How to fix the offside rule

[BMF]

First, is there a problem?

You bet there is. Having watched hundreds of professional soccer games from all over the world (MLS, England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Mexico, Costa Rica, Argentina, Brazil, etc. . . .) I suggest that erroneous off-side calls are costing games an average of 0.5 goals/game. In a sport where both teams typically score fewer than 3 goals combined per game (average of EPL teams, a relatively high-scoring league) this is a HUGE cost and often affects the outcome, and thus credibility, of the game.

I can't emphasize enough how detrimental to the game these blown calls are. I would guess that fully 1/3 of all games I've watched were affected by an erroneous offside call. Given that many (most?) games are decided by just one goal, a legitimate opportunity denied by a blown offside call not only can determine directly who wins or loses, but also may have a profound effect on emotions, momentum, and tactics. And these, in turn, affect who wins and loses.

Telling ARs to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team obviously hasn't worked.

Second, I want to make it clear that I appreciate how difficult it is to determine offside in soccer. Some have suggested, and I agree, that it's the most difficult job of any referee in any sport. I accept that ARs are doing the best job they can, within the current rules and recommendations. This thread is not intended as an attack or criticism of referees or ARs.

So . . . what is the solution? I submit that any solution must preserve the 'spirit' of the offside rule--essentially, to prevent "cherrypicking" (like in basketball). What we really want is to eliminate erroneous offside calls without encouraging teams to fundamentally change their style of play.

I have an idea, but I'm eager to hear others. I've created this thread in this forum for the purpose of 'brainstorming', because I know that referees are both great fans of the game and those best able to judge whether an idea is workable or not. My idea might be crap. You might have a better one. Great, let's hear it.

My idea is simple: define an offside position as one in which there is visible separation beween an attacker and the second-to-last defender. In practice, this means a properly positioned AR can see between them. Under the present rules (or its interpretation), a player is in an offside position if his torso is behind the second-to-last defender. Under my modification of the rule, a player wouldn't be in an offside position until his whole body, flailing arms and legs included, is beyond the defender.

Theoretically, this rule would permit attackers to get about 1 yard closer to goal before being in an offside position. I would argue that this does in no way violates the 'spirit' of the present offside rule.

Some might object that this change just pushes the enforcement decision forward a yard, and the problem wouldn't go away. I don't think so for two reasons: (a) I suspect it's much easier to recognize separation than overlap; and (b) the 'footprint' of running players is much larger than their torsos, and by allowing any overlap (for a player to be onside) gives ARs a pretty big cushion for keeping the flag down. I'm eager to hear if referees agree or disagree with this assessment.

Finally, allowing attacking players a yard closer to goal almost certainly will produce more goals, regardless of how accurately offside is called. Given that the spirit of the offside rule lives on, is this a bad thing? I don't think so.

[Crowdie]

Telling ARs to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team obviously hasn't worked.

It is up to the assessors and coaches to instill this into the ARs. I can imagine that at EPL level the AR is more worried about an offside player scoring a goal than an onside player being incorrectly called offside.

My idea is simple: define an offside position as one in which there is visible separation beween an attacker and the second-to-last defender. In practice, this means a properly positioned AR can see between them. Under the present rules (or its interpretation), a player is in an offside position if his torso is behind the second-to-last defender. Under my modification of the rule, a player wouldn't be in an offside position until his whole body, flailing arms and legs included, is beyond the defender.

As of September 2003 this is incorrect. The offside call is now made by the relative position of the torso, legs and feet - any overlap makes the player onside. This has not been implemented in every country yet but will be in their next season.

It has been implemented in NZ and I was AR in a Premier Reserve (our second to top league at the moment) game yesterday and I only gave two offsides the entire game.

Crowdie

[Caesar]

As Crowdie has stated, the 'clear daylight' method of determining offside is no longer an accepted method according to the LOTG (I can't confirm his dates, I defer on this point). But you knew that, your post makes that clear enough.

I wouldn't want to see the change as you put it - in fact, I wouldn't want to see a change at all. But that's personal preference. One problem I have with the proposal is the extra yard that the attacker gains. The present rules put the two players on a more or less even footing, I wouldn't like to see it changed to give the attacker that kind of advantage any more than I would like to enforce 'clear daylight' in its reversed form (defender closest to goal).

[abu-karl]

No matter where one draws the line, the players (and rightly so) will play to the boundries of the law. I don't think there's a problem with the law. Look at any sport where the human element of refereeing is involved. Right now you say there's a prblem with law 11, but what next? How about penalties? Don't they also have an enormous affect on the game? Wouldn't a bad call or bad no call affect the outcome as well?

[stillgreyhound]

The best way to put a reffcam in the retina of the ar so the players and fans can see the 50 frickin things the ar is looking at and judge for themselves....................better yet.....just outlaw instant replay at all soccer matches!

[refmike]

The offside call is now made by the relative position of the torso, legs and feet - any overlap makes the player onside. This has not been implemented in every country yet but will be in their next season
Crowdie

This sounds like something new. In the US teachings, any extension of the attacker's torso beyond the 2nd-last defender makes an offside. To say any overlap makes him onside goes a long way toward supporting Crowdie's proposal. This is worth discussing but let's be sure we understand the law today. Is my interpretation (any torso extension makes offside) what is used today?

[PVancouver]

As of September 2003 this is incorrect. The offside call is now made by the relative position of the torso, legs and feet - any overlap makes the player onside. This has not been implemented in every country yet but will be in their next season. It has been implemented in NZ and I was AR in a Premier Reserve (our second to top league at the moment) game yesterday and I only gave two offsides the entire game.CrowdieThis does seem to be BMF's offside rule to me. Crowdie, could you post a link to these implementation decisions of yours? Or at least post the text on BigSoccer? If these implementations are to be applied world-wide, or even New Zealand-wide, you would think they would be available somewhere on the internet.

I actually did consider proposing what BMF's did, to a certain degree. I wouldn't go so far as to require 100% daylight, though. There are lots of ways you could interpret "even". Right now, we say that the entire torso of an attacker must be even or behind the torso of a defender to be "even" (at least in the U.S.). We could say that any part of the torso must be even or behind the torso of a defender to be "even". Or, as BMF proposes, we could say that any part of the body at all must be even or behind any part of a defender to be "even". You wouldn't have to change the law, just use a different interpretation of "even".

I could see using "daylight" between torsos as a determiner, but I can't see worrying about overlaps of feet, legs, hands, etc. I think the latter case would be harder to judge and harder to justify. I player could prevent himself from being offside just be lifting his foot into the air.

The "any daylight between torsos" rule could work, but I think it would work better as an informal guide than as a strict rule. The current "any part of the torso" rule is easier to implement than "any daylight between torsos", and you can see the difficulty we are having already.

Maybe the best case is a blend. You might be called offside if any part of your torso is "showing", at the ARs descretion. You must be called for offside if any daylight between torsos is visible. If the defender complains, the referee can always state that in the opinion of the (assistant) referee, the player was "even" or "level". If the referee is willing to admit that he could have called the player offside, he could say that he did not call offside because the infraction was "trifling". Giving the ARs a little wiggle room would reduce the number of technically improper calls without dramatically changing the game or the laws. As a fan and a player I am upset when a player "practically even" with a defender is called for offside. While the call may be technically correct as it is currently supposed to be implemented, I usually think it is an overly technical call of an extremely minor infraction.

As for whether or not the offside law needs fixing, it clearly does.

FIFA doesn't define what "playing the ball" is, but "making contact or attempting to make contact" would not be an unreasonable definition.

In a Reuters news article, FIFA redefines offside rule to promote more goals (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/29/1067233253978.html), Reuters summaries the interpretation thus: "In effect, they mean players who do not touch the ball or directly block the vision or movement of an opponent will not be ruled offside.

Currently, there are a boatload of players who come nowhere near to touching the ball who are called for offside. This is a tremendous change in the way the law has been interpreted to date. I would love to hear from referees who dispute this.

The article states that "New guidelines on the offside rule issued by world soccer's governing body, FIFA, should ... put an end to the debate about what constitutes 'interfering with play'." I think that the debate is just beginning.

[NHRef]

We were taught, "center of torso" is where the judgement is. They even showed WC games to make it clear.

I don't think there is a problem with the rule, the issue comes from parents/coaches/players either not understanding it, not having the view the AR has (which is the best one if he's in position), and not looking for the offside position until after it has happened.

I think the suggested change would not make it any easier for the AR, he still has to basically watch two things at once, the ball and the players and the older the players, the further apart this will be. What this change does, if anything, is make the AR position less critical.

[Freddy Garcia Lives]

I agree with the idea that as long as the torso is more or less even with the last defender than the player should be deemed onsides. I believe if an advantage (benifit of the doubt) should be given it should go to the attacking player. The real issues with offsides are the player in an off side position and what happens off a rebound off the post. These are areas that need to be clarified. Just the fact that the rule book has about 15 examples of what is and is not off sides (don't quote me on the # of examples, I'm making a point) proves how hard it is to teach parents and casual fans what the rule is. Please lets not make soccer as confusing with the rules as American football.

[jc508]

I do not think that the law needs to be changed at all. All of the interpretations that I have read seem to make sense to me. Some posters have mentioned the need for further interpretaion - I would recommend that they review the Advice to Referees and the videos "The Myths of the Game" and "Making the Offside Call."

Perhaps FIFA is giving too much responsibility to the AR's. In the past, the AR has had to worry about boundary lines, restarts, subs, fouls unable to be seen by the referee in addition to making the Offside call. Now, they want the AR's to help with the wall on kicks near their area and on corner kicks in addition to making the calls near them. Perhaps more emphasis should be given to making the Offside call. Other than the newer responsibilities and duties, I don't know what could be done to lessen the load of the AR.

There is just too much for the AR to worry about when a speedster times his/her run to be even with the SLD at the time of the teammate's kick. Any distraction at that moment has to hurt the AR's ability to accurately make the offside call. The AR is set up with things against him/her.

Then again it is a game where players make far more mistakes playing the ball than referees do making the call.

Just my opinion.

[scarshins]

Good post jd- first I would say the AR position is nowhere as difficult as center ref when you have a firm knowledge of the offsides rule, and some experience. It helps greatly to be fit enough to be able to keep up with the play too. Most mistakes-at the PRO level- on OS calls happen when an attacker is sprinting forward and the SLD is stationary or moving in the opposite direction (trapping). It's just difficult to get a precise "snapshot" when players are in motion like that. Also, if the AR's view is obstructed or the ball rebounds or deflects quickly, it can get tricky.
As for the ball off the post, this is so frequently misunderstood in the US- if the ball rebounds 1.off the woodwork 2.off the goalkeeper 3.off any other player, either team, and goes to an attacking player who was in offsides position when the ball was played (doesn't matter if the intention was shot, pass or long ball) THEN IT IS OFFSIDES.
As for grey areas, indeed- sliding tackles. In WC2002, when Tony Sanneh slid into a Portuguese defender and popped the ball forward to Landon Donovan, who was behind all Portugal players except the goalkeeper, should that have been offsides?

[refmike]

Please stop using the non-word OFFISDES. A player can only be off his own side. How can we intelligently discuss something when so many cannot even name it correctly? I can accept this from newbies and civilians but not from a group of "experts". And don't call me a nitpicker - we are all here to pick nits and improve ourselves from the experience.

[Crowdie]

The following is FIFA circular 874:

Laws of the Game: more detailed interpretation of Law 11: Offside

Zurich, 29 October 2003 -At the Annual Business Meeting of the International Football Association Board on 16 September 2003, a decision was passed in order to ensure uniform interpretation of Law 11: Offside (see below). The aim of this decision is to respect the Laws of the Game and to protect attacking play intended to lead to a goal, which is the ultimate objective in football. This is not a change to the Laws of the Game as this interpretation adheres entirely to the original wording of the Law.

Law 11 reads as follows: “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, or
interfering with an opponent, or
gaining an advantage by being in that position.”

How to interpret:

“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 movements.
-> 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.

With these clearer instructions, the referees will be in a better position to make informed decisions based on uniform criteria. However, as stipulated in the Laws of the Game, the referee’s decision is final.



This pretty much sums up how you can be offside.

Crowdie

[GKbenji]

I don't think it's a problem with Law 11 itself; it's pretty straightforward IMHO. (BTW, I think the "daylight required" interpretation was put forward by the FA last year but was since rescinded, and was never endorsed by FIFA or other national associations.)

The problem seems to be in calling offside correctly. Even aside from the the uncertain definition of "interfering with play" (though FIFA has tried to make it more clear), I once read of a study of high-level AR's that indicated that some huge number (60%?) of erroneous offside calls were due to poor positioning by the AR. (Anyone else see this?) I wasn't that they didn't know even was onside, or whatever. It was that a slight shift of angle made it look like players were either on or off when they really weren't.

A fix for that is easy, and brought to mind when watching MLS or other US games played on pointyball fields, some EPL games played on grounds that have recently held rugby matches, or even local fields that have trace lines from previous field markings: simply lay a line across the field every ten yards or so from the center stripe to the top of the penalty area, and maybe a line 12 yards out through the penalty spot. To prevent cluttering the field, the lines can be green, or blue, or some color other than the traditional markings that isn't as visible.

This will (almost) eliminate the problem of poor perspective by an out-of-position AR. Even if the AR's line is not quite perpendicular to the defender, they'll have a reference to help determine who was closer to the goal line.

I know such lines definitely help me as an AR when they exist, and it's always easier to call offside right near the 18, isn't it? Even having the grass mowed perpendicular to the touch lines can help, so why shouldn't we add a few more lines to Law 1 if it will help get it right?

You can burn me for heresy now. :)

[Caesar]

Nice idea, but it makes it a million times easier for spectators to "call" offside from where they're sitting.

[rivers]

The proposed would just cause even more confusion over offside. Some ARs would be really tight on it, and others relaxed, and they are both right, that's not right.


Right now is fine, don't fix the rule, fix the ARs.

[BMF]

Wow, a lot of great responses.

Like I said in my original post, I don't think the problem is the ARs. You see erroneous offside calls even in pro matches at the highest levels (perhaps more, because of the speed of the game), and I'm sure these guys are the most experienced and competent in the world. Like I said, I'm just trying to make their job easier, and create conditions where the law can be interpreted correctly more of the time.

The idea of lines on the field is interesting . . . though it sure would be ugly. I've often found it easier when teams play on fields that are mowed in stripes, which produces about the same effect. Though not as ugly.

I still think it's easier to see daylight instead of overlap, and didn't know that this had been proposed and rejected. Can anyone explain the reasoning for rejecting it?

[ur_land]

Y'know, I think many more goals are lost from strikers taking crappy shots than from messed up offside calls...........

Snarky, yes, but I don't want us to make a mountain out of a molehill. That said, however, I think one thing that ARs need to continually work on is beign in the proper position. There is some academic research (published in the journal Nature and discussed here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/662691.stm) that suggests (professional) ARs get 10% of offside calls wrong becasue of incorrect positioning.

In brief, the article suggests that the relative position of the attakers and the defenders can change depending on the AR's position (even 1 meter off can make a difference).

In a similar vein, this is what drives me crazy about TV replays of offside calls. the cameras never seem to be even with the defenders, so the replay can make it appear that the AR blew the call when he/she really got it right.....

[chrisrun]

As far as positioning goes, something like the prismatic light of the RPS (http://www.rps.as) would help a lot. As they even say, though, "The RPS will not remove the element of human error that is intrinsic within the game, but will effectively reduce the more obvious errors."

Does anyone know if this is being looked at any more? The technology seems to be there, it is probably just too costly to justify the benefit. In the same vein, there was talk of using some kind of laser system to judge if a ball wholly crossed the goal line. Any news on that either? Maybe this should be in a "technology in soccer" thread.

[NHRef]

I think the issue with the lights, aside from cost, is its a distraction to the AR, he now has to watch the ball, the SLD, the attackers AND the lights.

--Bob