Question Number: 24582

Law 11 - Offside 2/14/2011

RE: Adult

dave bell of ellesmere port, cheshire asks...

There seems to be some debate to whether the second Arsenal goal on saturday should have been allowed.What is the correct decision given the offside rule as it stands?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Dave
There is no question that the second Arsenal goal was not offside. The ball was played through towards the Wolves goal and Walcott who touched the ball was clearly in an onside position when the ball was played. Van Persie was clearly in an offside position at that time yet that in itself is not an offence. Van Persie had to either touch the ball or interfere with an opponent to be called offside. He did neither. When Walcott ran with the ball that began a new phase of play and then when the ball was played by Walcott to VP he was not in an offside position on that play and the correct decision was made.
Some commentators suggested that Van P by turning towards goal or moving towards the ball should have been called offside. Some also suggest that because of his offside starting position that he has benefitted from that. That is the dated concept of active play and no longer part of the application of Law 11 since 2005.
In 2005 a concession was made by IFAB the law makers that allowed a lone striker in an offside position, when no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball or the danger of a collision, to be called offside. That is being abused in its interpretation and a touch of the ball or interfering with an opponent is required to be called offside in all situations where an onside player can also play the ball. Indeed if the ball goes out of play for a throw in or a goal kick offside cannot be called.