Offside Question: Bolton v Villa

[voros]

In the recent Bolton/Aston Villa game, a Bolton player took a shot from outside the box that deflected off of an Aston Villa defender. The deflection caused the ball to pop up and then spin toward the endline. A Bolton player was at least 7 yards offside when the shot was taken but was well off to the left of goal. The ball rolls in his general direction and he backs off from playing it, figruing the ball would run out for a corner. An Aston Villa defender then makes a late charge to try and save the ball, at which point the offside Bolton player does a half-hearted job of shielding the ball, stepping casually in between the Villa player and the ball as it runs out.

The officials called a corner kick.

It seems to me there are only two possible proper calls here, and corner kick isn't one of them. It's either obstruction on the Bolton player for impeding the Villa player while not playing the ball, or its offside since for it not to be obstruction he has to be judged to be playing the ball and thus is offside.

Anyone see the play or can explain a way in which Corner Kick is the correct call?

[MassachusettsRef]

From the description this sounds like an example, I believe, of a potential problem that is being created by the most recent tweaking of the language regarding offside.

Up until now, this call is easy: the player is offside because he's actively involved in play. However, now that FIFA has decreed that only physically touching the ball constitutes involvement, things get a lot trickier (and worse off, in my opinion, though few seem to agree). If your description is accurate, by a literal interpretation of what FIFA has recently said the call is correct (though one could get creative, I suppose, and decide that since the attacker is not legally allowed to play the ball, he is therefore impeding the defender's progress). Obviously though, a play like this illustrates just one example where the letter of the law foolishly trumps the spirit of the law. Because of that, expect FIFA to clarify their most recent clarification shortly.

Then again, might it be possible that the AR just blew the offside call and didn't realize the attacker was in an offside position?

[IASocFan]

Having not seen the play, I suspect that the referee either felt that the offside player didn't interfere with play since the defender couldn't get to it in time to save it, OR the referee didn't realized the attacker was initially offside and was legally protecting the ball within playing distance. In either case the restart would be a corner kick.

The AR should have helped, and if there were any questions they should have conferred.

[Footer Phooter]

Up until now, this call is easy: the player is offside because he's actively involved in play. However, now that FIFA has decreed that only physically touching the ball constitutes involvement, things get a lot trickier (and worse off, in my opinion, though few seem to agree).



When did they say this? It adds A LOT of potential problems.

[PVancouver]

If he stepped so casually in between the ball and the defender that he didn't actually interfere with the defender's pursuit of the ball nor play the ball himself, it could be ruled a corner kick. If the Aston Villa player had a reasonable chance to reach the ball without the presence of the Bolton attacker, offside should have been called. He should have been called for either interfering with play (playing the ball) or interfering with an opponent (which has weaker requirements than impeding).

However, if the "deflection" was more than just a deflection, but an attempt to clear the ball by the Aston Villa defender, then offside cannot be called. Since the attacker was "shielding" the ball he likely was within playing distance of it, so impeding should not be called either, and a corner kick would again be the correct call in this case.

[voros]

Having not seen the play, I suspect that the referee either felt that the offside player didn't interfere with play since the defender couldn't get to it in time to save it, OR the referee didn't realized the attacker was initially offside and was legally protecting the ball within playing distance. In either case the restart would be a corner kick.

The AR should have helped, and if there were any questions they should have conferred.
No it was one of those obvious offside plays where the guy is standing still by himself 7 yards behind any other player on the field.

I think the first response probably has it right. The ref read the letter of the law, and so he could both play the ball (to avoid obstruction) but not touch it (to avoid offisde) at the same time.

Seems silly to me. As to whether the Villa player could have gotten it, he probably could have been able to slide after the ball and likely at least cleared it out for a throw in instead of a corner.

Not the most important play of all time, sure, but I was just wondering about the apparent inconsistency of the two potential situations (playing the ball vs. not playing the ball).

[MassachusettsRef]

When did they say this? It adds A LOT of potential problems.
Here's the press release:

http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,105502,00.html?articleid=105502

And our thread discussing it:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171977

That being said, I screwed up in my response above. While the attacker might not have been technically interfering with play, he was still interfering with an opponent:

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Pretty much, if the play is as described, the call was blown.

[PVancouver]

However, now that FIFA has decreed that only physically touching the ball constitutes involvement, things get a lot trickier.FIFA Circular No. 874 said "PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate" is how "interfering with play" should be interpreted. The word "touching" is there to make clear that if the ball plays you and contacts you in any way, you are still guilty of offside. The 26 February 2005 IFAB ruling is nearly an exact duplicate of FIFA Circular No. 874 issued 22 October 2003.

Although the USSF's Law 11 Lesson Plan (http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/entry_level_ps/Law11.pdf) (slide 8) on offside says "touched" and "played by" both mean "made contact with", I just don't see the law being enforced that way on the field.

It would help a great deal if FIFA defined its terms, but it probably wouldn't be easy to define terms in ways that would work equally in all cases where they are used.

[refmike]

FIFA Circular No. 874 said "PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate" is how "interfering with play" should be interpreted. The word "touching" is there to make clear that if the ball plays you and contacts you in any way, you are still guilty of offside. The 26 February 2005 IFAB ruling is nearly an exact duplicate of FIFA Circular No. 874 issued 22 October 2003.

Although the USSF's Law 11 Lesson Plan (slide 8) on offside says "touched" and "played by" both mean "made contact with", I just don't see the law being enforced that way on the field.

It would help a great deal if FIFA defined its terms, but it probably wouldn't be easy to define terms in ways that would work equally in all cases where they are used.

USSF training slides have not been updated for several years and are often out of date. The interpretation of "playing the ball" in several other areas includes being close enough to touch the ball within a few steps and I think that is what FIFA means by including both words. So a player in an offside position who participates while close enough to reach the ball must still be called, even if he does not actually touch the ball. That is the most consistant interpretation I can find.

Yes, it would be nice for FIFA to further define the words they used to define the terms of the laws but then we go down the spiral of becomming more lawyers than referees. At some point we need to just do what is right. The simplist interpretation of offside I have seen is that the offside player cannot participate in a play begun by a teammate. From the description above, that happened and he should have been penalized.

[Garkbit]

I think the reasoning goes like this:

PHASE 1: Shot comes in. Offside player is inactive.

PHASE 2: Defender touches ball. Player is in an offside position, but ball was last played by an opponent and so he is not committing an offence. Ball runs for a corner.

This is my understanding of the 'phases of play' concept (which, incidentally, I am reliably informed is being used at the top level to help with offside, but I've never seen any official document which refers to it, never mind recieved an explanation of it, despite writing to The FA several times), based mainly on a rather more interesting incident from the Football League two years ago: a long ball was played over the top in the general direction of a striker five yards offside. The defender in front of him jumped for the ball and only succeeded in heading it backwards, directly into the offside striker's path, who turned, ran in on the open goal and scored. No offside flag, no conference, just goal. The reasoning I was given by people in the know was that the striker was offside during the first phase (the long ball), which ended and the second phase began when the defender headed the ball backwards: as the striker did not interfere with play or gain an advantage during phase 1 and the ball was played by an opponent for the start of phase 2, he wasn't offside. Utterly ludicrous. Out of all the concepts they could have lifted from rugby and plonked down wholesale in football, they choose the one naturally least suited to adaptation. Not something sensible and useful like a proper ten-yard rule, oh no. Couldn't have that.

[refmike]

Garkbit, Your description matches mine excepting only that I define a play as from one controlling contact to the next and you use the term phases of play.

Like it or not, the law does say that if a defender has any control of the ball the previous offside goes away and the offside player is now free to participate.

The difference here is that in the question posed by Voros the ball deflected off the defender, which implies no control and does not reset the offside. That is why I feel the late offside should still have been called.

[Sagy]

I think the reasoning goes like this:

PHASE 1: Shot comes in. Offside player is inactive.

PHASE 2: Defender touches ball. Player is in an offside position, but ball was last played by an opponent and so he is not committing an offence. Ball runs for a corner.

This is my understanding of the 'phases of play' concept (which, incidentally, I am reliably informed is being used at the top level to help with offside, but I've never seen any official document which refers to it, never mind recieved an explanation of it, despite writing to The FA several times), based mainly on a rather more interesting incident from the Football League two years ago: a long ball was played over the top in the general direction of a striker five yards offside. The defender in front of him jumped for the ball and only succeeded in heading it backwards, directly into the offside striker's path, who turned, ran in on the open goal and scored. No offside flag, no conference, just goal. The reasoning I was given by people in the know was that the striker was offside during the first phase (the long ball), which ended and the second phase began when the defender headed the ball backwards: as the striker did not interfere with play or gain an advantage during phase 1 and the ball was played by an opponent for the start of phase 2, he wasn't offside. Utterly ludicrous. Out of all the concepts they could have lifted from rugby and plonked down wholesale in football, they choose the one naturally least suited to adaptation. Not something sensible and useful like a proper ten-yard rule, oh no. Couldn't have that.This is just one more example why I still like the old offside rule (before the “passive offside”). The case I always have in mind is on a wet field, blue player A is in a clear offside position left of the 18 yards box. Blue player B kicks the ball up the right hand side, the ball rolls toward the top-right corner of the 18 yards box being chased by red defender who is followed by blue player C (both are farther right than the ball). The Red player get to the ball first – End of phase 1.

As the red defender clears the ball up field (start of phase 2) he slips, his (miss)kick caused the ball to rolls across the box (right to left) straight to blue player A who is still in a offside position in front of an empty net - he scores. The red goalie started moving up expecting a back pass and blue player A started moving toward the goalie expecting the same thing, but "luckily" for him he wasn't even half way to the goalie.

Under the current law, I believe that the correct call (as was ruled by the CR) is a goal; under the old (pre 199x?) rule this is an offside. I might be in a minority, but I liked the old rule better – I think it easier to understand, easier to enforce, and most importantly avoids situations such as we are discussing.

[Garkbit]

Well, all that needs doing for these situations is a slight re-definition of what a phase of play is, something like "A phase of play is the period of time between when one player loses control of the ball, and when the next player to take control of it does so."

This would have resulted in my Football League example being offside, as the defender never had the ball under control: had he chested it down to his feet and taken another touch and then been caught in possession by the attacker coming up behind him, that would be fine under my definition.

[PVancouver]

This is just one more example why I still like the old offside rule (before the “passive offside”). The case I always have in mind is on a wet field, blue player A is in a clear offside position left of the 18 yards box. Blue player B kicks the ball up the right hand side, the ball rolls toward the top-right corner of the 18 yards box being chased by red defender who is followed by blue player C (both are farther right than the ball). The Red player get to the ball first – End of phase 1.

As the red defender clears the ball up field (start of phase 2) he slips, his (miss)kick caused the ball to rolls across the box (right to left) straight to blue player A who is still in a offside position in front of an empty net - he scores. The red goalie started moving up expecting a back pass and blue player A started moving toward the goalie expecting the same thing, but "luckily" for him he wasn't even half way to the goalie.

Under the current law, I believe that the correct call (as was ruled by the CR) is a goal; under the old (pre 199x?) rule this is an offside. I might be in a minority, but I liked the old rule better – I think it easier to understand, easier to enforce, and most importantly avoids situations such as we are discussing.If there is to be no "passive offside", blue player A should be called offside as soon as blue player B kicks the ball, as he was in an offside position when it was last touched or played by one of his team (notice how "played" in this context requires physical contact with the ball!). The participation of the red player or blue player C have nothing at all to do with a no-passive-offside call.

Like it or not, the law does say that if a defender has any control of the ball the previous offside goes away and the offside player is now free to participate.The law does not say that. The law says that if "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" a player is in an offside position and gains an advantage by being in that position, he is offside. The "gains an advantage" clause is interpreted to mean being "interfering with play" or "interfering with an opponent" after the ball rebounds off a goal post, crossbar, keeper, or defender.

The ATR says "gaining an advantage" means being near enough to the play to capitalize immediately on a defender’s mistake, having gained the advantage solely by being in the offside position. It does not discuss what types of defenders mistakes are applicable. Even a simple backpass could be construed as a "defender's mistake". And for some reason the offside player has to "capitalize immediately". The ATR still needs work.

FIFA says "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position, or playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.

What exactly is a rebound? Conservatively, if the ball hits a static object, like a post, crossbar, or a player who is not moving, a rebound always occurs. More liberally, if a player attempts to kick or head a ball with one touch but is not able to redirect it in the desired fashion, it too might be considered a rebound. If most of the speed of the ball post-contact was generated by the initial kick, then it should be considered a rebound. Many "rebounds" are also deemed to occur when goalkeepers punch or attempt to grab hold of the ball.

Should making an attempt to play the ball eliminate the possibility that the contact be considered a rebound? I don't think so. A more liberal approach would replace the word "rebound" with "deflection". If this word were used, any single contact by a defender of a ball coming from an opponent, controlling or not, would keep the player who was in an offside position in jeopardy if he subsequently interfered. But perhaps it would be better to qualify "rebound" with "whether or not a defender attempted to play the ball".
This would make it clear that some deflections should be considered rebounds even if a defender was attempting to play the ball when he contacted it. Alternatively, qualify "deflection" with "without gaining possession of the ball". This would make it clear that if a defender is not being challenged for the ball makes a one-time pass (thus deflecting the ball), any potential offside infraction would be negated by the fact that he would be considered to have been in possession of the ball.

As for Garkbit's ludicrous goal off of a defender's header, clearly the offside player gained an unfair advantage. Can the defender's header be considered a rebound? I think it could be. It just depends on how conservative or liberal your definition of "rebound" is. I don't know what FIFA and the NGB's think.

If the word "deflection" was used instead of "rebound", then clearly offside would be called in this case. Offside would also be called in Sagy's case if the red defender's mishit backpass occurred on his first touch of the ball coming from blue player A. However, this would also clearly extend the offside law beyond its current interpretation.

If you use either of my two definitions:
rebound whether or not a defender attempted to play the ball or
deflection without gaining possession of the ball
then offside would be called in Garkbit's case but not in Sagy's case, which I think are the fairest outcomes.

I like the second definition better but it doesn't include the word "rebound" and it begs the question of what "gaining possession" might mean. It would be very easy add the first definition to the current language, either formally or informally. The only real question would be is it accurate?

[colins1993]

Almost the same situation occured yesterday in the Liverpool v. Chelsea match.

LIV centerback attempts to head out a chipped through ball from a ChEL midfielder played to a CHEL striker, who was in an OS position when the pass was made.

The ball skimmed off the top of the def's head and fell straight to the CHEL striker.

Flag up immediately - OS given.

[Garkbit]

I'm sure there's a logic that ties all these decisions together and makes them all correct. Buggered if I know what it is, mind.

[Wreave]

We just had a similar discussion on another soccer board I frequent. Defender collects, controls, and clears a ball. It bounced off the back of an attacker who was facing the other direction, did not know the ball was coming, and had no mental involvement in the play. He was just a backstop. The ball rebounded off him to an offside-positioned player. AR flags, CR waves off, attacker misses the shot wide for a GK.

After further discussion, we agreed that it should have been offside, and that the touch by the attacker, even accidental, was sufficient to meet the "last played by a teammate" standard for offside.

[MassachusettsRef]

After further discussion, we agreed that it should have been offside, and that the touch by the attacker, even accidental, was sufficient to meet the "last played by a teammate" standard for offside.It's much simpler than that .

The law specifically says "last played or touched by a teammate". If a teammate was the last player to touch a ball that goes to an attacker in an offside position, he's penalized for offside--end of story.

The "last played" portion of the law is only there to make clear that a defender can touch the ball last and an attacker can still be penalized for being offside.

[Wreave]

It's much simpler than that .

The law specifically says "last played or touched by a teammate". If a teammate was the last player to touch a ball that goes to an attacker in an offside position, he's penalized for offside--end of story.

The "last played" portion of the law is only there to make clear that a defender can touch the ball last and an attacker can still be penalized for being offside.

:o It's so obvious now...