View Full Version : Persistent Infringement for Offside?
Nashvillian
11 Apr 2006, 09:51 AM
Have you ever seen an incessantly offside offender, disrupting the flow of the game over and over and over, cautioned for persistent infringement?
Is there any reason (other than tradition) it couldn't be done?
USSF REF
11 Apr 2006, 09:55 AM
Have you ever seen an incessantly offside offender, disrupting the flow of the game over and over and over, cautioned for persistent infringement?
Is there any reason (other than tradition) it couldn't be done?
Yes, you can only caution a player for persistent infringement for violations of Law 12.
ref47
11 Apr 2006, 10:05 AM
and, per the atr, law 14 (after warnings).
Nashvillian
11 Apr 2006, 10:10 AM
It appears you are correct. The Laws of the Game simply says, "persistently infringed the Laws of the Game," but the USSF Advice to Referees - at least the 2003-2004 edition which, I think, was the last one available as a PDF (and therefore a "searchable") document - says "infringements must be among those covered in Law 12 or involve repeated violations of Law 14."
Wreave
11 Apr 2006, 10:27 AM
If you really, absolutely, positively, had to deal with such a situation, and needed to go to the pocket to resolve the problem, could you caution for unsporting behavior?
If you really, absolutely, positively, had to deal with such a situation, and needed to go to the pocket to resolve the problem, could you caution for unsporting behavior?
No.
How is it unsporting? Stupid? Maybe. Aggravating? Yes. Unsporting? No.
Many top notch forwards are offside 99% of the time. They need only be onside that moment their teammate plays the ball. This is a tactic within the Laws of the Game, not a violation of the Spirit of the Game that would be considered unsporting.
Nashvillian
11 Apr 2006, 11:03 AM
I was only talking about a player who gets called for repeated offside infractions, not just offside position.
And I guess you could throw a USB card... anything else fits in that category.
USSF REF
11 Apr 2006, 11:27 AM
If a team wants to repeatedly break Law 11, that's ok. This merely results in possession of the ball reverting to the other team. Could it be annoying, sure. Why do we care though? The punishment of IFK is enough.
Frankly, I can't think of a team that would do this for any reason. If they did, how is it any different than a team that constantly gets caught by a good offside trap?
Honestly, I don't like the premise of this thread, because it's as though we're trying to find MORE ways to sanction players and involve ourselves uncessesarily in the match. We should be seeking ways to reduce our involvement and to use the least amount of punishment necessary to deal with a situation.
DerbyRam54
11 Apr 2006, 11:34 AM
The people who should be getting upset at this are the player's teammates and coaches. Yes, he's "disrupting the flow of the game", but in so doing he's giving possession of the ball to the other team. As a coach, this isn't exactly what I'd be wanting my players to do...
I was only talking about a player who gets called for repeated offside infractions, not just offside position.
And I guess you could throw a USB card... anything else fits in that category.
No, no, no. You cannot sanction repeated offside violations as UB.
Walking the fine line of offside is a tactic that may lead to repeated violations, but those repeated violations are not UB.
Statesman
11 Apr 2006, 12:38 PM
If I'm defending a team that pushes offside and gets caught every time, I'm one happy defender.
Wreave
11 Apr 2006, 01:03 PM
Honestly, I don't like the premise of this thread, because it's as though we're trying to find MORE ways to sanction players and involve ourselves uncessesarily in the match. We should be seeking ways to reduce our involvement and to use the least amount of punishment necessary to deal with a situation.
Agreed on seeking ways to reduce involvement, but I do like the discussion. Better to experiment here than on the field!
Say that a team goes up 2-0 in the first half. In the second half, this attacker consistently and, to your view, deliberately, positions himself offside. For the sake of discussion, say he stands near the top of the PA, and the defense pushes up closer to midfield whenever the ball is in their attacking end, in hopes of getting a second-half equalizer. He's not getting caught in an offside trap, he's 5-15 yards offside, just waiting for the ball. Whenever his team clears the ball, he runs onto it and gets called for offside.
Let's further color the discussion - say it's a BU16 game, and that in the second half of the game, this attacker has been penalized for offside six or seven times. There's still 20+ minutes remaining in the second half.
Are you going to address this situation? If so, how?
PVancouver
11 Apr 2006, 01:20 PM
It appears you are correct. The Laws of the Game simply says, "persistently infringed the Laws of the Game," but the USSF Advice to Referees - at least the 2003-2004 edition which, I think, was the last one available as a PDF (and therefore a "searchable") document - says "infringements must be among those covered in Law 12 or involve repeated violations of Law 14."
Yes, but I don't have much confidence that Alfred Kleinaitis is doing anything other than making stuff up. Suppose a really dumb goalkeeper repeatedly puts the ball in play by rolling it along the ground in the penalty area so that an opponent is close enough to challenge for the ball, forcing the goalkeeper to dive on top of the ball to prevent the opponent from playing it, an infraction of law 13. Why would you not be able to caution this player for repeated violations? Numerous possibilities for repeated infringement exist beyonds Law 12 and 14.
And why not allow cautions for repeated infringement of offside? An offside player is often trying to gain an unfair advantage. In order not to gain an advantage, he must be caught. Will anyone argue that referees and assistant referees always catch offside attackers offside?
At youth levels, suppose a team intentionally has a player stand next to his opponents goal line just outside the penalty area. The team has one player who can kick the ball far, and he kicks from his own end toward this offside player. The restart must take place where the offside player was positioned, forcing the opponent to take an indirect free kick from deep in their own end, where the team committing the infraction can create a wall of forwards in an attempt to block the free kick and head toward goal. If the kicker makes a poor kick, you wouldn't even need a wall. How can this be considered fair play? I would warn them the first time, and card them the second. At least, if I could, according to the ATR, and if the youth game was at a level where any cards at all were handed out.
Even in MLS, couldn't offside be used as a great timewasting technique? With a late lead, why not send a player to the opponent's corner flag, and kick the ball to him? If the defense chooses not to cover him because he is blatantly offside, the opponent will be forced to a) retrieve the ball, b) run a defender over to the corner to take a free kick from deep within their own territory, c) prepare for free kick and take it. This all seems like a lot of time wasting to me, and is an obvious abuse of the rules.
The Law says simply that you can be cautioned for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game. Why do we have to make things more complicated by putting unnecessary restrictions on the enforcement of the Law? Restrictions that don't even make sense?
Yes, I think Wreave's player should be cautioned.
billf
11 Apr 2006, 01:30 PM
Why would you caution a player for hurting his own team? Of course he's trying to gain an adavantage because its not easy to score goals. You could look at PI more broadly but showing a card in this case makes no sense. If there's going to be a caution for anything, its going to be for running his mouth at the referee and AR after he's been flagged for offside a few times.
If you're going to consume time, there are far more effective ways to do so.
... Yes, I think Wreave's player should be cautioned.
But is it for PI? UB? Why caution at all?
The team with Phil Esposito hanging around the goal in their attacking end of the field is essentially playing down a man. If they're "defending" a one or two goal lead then they are doing it short-handed. :)
IMHO, the issue here is the location of the IFK. FIFA instructs us to take the kick from the player's location at the time the ball is played by his teammate. For the most part we see kicks taken at or near the offside position instead, not the player's position. Certainly works for me in this case.
Chas (Psyatika)
11 Apr 2006, 01:44 PM
Wouldn't his team be able to waste even more time by just letting the ball go over for a goal kick or deep throw in? Plus the goal kick is farther away than the offside restart would be.
If it becomes clear that he is only doing it to waste time, you could give him a clear warning that you know what he is doing and you will be forced to take action if it doesn't cease. But even then, he'll probably just go back to being offside by a metre or less, and who knows, he may get a legal break on goal!
I think the several IFKs would be punishment enough. I can't think of any coach who would want his team he repeatedly concede free kicks 60-70 yards from goal, where any headed-down pass will directly lead to a chance at goal.
USSF REF
11 Apr 2006, 01:58 PM
Yes, but I don't have much confidence that Alfred Kleinaitis is doing anything other than making stuff up. Suppose a really dumb goalkeeper repeatedly puts the ball in play by rolling it along the ground in the penalty area so that an opponent is close enough to challenge for the ball, forcing the goalkeeper to dive on top of the ball to prevent the opponent from playing it, an infraction of law 13. Why would you not be able to caution this player for repeated violations? Numerous possibilities for repeated infringement exist beyonds Law 12 and 14.
This is an infringement of law 12. Goalkeeper picking up the ball a second time is not a free kick.
USSF REF
11 Apr 2006, 02:01 PM
In this situation the only thing the Referee should do is keep on calling offside every time law 11 is violated.... that's it.
There is nothing else the referee can do, nor should do in this case. If the ball is in play then time cannot be wasted anyway, that provision deals with wasting the time when the ball is out of play.
If anything the team which is consistently being called for offisde will want to stop the player from doing it, and if they don't so be it. I'm sure the other team is happy they will never have to defend the rest of the match.
Alberto
11 Apr 2006, 04:28 PM
I was only talking about a player who gets called for repeated offside infractions, not just offside position.
And I guess you could throw a USB card... anything else fits in that category.
You can't caution a player for being repeatedly called offside. Cautions are not meant to be issued for offisde. You must continue blowing your whistle for offside. Just because he is acting stupidly and hurting his team by being constantly offside does not constitute persistent infringement which is a term used to describe when a particular player or a team commits fouls against an opposing player or players to disrupt their attack or to slow day a particularly skillful player. A pattern of similar actions-fouls occur that the referee must act on.
macheath
11 Apr 2006, 06:31 PM
You can't caution a player for being repeatedly called offside. Cautions are not meant to be issued for offisde. You must continue blowing your whistle for offside. Just because he is acting stupidly and hurting his team by being constantly offside does not constitute persistent infringement which is a term used to describe when a particular player or a team commits fouls against an opposing player or players to disrupt their attack or to slow day a particularly skillful player. A pattern of similar actions-fouls occur that the referee must act on.
Right. Persistent infringement is a pattern that disadvantages/harms the opponents. Law 12 and Law 14 violations do that. Persistent offside harms the player's own team, you could argue, but they may have a tactic where they take a lot of violations in the hope of springing the attacker one time. That's their choice, but it isn't persistent infringement, because it doesn't harm the opposing team (unless the ref and AR miss a call, which of course never happens ;) )