Offside or not

[simmo9762]

Ladies and Gents, another newbie here and have watched a few games in various local leagues but am still a little confused.
SCENARIO:-
Attacker is slightly offside and is close to a defender who (obviuosly doesn't want to risk a gaolscoring opportunity) averts the percieved immediate threat with a deflected clearence, or can be adjudged to have felt that way. The ball continues towards the defenders end and the attacker then runs after the ball and collects it.
1st Question is that offside and if so at what point
2nd The ball rolls out for a throw in as he chases it down, is it a throw or simlarly a corner if it had gone out behind

Sorry if been asked before

 

[one]

First thing first Slight offside should be rephrased to offside by a small margin.. one can't be slightly offside. One is either onside or offside

Your description of question one is play on. It doesn't sound like the attacker interfered with the defender. Poor decision making or poor play of the ball (not using the word deflection) does not count twards interference.

Question 2, if the ball goes out before the offside attacker interfered with play or with an opponent the attacker can not be penalised for offside

 

[simmo9762]

If the attacker, who was marginally offside, was so close to the defender it caused the attempted clearance but didn't challenge, would you class that as interfering with play seeing as his presence caused the header and the resulting advantage of possession

 

[one]

Not necessarily. I,d have to see it but it doesn't sou d like it. Interferering with play and interferering with an opponent have specific and precise definition under the laws of the game.

 

[Mintyref]

One of the problems with the way this is written, as my mate Alex F would say, if he aint interfering why am I paying him millions a year.......

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Play on,...,

 

[Ganajin]

The idea of "active play" only really appeared in the Laws in the 1990's, however there was pretty much always a stipulation that a player in an offside position had to "interfere with play". The thing was, most refs would only consider a player not interfering if he was lying injured by the corner flag! I remember a League Cup final, I think in 1981, where Liverpool scored a twenty yard screamer against West Ham, even though the ball flew across a Liverpool player lying somewhere near the Penalty spot. Today it would be given as a goal with little thought, back then there were enormous arguments over whether a player could be "not interfering with play" in this part of the pitch The great Brian Clough made the funniest comment: "If a player of mine is in the penalty area, and he's not interfering with play, I want to know the reason why!"

 

[socal lurker]

The idea of "active play" only really appeared in the Laws in the 1990's, however there was pretty much always a stipulation that a player in an offside position had to "interfere with play".

I don't recall when it changed, but in the 70s Law 11 considered it a violation for the OSP player to attempt to gain an advantage. So it was enough to be attempting to get involved, even if the player was unable to do so--which is why any ball toward the general vicinity would draw the flag. Back then "three of them are off!" was not the demonstration of ignorance it typically is today, as all three could be attempting to gain an advantage even if they were not close to the ball or an opponent. It would be interesting (though not interesting enough for me to do it) to parse the goals in the WWC to see how many of them would be called back under that older standard (and, of course, even was off back then, too) to see how many of the goals would be called back--I'm guessing it would be a quarter to a third of the goals that were scored would have been offside back then.

 

[santa sangria]

The idea of "active play" only really appeared in the Laws in the 1990's, however there was pretty much always a stipulation that a player in an offside position had to "interfere with play". The thing was, most refs would only consider a player not interfering if he was lying injured by the corner flag! I remember a League Cup final, I think in 1981, where Liverpool scored a twenty yard screamer against West Ham, even though the ball flew across a Liverpool player lying somewhere near the Penalty spot. Today it would be given as a goal with little thought, back then there were enormous arguments over whether a player could be "not interfering with play" in this part of the pitch The great Brian Clough made the funniest comment: "If a player of mine is in the penalty area, and he's not interfering with play, I want to know the reason why!"

Sammy Lee!

Though he was so tiny he could never obstruct anyone’s line of vision.

(I think the exact line if vision part if the law is tosh FWIW but the overall effect of the offside changes and handball changes is... more goals... and I’m ok with that)

 

[Peter Grove]

Brian Clough made the funniest comment: "If a player of mine is in the penalty area, and he's not interfering with play, I want to know the reason why!"

I think even at the time, people knew that Clough was being partly facetious but in any event, that argument ceased to hold any water whatsoever when on 16 September 2003, the IFAB set the definition of "interfering with play" as "playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate." Since that date, it has been crystal clear (at least under the law) that a player who does not touch the ball, cannot be guilty of interfering with play.

would you class that as interfering with play

See above - it is absolutely cannot be classed as interfering with play, because the offside-positioned player did not touch the ball.

It could potentially be classed as interfering with an opponent but taking the overall intent of everything in the law itself and the additional guidance in IFAB Circular 3, it seems the IFAB only wants us to penalise a player for interfering with an opponent when that opponent is clearly (and almost physically) prevented from playing or being able to play the ball.

For instance, you say that the offside player's actions or presence "caused the attempted clearance." I would say that right there, you have almost pretty much ruled out interfering with an opponent. If the defender was able to attempt a clearance, then he most probably hasn't been prevented from playing the ball by the attacker.