Which Came First? Foul or Offside

[Paul J]

I remember a while back, either on this forum or on the SocRef list, we discussed the question of which comes first, the foul or the offside. Generally, the scenario is such: Attacking player A sends a pass to his teammate who is in an offside position. Before the ball can reach the attacking player in an offside position, a defender deliberately handles the ball preventing the pas from reaching the offside player. Question--what is the call? You can insert any foul you wish just remember the sequence is Pass -- Foul -- Receipt of pass by offside player. Also, for the sake of this discussion, the pass and the foul were not simultaneous. One clearly happened prior to the other.

IIFC the general consensus was that an offside infraction occurs at the time of the pass and therefore, the offside infraction occurred before, not simultaneously with or prior to, the handling foul. Therefore, the proper call is offside. (did I recall correctly?)

Fast forward to yesterday's DC/MetroStars game. Does anyone recall this situation:

First half (I think)--Metrostars player (I believe Gaven) pushes a ball forward to a teammate. Immediately after, a DC player (I believe Petke) commits a foul on the passer. However, also, as soon as the pass is made, the AR raises the flag to signal offside. However, Kevin Terry awards the foul. I believe he also issued a caution to the DC fouler.

Now, the questions:

1) Am I wrong on the general application of the law regarding which comes first, the foul or the offside?

Assuming what I described above is the correct application...

2) Was Kevin wrong?
3) Did the fould occur simultaneously with the pass and therefore he awarded the most egregious foul?
4) Did the fact that the fould warranted a caution change the analysis from a game management perspective?
5) was the AR actually calling a fould rather than offside (although I do not thing there was a wiggle of the flag)?

Anyway, just some things to talk about on a Monday among those of us who have too much time to be concerned with more important things.

[billf]

Offside does not become an offense until the player in an offside position becomes actively invloved in the play by either playing the ball, interfering with play, or gaining an advantage from this position. In both cases you describe, I'm guessing the foul happened before the offside player recieved the pass. The referee will have a better angle on this than the AR in most cases. If the infractions are judged to occur at the same time, then we are told to penalize the more serious of the two infractions. In both cases, this would be the foul. Only if the offside player became actively invloved before the "foul", would we award the indirect to punish the offside rather than the DFK pnishing the "foul". There could still be misconduct against the defender, but because the offside happened first, the restart does not change. To summarize, the infraction that happens first or the more serious of two simultaneous infractions is punished.

[refmike]

Offside does not become an offense until the player in an offside position becomes actively invloved in the play.

I agree with BillF and only want to note that the strict enforcement of this concept is a recent change. USSF has been saying that active participation is required for an offside call but only last year did FIFA go the step further to say that active advantage is required. So even if the ball is going to an offside player with an obvious advantage, if he does not take the advantage, he is not to be called. That makes it much easier to call the foul that did happen against the offside that probabily will happen.

[IASocFan]

My thought is that the offside position precipitated the foul, so it indeed affected the play. I would call the offside infraction.

Any disciplinary action (like a caution or send off) could also be applicable for the defender.

[Statesman]

If the only two players involved are the offside player and his opponent, then the offside occurs first. If there are other legal attackers with a legitimate chance to play the ball, then the foul occurs first as it is not a foregone conclusion the offside attacker will be involved. Tricky decision to make - either way the referee will have to sell the call so make sure you are very firm in your choice!

[refmike]

My thought is that the offside position precipitated the foul, so it indeed affected the play. I would call the offside infraction.

Any disciplinary action (like a caution or send off) could also be applicable for the defender.

There is nothing illegal about being in an offside position at any time.
There is nothing illegal about the ball being passed to a player in an offside position.
The only illegal action is the offside player actively participating in the play.
In the example we are disucssing, the foul came before any action by the player in an offside position and should be called first.

[Ref Flunkie]

There is nothing illegal about being in an offside position at any time.
There is nothing illegal about the ball being passed to a player in an offside position.
The only illegal action is the offside player actively participating in the play.
In the example we are disucssing, the foul came before any action by the player in an offside position and should be called first.

Ahh but would the player have committed the foul if the offside player was not there? Does that not make him involved in active play? Just playing devil's advocate.

[jkc313]

What Paul is remembering, I think, is the thread discussing what happens when a ball is played to a teammate in offside position and a defender deliberately handles the ball but it goes to the player in offside position. The offside is judged at the time the ball is played, so the correct call is offside. However, if the defender handles the ball and prevents it from going to the player in offside position, no offside. The DC/Metrostars incident isn't this cut and dry. It would seem both offenses were very close if not simultaneous and the referee punished the more severe.

[HoldenMan]

in the Q&A it states unless the player needs to be penalised for offside, then call the foul.


I'd also like to point out that under the new interpretation, we're not to penalise offside players until they actually get the ball (or interfere with the opponent) - therefore i think you would almost always call the foul, not the offside.

[ref47]

holdenman - the 2004 q&a's for law 11; 11.9, state that a player in an offside position, not interfering with an opponent, who runs towards the ball passed by a teammate, may be penalized before touching the ball, if a teammate who is not offside cannot get to the ball first. you do not need to wait for a touch if no other teammate who was onside can get to the ball.

[refmike]

Ahh but would the player have committed the foul if the offside player was not there? Does that not make him involved in active play? Just playing devil's advocate.

Since you ask the question with tongue in cheek, I assume that you know the answer is that since the player in an offside position cannot participate, any defense against him is wasted and is an error by the defender. We cannot validate it by considering the potential offside which has not happened.

[Ref Flunkie]

Since you ask the question with tongue in cheek, I assume that you know the answer is that since the player in an offside position cannot participate, any defense against him is wasted and is an error by the defender. We cannot validate it by considering the potential offside which has not happened.

I'm actually somewhat serious, especially if the rule was still worded in the vague terms of the offside attacker "effecting play". Now that it has pretty much changed to where the player must physically play the ball to be called offside, I agree with you. However, I could make an argument for calling the player offside if it was still that he "effects play". I think you are expecting too much assuming that a defender KNOWS a player is offside or not while trying to play a ball. He may just know someone is behind him, but not where his other team members are.

[jacathcart]

Ahh but would the player have committed the foul if the offside player was not there? Does that not make him involved in active play? Just playing devil's advocate.

Since we already know that the Keeper can't win a claim that he was interfered with by an attacker in an offside position who was not involved in play or in the keeper's face ("I was distracted by the offside attacker") why should the handling defender be able to claim the same? In either case the answer should be that the player should recognize that the player is in an offside position and can't be involved in play - so the keeper should concentrate on the attacker with the ball and the defender shouldn't handle to prevent the o/s attacker from receiving the pass.

Jim (Advocating for the Ref)

[Ref Flunkie]

Since we already know that the Keeper can't win a claim that he was interfered with by an attacker in an offside position who was not involved in play or in the keeper's face ("I was distracted by the offside attacker") why should the handling defender be able to claim the same? In either case the answer should be that the player should recognize that the player is in an offside position and can't be involved in play - so the keeper should concentrate on the attacker with the ball and the defender shouldn't handle to prevent the o/s attacker from receiving the pass.

Jim (Advocating for the Ref)

Those are 2 different situations. For the keeper, everything is in front of him. He can see who is offside and who isn't. For a defender facing the ball that is about to be crossed over his head and behind him, how the heck is he suppose to know if the player behind him is offside? Stop, turn around, count the players, then turn back around to face his attacker?? This is why I hated the whole "interferes with play" wording from a little while back and am happy it has pretty much been changed to that the attacker must physically play the ball in order to be called offside.

[Gary V]

The defender shouldn't be committing fouls, whether there is an offside-positioned player or not. The fact that someone would have been called offside except for the foul doesn't negate that a foul was committed.

[Ref Flunkie]

The defender shouldn't be committing fouls, whether there is an offside-positioned player or not. The fact that someone would have been called offside except for the foul doesn't negate that a foul was committed.

It's the defender in me talking. ;) This is a "chicken or the egg" argument.

[IASocFan]

The attacker shouldn't be offside, whether there is a foul committed or not. The fact that someone would have been called for a foul doesn't negate that a player was offside.

I updated your post. My argument is that the player is offside, and is involved in the play. My assumption is the that the defender fouls the offside player while going for the ball, so the offside player is indeed affecting the play. If the foul is reckless or violent, then that should also be addressed!

If, on the other hand, the defender fouls the offside player when not going for the ball, then you don't really have a foul, but a disciplinary issue.

[refmike]

I'm actually somewhat serious, especially if the rule was still worded in the vague terms of the offside attacker "effecting play". Now that it has pretty much changed to where the player must physically play the ball to be called offside, I agree with you. However, I could make an argument for calling the player offside if it was still that he "effects play". I think you are expecting too much assuming that a defender KNOWS a player is offside or not while trying to play a ball. He may just know someone is behind him, but not where his other team members are.

I agree with your concern but "them's the rules".
I remember about 15 years ago I used to call offside on an attacker slow to return whenever the ball was kicked upfield, even if they were nowhere near the play. It was allowed then but not now.

Also, there never has been a rule about an offside player "effecting play". That is how it was (and often still is) taught. The wording has not changed, only the FIFA interpretation. And there is no requirement that the offside player touch the ball. It may get to that but the latest directive from FIFA says he must be actively involved in the play, for example, by touching the ball. Once he goes afte the ball with a good chance of getting to it first, he can and should be called. The main point is that offside infractions cannot be called by assuming that the attacker will play the ball. Smart attackers are learning when to stand still and avoid the call. Defenders and refs now must learn to deal with that.

[Crowdie]

Now that it has pretty much changed to where the player must physically play the ball to be called offside, I agree with you.

Players can, and should be, called for being offside BEFORE they touch the ball in certain situations. A good example is when a defender puts a long ball through to an attacker who is, apart from the opposing keeper, the only player in the half. Would you wait until the attacker has moved forward 20 yards and caught up with the ball before flagging him?

[refmike]

Players can, and should be, called for being offside BEFORE they touch the ball in certain situations. A good example is when a defender puts a long ball through to an attacker who is, apart from the opposing keeper, the only player in the half. Would you wait until the attacker has moved forward 20 yards and caught up with the ball before flagging him?

YES! As I said before, a smart attacker will know he is offside and cannot participate in the play. He will stand still or move away from the ball. This allows play to continue and so should we, in this case. Actually I would call it as soon as he moves toward the ball but the idea is the same. FIFA was very clear that offside must be committed by the attacker, not assumed by the referee (or the defense).