Offside with Defenders on the Goal Line

[chrisrun]

I saw this situation on the latest Jim Allen post, and didn't really agree with his response.

The question posed was:
The attacking team decides to take a short corner, placing two people over the ball. Both posts have defenders right on the goal line including the keeper who is in the net. The ball is played from offensive player A to player B at which point no one pulls off the line. Before Player A enters the field after taking the kick the ball is played back to him. He is clearly over the goal line, but he keeps the ball in play. Is he offsides seeing as how he is clearly behind the second to last defender, but it is on the goal line.
And the answer was:
While no player can be offside directly from a corner kick, the same is not true as soon as any other player on the kicker's team plays the ball. Although the kicker had been off the field and the defenders did not leave the posts, the kicker should be declared offside when his teammate plays the ball back to him and he enters the field to play it.

When a defender legally leaves the field and doesn't need the referee's permission to return, he is considered to be on the goal line. Why is this different for the attackers? In this case, the attacker wasn't trying to "fool" the defense by leaving the field to avoid an offside offense and then returning. My thinking has always been that if there are two defenders standing on the goal line, then no one can be considered in an offside position.

[Ref Flunkie]

When a defender legally leaves the field and doesn't need the referee's permission to return, he is considered to be on the goal line. Why is this different for the attackers? In this case, the attacker wasn't trying to "fool" the defense by leaving the field to avoid an offside offense and then returning. My thinking has always been that if there are two defenders standing on the goal line, then no one can be considered in an offside position.

I'm with you, that is kinda odd. He really isn't gaining an advantage from his position, other the that is where he happens to be standing to take the corner. I'm curious as to how/why the player would still be off the field after playing a short corner.

[Rufusabc]

I read that today also, and am trying to figure it out as well. The player has left the field of play and then plays a ball when he returns to the field or is he still outside the field of play when he plays it? That's what I found strange about it...either way what is the proper ruling with the defenders still on the goal line?

Rog

[Statesman]

The simple answer is that Jim Allen is mistaken (he's only human).

Obviously if the defenders are standing on the goal line, it is impossible for an attacker to be closer to the goal line than the defender or the ball.

When a defender legally leaves the field and doesn't need the referee's permission to return, he is considered to be on the goal line. Why is this different for the attackers?Defenders are considered on the field after leaving only for the unique consideration of offside position. This prevents them from stepping off the field to place an attacker offside.

In all other scenarios a player off the pitch is a player off the pitch. For example: If two players are carried off the field as part of play, then one player "fouls" the other, the technically correct restart is a dropped ball. The "foul" cannot be sanctioned as such because it did not occur on the pitch, but it may be considered misconduct (though the referee should try to sell the call as being on the pitch anyway if possible, remember that discussion?)

[chrisrun]

Defenders are considered on the field after leaving only for the unique consideration of offside position. This prevents them from stepping off the field to place an attacker offside.


Correct. I should have said "When a defender legally leaves the field and doesn't need the referee's permission to return, he is considered to be on the goal line when considering the offside position. Why is this different for the attackers?"

I've emailed him to ask about it.

[usatowin]

The simple answer is that Jim Allen is mistaken (he's only human).

As of February 23, 2000, all replies to technical questions posted in this column will have been coordinated with and approved by the U. S. Soccer Federation's National Program for Referee Development.

Apparently he's right until Alfred, the entire committee, or Jim himself says otherwise.

[refmike]

Your concern about the Law is correct but there is a reality here that needs to be considered. A defender "on the goal line" is likely to be at the inside edge of the line (perhaps leaning on the post) while the attacker returning from off field is likely to be on the outside edge of the line. Since only the outside edge of the line is critical, some part of the attacker is offside as the ball is played back. This would be visible to a properly positioned AR and can/should be called.

[Rufusabc]

Your concern about the Law is correct but there is a reality here that needs to be considered. A defender "on the goal line" is likely to be at the inside edge of the line (perhaps leaning on the post) while the attacker returning from off field is likely to be on the outside edge of the line. Since only the outside edge of the line is critical, some part of the attacker is offside as the ball is played back. This would be visible to a properly positioned AR and can/should be called.

Could that then be construed as nearer the goal line than the ball or the 2nd last defender? Then, it makes perfect sense....I think.

[IASocFan]

If two defenders are on the goal line, how can an attacker be closer to the goal line than the second to the last defender? This doesn't make sense to me. It's like having an absolute value less than zero!

[refmike]

If two defenders are on the goal line, how can an attacker be closer to the goal line than the second to the last defender? This doesn't make sense to me. It's like having an absolute value less than zero!
The painted goal line is up to 5 inches wide but the actual line defining the field is only the outside edge of that painted line. It should be easy to visualize several defenders on the field side of the line and an offside attacker nearer the outside edge. The attacker is then nearer the goal line (outside edge) than the defenders on the line (inner portion). Remember that any part of the body except the hands closer to the outside edge is all it takes for an offside infraction.

[Statesman]

refmike you are assuming information that is not presented as part of the scenario. The question does not state the defenders are barely touching the inside portion of the line, thus leaving space for an attacker to be offside (I'd judge that to be trifling and ignore it). It simply says defenders are on the line, an attacker is off the field, and Jim says the attacker is offside.

Clearly that isn't the case, and what you're describing is not what the question asks.

[IASocFan]

Chrisrun, where is the Jim Allen post you're quoting?

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with it.

[KCbus]

The Laws don't say anything about being "closer to the outer edge of his opponent's goal line". It just says closer to the goal line.

It would seem to me that if there are two defenders standing on the goal line, offside is out of play.

[chrisrun]

Chrisrun, where is the Jim Allen post you're quoting?

The more I think about it, the more I disagree with it.
The post in question is the last one on this page:

http://www.ussoccer.com/laws/askref/index.jsp.html


The simple answer is that Jim Allen is mistaken (he's only human).

Obviously if the defenders are standing on the goal line, it is impossible for an attacker to be closer to the goal line than the defender or the ball.
This is what I thought as well, but after an email exchange with him, he seems pretty sure of himself. After a few scenerios I posed to him, it basically came down to if you are beyond the goal line at a restart, you are in an offside position. Of course it's not official until he posts it, but that's what I got out of it. This is what I asked:

When defenders leave the field during the course of play, they are considered to be on the goal line when determining the offside position. Why is this different for attackers?

Jim Allen: This did not occur during the course of play. The player was in the "offside position" when he kicked the ball.

An attacker and two defenders are chasing a ball headed over the goal line. Before it goes out, it gets chipped back towards the 18, but all three have their momentum carry them over the goal line. A second attacker receives the ball and pushes it forward while the other 3 are still over the goal line. The attacker who is off the field comes back on and receives the ball, while the two defenders are still behind the goal line. Is he offside as well?

Jim Allen: My opinion, no. All three went off in the normal course of play in this instance. That is quite different from being on the post and being off the field to take the kick.

Is the difference being that one occurs while the ball is in play, while the other has the ball out of play? If so, am I correct in thinking this is an example of offside as well?

A free kick is being taken from near the corner. The keeper is standing on the goal line, and the defense has set up a wall 10 yards away, with the end defender standing on the goal line. An attacker runs forward along the goal line to go around the wall, and happens to step completely out of bounds as he rounds the wall. It is at this instant when the kick is taken. He then comes back in bounds and plays the ball.

Jim Allen: Yes, this would also be offside.

[Wreave]

Jim Allen: Yes, this would also be offside.

Makes absolutely no sense. Should we all sign a petition and send it to him?

[Statesman]

USSF better double-check with FIFA if they are going to want that line of reasoning enforced. I'm quite confident they are wrong in their thinking.

I see no difference in the scenarios chrisrun presents whether the ball is in play or not. Essentially you have attackers that are seeking perfectly legal positions that just happen to incidently and temporarily remove them from the pitch. They need not be punished simply because the kick is taken in the moment they are beyond the goal line.

Further, if any trickery is involved by the attackers we can deal with it as misconduct. Obviously you can't have an attacker camping beyond the goal line until the ball is in play, only to sneak back on from behind the defense. The offense in question is not one of offside, but one of misconduct by either a) leaving the field w/o permission, or b) unsporting behavior.

Only during the natural course of play can any player find themselves taken off the pitch and return without any infringement. Purposely leaving the pitch for a tactical advantage is considered misconduct, but offside never factors into the equation given the assumptions of this thread.

[HoldenMan]

JA's answer makes no rational sense at all. Who cares who's further past the goal line - the laws state 'nearer'. IF the defender is on the goal line you can not possibly be 'nearer'.

Furthermore, it also ignores precedence - if a defender is considered to be on the goal line if he's off the field, then why shouldn't an attacker? We all know the attacker is.

I'm going to have to say that JA has dropped the ball on this one and thrown logic right out the window.

[wwdudley]

This did not occur during the course of play. The player was in the "offside position" when he kicked the ball.
This is not true given the original scenario. Player A took the corner kick, passing to player B. As soon as the ball is kicked it IS IN PLAY. It is the subsequent pass from B to A that led to judging player A offside, and this has to be judged as occuring during the course of play. The argument that it is judged offside because it was during a restart doesn't hold water.

I really don't understand the logic here either. I can't imagine calling something like this in a game.

[Wreave]

I can't imagine calling something like this in a game.

Or explaining it to the coach afterwards...

[Wahoo]

Count me among those who are suprised at Jim Allens assertions here.

I think the original statement was incorrect (about the corner) but after the replies to the emails, I am more convinced they are wrong adn even inconsistent.

This is odd