Law changes

[SpecsSaver66]

With respect, I think you need to have a good read of the offside law as it really isn't that complicated. Offside is judged only at the point the ball is played, not when it is received.

I understand the offside law and I have watched for 50 years and played and reffed for a good chunk of that too,but I am just not grasping this concept in words as it sounds like no change from beforehand. I could also do without the condescending tone too please.

 

[RustyRef]

I understand the offside law and I have watched for 50 years and played and reffed for a good chunk of that too,but I am just not grasping this concept in words as it sounds like no change from beforehand. I could also do without the condescending tone too please.

But you are talking about juding offside position when the ball is received rather than when it is played, which is just wrong. Looking at it chronologically ...

When the ball is played the attacker is stood in an offside position in the opposition's half but the AR won't raise the flag until he sees if he interferes with play or interferes with an opponent. No offside offence has occurred at this point.

He then comes back into his own half and plays the ball (or makes an attempt to play the ball / challenges an opponent, etc). It is at this point that the offence occurs, so the free kick is taken from where that offence occurs, which is in his own half. The offside decision is the same under the old and current law, the difference is that the free kick is now taken in his own half whereas previously it would have been just inside the opponent's half.

 

[one]

Previously the FK was taken from the location of the player (PIOP) when the ball was kicked by a team mate. Now it is taken from the location of PIOP where he interferes.

These two are not the same location (and the latter can be in PIOP's own half if applied correctly).

 

[socal lurker]

The difference really stems from the hisTory of OS. If we go back to the 70s or som it was an offense to attempt to gain an advantage from being in OSP. So the decision was pretty instantaneou—an offense at the time the ball was played by a teammate, so the offense obviously occurred where he was at that moment. As OS active involvement evolved, that concept didn’t change and actually left an open question as to when the OS actually occurred. Did it (A) occur at the moment the ball was played, but we just didn’t know it until the involvement occurred, or (B) did it not actually occur until the involvement? The literal language of the law and the law directing the IFK at the spot of OSP at time of play and the general concept that FKs occur where the offense occurred, strongly suggested (A), but that never really made sense. The change to point where active involvement occurred is much more satisfying logically, and solves the conundrum of what happens if a different offense occurs between the ball being played and active involvement.

we could certainly say that if an OSP player goes back into his own half to retrieve the ball, it is o longer OS—but IFAB has not decided to do that, so it’s at least theoretically possible for an OS IFK to be taken inside the teams PA.

 

[SpecsSaver66]

But you are talking about juding offside position when the ball is received rather than when it is played, which is just wrong. Looking at it chronologically ...

When the ball is played the attacker is stood in an offside position in the opposition's half but the AR won't raise the flag until he sees if he interferes with play or interferes with an opponent. No offside offence has occurred at this point.

He then comes back into his own half and plays the ball (or makes an attempt to play the ball / challenges an opponent, etc). It is at this point that the offence occurs, so the free kick is taken from where that offence occurs, which is in his own half. The offside decision is the same under the old and current law, the difference is that the free kick is now taken in his own half whereas previously it would have been just inside the opponent's half.

Your last paragraph has clarified exactly what I was asking,if not entirely clear in doing so. Thank you.

 

[santa sangria]

Didn’t the law also say, a long time ago, that it wasn’t an offence to be coming back from an offside position? …but this was not enforced consistently…

 

[SpecsSaver66]

Didn’t the law also say, a long time ago, that it wasn’t an offence to be coming back from an offside position? …but this was not enforced consistently…

In my earlier comments whereas RustyRef thought I was speaking in terms of 'receiving' the ball,which is one form of gaining an advantage,I also meant the other forms such as challenging a defender and therefore gaining an advantage or benefitting from a deflection from a fellow forward etc.
In terms of your comment santa sangria,I believe the situation you have suggested is probably where my confusion has come from I believe that if a player was in an offside position but didnt gain any advantage from it when he retreats into their own half everything should be reset,including challenging an opponent in their defensive half. It is much simpler for me and in general,I'd imagine.
As refs and ARs the markings on the pitch define most decisions and this should help also.

 

[one]

In my earlier comments whereas RustyRef thought I was speaking in terms of 'receiving' the ball,which is one form of gaining an advantage,I also meant the other forms such as challenging a defender and therefore gaining an advantage or benefitting from a deflection from a fellow forward etc.

Gaining and advantage has a specific definition in law for offside. It's not about benefiting. It's not about the English meaning of gaining an advantage. Speaking in lose terms as you have put it can create confusion and misapplication of the laws.

For example challenging an opponent after a deflection from a team mate falls under interfering with an opponent not under gaining an advantage.

Following the law definition ensures one would not incorrectly penalise for gaining an advantage.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

In my earlier comments whereas RustyRef thought I was speaking in terms of 'receiving' the ball,which is one form of gaining an advantage,I also meant the other forms such as challenging a defender and therefore gaining an advantage or benefitting from a deflection from a fellow forward etc.
In terms of your comment santa sangria,I believe the situation you have suggested is probably where my confusion has come from I believe that if a player was in an offside position but didnt gain any advantage from it when he retreats into their own half everything should be reset,including challenging an opponent in their defensive half. It is much simpler for me and in general,I'd imagine.
As refs and ARs the markings on the pitch define most decisions and this should help also.

The law relative to an offside offence possibly creating a free kick in the offender's own half changed six years ago, so it is odd that only now are you raising it.
If a player returns from an offside position to play the ball or interfere with an opponent's play (e. g. by challenging for the ball) a free kick is the correct outcome. It is taken from when the player becomes active for either of those two reasons.

 

[SpecsSaver66]

The law relative to an offside offence possibly creating a free kick in the offender's own half changed six years ago, so it is odd that only now are you raising it.
If a player returns from an offside position to play the ball or interfere with an opponent's play (e. g. by challenging for the ball) a free kick is the correct outcome. It is taken from when the player becomes active for either of those two reasons.

I've only just come back to refereeing after a long break and I am on here to pick up knowledge on refeeeing as a whole and specific law changes in that time.
And while I've commented in other threads about the shortage of refs,let alone players(my own local league folded a few seasons back and teams now play in a 'local' league that isnt so local anymore) it perplexes me at the 'fiddling while Rome burns' or 'fixing things that are not broken' nature by those at the very top that adds yet another layer towards more people taking up the whistle. Of course its no different to the game itself as a whole which has seen structural and law changes make it almost unrecognisable from the game I grew up loving as a child and young adult.unfortunately it's refs who have to interpret most of this stuff.

 

[RustyRef]

I've only just come back to refereeing after a long break and I am on here to pick up knowledge on refeeeing as a whole and specific law changes in that time.
And while I've commented in other threads about the shortage of refs,let alone players(my own local league folded a few seasons back and teams now play in a 'local' league that isnt so local anymore) it perplexes me at the 'fiddling while Rome burns' or 'fixing things that are not broken' nature by those at the very top that adds yet another layer towards more people taking up the whistle. Of course its no different to the game itself as a whole which has seen structural and law changes make it almost unrecognisable from the game I grew up loving as a child and young adult.unfortunately it's refs who have to interpret most of this stuff.

It really isn't complicated, and there is a lot more than offside that has changed in the time you have been away.

 

[socal lurker]

Didn’t the law also say, a long time ago, that it wasn’t an offence to be coming back from an offside position? …but this was not enforced consistently…

If it did, it's a *long* time ago. I go back to the 70s and there was no such language, just that OS is measured at the time the ball is played.

Prior to the law change on where the IFK takes place, the IFK was from the OSP position, so there would never be a FK in the other half of the field.

 

[Peter Grove]

Didn’t the law also say, a long time ago, that it wasn’t an offence to be coming back from an offside position? …but this was not enforced consistently…

Not according to anything I'm aware of. There was a statement saying more or less the opposite, pointing out that a player who goes forward into an offside position after the ball is played, does not commit an offside offence.

This was in 1956 when International Board Decision 1 to Law 11 was introduced with the following wording (in part):

A player who is not in an off-side position when one of his colleagues passes the ball to him or takes a free-kick, does not [...] become off-side if he goes forward during the flight of the ball.

Based on my knowledge of the law, the converse was never true, however.

 

[Peter Grove]

Yes,but that is not what I said. I think I am confused here by this interpretation of the law. If a player is beyond the second last defender but doesnt receive or touch the ball then he is not offside yet,correct? But if he retreats into his own half to receive it where he isnt offside then he is offside? I am thoroughly confused if this is the case.

I would say this is an example of what @Russell Jones was talking about. Your confusion seems to stem at least in part (if not indeed, mostly) from not differentiating clearly between offside position and offside offence.

In your quoted post here, you are using the one term, "offside" to refer to both concepts, when in fact they are totally separate.

I think this can be illustrated (and hopefully elucidated) by the following re-wording:

"If a player is beyond the second last defender but doesnt receive or touch the ball, then he is in an offside position but has not committed an offside offence yet.

But if he retreats into his own half where he isn't in an offside position, when he receives the ball he is guilty of an offside offence (because that is where becomes involved in active play)."

 

[SpecsSaver66]

I would say this is an example of what @Russell Jones was talking about. Your confusion seems to stem at least in part (if not indeed, mostly) from not differentiating clearly between offside position and offside offence.

In your quoted post here, you are using the one term, "offside" to refer to both concepts, when in fact they are totally separate.

I think this can be illustrated (and hopefully elucidated) by the following re-wording:

"If a player is beyond the second last defender but doesnt receive or touch the ball, then he is in an offside position but has not committed an offside offence yet.

But if he retreats into his own half where he isn't in an offside position, when he receives the ball he is guilty of an offside offence (because that is where becomes involved in active play)."

Yes,I understand that is what you all have said. But I find it ridiculous that somebody can be punished for an offence they haven't committed in an area of the pitch that the team of the 'offender' cannot be offside in. This is the confusion.

 

[one]

Yes,I understand that is what you all have said. But I find it ridiculous that somebody can be punished for an offence they haven't committed in an area of the pitch that the team of the 'offender' cannot be offside in. This is the confusion.

Yet again you have used the word 'offside' without specifying which context and that is confusing you.

The 'offender' cannot be in offside position in own half but can commit an offside offence in it. This was never changed. The law always said the offence is commited when interference happens can be anywhere on the pitch. So your statement is incorrect even with the old law. To correct it:

Somebody can be punished for an offence they have committed in an area of the pitch that the team of the 'offender' cannot be in an offside position in.

Again, that never changed in law. Only the location of the free kick for the offence changed.

 

[JamesL]

But I find it ridiculous that somebody can be punished for an offence they haven't committed

They have committed an offence though.
It is an offence to be in an offside position at the moment the ball is played and then play, interfere or gain advantage.
The two parts a exclusive. No you can't be offside in your own half. Yes, you can commit an offside offence in your own half, if you were in an offside position when the ball was last played or touched by a team mate.
I am honestly struggling to see how this can be confusing.

 

[one]

I think a mindset change is required here to clear the confusion, not the understanding the law. I think @SpecsSaver66 understand the new law. But it's the mindset that because we gave the free kick where we did (in old law), that must have been where the offence was. Therefore you could not commit the offence in own half. However it's clear from old law or new law that the offence can be commited in own half. And now that the free kick is from where the offence is, it can be in own half.

I may have made it even more confusing but I had to say it

 

[SpecsSaver66]

I think a mindset change is required here to clear the confusion, not the understanding the law. I think @SpecsSaver66 understand the new law. But it's the mindset that because we gave the free kick where we did (in old law), that must have been where the offence was. Therefore you could not commit the offence in own half. However it's clear from old law or new law that the offence can be commited in own half. And now that the free kick is from where the offence is, it can be in own half.

I may have made it even more confusing but I had to say it

You probably have summed it up better than me! I still dont see how you can commit an offence by NOT committing an offence though. 'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' yet it now is. You now can also commit an offence in a part of the field that its not an offence to commit the offence that you didn't commit in the first place. No wonder we can't get enough refs!

 

[ARF]

You probably have summed it up better than me! I still dont see how you can commit an offence by NOT committing an offence though. 'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' yet it now is. You now can also commit an offence in a part of the field that its not an offence to commit the offence that you didn't commit in the first place. No wonder we can't get enough refs!

Just sounds like you're just making it overly complicated in your own mind