Question Number: 25914

Law 11 - Offside 1/23/2012

RE: Competive Under 15

Larry of Danville, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 25899

I asked a similar question to Jim Allen on askasoccerreferee.com (January 12, 2012 - 'When does involvement begin?')and he was very clear that the flag goes up as soon as the defense gives chase to the OSP. What gives?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Larry
I have read the answer and it is not detailed enough in my opinion to cover every situation. Jim Allen acknowledges that the question could have been tougher which includes IMO the scenario of an onside team mate in pursuit of the ball as well. Also the answer chose to ignore the situation where the ball goes directly out of play without interference. That just cannot be offside and FIFA is clear on that.
Law 11 is open to interpretation on what constitutes interfering with an opponent. Both our interpretations are correct based on the opinion of the referee.
In the case of the single player in an offside position in pursuit of the ball IFAB has indicated that offside can be called before a touch of the ball. What cannot happen though is that offside should be called when an onside player touches the ball unless of course the PIOP has interfered with an opponent. USSF has stated that the AR adopt a wait and see approach in those situations. That IMO is good advice on many offside calls as circumstances can and do change quickly including the ball going out of play. Offside should not be called if the ball goes clearly out of play again without interference by the PIOP on an opponent.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

When USSF and Mr. Allen provides an answer, the wise referee follows it.

There is no difference, however, between the panel's responses and the USSF answer. There are three ways to be guilty of offside: (1) interfering with play; (2) interfering with an defender; and (3) gaining an advantage from an offside position. Each way has a specific definition of the offense.

Mr. Allen (writing for USSF) did not say the attacker was guilty of offside for first way - - 'interfering with play' - - by running toward the ball. The panel discussed why he was not guilty under the first way.

Some of the panel members then considered the second way - - was the PIOP guilty for offside for 'interfering with a defender' by affecting the defender's ability to play the ball. The USSF answer addressed only the second way, and concluded that based on your description the PIOP was guilty of offside for interfering with a defender.

The third way requires a deflection or rebound by the ball, so it does not apply to your question.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

In Mr Allen's answer he was of the opinion the defenders were close enough to the OSP attacker that the OSP attacker interfered with an opponent. Our answer to the previous question dealt with interfering with play

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

What gives is the AR in your scenario correctly applied Law 11, and determined involvement by the PIOP when said player drew the pursuit of his opponents. As my colleagues have noted, interfering with an opponent is not hard to decide in such situations. Interfering with play would have required a different scenario, and possibly a different outcome. Remember it is in the opinion of the referee, including the AR whose job it is to inform the ref, whether there is involvement under ANY of the three types.

Mr. Allen was quite clear. In the scenario presented, the flag goes up for OS for interfering with an opponent immediately. This follows the Law, the logic and the spirit of the game. In a different scenario, the answer might change, but the fact remains that in the scenario referenced, OS is the only right answer.

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

See Question: 25934