Question Number: 35865

Law 11 - Offside 1/19/2025

Zluvka of Liberec, Liberec Region Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35864

Hi, it's simple. The referee whistles a foul. He awards RC for DOGSO. VAR sees that the fouled player was in an offside position (not offside). How will VAR deal with it? Will VAR intervene? VAR probably should. What will the restart be like? Probably hard IDFK for offside. Thank you, Zluvka

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Zluvka
If a fouled player was in an offside position and interfered with play or an opponent there cannot be a DOGSO red card. The restart is an IDFK for offside. . VAR will intervene in any red card situation that is in error.

If however a player in an offside position only is fouled by an opponent the referee has to decide whether to play advantage to the attacking team or award a direct free kick or penalty kick. There cannot be a DOGSO as the attacker is not capable of participating in play yet can still be fouled.

Law 11 states** a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence**

Interestingly if a red card was for serious foul play or violent conduct the card would not be rescinded even if there is an offside.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Zluvka,

Wait a moment let us clarify something.
The VAR will intervene only if the decision by the referee was an obvious mistake
You confused me here?
your quote
"If VAR is aware that the fouled player was in an offside position but (not offside)?"
Was he or was he not a restricted PIOP? (attacking player in an offside position) identified as being restricted from involvement in active play due to his positioning on the last touch of the ball by a teammate ?
He could be an onside attacker who ran into an offside looking position and now appears as a (PIOP)! But who last touched the ball prior to this foul the defender commits? If say our attacker was intercepting a defender's pass then he was not YET a restricted agent. Only if he was in that offside scoring position when a teammate makes ball contact is he then unable to benefit from scoring a goal.

If there is a NON involved (PIOP) "player in an offside position" thus has not "YET" participated in play or done anything to interfere with an opponent to cause a stoppage who is fouled by a defender, because if the attacker was a restricted agent, he COULD NOT score, there can be NO red card for DOGSO!

If that was the referee opinion, once he realized the attacking player was not able to legally score, the red card if shown for DOGSO should be rescinded.

However, this FOUL???misconduct? that occurs!
If this PIOP was NOT active, the choice of a defender to foul him may not be adjudged as interference by the attacker but rather, a poor decision by a defender, and the foul itself, if it was a DFK penal foul inside the PA, then a PK is still entirely possible.

Eg. A lazy PIOP attacker is leaning against far post.
The ball is downfield in the PIOP team's own PA ?
That keeper drop kicks a huge LONG ball into the opposing PA
Now our opposing keeper who pushes the lazy PIOP to the ground screaming get out of here! That push was a DFK foul! THAT PIOP, albeit he COULD not score, had as of yet done -nothing- to get involved. You can make an argument just his being there was interfering with the keeper perhaps verbally revving him up? But you grasp what I am pointing out!

The circumstances of this foul must be weighed as to when & how it occurs!!

If both opposing players were challenging for the ball, then, as it was an ACTIVE PIOP attacker, the restart will likely be the INDFK for offside due to the PIOP meeting the involvement criteria of either interference with the opponent or touching the ball!

(1)Now we must concern ourselves with this collision/foul/action between the two opposing players(defender and attacking PIOP) even if we have ruled out DOGSO as a possibility this action can still be seen as misconduct by the defender and adjudged as (VC) " violent conduct", which is ALSO a red CARD and would be awarded on that basis requiring the defender to be shown the red card, sent off, thereby reducing his team by a player.

(2)It could also possibly be deemed as USB or reckless thus defined as a cautionable action in which a yellow card is shown , hopefully not a 2nd one for that player otherwise the red card is again in play and for a unwarranted or unnecessary action would hurt even more.

(3)Or if simply deemed a late careless challenge, perhaps a verbal warning? The PIOP simply gets a knock down for nothing.

ALL of the 3 above assumes the conditions/criteria of offside involvement were met by the PIOP attacker prior to this contact between the players. The restart remains an INDFK out, defender's team receives the benefit of the free kick due to offside criteria being in effect and a definite INVOLVEMENT action by the offending PIOP. . The defender's misconduct is dealt with as a separate issue!
Cheers

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

See Question: 35866