Offside position w/ throw in

[Scott Zawadzki]

There seems to be significant debate on a referee mail list concerning calling offside if a player is in an offside position and a ball is hit downfield and deflected out of play be a defender. Made me stop and think about loopholes in the laws (since it's almost spring and I'm getting ready to coach U19 boys this year.

Here goes, what's stopping a coach from instructing a player to stand rediculously in an offside position where no sweeper in his right mind would worry about defending him (like having a striker stand in from of a cornerflag when the ball isn't even in his attacking zone. If his teammates were skillful enough to win a throwin near midfield, it would seem that the striker could come into position to take a long throw and have acres of free space to work in with only the keeper defending him. Remember, you cannot be offside on a throw in.

Kinda makes you wonder why nobody's tried this before....

Scott

[pkCrouse]

Scott, I don't see any reason why you couldn't have your player cherry-pick like this, but I'm not sure why you would want to do it. Having him so far downfield would effectively make him useless to you in any capacity unless and until that throw-in situation develops. As a practical matter, you'd be playing a man down for as long as the ball remained in play. Even when it finally did go into touch, he's only going to gain a tactical advantage for you if one of his teammates immediately grabs the ball and throws it to him before a defender has time to react to the restart and cover him.

What are the details of the situation that is being debated in the mail list that involves this skulker being guilty of an offside infraction?

Paul

[whipple]

Originally posted by pkCrouse
What are the details of the situation that is being debated in the mail list that involves this skulker being guilty of an offside infraction?


Paul,

The discussion has to to do with the following post:


Situation:
Player A1 in an OSP. Teammate A2 kicks the ball to him, but defender B1 blocks the pass and it goes into touch. A2 picks up the ball and throws
it in to A1 still in an OSP. No offside right? A player can't be penalized for offside if s/he receives the ball from a throw in.

But, in the ATR 11.15 Becoming "Onside"
A player who is in an OSP at the moment a ball is played by a teammate can become "onside" in only one of four ways.... 4)the ball goes out of play IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSING TEAM.
(my emphasis)

I hope this is a misprint. I've always operated that once the ball goes out of play everything is reset. And if the ball leaves the field there is no offside on the immediate restart regardless of which team restarts.

[afgrijselijkheid]

im thinkin the flag should be up before it could strike anybody

[Gary V]

The discussion has to to do with the following post: But, in the ATR 11.15 Becoming "Onside"
A player who is in an OSP at the moment a ball is played by a teammate can become "onside" in only one of four ways.... 4)the ball goes out of play IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSING TEAM.
(my emphasis)

I hope this is a misprint. I've always operated that once the ball goes out of play everything is reset. And if the ball leaves the field there is no offside on the immediate restart regardless of which team restarts.


It IS a misprint (or at least shouldn't be there). The guy who wrote it said it shouldn't be there, doesn't know how it got past the reviewers - shortly after the 2001 version of AtR came out, and this was repeated this week. I hope pointless discussion from SocRef-L won't carry over to this board.

[gnk]

Originally posted by bluedaddy19
im thinkin the flag should be up before it could strike anybody

Exactly. Just b/c the ball never actually made it to the A1 does not mean the flag should not go up. I realize that A1 has not actually yet made a play for the ball, so you could argue that the flag should not go up until that happens. But, the better result would be for the flag to go up when A2 plays the ball to A1, regardless of the fact that the defender blocked the pass.

[IASocFan]

The key point in this discussion is whether the offside attacker was involved in the play. If the defender knocked the ball out of play while trying to prevent the ball from getting to the offside attacker, then offside should be called. If the offside attacker wouldn't have reasonable been able to get to the ball - like the ball would have gone out of bounds without the defender's touch, then no offside should be called.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Gary V
[BI hope pointless discussion from SocRef-L won't carry over to this board. [/B]

Gary,

Not to worry, we don't need the help of MC, the Jim's and the Ed's to have totally pointless discussions and sprial down to an abyss of circular logic. We are perfectly capable of doing that all
on our own.

I would say that the issue is not so much a misprint, as it is a backfire from an otherwise well intentioned, and technically correct, attempt to clarify the Advice for 2001, when the phrase "...in favor of the opposing team." was added to ATR 11.15.

The problem is that the intent of the language is correct, such as might be the case in a deflection (touches the defender but is clearly not played, which would not reset offside) but in its literal interpretation might also suggest that one could call an offside offense after a deliberate play by a defender. This, however, is not, as we all know, the case.

What I find interesting is that this apparant conflict was picked up within a matter of days after the 2001 ATR was published, and speedily dealt with, along with the promise that the language would be revised in the next edition, due to come out in 2004.

[whipple]

Originally posted by IASocFan
The key point in this discussion is whether the offside attacker was involved in the play. If the defender knocked the ball out of play while trying to prevent the ball from getting to the offside attacker, then offside should be called. If the offside attacker wouldn't have reasonable been able to get to the ball - like the ball would have gone out of bounds without the defender's touch, then no offside should be called.

Tom,

We must be very careful here because unless the attacker was already involved either in the play or interferring with the defender, then the defender's deliberate play on the ball (trying to prevent the ball from getting to the offside attacker) does reset the offside, since now all subsequent play becomes last played by an opponent.

The key here is whether the attacker was already involved, so the infringment had already occured. For example, was he already adjacent to the defender to capitalize on his misplay, thereby having gained an advantage from OSP?

Conversely, if the attacker in the OSP is not involved, but either as a result of, or subsequent to the defender's play, becomes involved, even if it give them a clear shot on the goal, there is no offside infraction because play was reset.

Sherman

[Scott Zawadzki]

Just to get back to my example...if the ball went out of play NOT by an attempt of the defender to prevent it from going though, but by having been played (caromed) off the defender by a skillful attacker with the ball, is offside then reset and the attacking player that was hanfing at the corner flag, some 50 yards beyond any defender, now suddenly no longer in an offside position and able to sprint back upfield to retrive a long throw in and then go in 1 v 1 against the keeper???

If so, what would an "intelligent" referee do to not allow thi situation??

Scott

[IASocFan]

The intelligent referee would call the game as it happens and not make up a call to penalize an attacker for taking a very low percentage tactic. Rarely, would the defenders be that far out of the play to make it worth while. This for the same reason that basketball teams don't assign cherry pickers and play 4 on 5 defense.

[whistleblowerusa]

Originally posted by whipple
Paul,

The discussion has to to do with the following post:

That is a mis-print and is going to be corrected in the next version. This is one of the mistakes I said was in the ATR in the other posting about errata.
It should read, "or, if the ball goes out of play."

[whipple]

Originally posted by Scott Zawadzki
Just to get back to my example...[snip]

If so, what would an "intelligent" referee do to not allow thi situation??


Scott,

I don't know about "intelligent" referees, not because I have never met one, but because those who I have come across are usually smart enough to quickly pursue some other endeavor, but if, on the incredcibly unlikely chance that I came across such a play I would probably have to be quick enough to call the offside infraction, if the ball was, in my opinion, clearly intended for the attacker in an offside position.

This, however, would be very difficult to judge if the attacker were well away from the kick and deflection, so I would be more likely not to recognize this and, under the provisions of Law 22, would allow the attacking team to take the throw.

By the way, you have not given me your availability yet.

Tom's point that this is low percentage tactic is quite relevant. I would take it a step further in adding that it is actually risky because placing a player in a position where he cannot be a part of a normal attack and is no threat except under a specific and rare set of circumstances gives your opponents attack both a numerical advantage and a tactical defensive edge.

So, maybe a better question would be: What does the intelligent coach do in such a situation?

;)

[CharlesS]

Actually, I don't see the tactical defensive edge.

I see a numerical defensive edge, but not a tactical one if the cherry picker stays out of the play.

But from a coaching point of view, I'd think that if I were a man up this might be an interesting tactic to try with it.

Maybe I should post this to the coaching forum?

[whipple]

Originally posted by CharlesS
Actually, I don't see the tactical defensive edge.


I was thinking along the lines of the chip behind the defenders which often results in a footrace between the attacker and defender, where the attacker in the OSP has not taken himslef completely out of the play until he is either behind the ball, or it is played by a defender. For all intents and purposes he may as well be sitting the bench.

[CharlesS]

I was more remarking because I mentioned this to a friend of mine who coaches (and plays for, being a rec team) a local rec team and he said that if the other team was able to make long throws, he'd almost feel obligated to station a defender close enough to sprint back on any throw, meaning (at least at the skill level of the rec league) that for about half of the attacking half of the field, an offside trap was no longer a possibility as long as this attacker stayed out of the play.

The other consideration here is that in our intramural league, for some reason (well, because of the number of games) they've decided to make the proportions of the field all wrong - think of a regular soccer pitch except that it's about 2/3 the length but ONE SIXTH THE WIDTH. As a result, tactics involving throws become much more valuable...

So from a coaching point of view I start to wonder whether this indeed wouldn't make some sense, and thus whether it's a loophole in the rules.

That said, a couple other comments on ways that the opposing team might use the laws of the game to stop such a tactic.

(1) Assume that Team A uses this strategy. Team B instructs their defenders that if at some point during a Team A break, this attacker looks like it would be dangerous if the ball went to them (which, as you might imagine, will be almost all the time because he's obviously in an advantageous position, and simply staying out of the play) that these defenders should rush to cover him and prevent a pass.

Would you, as the referee, decide that he is now interfering with play and blow the whistle?

(2) Assume that, as might be natural with this tactic, this particular player ends up flagged for offside repeatedly (perhaps as part of a strategy above or perhaps not). Would you caution for PI at some point?

[whipple]

Originally posted by CharlesS


(1) Assume that Team A uses this strategy. Team B instructs their defenders that if at some point during a Team A break, this attacker looks like it would be dangerous if the ball went to them (which, as you might imagine, will be almost all the time because he's obviously in an advantageous position, and simply staying out of the play) that these defenders should rush to cover him and prevent a pass.

Would you, as the referee, decide that he is now interfering with play and blow the whistle?

(2) Assume that, as might be natural with this tactic, this particular player ends up flagged for offside repeatedly (perhaps as part of a strategy above or perhaps not). Would you caution for PI at some point?

(1) No offside, drawing a defender does not constitute involvemen in active play.

(2) Never.

[soccertim]

Originally posted by CharlesS
Actually, I don't see the tactical defensive edge.

I see a numerical defensive edge, but not a tactical one if the cherry picker stays out of the play.


The problem is the guy rarely stays out of the play. It's a phenomena that you see all the time in the pro leagues. There's a guy way offside when a ball gets played behind the defenders. He knows that he's offside, so he ignores the ball and dutifully jogs back toward his own run. In about half the cases, human nature kicks in, and the guy turns around and runs for the ball even though he knows the whistle is coming. I'd bet that for every time you get a throw-in behind the defenders you'll kill off at least 3 normal scoring plays.

Also, when the ref sees a guy in an offside position, it alerts him to look for an offside. Also, when a lot of refs see a guy hanging around in an offside position, they WANT to flag him for being offside.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by whipple
(1) No offside, drawing a defender does not constitute involvemen in active play.


But then hold on a moment.

Pretend that the there are two attacking players against one defender and the keeper, one of the attacking players in an offside position and the other with the ball running at the defender. The attacking player with the ball fakes as if he's passing the ball to the offside player. The defender reacts to the fake, and the player with the ball then blows by him for a good scoring chance against the keeper.

Are you telling me that the player in the offside position was then not involved in the play?

[whipple]

Originally posted by CharlesS
But then hold on a moment.

Pretend that the there are two attacking players against one defender and the keeper, one of the attacking players in an offside position and the other with the ball running at the defender. The attacking player with the ball fakes as if he's passing the ball to the offside player. The defender reacts to the fake, and the player with the ball then blows by him for a good scoring chance against the keeper.

Are you telling me that the player in the offside position was then not involved in the play?

Exactly. If the player in an OSP, himself, is not involved in active play, either by playing the ball, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage, then there is no infraction. What we have to judge is how close they are to the play (area of involvment) as well as what they do at the moment the ball is last touched by their teammate.

If the defender reacts to the fake, this is all part of the game. Would it, for example, make any difference if there were no player in the OSP?