. For an offside infringement to be called the player in the offside position has to meet one of three specific criteria. When Law 11 was amended by IFAB in 2005 it became a requirement for the player in the offside position to touch the ball to fully meet the 'interfering with play' criteria. IFAB at that time stated that 'Interfering with play' now meant playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate, which is still part of the Offside Law 11 today. Before that the loose term 'active play' was used. I believe IFAB wanted to reduce the number of offsides that were being awarded which was limiting the number of goals and stopping the flow of play through the loose interpretation of 'active play'.
Up until 2005 and since the game began, Referees and Assistant Referees were not required to wait until the ball was touched, but flagged when the offside player showed an interest in playing the ball or to use the IFAB term 'become involved in active play'. The change resulted in some on-field problems which were clarified by IFAB in Circular No. 987 dated 17 August 2005, issued to members of FIFA. The Circular explained that players may be penalised before playing or touching the ball in certain situation and I quote. (Bold text highlighted by me).
".... However, the first on-field experiences of the application of these decisions indicated a need for clarification of one particular situation. For that purpose, a working group meeting of the International Football Association Board, chaired by FIFA Vice-President and chairman of the Referees' Committee Angel Maria Villar Llona, took place in Zurich on 11 August 2005. The text and wording of Law 11 and its decisions 1 & 2 were not changed, nor was their spirit. However, the working group agreed on the following text as "advice on the application of Law 11, IFAB Decision 2":
"A player in an offside position 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".
"If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent."

So since that date it is only an infringement of Law 11 if a player in an offside touches the ball or interferes with an opponent by preventing him 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 or gains an advantage by being in an offside position which also requires a touch of the ball. In addition if the referee believes that no other player in an onside position can play the ball then the requirement to touch the ball can be forgone, but that should be the exception not the rule. One of the difficulties in recent times, in my opinion, is that there has been an increase in the use of the IFAB's Circular 987 by ARs to flag quickly rather than 'Wait and See' what develops and to see who in fact touches the ball. This has a tendency by some to move back to pre 2005 and the use of 'active play' which is wrong.
So in this case the player in the offside position did not prevent the defender from playing the ball nor did he distract/deceive then no offside infringement did occur. Yes one can argue about the distraction part and that is a matter of opinion. However in this case the AR stated that the player in the offside position did not interfere with play nor did he interfere with an opponent and that's what counts. So the correct decision was made under the current advice on the Law 11. If no infringement has occured then there is no advantage or disadvantage to either side just part of normal play. The astute defender can also decide based on his assessment of play and the position of say an attacker in an offside position to allow that player to touch the ball or be prevented from playing the ball by the same player thus meeting the offside criteria. That is also part of the game and has been for some considerable time with defenders moving position to place attackers in offside positions.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

A significant change in the offside law occurred when the infringement changed from 'seeking to gain an advantage' (which every player should be doing) to 'gaining an advantage' from being in an offside position. With the new focus on touching or playing the ball, there may be little added by the element 'gaining an advantage' (touching the ball after it rebounds) and 'interfering with play' (touching the ball). It would not surprise me if IFAB eventually drops 'gaining an advantage' from the laws.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

In the original question, the ball went out of play so offside discussion is moot. The player taking the throw was no longer held to any offside criteria as offside resets when the ball goes out of play. Gaining an advantage almost always refers to a ball hitting the goal or keeper to a player that was in offside position when the shot was taken. Since the player in offside position never touched the ball he did not interfere with play and he did not interfere with an opponent. Now, had the ball deflected off the opponent's back, and the offside position player got to it before it went into touch and he made contact with the ball, one could call offside as a deflection doesn't reset offside.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 22723