Question Number: 28237

Law 11 - Offside 3/7/2014

RE: Competitive Adult

Mike of Newcastle, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 28198

Thanks for your replies on the original question. In the response it is stated that there is no offside on a throw in, but that is not what the LOTG says. It says that a player is not guilty of offside if HE RECEIVES THE BALL directly from throw in. In the example I gave he did not receive the ball, and was clearly in an offside position.
I believe the principle and intent of the LOTG in this regards is that he would not be guilty of offside, but the problem I have is that that isn't what the law actually says.
The way the law is written he could be interpreted as having gained an advantage from being in an offside position.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Mike
One of the real dangers that I see in refereeing is that the Laws are being read too literally in certain situations. This approach has caused endless arguments in fora among referees who want to support a position.
The Laws of the Game is a relatively short document of less than 10,000 words and the lawmakers make the assumption that there is Tacit Knowledge in the game. We also know that it is poorly worded and it was never intended to be a legal document. Wordsmith would have a field day with it!!
I can point to many such examples of literal interpretations in the Laws. Could a sent off player return to the game? Could a throw in be taken sitting? Can a goal kick be punted? Can a back heeled penalty be retaken?
In this offside situation the understanding is that 'directly' means from the player's team. A touch by an opponent does not change anything as the player was not offside from the throw in and he can't then be offside when an opponent touches the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Mike,

It's an interesting point, but if you interpret the laws strictly as written you'll find a number of loopholes. We need to look into the intent of the law, try to work out what the writers are trying to achieve with the law. Part of the reason is an attempt to keep the laws fairly simple.

If the laws have excluded a player from being penalised for touching the ball directly from a throw in, it wouldn't make sense for that player to be penalised through another part of Law 11. Why exclude one and not the other?
Looking at it that way, it's reasonably to conclude the intent isn't so exclude 1 section of Law 11 but allow others to apply, but to prevent Law 11 being a consideration at all.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The problem with your analysis is that you have assumed the 'when' in the answer to the question: was he is in an offside position. A player is judged in an offside position when the ball is touched by a teammate.

In the original example, A1 played the ball after it touched an opponent. But, other than the throw-in by a teammate (which isn't a moment for determining offside position), no teammate has yet touched the ball.

The correct interpretation of 'directly' is that the ball has not touched a teammate.