UEFA ask FIFA to change the Offside and DOGSO laws

[Englishref]

UEFA, after having consulted with Europe's "elite" coaches, have put forward a document asking for amendments (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3656092.stm) to the offside and DOGSO rulings.

IMO, I can agree to an extent with the offside suggestion, but the DOGSO one will put too much pressure on referees, and the inconsistency will be terrible, so it gets a no from me.

Your thoughts?

[Ref Flunkie]

I like them both....two big thumbs up from me!!! However, I'm not sure we can ask the AR to remember who was in the offside position but not involved initially, as the one quote suggested. If they intend to have it where, when the ball is played past the 2nd to last defender, any attacking player is in an offside position the flag goes up, then count me in.

[schmuckatelli]

Well, I can certainly understand reviewing the passive offside, but in the case Andy Roxburgh described regarding DOGSO, "giving back the goalscoring chance" is not entirely the point. If the defender even suspects he may get a sympathetic hearing, wham, bang, out go the striker's legs. This is a law that's good as is.

I did get a kick out of Gerard Houllier being an "expert," though. ;)

[Caesar]

It seems the adjustment to offside that is being requested is just a change to FIFA's clarification of interpretation that they issued last season, rather than an actual law amendment. I can probably get on board, but I would be concerned about adding to much nuance to it by further complicating the definition of 'active play'.

The DOGSO change is not a good idea. By what means should we differentiate between a DOGSO foul worthy of a caution, and one worthy of a send-off? It would either require a lot of clarification or a lot of discretion, and would make the process of penalising these fouls far more complicated. In addition, no other misconduct is dealt with differently depending on its location on the FOP - why should this be any different? What's next - only caution for simulation if it occurs in the penalty area?

[Ref Flunkie]

The DOGSO change is not a good idea. By what means should we differentiate between a DOGSO foul worthy of a caution, and one worthy of a send-off? It would either require a lot of clarification or a lot of discretion, and would make the process of penalising these fouls far more complicated. In addition, no other misconduct is dealt with differently depending on its location on the FOP - why should this be any different? What's next - only caution for simulation if it occurs in the penalty area?

My understanding was, if you give a PK, you don't give a red....if you don't give a PK, you give a red if it is considered DOGSO. Pretty simple to me. Of course you could give a red for SFP if it warrents it. And just because there isnt a misconduct based on field of play doesn't mean there can't be. Of course I prefer things simple, just like no passive offside.

[Caesar]

My understanding was, if you give a PK, you don't give a red....if you don't give a PK, you give a red if it is considered DOGSO. Pretty simple to me. Of course you could give a red for SFP if it warrents it.What happens, for example, when you have a defender standing on the goal line catch a shot that would otherwise be a certain goal? In my mind, it would be criminal not to send the player off.

It becomes dubious because you can get to the stage where a PK and a caution is actually an attractive alternative. I'm sure it could be made workable, but then I'm very much a conservative when it comes to the LOTG. :D

[Statesman]

DOGSO is very much akin to SFP or VC and needs to remain that way. When a player has no other option than to cheat to deny a goal, he needs to be ejected. This is no different than a player needing to cheat by injuring an opponent who is more skilled. There are crimes against the opponent, and there are crimes against the game. When a player is guilty of DOGSO, the crime against the opponent (denying the goal) is compensated for by awarding a PK. The crime against the game is compensated for by ejecting that player (for cheating in the first place). If you only punish the one without the other, there is no system in place to prevent that player from committing the same act later on. A player who denies two goals in one game should only receive a second caution and sit one match? Somehow I don't think the coaches of UEFA would enjoy that prospect all too much.

This seems to me a case of where the coaches want their own players to get away with cheating, but would scream bloody murder if the opponent does it against them.

As far as offside, the law is already simple enough. If you're offside and you participate, you get called for it. If you are offside and you don't participate, you don't get called for it. The whole discussion centers around what constitutes participation, and even that is fairly simple. If you take the player out of the action, does it change the result? If not, no infringement. This is how ALL fouls in soccer have always been called -- no impact, no call! Why should offside be different?

[MidwestRef]

IMHO, both rules are bad ideas. It's NOT that tough to determine if a player in an offside position actively participates. If a second-year USSF Grade 7 referee like me can properly interpret the offside law, surely the best referees in the world can interpret the law correctly, too. This may be an extreme example, but wouldn't the "experts" amendment mean that a player 70 yards on the other side of the field from the ball being played forward be called offside simply because he is beyond the 2LD?

The DOGSO proposal is ludicrous. Denying a goal-scoring opportunity by fouling is very similar to a pitcher using illegal substances on a baseball or a batter placing cork in his bat. It's cheating, it's disrespecting the game, and it deserves a send-off. Baseball players who cheat as I describe above are suspended multiple games for their actions.

FIFA is being hypocritical if they accept this amendment, because they would enforce a rule that does not promote attacking soccer. An attacker-keeper breakaway can be a great play (big save or cheeky shot is in order). If a beaten defender is allowed to foul a player in the area and not be sanctioned for his cheating, then attacking soccer isn't promoted.

[GKbenji]

The whole discussion centers around what constitutes participation, and even that is fairly simple. If you take the player out of the action, does it change the result?

But if you think about the cases that have prompted this request for a change (e.g. van Nistelrooy's goal against the Czech Republic), it is not a change in what constitutes participation... it is a change in when offside position is considered!

Attacker A is in offside position left of the goal when a ball is played by a teammate C out to attacker B on the wing. Attacker B moves closer to the goal line than A, and crosses the ball to A who scores. If UEFA gets their wish, attacker A will be penalized for offside because of where he was when C played the ball--it doesn't matter to them that A was behind the ball when B subsequently crossed it in.

IMHO this opens up a nightmare can of worms. At what point can the AR stop considering a previous offside position? Must he track multiple mental "snapshots" of where players were at whose touch? Right now Law 11 is really pretty simple; I don't see how you can change it to get UEFA's desired effect without completely overhauling it, taking out the "participation" clause completely.

[Statesman]

If UEFA gets their wish, attacker A will be penalized for offside because of where he was when C played the ball--it doesn't matter to them that A was behind the ball when B subsequently crossed it in.Well, that is the way offside has been called since the beginning:

6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so until the ball has been played, but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked from behind the goal line.

Even in 1863 offside was judged at the time the ball was last kicked, not whether that person had been in an offside position immediately before but moved onside before the kick. Something tells me FIFA is not going to change that. Much of the rest of the world has used this interpretation for many years now and there is very little difference in the big picture. The UEFA recommendation is not good for attacking soccer and holds the game back.

[HoldenMan]

well, look at it this way.

If the attacking team has had the time to run the ball past him and/or he runs back putting himself in an onside position ready for the second touch, then the defensive team has also had the chance to drop back and mark him - why punish the attacking team because they neglected to do so?


(this would also be a good argument for another change to the offside law: running back after the ball is touched puts you onside)

I don't like it at all, nor do I see the point in the DOGSO thing. The red card is to punish for deliberately fouling to prevent a goal, the most unsportsmanlike thing you can do. The penalty is to restore the advantage. What's the problem?

[erictheking]

I don't like it at all, nor do I see the point in the DOGSO thing. The red card is to punish for deliberately fouling to prevent a goal, the most unsportsmanlike thing you can do. The penalty is to restore the advantage. What's the problem?

There is a difference between a foul and a professional foul. It seems that whenever a keeper or defender brings down an attacker while genuinely attempting to play the ball he may still get a red. Just because a foul has been committed in the box doesn't mean a card should be shown.

[Caesar]

Just because a foul has been committed in the box doesn't mean a card should be shown.I don't think that's what's being suggested.

[erictheking]

I don't think that's what's being suggested.

Maybe not, but that's what usually happens in the premiership. Hence the request for an amendment.

[Ref Flunkie]

I'm sure it could be made workable, but then I'm very much a conservative when it comes to the LOTG. :D

You know me, I'd change half the LOTG if I could ;). As to your point about "catching the ball in front of the net", I still don't why it HAS to be a send off. I guess it comes down to the fact that soccer is so low scoring, players would be doing this all the time to prevent goals, so the punishment must be harsh in order to deter it. I just hate all this stupid talk about how a second caution should be a worse/equal offense then the 1st caution. Then to turn around and send someone off for something I personally find to be trivial, of course I would agree with any changes suggested! Again everyone has their pet area that they want to see "fixed" or "improved".

[GKbenji]

Even in 1863 offside was judged at the time the ball was last kicked, not whether that person had been in an offside position immediately before but moved onside before the kick.

Statesman, I don't think I was clear. What UEFA is asking for, as far as I can tell, is for offside position to still be in force even after another play by a teammate!

We all know that we only consider offside position when the ball was last kicked (by a teammate); if UEFA gets what they want, we will have to consider previous kicks by teammates and everyone's position then as well. In the RvN example, RvN would still be penalized for having been in offside position when Davids played the ball wide to Robben, and RvN would not be put back onside when Robben touched the ball!

They basically want "once offside, always offside"... but until when?

[Statesman]

I understand what you mean, Benji. My point was just that never in the history of the game has offside been called that way. It has ALWAYS been judged when last played by somebody, and more recently a teammate. UEFA is proposing an even bigger change than the clarification FIFA sent out, which is not even a change for the majority of soccer nations.

UEFA is trying to disguise their proposed idea. It's pretty clear they want offside to "stick" with the player, but only when it is clear that player MAY be involved with a play. In other words, the AR sees RvN offside at the time of the kick and that he may become involved in the next immediate play, and that if he was not in that position he wouldn't have time to become involved, therefore he has gained an advantage.

The difference is that FIFA states the decision is not whether the player MAY become involved, but if he DOES become involved, regardless of whether the offside position gave him an advantage in becoming involved in that next play.

[njref]

I can't think of any case where the referee has complete discretion to award either a yellow or a red card, without ANY criteria as a guide to exercising that discretion. Therefore I would assume that the "Revised" DOGSO rule would require some criteria to determine whether to award a red or yellow card, such as red if the goal was a certainty and yellow if there was only an opportunity for a goal.

For example, if a player sticks out their arm to stop a shot 3 inches from the goal, a PK is better for the defense than the certain goal, so you would have to give a red card to deter this kind of action. A D Player stops a play with a 75% chance of scoring, the offense probably benefits from a PK. PK plus yellow is a deterent. This extra level of analysis would make it tougher on the official. Also, the liklihood of a score from a PK is not the same at every level, and some DOGSO actions do not result in a PK (outside the box, or not caught).

Personally, I see both sides, but I think that discretion with DOGSO cases will inevitably lead to more deliberate actions of that type, which is bad.

[HoldenMan]

It's hard enough for an offside play to get back onside as it is - why make it harder?

I know this is being contemplated to prevent players live RVN taking advantage, but what about all the situations that fall into this category where nobody is trying to take advantage of the law?

[whitehound]

Statesman, I don't think I was clear. What UEFA is asking for, as far as I can tell, is for offside position to still be in force even after another play by a teammate!

We all know that we only consider offside position when the ball was last kicked (by a teammate); if UEFA gets what they want, we will have to consider previous kicks by teammates and everyone's position then as well. In the RvN example, RvN would still be penalized for having been in offside position when Davids played the ball wide to Robben, and RvN would not be put back onside when Robben touched the ball!

They basically want "once offside, always offside"... but until when?
I dissagree. I read the request as a disposal of the passive offside or not being involved equals onside. I think they want ANYONE In an offside position flagged even if not involved in active play because in one step they might become involved and gain an advantage.