Offside situation not explicit in the Laws

[GKbenji]

The good folks on socref-l didn't have an authoritative answer for me, so I thought I'd try out a scenario on you guys (apologies for those of you who have now seen it twice). I'm particularly interested in the interpretation from non-USA refs.

Scenario: Attacker A1 has the ball and is defended by D1. Attacker A2 is in an offside position. D1 wins the ball from A1 and passes to defender D2. D2, not realizing A2 is still lurking about in offside position, passes the ball back towards his goalkeeper. A2 pounces on the ball and heads towards goal.

Offside?

Now, here's the sticking point: please document your answer and give the citation. Bonus points for any citation other than USSF Advice to Referees. Thanks!

[nsa]

Not offside. Once D1 took control of the ball the offside position became moot.

This is not a deflection off a defender with which A2 gets involved. This was the result of not one, but two, deliberate actions with the ball by the (alleged) defending team. Our job as referee does not include making up for dumb mistakes.

-nat

Documentation:

Per Law 11, it is not an offense to be in an offside position. A player is penalised only if they are gaining an advantage or interfering with an opponent when the ball is touched or played by a teammate. Advantage nor interference when the ball is played by the teammate is not indicated by the description.

[Statesman]

Definitely not offside.

The idea of "gaining an advantage" pertains to the attack, not intercepting an errant pass, which is why Law 11 clarifies that the ball must be last touched by an attacker. The defense has gained clear control of the ball, the attack has ended, and the offside player cannot be penalized for capitalizing off the mistake of his opponent.

[whipple]

Actually it is both implicit and explict in Law 11.

"It is not an offense in itself to be in an offside position"

"A player in and offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his own team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, invovled in active play by:
* Interfering with play
or
* interfering with an opponent
or
* gaining an advantage from being in that position"

Therefore, if at the moment the ball was last.... A2 was not interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage, then there was no offside offense. It never happened in the first place and therefore cannot exist after the fact. Further, the advantage ultimately gained did not occur at the moment it was played by the teammate, but subsequently at the moment it was played by the opponent.

To be an offense requires both position and involvement by A2 at the moment, not subsequent to or during the next phase in play.

Sherman

[GKbenji]

Ahem. My correspondent says it is neither explicit, nor particularly implicit in the Laws. Here is the reasoning:

A2 is in an offside position when a teammate last touches/plays the ball. He remains in this offside position, and then gains an advantage from it when the defender makes the backpass. Nothing in Law 11 mitigates this! It says nothing about a controlled play by a defender resetting the situation. The text of the Laws is mute on this point.

This is, of course, taking into account the implicit delay between the actual touch by a teammate and subsequent involvement in play. If we ignore the delay, which is key to this scenario, many situations would no longer be offside (how can anyone be involved in the play when the ball is 40 yards away when touched by a teammate?). If we accept the implicit delay, the above scenario gives us "offside".

I have to say I agree with my correspondent on this; a literal reading of the Laws puts A2 offside when he intercepts the backpass. As referee, however, I know this isn't offside. But IMHO the Laws don't back me up on this!

The only place this is called out is in Advice to Referees 11.15.

FIFA could save lots of us on these boards lots of headaches if they'd just put a few more sentences into Law 11. IMHO it is so confusing to people and contentious because it is poorly written.

[Statesman]

Huh?

A player in an offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team...

Where is the law not explicit about this? It's right there! We're not talking two, three, or fifteen plays later by the defense. We're talking that exact play -- that moment in which the ball is played by his teammate. If anybody other than a teammate ends up playing the ball (playing, not just touching), then the moment has passed.

[PVancouver]

Originally posted by GKbenji
Scenario: Attacker A1 has the ball and is defended by D1. Attacker A2 is in an offside position. D1 wins the ball from A1...

"Having" the ball and "touching" the ball are two different concepts. Your initial case did not clearly state that A1 was dribbling upfield, say, thereby touching the ball, while A2 was in an offside position. To even get started with this case, A1 has to touch the ball.

Still, as long as A1 is possessing the ball, A2 is does not meet any of the three conditions for being involved in play (gaining an advantage, interfering with play, interfering with an opponent). Once D1 strips A1 of the ball, A2 is free to meet any of the three conditions for being involved in play (gaining an advantage, interfering with play, interfering with an opponent) without being called for offside. In your case, he doesn't meet any of these conditions until D2 passes the ball back to the keeper, which is way too late.

It doesn't affect your case, but I would add the bolded phrase to the current law:

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in, or becomes involved in, active play."

Because, you are right. The law says "at the moment"; it does not account for a player "uninvolved" at the time of the touch having a change of heart and later deciding to become "involved".

The added phrase isn't perfect, but it opens the door to the broader interpretation actually in force today.

I would also simplify the law by stating that a person only needs to "gain an advantage by being in that position". It you "interfere with play" or "interfere with an opponent" but you don't "gain an advantage by being in that position", you shouldn't be called for offside. Maybe you should be called for impeding, or...

[PVancouver]

And the currently law, by stating that a player gaining an advantage by being in that position is defacto "involved in active play" makes it difficult to ignore the player lying on the ground near the goal area. He is certainly gaining an advantage, which he could make use of at any moment. I would say the player has to be involved in active play (although not necessarily at the time of the teammates touch) and has to be gaining an advantage from his position.

[refmike]

GKbenji is correct. According to the literal Laws of the Game, attackers can be almost always offside or never offside. The law does not say the offside involvement must be within the same play. It does not give any explicit point at which the offside position during a contact by a teammate is cleared.
Likewise it does say that the participation for offside is judged at the moment the ball is touched by a teammate and at that moment, a player who is in an offside position cannot be participating because the ball is still at the foot of his teammate.

If FIFA were to clear up these and other points, the law book would grow and our brains would shrink. We are expected to know the history and spirit of the laws and to use our judgement in applying them. I have no argument with this. The problem is not with the written laws; it is with the literalists who take the laws out of the context of the game.

[Gary V]

Maybe the Laws don't say it explicitly. But "everyone knows" that's what is meant.

Two other instances where what the Law says is not meant to be taken literally (and I'm sure there are plenty more):

This is in Jim Allen's site. Someone asked about the inflation pressure for the ball, .6-1.1 atmospheres. Jim points out that everyone knows this means pressure above ambient, even though a strict reading doesn't say so. A ball inflated to less than 1 atmosphere would collapse upon itself.

Law 10 says, "A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal." By reading literally, this means that once a team commits a foul, they can no longer score. Both teams foul, you might as well go home because the final score is now determined. Of course there's an implied time limit on "committed previously" - connected to the current run of play - just as the implied time limit for offside limits it to the current play.

Advice to Referees was written: (1) To document what no longer appears in the Laws after the Great Condensation of 1997, but which still applies. (2) To codify what "everyone knows", because in a culture not brought up with soccer, everyone doesn't know it.

[GKbenji]

Thanks, folks. I'm glad at least a few agreed with the premise. :) I'm not sure if my correspondent truly believes the scenario should be offside, or is just trying to stir the pot (as he's been known to do). One thing that's interesting is he's not from the USA -- it usually seems it's Americans who get ripped for their to-the-letter stance on the Laws. Thus my interest in non-US citations.

I don't think Law 11 would have to be that much longer, or our brains that much smaller, if the offside law were tightened up a bit. And it's not just a matter of "literalists" or those not brought up in a soccer culture. How many times have you heard (non-US) TV commentators incorrectly rail about an offside call due to one of these very issues, like when a "play" resets the offside consideration, the delay between the touch and involvement, and the definition of involvement itself (witness the controversy over the recent FA "clarification")? It happens often enough a little rewrite might be in order.

We're still going to call offside as it "ought to be" called, but it would be nice if the Lawbook supported us a bit more. :D

[abu-karl]

Benji - As you know, I believe it’s crystal clear in Law 11. The single sentence that whipple quoted can only be read one way. You cannot be offside when the opposition is in possession.

[JohnR]

Not offside. I saw Werder Bremen score on that very play vs. Hertha Berlin just last month. None of the Hertha Berlin players raised a peep of protest.

[Bill Archer]

Originally posted by abu-karl
Benji - As you know, I believe it’s crystal clear in Law 11. The single sentence that whipple quoted can only be read one way. You cannot be offside when the opposition is in possession.

...and the opponent passing you the ball while you are in an offisde position is NOT an offense.

[Crowdie]

If there is one part of the offside law that I find coaches and players don't understand it is the concept of "phases of play".

A player (A1) can be in an offside position in one phase of play and then the ball is pushed across the field to another player (A2) who is not offside. That player (A2) runs ahead of the player in an offside position (A1) and passes the ball across the field back to A1 to run on to and score.

It amazes me how many junior ARs call this as offside. A1 is not offside when he shoots because it is now another phase of play.

Crowdie

[GKbenji]

Argh. we all "know" it's not offside. But if we go by the text of the Laws, and stick very strictly with "at the moment the ball is touched or played by a teammate", I would argue that other scenarios which we do know are offside would cease to be so.

Case in point: a shot by A1, on the left side of the goal area, rebounds off a couple of defenders and slowly trickles over to A2, on the right side of the goal area in an offside position. Obvious offside call, right? Even though A2 was not involved in the play immediately, and the ball took a second or two to get there, he's offside -- the exact moment of the teammate's touch is stretched out a bit. If you think it's crystal clear for the backpass scenario ("at the moment the ball is touched..."), then you can't call this offside.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Crowdie makes a good point on the "phase of play" idea. It's what we use when making offside determinations as referees, but it's not codified in the Laws.

BTW, I am not arguing that the backpass scenario is offside. Just that there are some inconsistencies in the wording of Law 11 that cause confusion.

[XYZ]

The phrase of the Law that is not clear is "gaining an advantage". Neither the Law nor the Q&A gives any indication what that means. It's explained in the AtR, and it's quite simple, but it's not in the Law.

Confusion over the meaning of "gaining an advantage" seemed to be the main issue in a thread about Bolton's offside tactic not so long ago. FIFA would do well to explain that phrase somewhere in the actual Laws.

Aside from that, the Law is pretty simple and pretty darn easy to understand.

[XYZ]

Originally posted by GKbenji
Case in point: a shot by A1, on the left side of the goal area, rebounds off a couple of defenders and slowly trickles over to A2, on the right side of the goal area in an offside position. Obvious offside call, right? Right. A2 was gaining an advantage when the ball was shot, due to the fact that he was in a position to take advantage of the defense's inability to control the ball.
Originally posted by GKbenji
If you think it's crystal clear for the backpass scenario...It is crystal clear. A2 was not gaining an advantage because the defense controlled the ball. Once they control the ball, what they do with it is their problem, and A2 cannot become offside as a result.

It's pretty simple.

You have illustrated a deficiency in the language of the LOTG. It gives no indication whatsoever what "gaining an advantage" means.

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by XYZ
You have illustrated a deficiency in the language of the LOTG. It gives no indication whatsoever what "gaining an advantage" means.

FIFA defined "gaining an advantage" in the International Board circular 874 (dated 16/9/03):

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is touched or played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

Interfering with play

"Playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate"

Interfering with an opponent

"Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movement"

"Making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive or distract an opponent"

Gaining an advantage by being in that position

"Playing a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position"

"Playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position"

Crowdie

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by GKbenji
Scenario: Attacker A1 has the ball and is defended by D1. Attacker A2 is in an offside position. D1 wins the ball from A1 and passes to defender D2. D2, not realizing A2 is still lurking about in offside position, passes the ball back towards his goalkeeper. A2 pounces on the ball and heads towards goal.

Offside?

I recommend the Crowdie "Phases Of Play" technique to determine if this is offside or not :-)

A phase of play:

Starts when a play receives the ball from a team mate.

Finishes when:

* The player passes the ball to a team mate
* The player passes the ball to an opponent who controls the ball
* An opponent tackles and controls the ball
* The ball goes out of play
* A free kick is awarded to either team

So:

i) Attacker A1 has the ball [Start of Phase 1]. Attacker A2 is in an offside position.
ii) Defender D1 tackles A1 [End of Phase 1] and controls the ball [Start of Phase 2]
iii) Defender D1 passes to D2 who controls the ball[End of Phase 2][Start of Phase 3]
iv) Defender D2 passes the ball back to the goalkeeper but Attacker A2 intercepts in an offside postion.

Is it offside?

The only phase of play that applies to offside is the phase you are currently in. In this scenario we are in phase 3 so everything that happened in phases 1 and 2 is ignored. That means our offside call is based on:

Defender D2 passes the ball back to the goalkeeper but Attacker A2 intercepts in an offside postion.

To be offside the ball must be passed or played to you by a member of your own team. In phase 3 the ball by played by D2 so A2 cannot be offside.

Hope that helps.

Crowdie