UEFA to clarify offside interpretation

[Ref Flunkie]

Obviously it's not as simply as we all think.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=298871&cc=5901

UEFA to clarify offside interpretation
Reuters
ESPINHO, Portugal -- UEFA will distribute a DVD to national football associations in an effort to clarify interpretation of the offside rule in time for Euro 2004.

FIFA introduced new guidelines last year on how to intepret the rule, emphasising that players who do not touch the ball or block the goalkeeper's view should not be flagged offside.

The guidelines caused confusion in some leagues and UEFA is now seeking to clarify its own position before the European Championship finals, starting on June 12.

"We're emphasising that the offside rule itself has not changed," Ken Ridden, vice-chairman of UEFA's referees committee, said on Thursday. "We're talking about interpretation and application.

"It's important that we let players and coaches know how referees will apply the rule."

Ridden was speaking at the end of a four-day workshop and training camp with referees and assistant referees who will officiate at Euro 2004.

The officials were shown an early version of the video that will be sent to national football associations before the tournament and were able to discuss the examples shown.

Assistant referees were reminded by UEFA that it is better for them to delay a decision on whether to raise a flag for offside rather than make a wrong decision in haste.

"It will be good for education at all levels," said Ridden. "It's totally in agreement with FIFA's circular on the matter last year."

The referees say they are perfectly clear on the guidelines but have welcomed the DVD as a means of helping fans.

"It's difficult to educate spectators on the offside rule," said Slovakia's Lubos Michel.

"There's so much emotion in the stands and sometimes that's because the fans don't know the law."

European soccer's governing body has also decided that players taking off their shirts during goal celebrations will automatically receive a yellow card at the tournament.

The ruling was due to apply in July but UEFA has told referees to enforce it throughout Euro 2004, which runs from June 12 to July 4.

"We're setting an example on this," said Ridden.

[Alberto]

Obviously it's not as simply as we all think.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=298871&cc=5901

UEFA to clarify offside interpretation
Reuters
ESPINHO, Portugal -- UEFA will distribute a DVD to national football associations in an effort to clarify interpretation of the offside rule in time for Euro 2004.

FIFA introduced new guidelines last year on how to intepret the rule, emphasising that players who do not touch the ball or block the goalkeeper's view should not be flagged offside.

The guidelines caused confusion in some leagues and UEFA is now seeking to clarify its own position before the European Championship finals, starting on June 12.

"We're emphasising that the offside rule itself has not changed," Ken Ridden, vice-chairman of UEFA's referees committee, said on Thursday. "We're talking about interpretation and application.

"It's important that we let players and coaches know how referees will apply the rule."

Ridden was speaking at the end of a four-day workshop and training camp with referees and assistant referees who will officiate at Euro 2004.

The officials were shown an early version of the video that will be sent to national football associations before the tournament and were able to discuss the examples shown.

Assistant referees were reminded by UEFA that it is better for them to delay a decision on whether to raise a flag for offside rather than make a wrong decision in haste.

"It will be good for education at all levels," said Ridden. "It's totally in agreement with FIFA's circular on the matter last year."

The referees say they are perfectly clear on the guidelines but have welcomed the DVD as a means of helping fans.

"It's difficult to educate spectators on the offside rule," said Slovakia's Lubos Michel.

"There's so much emotion in the stands and sometimes that's because the fans don't know the law."

European soccer's governing body has also decided that players taking off their shirts during goal celebrations will automatically receive a yellow card at the tournament.

The ruling was due to apply in July but UEFA has told referees to enforce it throughout Euro 2004, which runs from June 12 to July 4.

"We're setting an example on this," said Ridden.

The use of the word "touch" is really very, no extremely regrettable. Now everyone thinks the player has to actually touch the ball (head or foot) for the flag to go up.

[Ref Flunkie]

The use of the word "touch" is really very, no extremely regrettable. Now everyone thinks the player has to actually touch the ball (head or foot) for the flag to go up.


That is my thought as well. Perhaps they do mean "touch" literally!

[refmike]

As I remember the circular (not in front of me at the moment) the word "touch" was used as an example of playing the ball, not as a requirement for the call. People are blowing this out of proportion.

[Ref Flunkie]

And they wonder why no one watching a soccer match/playing in one understands offside calls.

[Alberto]

As I remember the circular (not in front of me at the moment) the word "touch" was used as an example of playing the ball, not as a requirement for the call. People are blowing this out of proportion.

Not when you have people with limited understanding of what the term means. They take everything literally. It was an unfortunate choice of words.

[billf]

Last night, they showed a little of the CDROM on the Fox Sports World Report. The word touch is being blown out off proportion I think. The snippets seemed to be discussing how a player might become involved in active play. They can't be using touch only as the sole cause. The problem with this is potential injury. I worked with a very good young referee who acted as an AR for me on an amateur game. He delayed the flag, but often too long and this almost resulted in natsy collisions between the attacket and goalkeeper. I really think the term touch only refers to cases where the ball is flighted over or through past an offside player.

[Ref Flunkie]

Last night, they showed a little of the CDROM on the Fox Sports World Report. The word touch is being blown out off proportion I think. The snippets seemed to be discussing how a player might become involved in active play. They can't be using touch only as the sole cause. The problem with this is potential injury. I worked with a very good young referee who acted as an AR for me on an amateur game. He delayed the flag, but often too long and this almost resulted in natsy collisions between the attacket and goalkeeper. I really think the term touch only refers to cases where the ball is flighted over or through past an offside player.


See this is the problem, it's almost as if everyone has to come up with their own interpretation of the word "touch" when this whole directive came out. Perhaps that is why UEFA is sending out a DVD...maybe they will say "Hey folks, we don't mean touch literally". I just don't understand why FIFA has to screw around with interpretations every year. It isn't like offside was created yesterday and they are just getting the bugs out...

[canzano55]

"We're emphasising that the offside rule itself has not changed," Ken Ridden, vice-chairman of UEFA's referees committee, said on Thursday. "We're talking about interpretation and application.

"It's important that we let players and coaches know how referees will apply the rule."


It's about bloody time

[saabrian]

Oh dear. When FIFA begins "clarifying" things, be afraid. Very afraid.

[XYZ]

Oh dear. When FIFA begins "clarifying" things, be afraid. Very afraid.
It's a warning sign.

Offside should be very simple. When someone thinks that such a simple rule must be clarified, something is wrong.

To put it in historical perspective: Not so long ago, some people, with the best of intentions, thought that they could improve the offside rule. It was decided that simply being in an offside position should not be enough.

What a Pandora's box was opened up. What was forgotten was "KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)". Pride was (and still is) taken in how offside isn't called unless a player is "involved".

The ramifications are only now beginning to be felt.

Some are longing for the simplicity of the days when offside position equalled offside, the days when a player couldn't get off on a technicality.

Others will no doubt argue that the game has been improved by making it more complicated.

The jury is still out.

[Alberto]

It's a warning sign.

Offside should be very simple. When someone thinks that such a simple rule must be clarified, something is wrong.

To put it in historical perspective: Not so long ago, some people, with the best of intentions, thought that they could improve the offside rule. It was decided that simply being in an offside position should not be enough.

What a Pandora's box was opened up. What was forgotten was "KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)". Pride was (and still is) taken in how offside isn't called unless a player is "involved".

The ramifications are only now beginning to be felt.

Some are longing for the simplicity of the days when offside position equalled offside, the days when a player couldn't get off on a technicality.

Others will no doubt argue that the game has been improved by making it more complicated.

The jury is still out.

The jury is not out. I do not see mass confusion or anger on the part of players regarding offside decisions. This complication as you state is an unfortunate choice of words. What you advocate not a step forward, it is a step backwards. Active involvement in play was added in the interpretation of what constitutes offside infringement because the flow of the game was destroyed as were goal scoring opportunities. The other major change in law 11, the offensive player must be even with the next to last defender was also made to increase goal scoring. I personally do want to see a return to the old. This is a degression. Forwards are constantly offside. With this type of interpretation a player on the opposite side of the field with no involvment in play would be flagged for offside. This is stupid. It is illogical. Just because you have a problem understanding the concept does not mean that it is lost on the players. Soccer suffers from too many stoppages because of cynical fouling, time wasting, let's not add offside to it.

This is an issue in UEFA, not in the USA. Having watched 100's of Euro league matches and European Cup, UEFA Cup, European Championships and World Cup qualifiers it is clear that many UEFA AR's have problems with interpreting active participation on offside. Several countries particularly Germany have in my opinion poor AR's. England has the finest in my opinion.

The reason for this is that up until maybe 4-5 years ago, AR's continued to be viewed more as linesman than Assistant Referees. Change has been slow in UEFA. So let's not equate this issue with the entire world.

[Laggard]

"...emphasising that players who do not touch the ball or block the goalkeeper's view should not be flagged offside."

So, if a player is in an offsides postion and a teammate kicks the ball to him but the ball lands 20 feet to his left, should offsides be called if he's able to quickly run over to the ball? Is FIFA basically saying that if the offending player can get to the ball before someone else does, then offsides should be called?

[jkc313]

"...emphasising that players who do not touch the ball or block the goalkeeper's view should not be flagged offside."

So, if a player is in an offsides postion and a teammate kicks the ball to him but the ball lands 20 feet to his left, should offsides be called if he's able to quickly run over to the ball? Is FIFA basically saying that if the offending player can get to the ball before someone else does, then offsides should be called?

If a player is in offside position when the ball is played by a teammate, he may not become actively involved in play,period. It doesn't matter if the ball is passed directly to him or if he has to run 20 feet to get to it. He may not involve himself until offside is reset either by the ball going out of bounds, the defenders gaining possession , or a different teammate touching/playing the ball.

[Laggard]

If a player is in offside position when the ball is played by a teammate, he may not become actively involved in play,period. It doesn't matter if the ball is passed directly to him or if he has to run 20 feet to get to it. He may not involve himself until offside is reset either by the ball going out of bounds, the defenders gaining possession , or a different teammate touching/playing the ball.

To me, your explanation makes the decision to call offsides much easier. If the player in an offsides position has the ball passed directly to him, all he has to do is step aside and offsides should not be called?

The way I see it now, offsides is called if a player is in an offsides position and does nothing more than chase after a ball played to him. FIFA's saying that officials should actually wait until the player has made contact with the ball?

[Crowdie]

The way I see it now, offsides is called if a player is in an offsides position and does nothing more than chase after a ball played to him. FIFA's saying that officials should actually wait until the player has made contact with the ball?

FIFA advises that a player in the situation you describe should be flagged offside when he/she becomes involved in "active play". The issue is that different countries appear to be interpreting what "active play" is differently. If you referee in the US you should follow the USSF interpretation. If you referee in the UK you should follow the FA interpretation.

Crowdie

[Laggard]

What annoys me is that this is a rule I thought I had a pretty good understanding of. All these threads and subsequent discussion fill me with doubts about whether or not I truly do understand correctly.

The way I read it now, if player A is in an offsides position and player B (who is onside) fires a shot into the goal, the goal should count since player A was not actively involved in play.

Am I correct?

[billf]

What annoys me is that this is a rule I thought I had a pretty good understanding of. All these threads and subsequent discussion fill me with doubts about whether or not I truly do understand correctly.

The way I read it now, if player A is in an offsides position and player B (who is onside) fires a shot into the goal, the goal should count since player A was not actively involved in play.

Am I correct?

Bingo!!!!!!

[jc508]

Does anyone know of a way to get a copy of this CD from UEFA? It would seem that this could be a great tool to help refs and even others understand Law 11. I would think that the CD is probably only available to a very limited, select few, but if there were a way to get one....