I hate hypotheticals but...

[o5iiawah]

Concerning Law11.

A ball is looped into the box just after the defense clears the trap, leaving a striker in an offside position as the only possible recipient of the ball. He is between the ball and the keeper.

USSF wants us to adopt the "wait and see" approach to avoid needless whistles and blown calls so I leave my flag down since the striker has not made a motion for the ball play continues. Keeper cant follow who is offside or not so he punches the ball to an attacker who is onside and buries it.

He argues that the striker interfered with play by his proximity to goal and it caused him to punch, versus letting it go.

Is this one of those oh well-so sad-too-bad calls? or as an AR should be we more pro-active to flag these incidents?

Is the Striker's presence interfering with the keeper's judgment thus rendering him offside?

[andymoss]

Put the flag up; no one is going to argue with you.

[ColumbusSoccerRef]

In my mind, the decision does not lie in the attacker's proximity to goal (as the GK stated). Instead, it lies with the attacker's position in relation to the GK's play on the ball. Was the attacker so close to the GK that the GK felt that he could not catch or otherwise play the ball to his advantage? But if the offisde attacker has given up his run and is 30 yards from the GK (and the ball) - and the GK makes a boneheaded play. . .the sorry 'keep. I'm probably not inclined to bail you out (attacker clearly not involved in play).

And US Soccer does want us to take a wait-and-see approach. So. . .if you, as the AR, felt the attacker in an offside position prevented the GK from making an unencumbered play on the ball then your flag should go up. You do have the capacity to wait and see the result of the immediate play before putting the flag up. But you have to read the play.

In those situations, only if the GK can make a clearly uncontested play on the ball will I leave the flag down.

-- CSR

[NHRef]

Given just what you say, Andy nailed it. Pop the flag. The GK felt he had to punch the ball clear? If this was due to being close to the attacker then the attacker interfered with play, offside.

[IASocFan]

Concerning Law11.

A ball is looped into the box just after the defense clears the trap, leaving a striker in an offside position as the only possible recipient of the ball. He is between the ball and the keeper.

...
Is the Striker's presence interfering with the keeper's judgment thus rendering him offside?

In my mind, the decision does not lie in the attacker's proximity to goal (as the GK stated). Instead, it lies with the attacker's position in relation to the GK's play on the ball. Was the attacker so close to the GK that the GK felt that he could not catch or otherwise play the ball to his advantage? But if the offisde attacker has given up his run and is 30 yards from the GK (and the ball) - and the GK makes a boneheaded play. . .the sorry 'keep. I'm probably not inclined to bail you out (attacker clearly not involved in play).

And US Soccer does want us to take a wait-and-see approach. So. . .if you, as the AR, felt the attacker in an offside position prevented the GK from making an unencumbered play on the ball then your flag should go up. You do have the capacity to wait and see the result of the immediate play before putting the flag up. But you have to read the play.

In those situations, only if the GK can make a clearly uncontested play on the ball will I leave the flag down.

-- CSR


I like CSR's analysis. It's a judgment call. Did the attacker interfere with the Keeper's ability to play the ball OR did the Keeper make a bonehead play?

Being between the Keeper and the ball increases the potential for "interfering with play" - whether intended or not.

[refmedic]

However, the GK has to play his game, and not worry about that attacker. In this situation, the GK has to go up for the ball. If he thinks the attacker is offside, then that would lend more weight to the GK going up to catch the ball. If I'm that GK, either I'm catching the ball, or I'm getting an IFK for the offside infraction. If the attacker does, in fact, interfere with me getting to the ball, then he is guilty of interfering with an opponent: offside. If he doesn't, then I should be able to catch the ball. It's not the attackers fault, or the referees fault, that this GK allowed himself to be psyched out and made a bad play.

[refontherun]

However, the GK has to play his game, and not worry about that attacker. In this situation, the GK has to go up for the ball. If he thinks the attacker is offside, then that would lend more weight to the GK going up to catch the ball. If I'm that GK, either I'm catching the ball, or I'm getting an IFK for the offside infraction. If the attacker does, in fact, interfere with me getting to the ball, then he is guilty of interfering with an opponent: offside. If he doesn't, then I should be able to catch the ball. It's not the attackers fault, or the referees fault, that this GK allowed himself to be psyched out and made a bad play.


I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but YHTBT. As an AR, I usually try to imagine what would have happened if the offside attacker hadn't been there at all, or whether the keeper was just using the attacker as an excuse for his lack of judgement.

[DWickham]

Much as I appreciate the brilliance of Andy's answer, the mere presence of a player in offside position is not enough. The player must do something which interferes with the opponent's ability to play the ball.

Referees who never played keeper want to believe that presence confuses keepers. Keepers, however, focus on the ball. They know the advantage they have in using their hands. They catch the ball when they can and punch it only when they cannot reach it first. Thus, as a practical matter, the keeper likely only punches a ball because the PIOP is moving toward the ball and interfering with the keeper's ability to catch it. Flag up. Not because no one will argue, but because the PIOP has interfered with an opponent.

Another example of the same issue occurs on the wings. A defender is between the player with the ball and the player in offside position close to goal line. When the ball is played, the defender kicks the ball out of play. Why: the defender reacted to prevent a pass. If the defender knew there was no one behind her, she would have let the ball run for a goal kick. Not offside. Mere presence of the PIOP is not enough. Signal for the throw in. No one is going to argue with you.

[blech]

However, the GK has to play his game, and not worry about that attacker. In this situation, the GK has to go up for the ball. If he thinks the attacker is offside, then that would lend more weight to the GK going up to catch the ball. If I'm that GK, either I'm catching the ball, or I'm getting an IFK for the offside infraction. If the attacker does, in fact, interfere with me getting to the ball, then he is guilty of interfering with an opponent: offside. If he doesn't, then I should be able to catch the ball. It's not the attackers fault, or the referees fault, that this GK allowed himself to be psyched out and made a bad play.

This puts too much blame for a mistake on the goalie in my view. Equally plausible scenarios are that the goalie thinks the attacker is offside but figures the ref crew has blown (yet another) call or he's not sure but think it's offside but he's not going to take any chances. The goalie who assumes he can just try to catch it and will get the offside call if he doesn't is the one who is making a mistake in my view, and it's holding him to a very high standard to conclude otherwise. Just like you would coach the defender not to stop until he hears the whistle (even if he thought the ball was out), why would you hold the goalie to a standard of knowing that he's going to get a call from you if he's not able to catch it.

There are some situations where a defender (the goalie in this example) makes an error that warrants not making the call, but I personally think you're going to end up with game management issues if you're looking for reasons to do so. If the goalie punched it, then my first thought is that the (offside) attacker was close enough that it caused the goalie to punch rather than catch, and that's an easy case for interfering. Obviously, if the attacker is yards away, I may not have that option, but that's my first thought, and as others have noted it is one that is not going to cause you any problems. By contrast, telling the goalie that he shouldn't have punched it and just should have caught it, and too-bad, so-sad, is going to make the rest of the game much more difficult.

[ColumbusSoccerRef]

blech> In short, you have to determine why the GK made the play he did. Was it because of the offside attacker? Or was it because he simply had a brain fart?

I feel the same logic applies to applying the advantage clause. The LoTG allow me to bring play back to the original foul if the advantage doesn't materialize. So for me, I always look at why the advantage didn't materialize. If it didn't materialize because of the original foul, then I'll bring it back and award the foul. If the advantage didn't materialize because the player/team made a poor decision (on their own) then that's their problem. In that case, they had the advantage and chose to squander it. I don't feel the ability to bring a play back was meant to bail a player out of a poor decision.

-- CSR