Law changes

[GraemeS]

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.

How are you getting to this conclusion? Being in an offside position is not an offence - a player standing in an offside position not interacting with the ball/another player etc will not result in the referee taking any action. The offence is [doing something] having come from an offside position. Seriously re-read @Peter Grove's excellent post above regarding the difference between offside position/offside offence, I think that's genuinely one of the best explainers I've ever read on the subject.

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!

2 things required for an offence: being in an offside position and interfering with play. The former is judged at the moment the ball is played by a teammate, the latter can happen at any point between the pass and a play by a defender or the ball going out of play. When both conditions are met, play is stopped and the IFK is given from the point where the offending player is stood at that moment.

I think you're thinking of the offence having occurred at the point the ball is played, but that's never the case. At the moment the ball is played, the AR registers a player in an offside position and then monitors their actions. There cannot be an offence at this moment.

At some point later on, either a) the player who is being monitored will [do something] to interact with the play, in which case we have both offside criteria met and flag for an offence where the player is at that moment, or b) the ball will be played by a defender or go out of play and everything resets.

 

[Peter Grove]

'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' yet it now is.

No, it is not.

Not sure where you're getting this from. It is still not an offence to be in an offside position and there's nothing in the law (or in any of the contributions to this thread, as far as I'm aware) that says, or even implies, that it 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.

Again, untrue.

As @one has mentioned a couple of times now, it was always possible to commit an offside offence in your own half of the field. Only the position of the resulting free kick has changed. Previously, the free kick was taken from where the player was, when the ball last touched a team mate. Now, it is taken from where the previously offside-positioned player (OPP) becomes involved in active play.

This is another place where I think looking carefully at the actual wording of the law may help to alleviate the confusion.

The law says that an OPP:

is only penalised on becoming involved in active play.

(Emphasis mine).

This was another one of the more important changes in the wording of the offside law in 2016. Previously, the law said that a player was penalised for being involved in active play at the same moment the last touch by a team mate occurred, which in the vast majority of cases, was a logical and physical impossibility.

The way it is worded now is in fact the way it always was applied, the IFAB simply made the wording match the way things were actually done anyway.

So again, it is clear that the offence only occurs (and the player is only penalised) if and when actual involvement in active play occurs. And that active involvement can occur (though not very often) in the player's own half of the field.

To get this right, I think it's really important not to refer to "offside" by using that single word on its own, but to accurately refer to the two separate components using the proper terms, offside position and offside offence.

In fact if you go back to almost any of the statements on this thread where the single word "offside" is used and replace it with the correct two-word term as appropriate, things should become a lot clearer.

 

[Big Cat]

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!

I'm not sure why you've got ur knickers in a twist about this one
Just don't worry about it
The reason only Referees know about this detail in Law, is cos it really doesn't matter (unless you're trying to pick up a mark in an assessment)

What does make me laugh, is any post that starts, 'With respect'
Translates to, 'With no respect'

 

[SpecsSaver66]

I'm not sure why you've got ur knickers in a twist about this one
Just don't worry about it
The reason only Referees know about this detail in Law, is cos it really doesn't matter (unless you're trying to pick up a mark in an assessment)

What does make me laugh, is any post that starts, 'With respect'
Translates to, 'With no respect'

It's just so bizarre. I haven't got my knickers in a twist I just needed to understand something so utterly strange that I couldnt originally get my head around it. No doubt it will change again when some FIFA bigwig needs to act as though he/she is working instead of globetrotting for free meals.

 

[Anubis]

It's just so bizarre. I haven't got my knickers in a twist I just needed to understand something so utterly strange that I couldnt originally get my head around it. No doubt it will change again when some FIFA bigwig needs to act as though he/she is working instead of globetrotting for free meals.

IFAB, change things. They act on the recommendations of the various members, as proposed by the clubs.
Contary to popular belief, IFAB do not sit round a table with ingenious self thought ideas.
They might get to do the tweaking and the wording, but the starting point is the clubs themselves.

IFAB " make up" the laws,not FIFA.

 

[Max2]

And Ol’ Specs here wonders why R’s would take assistance from an up and coming L4 over a dyed-in-the-wool L7 gramps on the line when it comes to a KMI.

 

[SpecsSaver66]

And Ol’ Specs here wonders why R’s would take assistance from an up and coming L4 over a dyed-in-the-wool L7 gramps on the line when it comes to a KMI.

See that's the problem that I have with all this arrogance,level this,level that,I'm better than you because I passed these exams. Exactly the kind of thing that made me have no interest in being anything but a recreational ref. It must be great on that lofty perch of level something or other. This might be exactly why there is such a shortage with this attitude.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

See that's the problem that I have with all this arrogance,level this,level that,I'm better than you because I passed these exams. Exactly the kind of thing that made me have no interest in being anything but a recreational ref. It must be great on that lofty perch of level something or other. This might be exactly why there is such a shortage with this attitude.

So, just for the enlightenment of readers, are you qualified and currently registered as a referee?
You have shared your thoughts with us on so many subjects in recent times (including your obsession with people in management posts being rewarded financially) and indicated your lack of understanding of Law 11, so it would be good to know if you are a registered referee, please. Thank you in advance.

 

[socal lurker]

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!

Here’s a way of thinking about it that might help:

A player in OSP at the moment a teammate plays the ball is “off his side”—no longer part of his team.

He cannot rejoin his team (become on his side) until an opponent plays the ball, the ball goes out of play, or he is in OSP when a teammate plays the ball again.

(basically an explanation from Ken Aston)

 

[Russell Jones]

Here’s a way of thinking about it that might help
A player in OSP at the moment a teammate plays the ball is “off his side”—no longer part of his team.

He cannot rejoin his team (become on his side) until an opponent plays the ball, the ball goes out of play, or he is in OSP when a teammate plays the ball again.

(basically an explanation from Ken Aston)

That's a brilliant way of thinking about it, thanks for sharing! Would just tweak it to say "opponent deliberately plays the ball (unless it's a save)

 

[RustyRef]

See that's the problem that I have with all this arrogance,level this,level that,I'm better than you because I passed these exams. Exactly the kind of thing that made me have no interest in being anything but a recreational ref. It must be great on that lofty perch of level something or other. This might be exactly why there is such a shortage with this attitude.

But technically they are better than you as they have proven themselves. No different to any walk of life, if you get prompted at work because you have got qualifications, exceeded your objectives, etc, you are viewed as senior to those that have stayed on the bottom rung.

 

[one]

But technically they are better than you as they have proven themselves. No different to any walk of life, if you get prompted at work because you have got qualifications, exceeded your objectives, etc, you are viewed as senior to those that have stayed on the bottom rung.

There are better ways of stating things. They way it was put was elitist, condescending and on the personal side. It wasn't simply about level of qualification, references to 'dyed-in-the-wool' and 'gramps' were uncalled for. Sorry @Max2 but this is the way it came across to me.

 

[Anubis]

I often find the ' happy at park level' are the ones who are indeed at their level.

 

[RustyRef]

There are better ways of stating things. They way it was put was elitist, condescending and on the personal side. It wasn't simply about level of qualification, references to 'dyed-in-the-wool' and 'gramps' were uncalled for. Sorry @Max2 but this is the way it came across to me.

May be, my point wasn't really in reply to that post though. This used to come up all of the time when Sheffield's Finest was on here, in that he bigged up his ability and said he was better than other referees, but he had never proven that. If you are going to praise your own ability you need to put your money where your mouth is, and in refereeing terms that means going for promotion.

Unfortunately, if you are an L4 in England your ARs might well be "dyed in the wool" and "gramps" (or even great gramps), and that is why referees might be reluctant to give them too much responsibility. Don't get me wrong, some are great, and two of my ARs at that level are now EFL L1 referees, but some aren't great.

 

[Big Cat]

Nothing much wrong with being disinterested in promotion. The forum was more interesting with Sheff around. Not enough respect for L7's IMHO
Minority opinions are too easily silenced, which is a shame cos I like to get the full spectrum of viewpoints from different vantage points

 

[RustyRef]

Nothing much wrong with being disinterested in promotion. The forum was more interesting with Sheff around. Not enough respect for L7's IMHO
Minority opinions are too easily silenced, which is a shame cos I like to get the full spectrum of viewpoints from different vantage points

It is certainly less interesting for us moderators ...

To be clear though, I am not saying that the opinions of a L7 are any less valid than any other referee, even a FIFA official. But there can be no doubt that those at higher levels are more senior, on the basis they have proved themselves both in terms of observations and passing exams. That was the specific point I was responding to.