Question Number: 24922

Law 11 - Offside 5/11/2011

RE: Select Under 12

Jerry Slusiewicz of Laguna Niguel, Ca USA asks...

A direct free kick was given to the opponent just outside the 18. An attacker lined up right in front of our goalie. I pulled our entire defense out to the 8 giving the kicker their required 10 yards. In my opinion the attacker is now in the offside position, he does not touch my goalie but is distracting his view of the kicker. The kicker makes a beautiful shot directly into our goal and the referee allows it. I thought the attacker was now offside and it should be an indirect free kick for us just in front of the goal line as the attacker was in an offside positon and distracting to our goalie which made him part of the play. Who is right me or the referee?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jerry
If a player in an offside position interferes with an opponent's playing of the ball that is offside. 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.
In your scenario the position of the player in an offside position relative to the goalkeeper is what is key. If the player in an offside position is standing close, directly in front of the GK restricting his view of the ball then that is interfering. If his offside position prevents the GK from moving towards the ball that is interfering. Standing in an offside position on its own is not an offence and the referee must have judged that the PIOP was not interfering with an opponent so no offside was called.
In an U16 cup final a number of seasons ago a referee colleague acting as an AR called such an offside. It made no difference to the final result yet many including myself felt that it was not offside in that the PIOP in my opinion did not interfere with the goalkeeper's view of the ball nor his attempt to save the ball. It was such a great shot that no keeper could have saved it. My colleague had a different opinion. I also saw a goal disallowed in a WC qualifier for Ireland against Georgia. Most commentator believed that it was a harsh offside call.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The referee gets to decide what happened, and in this case, if the referee decided that the player in offside position did NOT interfere with the keeper's ability to see or to play the ball, the goal should be allowed.

IMO, however, this is not the best judgment call in these circumstances. When a team places an attacker in offside position to stand directly in front of the goalkeeper on a free kick, there only one reason for the attacker to be standing there - - to interfere with the keeper's ability to see or play the ball.

Several years ago, the USSF referee program analyzed a similar decision in an MLS match (the 'Red Bull incident') and concluded that the referee erred in allowing the goal. The video convinced them that each of two players in offside position had interfered with the keeper's ability to see (the near attacker) or play (the far attacker) the ball. I later heard that someone asked the keeper if either player had affected the play; the keeper reportedly answered, 'nah, I just missed it.' (Note: the USSF analysis did not affect the result of the match - which allowed the goal.)

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Well, the referee is right of course. You are correct that the attacker is in an offside position. The question is; did he interfere with an opponent, in this case your keeper. If your keeper's line of sight was affected then yes. If the presence of the attacker hindered your keeper's ability to move to the ball, yes again. But if the referee felt the offside positioned attacker did not interfere at all with your keeper or anyone else on your team, no offside because it is not an offense to be in an offside position.

The USSF analysis ref Wickham refers to was in a professional game. Their conclusion was that the only reason for professionals to be in an obvious offside position was to interfere with the keeper. When USSF published that decision it caused a lot of heated debate. My feeling then, and now, was any player is allowed to be anywhere on the field. This coupled with the clear language of Law 11 stating it's not an offense just to be in an offside position led me to believe the stance taken by the USSF was wrong. Unless the keeper was interfered with there should be no offside call. The keeper later verified this. Had they said they believed the keeper WAS interfered with I would have no problem with it. But that's not what they said. They said he MUST have been interfered with. The keeper said he wasn't and the offside positioned attackers were not right by the keeper.

Your case appears to be different. If the attacker lined up directly in front of your keeper, his line of sight was blocked for sure and maybe his ability to move toward the ball also was affected. Offside would be prudent in this case.