Offside - But the attacking player didn't move until..........

[Viking]

Having previously qualified 26 years ago and gone back to playing, I’ve just been through the local referee course to re-qualify and have now been let loose (the course is very quick these days).

I find offside a very poorly explained law. While the course covered the basics, it didn’t cover the situation where a player is in an offside position and the ball just happens to run towards him. The player just stands still and makes no attempt to play the ball. Once the defender then trots over and deliberately touches the ball, I can’t see any offence committed by the attacking player if he then becomes involved in this next phase of play and challenges the defender.

Does it make a difference to anyone’s opinion if the ball stopped 1 yard away, or 5 yards, or 10 or 20 from the attacking player? I can appreciate if refs blow for offside just because ‘it’s expected’ (as suggested on a different offence on the course) but is there any guidance on this next phase of play?

The diagrams at the back of the LOTG suggest no offside – even when the player is moving towards the defender but not challenging. Is the answer that my situation above isn’t a different phase of play and that the player in the offside position is now gaining an advantage by being in that position in the first place, by now challenging for the ball? To not be guilty of an offside offence, the attacking player would be hoping the defending player miskicks the ball.

There was a case in a tv game fairly recently when an attacking player in an offside position hovered about until the defender deliberately controlled and then moved in to challenge and wasn’t given as offside. Thoughts most welcome.

 

[Dan56]

I remember running the line as a CAR 30 years ago, and offside has certainly become a different beast.

In those days a player was basically offside if they were in an offside position when the ball was played and ended up anywhere within about 50 yards of the ball. "Not interfering" to many refs meant lying injured by the far corner flag.

Nowadays of course a player has to be in "active play" by 1) interfering with play, or 2) interfering with an opponent, or 3) gaining an advantage: and all three have very precise meanings within the LOTG.

Number 1 is easy: a PIOP has to touch or play the ball directly coming from a team mate. If they do neither, then they ain't offside that way.

Number 3 is often used (by people who don't know the Laws) as catch all excuse..."well he gained an advantage by being there didn't he?" In the LOTG though it means any ball from a team mate rebounding to a PIOP (IOP when originally played of course, not when they receive it) and they are still called as offside. Unless of course ITOOTR it comes from an opponent who made a deliberate play (not offside) that is not a save. If it's a save (by any player, not just keeper), then offside still applies.

So number 2 is the one that covers your situation. and to interfere with an opponent a PIOP either has to challenge for the ball, or affect an opponent's ability to play the ball by obstructing their vision (usually the keeper). Or make an action NEAR THE BALL that affects an opponent. Or finally make an action further from the ball that actually PREVENTS an opponent playing it.

These are the only ways to enter active play. Just being there in an offside position doing nothing (unless blocking line of sight) however much it "puts a defender off" is NOT offside today.

So in your example (see I did get there) if the attacker "stands still and makes no attempt to play the ball", unless blocking line of vision to the extent of preventing a defender playing the ball, CANNOT be offside even if the ball stops a yard away from him. And, as you say, he can then wait until the defender either miskicks it to him, or gets it under control when, as you guessed, we enter a new phase and the PIOP can now challenge for it.

 

[Dan56]

And, as a follow up, the Laws don't say how long to allow the defender before a challenge (interfering with an opponent - offside) becomes a new phase of play (not offside). In fact it doesn't really mention new phases of play at all, so it's really up to you; but I would certainly allow a few seconds for the defender to have a chance to clear the ball before I allow a PIOP to lose that status and enter a new phase.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Not offside,from the original post.

Its helpful to try put distance between what maybe seems fair, and, whats correcf in the application of the law. Seperating the two might help judge it more accurately

 

[JH]

And, as a follow up, the Laws don't say how long to allow the defender before a challenge (interfering with an opponent - offside) becomes a new phase of play (not offside). In fact it doesn't really mention new phases of play at all, so it's really up to you; but I would certainly allow a few seconds for the defender to have a chance to clear the ball before I allow a PIOP to lose that status and enter a new phase.

After the defender has made a deliberate play on the ball, offside is reset and the attacker can challenge him.

 

[AlexF]

After the defender has made a deliberate play on the ball, offside is reset and the attacker can challenge him.

By UEFA's direction, the defender is allowed a "reasonable chance" to be able to play that ball properly without being limited by the player in offside position, otherwise the PIOP is considered to be challenging an opponent, which is an offence.

We saw a good example of this (that the PGMOL used) when a Chelsea player in an offside position didn't move until the QPR defender got the ball, then, before the QPR defender was able to do much, the Chelsea defender limited his playing options.

Another example had a defender (Stoke? Norwich?) get a ball, take 3-4 touches, then get closed down by the PIOP, and this was deemed to not be an offence.

So, in short, if the defender is challenged or limited from playing that ball nicely within 2-3 quick touches, then it's an offence, if it's longer than that, likely not an offence.

 

[JH]

By UEFA's direction, the defender is allowed a "reasonable chance" to be able to play that ball properly without being limited by the player in offside position, otherwise the PIOP is considered to be challenging an opponent, which is an offence.

We saw a good example of this (that the PGMOL used) when a Chelsea player in an offside position didn't move until the QPR defender got the ball, then, before the QPR defender was able to do much, the Chelsea defender limited his playing options.

Another example had a defender (Stoke? Norwich?) get a ball, take 3-4 touches, then get closed down by the PIOP, and this was deemed to not be an offence.

So, in short, if the defender is challenged or limited from playing that ball nicely within 2-3 quick touches, then it's an offence, if it's longer than that, likely not an offence.

If only we all played from the LOTG eh? You've got UEFA's directives, FIFA's directives, PGMOL's directives...

 

[one]

Agree with Alex. If the defender has not had a reasonable chance in playing the ball without interference from the offside player, then it is an offside offence due to "Challenging an opponent for the ball". LOTG doesn't enforce a set time when 'offside is reset'. Its up to the referee to decide according to circumstance. 'phase of play' is a teaching term we use and sometimes misuse.

Also a

that the player in the offside position is now gaining an advantage by being in that position in the first place, by now challenging for the ball?

Be careful on how you use :gaining an advantage". It has a completely different meaning in the context of offside in LOTG.

 

[AlexF]

If only we all played from the LOTG eh? You've got UEFA's directives, FIFA's directives, PGMOL's directives...

As @one points out, it's following the Law, FIFA passed down some recommendations, UEFA worked on them a bit more, PGMOL took the next step... and those are helping referees (especially those at the top levels) decide what the "set time" is being mentioned directly above this one...

 

[JH]

As @one points out, it's following the Law, FIFA passed down some recommendations, UEFA worked on them a bit more, PGMOL took the next step... and those are helping referees (especially those at the top levels) decide what the "set time" is being mentioned directly above this one...

Not specifically just this, look what they're doing with handball etc, basically making it up as they go along.

 

[AlexF]

Not specifically just this, look what they're doing with handball etc, basically making it up as they go along.

A lot of what they do with interpretations comes over 2-3 years, and if it's different from the Law, typically ends up going back to IFAB for wording changes, outright Law changes, etc.

I suspect that the coming changes to the handling Laws have had exactly this happen. The practice has morphed as they try to figure out "what the game wants", and now that they've been doing things relatively consistently (and discovering what the game definitely does NOT want), the handling law is now being altered... Let's just see how close that comes to what the practice has been.

 

[Big Cat]

A lot of what they do with interpretations comes over 2-3 years, and if it's different from the Law, typically ends up going back to IFAB for wording changes, outright Law changes, etc.

I suspect that the coming changes to the handling Laws have had exactly this happen. The practice has morphed as they try to figure out "what the game wants", and now that they've been doing things relatively consistently (and discovering what the game definitely does NOT want), the handling law is now being altered... Let's just see how close that comes to what the practice has been.

Any handling law change won't reflect how games are officiated in the UK
We will have World Cup style HB's forced upon us

 

[one]

I suspect that the coming changes to the handling Laws have had exactly this happen. The practice has morphed as they try to figure out "what the game wants"

I can't say I agree with this. I'm afraid WE are the culprits in this. Its a case of last week's ref syndrome. In most cases anyway.

Take penalty are encroachments for example. The game expected (wanted ) players out until ball is kicked. Referees started ignoring small encroachments. Then the game expected small encroachments to be ignored. Referees are ignoring big encroachments (unless direct impact), now the game expects that too to be ignored. It's about referees shying away from making decisions on small matters with big impact. It may sound sensible but it will eventually bites you in the arse.

The game (fans and players) expects what they see on TV every day. If you want the game to expect something, just do it in big TV games consistently and then the games expects it.

 

[socal lurker]

By UEFA's direction, the defender is allowed a "reasonable chance" to be able to play that ball properly without being limited by the player in offside position, otherwise the PIOP is considered to be challenging an opponent, which is an offence.

It's going to be interesting to see how this part evolves. The old USSF Advice to Referees (before some of the recent changes) used "possess and control" by the defense as the guidance on when OS restrictions were lifted and had specific language that it was interfering with an opponent to challenge the opponent immediately after the opponent got the ball. That did not survive changes that focused on any deliberate play. The UEFA guidance, as described, seems at odds with the language of Law 11 and the guidance on deflections vs deliberate plays. It seems to me that as the Laws are written today, unless the OSP attacker challenges the defender before the first deliberate play, there is no basis for calling OS. But--at least sometimes--the refs at the top levels are being more stringent on when the restriction is applied. I ding it a bit maddening to be (again) in a stage where there are a number of not-too-unusual situations in which the Law/interpretations are not clear, and which therefore are guaranteed of causing inconsistency in the real world. (And that's before we get to the problem of refs who don't keep current and call OS the way it was 5, 10, or even 20 years ago.)