Offside question: "area of active involvement"

[Wreave]

So on Saturday, after a 9:00 am U19 CR, and a 12:00 U14 CR, to which I arrived at about 11:55 after having to literally stand in the parking lot between a coach and two players from his team, who were about 50 feet apart, who had words after the game. I didn't witness the actual original conflict, but the coach was quite upset and I was not in a position to leave until either the coach or the players left. Finally, the players' ride arrived and I was able to get to my game.

ANYWAY. To make a long story short, at 1:30 I find myself doing a U12 AR for a youth ref who is one of our top youth refs. I enjoy working with him and he works hard to call a good game. In the second half of a 0-0 game to that point, blue gets the ball on the left wing, right in front of me. Two blue players are coming down the wing, one with the ball, one about five feet left and three feet forward. They are both past the 2LD who is in the middle of the field.

The attacker with the ball plays the ball forward, and the other attacker, who was ahead of the ball at the time of the pass, runs toward the ball. Both he and the attacker who actually passed the ball are within about five feet of the ball. As the offside-positioned attacker runs onto the ball, I flag the offside. Right as I raise my flag, the other attacker, who was actually in possession of the ball and last played it, runs ahead and gets the ball himself. The offside-positioned attacker never touched the ball, but did get to about three or four feet away. The CR blew the whistle and stopped the play, much to the chagrin of the coaches.

The CR was pretty close, so I just ran over to him and quickly said, "I probably should not have flagged that offside. The player who was offside didn't play the ball. He was running onto it and I flagged it too early." He said that the player was in the area of active involvement, and went ahead with the offside call.

Afterwards, I discussed it with him. He said that the player was very close to the ball, and could have played it. TRUE. He also said that he had gotten called offside on a similar play the week before. Well, that doesn't help!

I normally pride myself on being very deliberate with offside calls - watching for involvement or interference before penalizing for offside. That's when I have a whistle, though... as an AR I still tend to be too quick with the flag.

What are your thoughts? Was this offside call correct? Or should we have allowed play to continue? Furthermore, if you were the CR and I came over to you with that statement, and you decided to overrule me, after already having blown dead the play, how would you handle it? Feedback appreciated - both for me, and to pass along to this youth ref.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Well, i probably wouldnt have called it, but the call is cetainly justified. The ball was last played by a teammate, the player was in an offside position, and he appeared to be getting to the ball first.

By the letter of the law, you'd be hard pressed to say that the player interfered with play if he didn't do anything to the ball other than run near it (unless he was clearly getting ready to play it). He certainly didn't interfere with an opponent, and gaining an advantage by being in that position doesn't really apply here, in my opinion (don't you need some kind of shot on goal or rebound off the post for that?). It ended up being a very elabourate dribble by the first attacker, so perhaps you should have left the flag down, especially seeing as there were no opponents around.

And once i whistle for an offside that the AR signalled, i'm not changing the call (although the thing to do in the case of an overrule would be a dropped ball from the spot of the ball when play was stopped). We made a mistake, we have to move on and do better next time.

[blech]

i had a similar call against a team i was coaching a few years back, and was furious. :) unless the "offside" player cutoff a defender or something like that which you could say distracted the defense, i think the right call is to wait and see who plays the ball. if, as here, it's the same player who originally played it, he's just dribbling.

i agree with Chas that once the flag goes up and i've made the call (i'd hope i might have waved it down under the circumstances), then i'm going to stick with the call. but chalk it up for next time and hold that flag for another second.

[nonya]

Yes, you were wrong for putting up the flag. From what it sounds like, there was no defender at that time except the goalie. Which means, where was the CR? This is a case of not paying attention and not knowing what is going on. If I see two people with the ball and there are no defenders around and the ball never changes possession, shame on the CR for not waiting a few seconds on your flag to see if the other player actually touches the ball.

[Sagy]

As a coach I was on both sides of such a call several years ago (one was a good call and the other not ;)).

While I think that waiting is the better approach, flagging when the offside position player is close "enough" to the ball can be justified (IIRC, the requirement for the offside player to touch the ball didn't last very long).

As a player/coach I would be more upset at the refs if they reversed the call - call it this way the whole game and I can live with it.

[GKbenji]

shame on the CR for not waiting a few seconds on your flag to see if the other player actually touches the ball.

True, but it's tough to hold the whistle when we're conditioned to stop play on the AR's flag. I had similar issues with an AR in a men's game today, one of which I got right and the other I didn't.

First one, an offside position attacker receives a looooong goal kick. AR raises his flag, but I knew it was direct from the goal kick so I waved him down and shouted "Keep playing!" All good. Later, two attackers got completely behind the 2LD, and when attacker A passed to attacker B who was behind the ball, my AR had a brain cramp and popped the flag. The warning bells should have gone off in my head, but unfortunately I blew the whistle just before attacker B buried the ball in the net. I knew it couldn't have been offside, and should have held the whistle. We could always have gone back to the flag if it had turned out to be correct.

The complaints came immediately and I ran over to the AR to confirm what I thought I'd seen. He admitted his mistake, and I apologized to the players. But in a stroke of sportsmanship, the team that got scored on said, "Just count the goal." :-) It was already 4-1 in favor of the scoring team anyway.

[GKbenji]

(IIRC, the requirement for the offside player to touch the ball didn't last very long).

But issn't the "must touch" requirement still in effect for exactly this kind of situation? Two attackers going for the ball, one offside and one not. You have to wait to see who actually plays the ball to make a true determination (given no defenders in the vicinity to be interfered with).

[USSF REF]

What are your thoughts? Was this offside call correct? Or should we have allowed play to continue? Furthermore, if you were the CR and I came over to you with that statement, and you decided to overrule me, after already having blown dead the play, how would you handle it? Feedback appreciated - both for me, and to pass along to this youth ref.

With the possible exception of -- if you get the colors messed up and you raised the flag for an offside that was absolutly OBVIOUSLY wrong, then I don't think you should go and say you raised it too soon. Just live with it and move on. If the coach or players from the team who the decision went against pick up on this then the Referee will take a lot of heat. If he goes with you, he will take a lot of heat from the other team, and his only recourse at that point is to have a dropped ball for an inadvertant whistle. That situation would probably upset the team with the free kick.

Why bring the heat on yourself and the rest of your team? Just sell your call as perception is reality. Keep it in the back of your mind for when you review your own performance in the car on the way home. Half of keeping control in a match is all image and making the players think the team is in control, so in cases like this eat the mistake with as much confidence as possible.

It sound like the flag went up in error, BUT you could make a case for the flag too, it's one of those YHTBT scenarios. You never know unless you see it sometimes.

[Statesman]

Since a legal attacker still has the ability to play the ball, the flag should be held until the offside attacker touches the ball (or interferes with the opponent).

1) If the offside attacker is the only one with a play on the ball, the flag goes up right away.

2) If there is an offside attacker and a defender, the flag goes up when it is clear the defense will not simply collect the ball and distribute back upfield unhindered.

3) If there is a legal attacker and an offside attacker, the flag does not go up until the offside attacker actually plays the ball or interferes with an opponent.

Since your example is in case 3, and the offside attacker neither played the ball nor interfered with an opponent, the flag should not have gone up. There is no such thing as "area of active involvement" anymore - that used to be an old rule of thumb for new referees on judging "interference" but shouldn't really be taught anymore. Sounds like your young ref picked it up from an old timer and learned why it shouldn't be used the hard way!

[Statesman]

... I don't think you should go and say you raised it too soon. Just live with it and move on. ...

Why bring the heat on yourself and the rest of your team? Just sell your call as perception is reality. The referee might suffer a little heat, but that is better than punishing a team for nothing. If you realize you clearly made a mistake after play has been stopped, the only honorable recourse is to restart with a dropped ball (or change to the appropriate restart when applicable). Just tell the teams, "Hey, we realize we made a mistake, this is the only honest thing we can do."

Going with the DC v. Chivas example in the 18 seconds thread, what would happen if the referee simply chalked it up to "perception is reality?" He missed the flag, play continued, a goal was scored, and now he either allows the goal or calls the play back. If he calls play back he admits a mistake. If he allows the goal, he is cheating the team scored against. Or how about when a referee sends a player off for a second caution he never received? Or when a foul is committed but he accidently points the wrong direction?

The point is, referees make mistakes all the time. The game is better served with a fair and correct restart, not by compounding one incorrect decision with another.

[USSF REF]

The referee might suffer a little heat, but that is better than punishing a team for nothing. If you realize you clearly made a mistake after play has been stopped, the only honorable recourse is to restart with a dropped ball (or change to the appropriate restart when applicable). Just tell the teams, "Hey, we realize we made a mistake, this is the only honest thing we can do."

Going with the DC v. Chivas example in the 18 seconds thread, what would happen if the referee simply chalked it up to "perception is reality?" He missed the flag, play continued, a goal was scored, and now he either allows the goal or calls the play back. If he calls play back he admits a mistake. If he allows the goal, he is cheating the team scored against. Or how about when a referee sends a player off for a second caution he never received? Or when a foul is committed but he accidently points the wrong direction?

The point is, referees make mistakes all the time. The game is better served with a fair and correct restart, not by compounding one incorrect decision with another.

The difference between the examples are vast, if the Referee misses a signal which then results in a goal -- the correct advice was always there but missed. The only think the ref should do is call it back, and a goal cannot be allowed unlawfully. This decision is very important to the match and has a significant impact on the game.

If the referee fails to send a player off for a second caution, then when noted, that player MUST be sent off and the AR should be telling the referee this over and over again. In fact, this is one of the few times the AR MUST INSIST that the Referee take action. This decision is very important to the match and has a significant impact on the game.

If a referee mistakenly points the wrong way, and quickly corrects himself, he'll look a bit silly, but player's can live with this as the referee informs them he just pointed the wrong way. This decision may or may not have a significant impact on play, but getting this right is up to the Referee on the spot.

In this case, it was a premature offside call and the referee stopped play for an IFK. The attack has been stopped already, and the defense has all the time it needs to get back behind the ball. Then you're giving a 50-50 restart, and inviting uncertainty onto the refereeing team. Better to live with it and move on. What is being gained is nominal and because the attack was already ruined -- it's impossible to give it back so just live with it and get on with the game. The dropped ball isn't going to return the attack to the team that lost it. So why fan this flame? The significant impact on the game has already ocurred and it's too late to fix the major part of the mistake. At least in my opinion.

[macheath]

(snip)
In this case, it was a premature offside call and the referee stopped play for an IFK. The attack has been stopped already, and the defense has all the time it needs to get back behind the ball. Then you're giving a 50-50 restart, and inviting uncertainty onto the refereeing team. Better to live with it and move on. What is being gained is nominal and because the attack was already ruined -- it's impossible to give it back so just live with it and get on with the game. The dropped ball isn't going to return the attack to the team that lost it. So why fan this flame? The significant impact on the game has already ocurred and it's too late to fix the major part of the mistake. At least in my opinion.

This sounds right to me. I assume, as others have assumed, that there were no defenders near the ball, and therefore the movement of the offside player didn't affect them? Otherwise, just an early flag. A more experienced center might have held the whistle, as others have suggested, so you both get to file something away for the future. And thanks for sharing the example.

The situation described is actually what the new offside interpretation is supposed to allow, right?

[Wreave]

In this case, it was a premature offside call and the referee stopped play for an IFK. The attack has been stopped already, and the defense has all the time it needs to get back behind the ball. Then you're giving a 50-50 restart, and inviting uncertainty onto the refereeing team. Better to live with it and move on. What is being gained is nominal and because the attack was already ruined -- it's impossible to give it back so just live with it and get on with the game. The dropped ball isn't going to return the attack to the team that lost it. So why fan this flame? The significant impact on the game has already ocurred and it's too late to fix the major part of the mistake. At least in my opinion.

Fair and concise, thanks. The thing that bothers me is that this is the second game in two consecutive weeks in which I've blown an offside call with an early flag. As a CR, I pride myself on being very deliberate about offside, watching for involvement, but just jumped the gun on this one.

I tend to agree with the ref in this case, and with those on this board who have said that once the whistle's blown, accept the call and penalize the offside, unless there was some terribly egregious error (wrong color, etc.).

However, the reason I came to talk to the CR the way I did, was to allow him to overrule me and restart with a drop ball, thus preserving his authority. Yeah, it makes me look like a jackass, but I can handle it. Frankly, both coaches probably thought I was a jackass for that call, anyway, so changing the call to get it right (or as right as it could be) might have helped rather than hurt the credibility of the ref team.

Oh well. I am going to tell the youth ref that after further deliberation, I've determined that offside call should not have been made. I want him to be able to get it right in the future. The offside player did not touch the ball or otherwise interfere with play - a slower flag would have let play continue and probably a scoring opportunity would have come out of it.

As it was, the team I wronged ended up winning 1-0, so no real harm done... but I do like to get it right.

[Wreave]

Yes, you were wrong for putting up the flag. From what it sounds like, there was no defender at that time except the goalie. Which means, where was the CR? This is a case of not paying attention and not knowing what is going on. If I see two people with the ball and there are no defenders around and the ball never changes possession, shame on the CR for not waiting a few seconds on your flag to see if the other player actually touches the ball.

Don't read more into it than there is. The ball was coming down the wing, there were defenders in the middle who were coming over to cut off the play. The ball was still 30 yards upfield from the goal line and maybe three yards off the touch line. The CR was approximately the middle of the field, at perhaps the 35, and the play was basically between us. He was well-positioned and paying attention, he just made the mistake of trusting me (known to him as a senior ref and a good one). I have told him on previous occasions to wait on the whistle, and wave me (or any AR) down if he's not certain about calling the foul.

Sure, he could have taken a moment or waved me off, but it was my responsibility to get the call right, and I blew it. Don't put it off on him, he was doing fine.

[Gary V]

The situation described is actually what the new offside interpretation is supposed to allow, right?Which new interpretation? The newest new one in the Al K memo where they told the whole world (at least all those paying attention) that the refs had it wrong? The memo in which now determination in offside is to "figure out just what the heck the player was doing in going to an offside position, anyway"?

Clearly the OPP was distracting the keeper. Call it.

I'll now attempt to pull my tongue out of my cheek, but I may have permanently imbedded it.

[blech]

***

Sure, he could have taken a moment or waved me off, but it was my responsibility to get the call right, and I blew it. Don't put it off on him, he was doing fine.

Sorry Wreave, but I can't agree in defending the CR here. Yes, you had responsibility and would have had your own problems had this been an assessment, and can use this as a reminder of what you may do differently in a similar situation in the future.

BUT the same goes for the CR. This is precisely the kind of situation where he should have recognized the AR's mistake and allowed play to continue. To think of some other examples, there is no offside on a throw in or a goal kick, and you can't blame it on your AR just because he flags it. In this case, if the CR understood you to be flagging offside (as opposed to a foul or something that he might have missed), this is a situation where he needs to overrule you (regardless of how senior and good you may generally be). My comment isn't meant to be harsh. These things happen, but I always hope to learn from them and like the saying that a good ref is one who may make a mistake, but never makes the same mistake twice. Your CR should recognize that there is a lesson here for him as well, and if he's thinking that it's your mistake not his then he's missing an opportunity.

[ref47]

summary:
wreave - hold that flag. repeat, hold that flag.
cr - you cannot be offside passing to yourself.
restart - no dropped ball (50/50) or dropped ball (to attacking team) will restore the play to the point/fairness when wrongly stopped. give the ifk to the defense and get on with the match. (wasn't that offside attacker between the keeper and the ball and blocking his view!:D )

[gildarkevin]

The situation described is actually what the new offside interpretation is supposed to allow, right?

That's how I understand it. There's been sooooooo much discussion over the requirement that the attacking player "touch the ball" before flagging the offside infraction but much of it seems to be misplaced.

As we learned it during my upgrade clinic last summer, that really applies mainly in this situation -- where 2 attackers, one in an onside position, one in an offside position are going for the same ball.

Constrast that to where there is a defender present; then it is simply enough that the presence of the attacking player in an offside position has influenced the defender's action in some way.