Question Number: 23159

Law 11 - Offside 4/21/2010

RE: Under 17

Bob of Long Grove, IL USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 23137

Just to play devils advocate here (and because I believe this is actually counter to the intent of the law), a strictly literal interpretation of the law could be made that would render the opposite result:
since the law states only that 'at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team,...' it could just as well be logically argued that he himself is also 'one of his team' and the moment he touches or plays the ball, there is an infraction (as he meets all of the other requirements). The law does not say or imply that it must be 'one of his team other than the player himself.' Its really more ambiguous than it first appears. At the moment the 'ball touches' him, he is a member of 'his team,' is playing from an offside position, is 'interfering with play' and is 'gaining an advantage.' I would argue that according to the 'intent' of the rule, it should be treated no differently than a ball off the crossbar or post; or a ball played back to a defender from one of his teammates. If the player is off of his 'side,' no advantage should come of it. Its the attacker's responsibility to be on his 'side' and the defender shouldn't have to track or worry about a player who doesn't do so(with the exception of the exempted restarts); he should be able treat that attacker as if he's off the field until he gets back 'on his side.'
Not all of the changes to the interpretations of the laws are necessarily improvements.
Thanks for the forum to vent! (even if its not what you intended.)

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The evolving offside interpretations can be frustrating, so I understand the value of a good vent. But, I believe the notion that players can place themselves offside is contrary to the earliest tactics in the game. Players were expected to dribble the ball forward. The offside law, at its essence, was about passing the ball forward.

The current approach to offside places in jeopardy the tactic of a strong defensive line at midfield. It opens up more of the field, and promotes attacking soccer. It is much harder to rely on an offside trap and requires greater awareness and skill in marking opponents.

It's an interesting time to be a coach. You can design new schemes that force the defenses (and referees) to think and adapt.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Bob
The Laws of the Game is not a legal document nor is intended to be and indeed many associations throughout the world provide referees with further advice and interpretations. In the US this is the ATR document.
There is also a large degree of 'Implicit Knowledge' required in the Laws. The phrase you mention was introduced in the 1978/79 season and it was understood what that meant. The Law previously had phrases like 'A player who is not in an off-side position when one of his colleagues passes the ball to him or takes a free-kick, does not therefore become off-side if he goes forward during the flight of the ball.'
In relation to Law 11 what you have articulated used to be the law many years ago where the offside flag went up immediately the ball was played when any player was in an offside position. That forced every single attacking player to run out with the defence to always be onside. The Law makers did not like this award of an IDFK and indeed many games descended into an offside IDFK fest with each opportunity for an attack thwarted when the ball was played. The only possible way to defeat this offside situation was to dribble the ball forward or to kick the ball backwards. Many chose to kick the ball backwards. After a number of changes the Law was changed in 95/96 with the introduction of 'involved in active play'. IFAB then provided an amendment to clarify interfering with play which replaced the 'active play' concept and that is what we have today.
Whether its good or bad, its what we have to work with and its up to teams, coaches, referees to work within the Law. Players have to accept that an opponent can be an offside position and as long as he does not intefere with play or an opponent it is not an offence. I suspect that in the years ahead there will be further changes.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

IFAB has a history of not precisely saying what they mean. Consider Law 10: 'A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal.' Taken literally, this means that once a team has committed a foul, they can no longer score goals in that game. Obviously this is not what is meant by the Law, but that's what it says.

The problem is that in many part of the world there is a long tradition and knowledge of the game, and the Laws are written in consideration of all that 'everyone knows' stuff.

The alternative is a long rule book that many other sports have. What happens then is that the rules tend to take over the game, and there is less latitude for 'in the opinion of the referee' and the concept of trifling fouls not needing to be called.