Question Number: 28678

Law 11 - Offside 8/21/2014

RE: High School

Ron Woodruff of Milford, Ohio United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 28675

Regarding question #28675 on Offside.

I'm confused by the language used in regards to causing a defender to 'react or move'.

Is that language still valid? It was used in our last meeting too:

Part 1:
Interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Part 2:
Challenging an opponent for the ball is the act of the player moving toward the ball and causing the defender to REACT (or MOVE). Such a challenge by a player in an offside position is the act of becoming actively involved by means of "interfering with an opponent".

It seems to me that defenders are always reacting or moving in these situations. As I understand the answers to #28675, this language should NOT be included.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really want to get these calls right and be able to defend my reasoning, but I'm hung up on those 2 words.

Thank you so much for your time!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Ron
In July 2013 IFAB changed the wording in the interpretation of Law 11 on interfering with an opponent from ''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''
to ''preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball ''
Now USSF has come up with a new wording in its advice on this change and while react and move is still there the addition of ""challenging an opponent for the ball is the act of the player moving toward the ball"" is a key change.
So there is a world of difference between react and move caused by movement of a player in an offside position and react and move caused as part of a challenge.
Also running towards the ball was always likely to be called under interfering with play. In the situations that involved an onside player the previous interpretation told us that offside should not be called if the ball was played by an onside player.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Ron, it is good to ask questions to confirm the LOTG that are puzzling and on occasion befuddling so no worries there mate!
Part 2 is simply incorrect as a literal interpretation! That said, I have no idea how or if the NFHS (National Federation - High School [Association of State High School Associations] may be responding to the newer FIFA position. I will post a query to them for some feedback.
The recent alterations to offside interpretation were to correct your misconception that ANYTHING a defender does actually matters when an official determines the INVOLVEMENT of the ORP (offside restricted player)! The fact that defenders react and move has ZERO to do with determining offside against the opponent. WE JUDGE ONLY the actions of the ORP, who MUST in SOME REAL WAY, prevent or restrict any opponent from being able to get to the ball.
A defender following an ORP around is not an infringement!
In cases where onside attackers have the potential to get to the ball first we are instructed to wait and see. A defender and an ORP chasing the ball is NOT an infringement,
UNLESS the ORP manages to get in-between the defender and ball and impedes or make physical contact preventing the defender from being able to play the ball.
As I reiterated in an earlier post about possibilities, if an ORP was to say, slow down, spread out the arms, change direction to block, FORCING a defender (The ORP action created the reason for a defender to be reacting and moving ) to have to go around by visually restricting or by altering his run to directly affect the line of sight on the ball! The ORP could then be involved because he interfered with an opponent by delaying him so the ORP's non offside team mate could get to the ball first. Heck it could be a form of impeding or even a dfk holding call as much as interfering with an opponent while offside. The key here it is the ORP who chooses the action to become involved , the defender was simply trying to get to the ball ahead of the onside attacker.
It is always the ORPs own actions which confirms involvement, never the defenders' , thus an offside infringement for interfering with an opponent criteria could be met!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Sometimes things change, sometimes people do not hear correctly what was said at a clinic, sometimes the instructors do not use USSF published language in explaining what they learned at a seminar, and sometimes instructors are wrong.

There was a lot of information flowing after the last change in Law 11. Did anything really change other than the words? Was there a significant change in the application of law 11? What is the best way to teach the new definitions? It seemed clear to me that none of the changes were to cause more offside flags to go up. It was another in the evolving serious of changes to enhance offensive soccer.

The best answer is in the current USSF Advice to Referee, quoted in my answer to #28675.

"... a challenge for the ball 'includes physical proximity to the opponent while the ball is within playing distance. In other words, contesting for the ball must be actual not theoretical. Physical proximity can mean actual contact or being close enough to prevent or interfere with the opponent's ability to play the ball. In this regard, an attacker in an offside position merely running toward the ball is not by this behavior alone challenging the ball unless, in addition, the movement to the ball involves either contact with the opponent or interference with the movement of that opponent to play the ball."