where did this cool site come from?.. and why did noone tell me

Same rule and philosophy applies here as well. If in doubt-no offside and therefore you must signal for a proper goal as there is no in-between procedure outlined in either book stating that you should do otherwise.

 

I would take that for a day, anytime.

 

That is an interesting situation, because the AR holds one piece of the offside puzzle - that the player was definitely in an offside position - while lacking the information about involvement that the referee may be able to supply. By sprinting up the line the AR effectively tells the referee that he was able to determine that the player was not offside. No evidence of his indecision remains. Seems like a bad idea to me, when a brief conversation between the referee and AR while the ball is out of play could resolve things nicely.

 

The rule itself is rather awkward for the game IMO in that the keeper can never really be sure if he or she can handle the ball.
Sure in most cases it is no big deal, but I have seen tense situations where it would've been advantageous for the keeper to grab or slide for the ball but did not do so seemingly fearing the IFK.
And if you are the keeper, who knows how the ref for that particular game will call it?
Refs are all over the page on this rule in particular.

 

The AR's offside decision is based on his own judgement of factors like offside position, interference with play and/or opponent. If the AR is not 100% sure, remember the LOTG say not to raise the flag for offside. On the same note-if your referee has a question or needs your assisstance he will let you know. Also, it doesn't say anywhere in the book to skip or change your usual AR "good goal" procedure because you want to have a chat with the referee about the offside that in your opinion wasn't (not sure counts as "was't" according to LOTG). The goal procedure by the AR still must be followed as described in the book, whether we think this is a good idea or not. Now, if after that you want to have any brief conversation with the referee that is a separate thing, but as you can imagine the referee can not make an offside call based on anything other than facts, not an assumption based on a brief discussion.

 

I think the wording should be simplified to avoid any confusion. I agree.

 

GTP states that if the scoring attacker was OS, then the flag should be raised.
If attacking player other then scorer was OS and interfering, or if attacker committed a foul, then stand straight with hands at the side.
I would think that it is saying that if we are unsure if scoring attacker was OS when ball was touched by teammate, that we have to accept our error and allow the goal. The CR would not be happy to be called over for his opinion in this situation of course.
I would also think that a player blocking the view would not likely be the one scoring, so in this situation, if we were unsure we would stand straight as per instructions in GTP.
Oh yea, one other thing, there is no such rule in Baseball that the tie goes to the runner.
Had to throw that in.

 

And there is the problem - where is this communicated and how? Unless you happen to read this forum and accept as fact that Herb wins (or Herb even knows of this for that matter) then how do the thousands of referees get this information? I am not questioning Rafal or his sources or his information in this post - just asking IF this is all true and it is a departure from past information(as to me it is) then how is it officially and effectively given to all of us?

 

With the touch line screaming "offside" I had an AR call me over to tell me that he didn't think it was OS but wanted to check with me . . . please, no . . .

This is an interesting question, methinks. On very rare plays, the AR knows the player was OSP and can't see the angle to tell if he interfered with the view of the GK but is concerned that it might have. I suppose at the higher levels, ref talk can solve that problem . . . but for the rest of us? GTP is silent -- it only tells us the "stand still" signal if OS (or a foul) did occur. Seems to me if the AR thinks there is a high probability of interference the better path would be to stand still rather than to have a bad goal -- better yet would be to have an actual signal that would be understood by the R to mean "that due was in OSP at the time of the shot but I can't tell if he was blocking the GK's view." By simply running up the field, we leave the R unknowing whether the AR saw the player as not in OSP or didn't know if he interfered with the GK -- and the AR rarely has a good angle to make that determination. Hmmm.

 

Complete aside: were this a baseball forum that statement would kick off a 10 page debate. Side one of the debate: In fact, baseball rules require the ball to be there before the runner to record an out; so if there were a tie, by rule, the runner would be safe. Side two argues, more or less, there's no such thing as a tie, so just shut up and stop saying ties go to the runner! And perhaps a third side: ties go to the umpire -- that means its an out so we get this game finished. Rinse, lather, repeat....

(And to add further irrelevant nuance, until a few years ago, the rule was written differently at first base, so a batter had to reach first before the ball -- so, strictly construed, a tie at first went to the defense. [I might have it backwards -- but they were harmonized, in OBR, to read the same way, but I think they may still be different for college or HS.])

 

And here I thought I was being the smarty pants on baseball rules.
You sound intimately familiar with these rules whereas I think I just read that on a trivia quiz on a baseball program somewhere.

 

Just lurk occasionally on an umpire site cuz my kid plays and trying to understand some of things that come up . . . when I can't run anymore to ref I might take up umpiring . . .

 

GTP never states to stand at attention when not sure about OS infraction...it only states to do so when an infraction in fact occurs. I think we are getting away from the book here and trying to invent a new signal/procedure based on "not sure". While I agree that ref talk or vokkero resolves this issue here, at the same time we are not able to decide on any offside based on the brief discussion that would take place should you stand at attention. The CR can not see the snapshot of that moment thru the AR eyes and any communication between them would only lead to assumptions, which are not FACTS based on which we can make the OS call. And again we still would be left with a goal if acting per LOTG, in addition to unnecessary attention that would create. And just to point out, if the standing at attention when not sure was an approved procedure - it would be outlined in the book as well. It is not. In fact it tells you very direct information on what to do. Not sure? Flag down. Goal? Sprint up. Anything after that is a fair game but those are the procedures that stand at the moment. Nothing else has been approved to the extent we are discussing here.

 

My thoughts are opinion only at this point that this "shift" is occurring. The USSF Referee Admin guide has become a non-entity, that was communicated by national to all SDI/SRAs. I am guessing that by removing the LOTG booklet and replacing it with the FIFA LOTG, my GUESS is the ATR will be next to go away.

How does this get communicated? That's an issue, with 500K refs in USA, how? The "theory" of it: national notifies SRCs in the areas, they deal with their refs.

The annual meeting is in March, hopefully some info starts coming out then

 

For this other "AR run/flag" issue. I agree with Rafal on what we are instructed to do, howeer the instructions never cover the "not sure" aspect where giving the benefit of doubt to the attacker may not be right. When the AR has all the info he can have and it's so close he's not sure, yes, give benefit. However what about when the AR KNOWS he is offside position, but due to angle he can't tell if he is screening the view of the keeper. the CR KNOWS he's screening the view, but can't tell if he's offside position? Both have 100% clarity on 50% of the info.

GTP doesn't cover this, so you are left with: pre-game. If no pre-game instruction on this scenario, you fall to the LOTG/GTP and run up the touch line.

 

I think you just summed it up perfectly with the inclusion of the very important "pre-game" we all (for a second I guess) forgot about. And yes, I am very curious what the upcoming RTS will bring. I don't think ATR is going anywhere anytime soon. I still find it very informative myself and certainly hope it stays around for a while. The latest one is only less than 2 years old after all.

 

I agree that the GtP currently do not have the AR signal an issue to the CR if the AR has an attacker in an OSP and is unsure whether that player has interfered with a defender.

I don't think that's a good reason for getting this call wrong. I don't want to get to halftime and find out from my AR that the guy standing between the keeper and the shot was offside but the AR couldn't tell that he'd screened the keeper.

I will continue to instruct my ARs to stand still if they think an player in an OSP may have interfered so that I can make an intelligent decision.

 

The GTP along with LOTG tells us to follow the outlined procedures for a goal and offside. If in doubt you must keep flag down and if this is a goal scoring play then follow another outlined procedure which is to sprint up. Those are your written directives for this situation, so telling your AR otherwise is against what you are advised to do. Having said that, you can always have a brief chat with your AR/CR after you have followed what the book says, and before restarting play. Nonetheless those are the ONLY approved procedures for "not sure about OS" and ensuing Goal scoring play.

 

I agree completely,
perhaps it was late when I posted that and did not convey what I meant.

 

On a separate note: I was advised lately that FA and Dutch federations have their own versions of ATR (or equivalent of it). If anyone has a downloadable copy of it (at least the one in English) I would be very interested to take a look and compare with USSF's.

 

I would say there is no approved procedure for "attacker offside and may be interfering." Therefore, instructing the ARs to stand still in this situation is a supplemental signal as contemplated in the forward of the GtP.

At any rate, it's use is pretty universal in the area I work.

 

I'd say it's unaproved and most importantly it deviates from what the GTP tells you to do.
It is as simple as following the GTP and LOTG.

1. Once you are not sure about an offside infraction - there is no offside.
2. If a goal is scored, the GTP tells you what to do. Sprint up.

After that you can have whatever discussion you'd like with the crew, but there is ONLY one procedure for this scenario. You are attempting to use a mechanic that is strictly reserved for other actual infractions and use it as a new procedure. That is not what USSF advises you to do.

Please ask your State Director of Instruction and he will surely confirm this.

 

I've used this procedure with my district referee administrator on the lines. I've used it with instructors on the lines. Maybe we're all wrong in using it, but it's pretty standard here.

The question I have for you is how am I, as the referee, going to get this call right with no indication from AR that the player was in an offside position? I know he interfered but I can't tell that he's offside. If the AR can't signal a potential problem as you maintain, I'm not going to know that I need to talk to him. The crew discussion is not going to happen. The goal is going to be awarded and at best, I'm having to reverse that decision and at worse I allow a goal that shouldn't have been allowed.

Why would USSF want that result?

 

For starters - yes it is wrong to be using this. No two ways about it.
Now, there is a simple solution to all this that will also allow you to be in line with USSF/LOTG mechanics and at the same time allow you both to get it right.
1. The AR's job is to indicate to the referee whether from what he saw the play should be called for an offside or not.
2. Based on what he saw the AR either indicates offside or does nothing. If he does nothing and a goal is scored, he must follow goal scoring mechanic REGARDLESS as he himself did not notice anything that is factual and would disallow the goal.
3. The referee, however, may always come to the AR before restarting the play with kick off and ask for any information he deems necessary. If after that the referee finds out from AR that (for example) an attacking player was in an offside position and let's just assume that the referee states that he actually touched the ball last before it went into the net - the goal would be disallowed and an Offside would be awarded.

Point I'm making is that the "discussion" can always take place before kick off, but not at the expense of deviating from approved procedure and inventing a new one. Do you agree?