Passive offside during DCU-NY/NJRB game: youth implications?

[DoctorD]

During the DCU-NY/NJ game today there was a goal off a free kick in which two players positioned themselves about 5 yds in front of the keeper. They stood motionless, but almost directly between the FK taker and the keeper. The kick went in for a goal and the presence of the two "passively offsides" players was judged legal.

Is this an MLS-only rule? My son, playing on a U-16 team, wants to know whether he should stand in a similar position in front of the keeper in his games. If the ball bounces off the crossbar, or is deflected by the keeper, can these players touch the ball?

[Ref Flunkie]

During the DCU-NY/NJ game today there was a goal off a free kick in which two players positioned themselves about 5 yds in front of the keeper. They stood motionless, but almost directly between the FK taker and the keeper. The kick went in for a goal and the presence of the two "passively offsides" players was judged legal.

Is this an MLS-only rule? My son, playing on a U-16 team, wants to know whether he should stand in a similar position in front of the keeper in his games. If the ball bounces off the crossbar, or is deflected by the keeper, can these players touch the ball?


No rules are really "MLS-only", but you will see different applications of some laws in the pros. As for this, I did not see the play, but I will go off of what you describe. 5 yards in a good distance away from the keeper, and likely had no impact on the kick. As long as the players do not somehow interfere with the keeper, they are passively offside as you say, and should not be flagged. However, if the shot is saved or goes off the crossbar, the offside is not reset and the players are still offside so they will not be able to play the ball without being called. All this being said, the decision really comes down to the AR (and the CR to a lesser extent) regarding if the player is active in the play or not. This opinion can vary from AR to AR in some situation, especially in youth matches. To be honest, I think the risk of being called outweighs any perceived benefit of the player's location. Just my opinion.

[Wreave]

In short, yes, if the ball is deflected by the keeper, crossbar, or another defender, the offside-positioned players will not be able to play the ball without being penalized for offside.

Further, if they interfere with play by being in the line of sight of the goalkeeper, they will have gained an advantage of being in that position, and would be penalized.

Finally, in a youth game, not all refs are as competent with the concept of an offside-positioned player not being penalized if not involved or not interfering. Therefore, a player in that position might get penalized anyway.

[VOwithwater]

I hate passive offside. I will tell you what they did interfere with the play by being there. Why you say? Okay I will tell you why? They kept the keeper from having a clear view of the shot. That my friends effected the play. But the way passive offside is determined doe not take that little fact into account. The keeper probably saw the ball late.

I remember back in the old days don't want to be called offside in an offside position get off the field or turn your back on the play anbd mnove away from the goal other wise they would call offside. We should go back to that.

[GlennAA11]

I would say that the only reason those players were positioned as they were was to act as a distraction. They were so far behind all of the defenders there's no way they could have been considered to be making a legal play of any sort. They were basically standing on the 6 yard line several yards behind the defenders.

This cannot be considered a legal play in MLS or anywhere else. DC United gets screwed yet again by a blown offside decision similar to the one in MLS Cup 98. After that debacle the mistake was admitted and I seem to believe there was a fair amount of guidance given prior to the next season. Let's hope somebody puts a stop to this practice as well.

[JayJay4Pres]

I thought it was the right call. They were not in Perkins line of sight...but if the ball came down towards them where he would of had to make a run on the ball, the flag would of gone up. They just stood there. Perkins got beat on a well taken free kick...doesn't matter where the offside players were.

If the players react to the a missed shot for a rebound they are still offside.

[VOwithwater]

I would say that the only reason those players were positioned as they were was to act as a distraction. They were so far behind all of the defenders there's no way they could have been considered to be making a legal play of any sort. They were basically standing on the 6 yard line several yards behind the defenders.

This cannot be considered a legal play in MLS or anywhere else. DC United gets screwed yet again by a blown offside decision similar to the one in MLS Cup 98. After that debacle the mistake was admitted and I seem to believe there was a fair amount of guidance given prior to the next season. Let's hope somebody puts a stop to this practice as well.

Before the game the Red Bulls set up the same situation and asked the officials is thes was offside or not. Those geniuses said no it wasn't as long as they did not attempt to play the ball. This could have been also considered trickey which is a bookable offense.

The DC officials suck haha

[VOwithwater]

I thought it was the right call. They were not in Perkins line of sight...but if the ball came down towards them where he would of had to make a run on the ball, the flag would of gone up. They just stood there. Perkins got beat on a well taken free kick...doesn't matter where the offside players were.

If the players react to the a missed shot for a rebound they are still offside.

They had to be blocking is sight why else would they be there. Hey what if the keeper tried to move in front of them and was obstructed would it be a foul on who. It would be a foul on the 2 players because they have to make an atempt to play the ball for it not be be a foul. Then what they could also be called off side for trying to play the ball.

[IASocFan]

IMHO, it was definitely a close call. I reviewed the clip about 3 times, and couldn't tell if I would have considered them involved in the play. The player on the left does appear to temporarily screen the keeper from the ball. However, the keeper is already moving the correct direction and cannot get to the ball. I would, therefore, assume that the CR ruled that the offside player had no effect on the play. Hence GOAL! It was an awesome kick.

...what if the keeper tried to move in front of them and was obstructed would it be a foul on who. It would be a foul on the 2 players because they have to make an atempt to play the ball for it not be be a foul. Then what they could also be called off side for trying to play the ball.

The attackers wouldn't have been called for a foul, but for offside. The determination occurs when they are involved in the play. Didn't happen. No call.

The DC officials suck haha Definitely a mature, well-reasoned, professional opinion. :o

[Ref Flunkie]

IMHO, it was definitely a close call. I reviewed the clip about 3 times, and couldn't tell if I would have considered them involved in the play. The player on the left does appear to temporarily screen the keeper from the ball. However, the keeper is already moving the correct direction and cannot get to the ball. I would, therefore, assume that the CR ruled that the offside player had no effect on the play. Hence GOAL! It was an awesome kick.


This is a very hard call for the AR to make IMO because of his position on the field. It is hard to tell if an attacker is blocking the view of the keeper unless that attacker is right next to the keeper. I would almost think you would need to watch the reaction of the keeper to see if he is having trouble seeing the ball or not.

[VOwithwater]

This is a very hard call for the AR to make IMO because of his position on the field. It is hard to tell if an attacker is blocking the view of the keeper unless that attacker is right next to the keeper. I would almost think you would need to watch the reaction of the keeper to see if he is having trouble seeing the ball or not.

The way the rule is now offside is not called. No matter where those players are they have to be disregarded by the defensive backs and the keeper. Thus is nonsense anyone who has ever played knows that that is easier said then done.

I think in copa de oro but I copuild have the tournament wrong under Sampson.The US played Moreno's team forget thwe country in the preliminary round..

Moreno used his offside position to effect the play and it worked.

Moreno was in offside position. The dribbler was attacking goal and was 1 v 1 with the American first defender. We plaed with a sweeper then it was Balboa he was situationed as the second defender. He see's moreno and slightly adjusted his defensive position. The dribbler beats his first defender and Balboa could not get back in time and the dribbler scored on our keeper.

It was a brilliant play by hyme Moreno we lost 1-0.

That happened in Urugay years ago. We still advanced out of the prelimiary round and had a great tournament.



That was the tournament when we beat Argentina later big time.

[JayJay4Pres]

They had to be blocking is sight why else would they be there. Hey what if the keeper tried to move in front of them and was obstructed would it be a foul on who. It would be a foul on the 2 players because they have to make an atempt to play the ball for it not be be a foul. Then what they could also be called off side for trying to play the ball.


Perkins could of drawn the offside call if he ran forward instead of lateral(thus bringing himself into the Attackers. He could see, he played the FK as good as he could. He wasn't going to get to that ball. Plain and simple.

[ignatz]

There's no question that the kick was first rate and would have gone in regardless of the positioning of the two defenders.

That said, the question I have is, what is the purpose of putting the players there if not to interfere with the play? Since they could not legally play a rebound, their only function is to distract the keeper, which to me is a form of interference.

[Ref Flunkie]

The way the rule is now offside is not called. No matter where those players are they have to be disregarded by the defensive backs and the keeper. Thus is nonsense anyone who has ever played knows that that is easier said then done.

Not quite true. You are correct that the keeper needs to "ignore" them with respect to the attacker playing the ball. However, if the attacker screens the vision of the keeper, he is then involved in the play and should be flagged UNLESS it is thought that the keeper would have no shot to save. The way I was told to look at involvement is if you removed the player from the play, would the goal still have been scored. If yes, then no infraction....if no, then offside.

[nsa]

The DC officials suck hahaWhat do you have against Kevin Payne, Doug Hicks, Dave Kaspar, and Piotr Nowak?

[blech]

There's no question that the kick was first rate and would have gone in regardless of the positioning of the two defenders.

That said, the question I have is, what is the purpose of putting the players there if not to interfere with the play? Since they could not legally play a rebound, their only function is to distract the keeper, which to me is a form of interference.

this sounds like a variation of play that i saw many teams using last year at top levels. if the player in the offside position is actually trying to block the goalie's vision and/or make the goalie move his position from its preferred position a step or two over so he can see, i agree with those who have stated that can be interference and can/should be called. very difficult for the AR to make the determination given the AR's angle, and possibly the kind of scenario that deserves a conference between the AR and CR.

to answer your question about what might be the purpose, let me describe the variation of the play i have previously noticed. one or possibly two attackers take up a position offside, but lined up with one side of the goalpost (so clearly not obstructing the vision). the free kick then is played generally to the backpost for the players who were onside to come in and attack. rather than shoot toward goal, they try to play the ball back across the center to the player(s) originally offside, but who are now behind the ball. the theory is that they have a better chance of being or getting open since they were not being marked/tugged on when the play started. does a defender get assigned to pick up the offside player after the play starts or does he simply get lost in the mix?

in the scenario i describe, there arguably is an advantage to be gained, because otherwise why would they do it, but i believe it is an advantage that is allowed. i don't think blocking the goalie's vision fits that category.

[MassachusettsRef]

I saw the goal. The two players didn't move at all. And you'd be hard-pressed to say that they interfered with the goalkeeper's line of sight (after all, the goalkeeper couldn't even see the ball until it got over the wall, at that point it's high enough so that the two players on the six aren't obstructing his vision--furthermore, the ball's curling--if one of the NY players did somehow obstruct his vision, it would have been for a fraction of a second). Also, does anyone think that their presence actually caused or contributed to the goal? He wasn't going to get there, anyway, so it's difficult to call offside. Did they gain an advantage or were they involved in active play? If a free kick is hit into the upper corner of the net and the goalkeeper has almost zero chance of getting to it, I find that a difficult case to make. And ARs are supposed to err on the side of attacking soccer...

All that being said, the play was odd enough--and the NY players' intention was clear enough (in a different situation, they very well may have interfered with the goalkeeper)--that I would expect a clarifying memo from USSF; especially since this occurred so early in the season.

[IASocFan]

After watching the video half a dozen times and reading the discussion here, the answer is obvious!

The keeper should have moved out to the 6 yard line. When the kick was taken, he should have crashed into the offside attacker to involve them in the play. That way he would only have have to cover a 8 foot wide goal! :)

[Wreave]

I already threw my meat into this stew very early, but to sprinkle in a little seasoning, LOTG 2005 offside diagrams 6 & 7, pages 62-63, show a very similar situation (dynamic play, not a FK). Player screening the keeper from the kicker is penalized for offside, player not screening the keeper is not penalized.

Of course, in the diagrams it's crystal clear. I have not seen the video, but obviously the ref on the field made the call.

Look at it this way - if letting the goal stand was a moderately questionable/unpopular decision, can you imagine if the ball had been pulled out of the goal and offside penalized on a kick that was clearly unsaveable?

[USSF REF]

RBNJ asked the leagues "director of officials" (though it wasn't a name I recognize) if this was a legal play given the new FIFA interpertations. MLS responded that this play was legal.

Personally, I also think this play is legal, given everything I know about law XI.