How can we simplify Offside?

[Ref Flunkie]

Well this came up in our "Removal of IDFK" thread, so I thought we should start a new thread. How can we simplify the offside? Getting rid of "passive" offside would be a start, but I am not sure what else we can do to simplify it. I know other people had some ideas, so lets hear them!

[Laggard]

Does it need to be simplified?

It seems like a pretty straight-forward law whose interpretation is often made more complicated than need be.

[But Referee]

Originally posted by Laggard
Does it need to be simplified?

It seems like a pretty straight-forward law whose interpretation is often made more complicated than need be.

A - f'ing - men!!!! I couldn't agree more. It's so simple, it really is. Why make it hard? Sometimes, all this mental masturbation make these discussions intolerable.

[Jasonisimo]

True.

[Crowdie]

Originally posted by Ref Flunkie
Well this came up in our "Removal of IDFK" thread, so I thought we should start a new thread. How can we simplify the offside? Getting rid of "passive" offside would be a start, but I am not sure what else we can do to simplify it. I know other people had some ideas, so lets hear them!

I wouldn't remove passive offside. If you did then all the ARs would be doing is flagging players who never touched the ball as offside.

Crowdie

[PVancouver]

"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, ..."

delete "... involved in active play by: interfering with play, or interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that position"

add "... involved in, or becomes involved in, active play and gains an advantage by being in that position"

[Jeff from Michigan]

Originally posted by PVancouver
"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, ..."

delete "... involved in active play by: interfering with play, or interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that position"

add "... involved in, or becomes involved in, active play and gains an advantage by being in that position"

Well...the writer in me feels constrained to point out that this amendment would ADD confusion, not resolve it.

In the original, the AR must watch for one of three things...and flag the play if any of them come to fruition.

In the amendment, the AR must still watch...but must then decide whether the offside player "gained an advantage." This adds a level of ambiguity that will, of necessity, become subjective, and add nothing but confusion.

Ergo:

Current rule: shot rebounds off post, to offiside attacker. AR flags play as offside, since offside attacker gained an advantage (capitalizing on the rebound) by being offside.

Amended rule: in minute six, attacker passes to a teammate who is offside by 25 yards, about ten yards shy of the opposing team's PA. Fans and defenders begin to scream at AR. Offside player muffs a one-touch shot, and the ball goes out of bounds very wide of the goal. AR decides player never really gained advantage...since he muffed the shot...so keeps flag down. Defenders and fans begin screaming at AR...demanding to know why they can't take the kick from where the offside player took his muffed shot. Players from both teams conclude that the referee crew hasn't a clue about the offside rule...and the game begins to go into crapper.

I don't think the existing rule is terribly confusing, as long as you don't try to "overthink" it, and make it more complicated than it really is. It's kind of like a floating blue line in hockey...except that if the offside player doesn't participate, then play continues.

[PVancouver]

You have a player in an offside position receive a pass from a teammate, and you don't consider him to be gaining an advantage by being in that position?

Let's name some options.

1) Don't have any conditions at all. If a player is in an offside position when a teammate touches the ball, whistle offside. While this rule is simple, it would require way too many calls for meaningless infractions of the law.

2) Add a condition that player must be "involved in play". This is what the LOTG have done. Suppose the LOTG did not describe what “involved in play” meant. What would "involved in play" mean? Certainly the player that has run off the field and doesn't seem to have any desire to get back on the field is not "involved in play". A player lying on the ground because of an injury or exhaustion is not "involved in play". Beyond that, "involved in play" gets more muddled.

I would like to think that most players on the field are "involved in play". That is, they are all working to attack or defend to the best of their abilities at all times. So I would think anyone on the field except a player who is "not playing" should be considered "involved in play".

For example, attacker A1 races to the left corner with no defenders nearby, screams and waves his arms beckoning his teammate to pass him the ball, because he is so bloody open. However , his teammate decides to pass the ball to A2, who is near the right corner but is on-side. Is A1 “involved in play”? I would certainly say so. Is he “gaining an advantage by being in that position”? I would say not. Thus, I would say A1 should not be called offside, not because he is not involved in play, because he certainly is, but because he is not gaining an advantage by being in that position.

Because the way the rules are written, "involved in play" has been extrapolated into "involved in the play", because the LOTG list three ways that a player should be considered “involved in play” :
interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that position. So if you aren’t doing any of those three things, you aren’t “involved in play”. You might as well be reading a book.

Let’s look at the three conditions.

“Interfering with play”

I connote negativity when I read the word “interference”. I certainly wouldn’t want to be caught “interfering with play”.

The ATR states “Interfering with play" means moving towards the opponent or the ball and thereby affecting how play develops. Yes, this “interfering with play” is certainly a bad thing. We must eliminate this type of interference from the sport of soccer.

“Interfering with play” is supposed to be one of the three conditions for “involved in play”. Pinch me if I’m wrong, but if I am “affecting how play develops”, isn’t it pretty obvious that I am “involved in play”. As I said already, I would greatly broaden the scope of “involved in play.” If I am “interfering with play”, I think it is pretty obvious that I should be considered “involved in play”.

For the record, the ATR also says “It is not necessary for a player to make contact with the ball or with an opponent to be judged as interfering with play.” But according to the ATR, I’m OK if I’m running away from the ball when it is kicked (this is usually the case, by the way) or away from the opponent (most attackers prefer to run away from opponents). It doesn’t seem that the ATR is all that helpful on this issue.

However, because of this condition, a ball might be kicked past the center line, and an offside player who goes into his defensive end to retrieve it must be whistled for offside. This is a bizarre call which would be eliminated if the condition “gains an advantage by being in that position” is made a requirement.

While I would say that practically every player on the field is “involved in play” to some degree, a far smaller number of players can considered to be “interfering with play” at any given moment. Judging who is “involved in play” would be a lot easier if it didn’t have to meet difficult to decide tests like whether or not a player was “interfering with play”.


"Interfering with an opponent"

According to the ATR, "Interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from moving towards the ball.

If you are preventing an opponent from moving towards the ball, shouldn’t you be called for that? Does it really matter that you are offside? Suppose the player impedes the opponent in an otherwise legal way, via a shoulder charge. Would you not agree that the player “gained an advantage from being in that position”. In my mind, the player is obviously involved in play (he didn’t have to shoulder charge the opponent know that) and he gained an advantage by being in an offside position, so he should be charged with offside. This condition unnecessary complicates the offside rule.

And again, if the offside player runs back into his own defensive end and shoulder charges or obstructs an opponent, he is currently guilty of offside. Bizarre.

The ATR states “Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.” Again, the player is obviously involved in play and in some way he is gaining an advantage by being in an offside position by distracting or blocking the goalkeeper.

Suppose A1 stands in front of the goal in an offside position and makes no move or sound, and does not “distract”. His teammate shoots toward goal. In case one, the ball comes within a few yards of his head and goes into the goal. A1 had no opportunity to reach the ball, even if he had tried. Since he didn’t even try, the player can’t be judged to be “involved in play” according to the rules. In case two, the ball hits his head while he is standing there and goes into goal. Now, all of a sudden, he is “involved in play”. Bizarre. Why not say that the player is “involved in play” in both cases, but that he didn’t “gain an advantage”, as the ball was unreachable, in the first case.

The “interfering with an opponent” condition to be considered “involved in play” is should be subsumed by the “gaining an advantage” condition to be considered “offside”.


“Gaining an advantage by being in that position"

Suppose A1 is well offside, and a teammate passes him the ball. While A1 chooses not to play the ball, everyone in the park knows that he could easily be the first to reach it if he so chose. He is obviously “gaining an advantage by being in that position". And just as obviously, he is whistled for offside.

On the other hand, suppose A1 is face down on the ground hurt, or standing just behind the goal line but not moving (indicating to the referee that he does not plan to become involved in active play). The player is still “gaining an advantage by being in that position", as his position relative to the play has not changed in any way, and if the player chose to, he could easily be the first to play the ball. According to the LOTG, the player is “involved in play”. I disagree. He is gaining an advantage, but he is not “involved in play”. Fortunately, referees accept the fact that the player is not “involved in play”, regardless of what the rules say.

Going back to the first case, suppose A1 sees that he is offside and begins trotting sheepishly back onside, choosing not to play the ball as he knows he would be whistled for offside. In my mind, he is involved in play, he was gaining an advantage by being in that position, let’s go ahead and say he is offside. Nine times out of 10, a play-on would be the right call, as the defense is likely to collect the ball anyway.

Otherwise, the referees have to make a decision. Is the player going to change his mind and play the ball? The player must be watched until the ball is touched again. At the cost of an occasional whistle for a trivial offside, I think the simplification to the rules would be worth it.

What is “Gaining an advantage by being in that position"?

If you are in an offside position and because of your position you are possibly* able to touch a ball before an opponent or teammate can, or are able to block the view of or otherwise distract the goalkeeper or opponent, on a ball that is directed** by a teammate into the area between the opponents’ goal line and the second last opponent, I would say you were gaining an advantage by being in that position. You might not realize your advantage, as the ball may fall short or go long, or for myriad other reasons, but the potential must be there that you might be able to use your offside position to your advantage, enough of a potential that a stoppage of play and an award of the ball to the opponent is warranted.

*assuming play continues normally—possibly does not mean “if the earth stands still”—but it does not mean “likely” either.
**assuming play continues normally, the potential for the ball should be likely, but it should not be a requirement that it actually do so.

Come to think of it, I think it would be preferable to say “gaining a potential advantage by being in that position".

Getting back to the potential conditions for offside...

3) Add a condition that player must be "involved in play" and "gain a potential advantage from being in that position".

This is what I would do.

[wandering soccerdog]

The offside rule can be simplified as follows: define offside in terms of the passer instead of the passee, like this:

"A player may not pass the ball to a teammate who is closer to the goal than the opposing team's last two players."

Simple.

[Gary V]

The interpretation of "gaining an advantage" has been changed. It used to be "seeking an advantage" - and as one famous coach pointed out, if his players are not continually seeking an advantage, then what are the bloody wankers doing on the field?

"Gaining an advantage" is usually seen in terms of a rebound from post or opponent (without play/control) that goes to the offside-positioned player. He gained the advantage from being in that position that the ball went to. There may be other ways to gain an advantage, but this is the one most seen. Frankly, it's not that much different from "interfering with play".

I'm not be as concerned as PVancouver with the words "interfering with play". In fact, the word interfering devolves from the concept of having an effect on play.

A classic way of looking at interference in play, or affecting play if you prefer that wording, is to imagine what would happen if the player wasn't there. If the Hand of God majestically came down and snatched the player up into the air, would the way play went be any different? If no, than that player and his offside position had no effect on play, there was no interference - so no offside.

Of course, this gets us back to the argument that the defense had to react to the distracting influence of the offside-positioned player. Analogies are only so good.

[Laggard]

Originally posted by wandering soccerdog
The offside rule can be simplified as follows: define offside in terms of the passer instead of the passee, like this:

"A player may not pass the ball to a teammate who is closer to the goal than the opposing team's last two players."
Simple.

How then would you handle a situation where player A kicks the ball, it hits the post and bounces back to a teammate who is in an offsides position? It could be argued that it was not a pass.

[wandering soccerdog]

Originally posted by Laggard
How then would you handle a situation where player A kicks the ball, it hits the post and bounces back to a teammate who is in an offsides position? It could be argued that it was not a pass.

Precisely. With my rewording, your scenario would not be offside. I have been playing soccer for 30 years, became a licesnsed referee 21 years ago, and have had NASL/MLS season tickets since 1977, and I have never, NEVER, seen someone purposefully bank the ball off a crossbar or post in order to complete a pass. When the ball hits the post or crossbar, it usually is not something that the player intended. Therefore, it should not be considered a pass. Therefore, it should not be considered offside.

[Laggard]

But the laws now say that it is offsides, correct? Even if it were not intentional.

So you're not looking at simply clarifying the rule by rewriting it. You want to change the definition?

[wandering soccerdog]

Yes, I want to change the definition.

I played forward for most of my playing career. I don't think I ever sought to "gain an advantage" by hoping that the ball would bounce off the post.

Any forward who seeks to gain an advantage by waiting for rebounds off the post is wasting his time. It's just too rare an occurance to be strategic.

If the ball bounces off the post, it should be the defenders and goalie's problem to clear it out of the goalmouth. The defending team shouldn't be protected by the offside rule here.

Forwards SHOULD be allowed to gain advantage in the event of a rebound. Rebounds are a fluky thing in soccer. It's not part of every play like in basketball.

Calling an offside should be reserved for a pass to a teammate who is beyond the last two defenders. Period.

[GKbenji]

Originally posted by wandering soccerdog
Yes, I want to change the definition.
...
Any forward who seeks to gain an advantage by waiting for rebounds off the post is wasting his time. It's just too rare an occurance to be strategic.

Except replace "post" with "goalkeeper" in your quote and it no longer becomes a rare occurence. A shot at the goalkeeper is not a pass, but do you really want cherry-picking forwards sitting in the goal waiting for the goalkeeper to spill the ball? The change still doesn't work for me.

[TReff]

Originally posted by wandering soccerdog
The offside rule can be simplified as follows: define offside in terms of the passer instead of the passee, like this:

"A player may not pass the ball to a teammate who is closer to the goal than the opposing team's last two players."

Simple.


Such a change would also penalize attacking teams.

For example, A1 passes the ball into space toward A2 who was closer to the goal that the last two opponents, but knowing his location does not participate (and may clearly signal his non-participation by turning his back to the play).

However, A3 starts from an onside position, beats the defenders and runs onto the ball.

By your definition, A1's pass makes the play offside and defense gets an IFK even though A2 removed himself from any contribution to the play.

[wandering soccerdog]

True, this would be one of the side effects of my proposed rule adjustment, but thems the breaks. The lesson to a player with the ball would be: don't pass to a teammate (or teammates) who is closer to the goal than the opponent's last two players.

It might get a little tricky if the two passees that you described are in the same "zone", but if A2 is on the left side of the field and in an offside position, and A3 is on the right side of the field and in an onside position, the pass to A3 is legit. So the passive offside rule would still exist to a certain extent. But you're right, a player would not be able to "take himself out of the play." That kind of guessing the "intent" crap would have to go.

But if A2 and A3 are both on the left side of the field and the pass comes to their general vicinity, and the non-offside player receives the ball, I would instruct the refs to call the offside anyway.

[tmaker]

Yes, I want to change the definition.

I played forward for most of my playing career. I don't think I ever sought to "gain an advantage" by hoping that the ball would bounce off the post.

Any forward who seeks to gain an advantage by waiting for rebounds off the post is wasting his time. It's just too rare an occurance to be strategic.

If the ball bounces off the post, it should be the defenders and goalie's problem to clear it out of the goalmouth. The defending team shouldn't be protected by the offside rule here.

Forwards SHOULD be allowed to gain advantage in the event of a rebound. Rebounds are a fluky thing in soccer. It's not part of every play like in basketball.

Calling an offside should be reserved for a pass to a teammate who is beyond the last two defenders. Period.

Of course, being a former keeper, I would dissent :)

Offside is not complicated. It's even less complicated when one looks into the history of it. You're lucky not to live in times when it was *three* defenders between you and the goal, Mr. Ex-Forward. :)

[Caesar]

This has got to be the most idiotic proposal I have ever heard. Changing the wording in the manner PVancouver suggests does absolutely nothing to simplify the law, makes it more subjective (and thus potentially more inconsistent), and would confuse the hell out of absolutely everyone.

What is wrong with the current law? It is mind-numbingly simple as it is - the confusion does not arise out of the wording in any way that the proposal suggested by Vancouver would resolve. The three elements the AR must watch for are extremely clear-cut, and the adjustment suggested adds subjectivity and ambiguity.

It is the least idiotic in its premise of any of the suggestions on this thread, but it is still patently impractical and as such equally useless.

[But Referee]

What is wrong with the current law? It is mind-numbingly simple as it is - the confusion does not arise out of the wording in any way that the proposal suggested by Vancouver would resolve. The three elements the AR must watch for are extremely clear-cut, and the adjustment suggested adds subjectivity and ambiguity.



So very true. I hope what I'm about to say won't sound arrogant, rather please take it as constructive. One should get seek a deeper understanding of the particular Law instead of adapting the Law to meet one's lack of experience, or interpretive knowledge.





Come to think of it, I think it would be preferable to say “gaining a potential advantage by being in that position".

Getting back to the potential conditions for offside...

3) Add a condition that player must be "involved in play" and "gain a potential advantage from being in that position".

This is what I would do.


This is CRAZY. Talk about subjective! The reason the Law is the way it is right now is to eliminate unnecessary stoppages in play. Keep the game flowing (I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the game is more entertaining when the ball is in play). Stopping play for for potential advantage would create NUMEROUS, UNNECESSARY stoppages.