Offside question

[lmorin]

In the Red Bull-Wizard game last night, there was a circumstance that I have never seen previously. The Wizards had the ball and were moving toward the RB goal. At least one Wizard was in an offside position as the ball was played forward. The defenders were actively trying to keep that guy and a teammate in the PA in the offside position. However, the forward pass was played wide as a lead pass toward left side of the PA, and it was received by a streaking Wizard player who arrived from an onside position. He took the ball to the goal line, hit a short cross back toward the 6 yd line, and the goal was scored by an oncoming Wizard (Josh Wolff). One of the players in the passive offside position at the time of the original pass tried for the ball before it got to Wolff, but made no connection. I am not sure if a defender ever got goal side of that particular player, but at the time of the final pass before Wolff's goal, that attacker who missed the ball was clearly onside because the ball was between him and the goal line. Seemed to me to be a clear case of "gaining an advantage" by being "passive," a seeming contradiction. Anybody else see the situation or have any comments?

[chrisrun]

I saw the play. As you say, the attackers on the original pass were not involved, so no offside. Now we are on to the next phase of play, and the "passive" offside position doesn't mean anything anymore. The attacker then passed the ball backwards from the goal line. At that moment, no one was offside because no one was closer to the goal line than the ball.

The controversy comes from the AR popping his flag on the initial pass and then putting it down. He must have saw the pass, popped the flag, then realized that the offside positioned players weren't involved, so he put it down. Play continued without a whistle, so good goal.

[Statesman]

One of the players in the passive offside position at the time of the original pass tried for the ball before it got to Wolff, but made no connection.

I'm assuming this refers to the initial pass made to the outside, not the cross from the goal line.

It is not a case of gaining an advantage from his position, but may be a case for interfering with an opponent if the offside player's actions drew defenders away from the play. If so, then he is no longer "passive" in the scenario.

Ask yourself, if the offside attacker was removed from play would the result be the same?

[Evo5]

Ask yourself, if the offside attacker was removed from play would the result be the same?

We are taught the if the defender makes a lousy decision due to the mere presence of an offside player, then that isn't our problem.

Within the narrow confines of "gaining an advantage" this play sounds legal. I've had a similar situation, and it can be a hard sell.

[DadOf6]

Seemed to me to be a clear case of "gaining an advantage" by being "passive," a seeming contradiction. Anybody else see the situation or have any comments?

There are three phrases in the Law that are very important: interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, and gaining an advantage. All three have been defined quite narrowly by FIFA.

The answer to your question is that "gaining an advantage" is narrowly defined as a player who is offside when the ball is played being in a position to play the ball after a rebound off of a post, crossbar, goalkeeper, or other player. Thus the attacker did not gain an advantage according to Law 11.

I believe that one of the sticky threads deals with offside and has a link to a good presentation.

[Statesman]

We are taught the if the defender makes a lousy decision due to the mere presence of an offside player, then that isn't our problem.This is correct, provided the attacker does nothing to involve (or attempt to involve as the case may be) himself in play. In the scenario as described, however, we have an offside attacker trying to involve himself by playing the ball unsuccessfully. If the defenders then react to his involvement, he is considered to be interfering with them.

Again, gaining an advantage does not describe this particular (potential) offside scenario.

[DadOf6]

We are taught the if the defender makes a lousy decision due to the mere presence of an offside player, then that isn't our problem.

That applies more to 'keepers. If a defender in the area of active play adjusts play because of an attacker in an offside player the attacker can be penalized for interfering with an opponent.

[MassachusettsRef]

I think that, on the whole, we're forgetting out instructions from FIFA last year.

No matter what happens, unless a player in an offside position physically intereferes, we are to keep the flag down IF another onside player has the potential to play the ball. This came up most prominently in the Gold Cup (before the instruction was completely hashed out and many severely delayed flags were witnessed because people initially thought you had to wait until the ball was touched to have offside).

The basic principle, applying to this case at least, is that if two attackers chase a ball and one attacker is onside and one is offside, you let play continue. It was a minor change with potentially huge effects. Unless that player in an offside position physically interferes, you don't flag. Period.

[Evo5]

That applies more to 'keepers. If a defender in the area of active play adjusts play because of an attacker in an offside player the attacker can be penalized for interfering with an opponent.

Don't fully agree with this. If the attacker does nothing but stand there, and the defender adjusts what he is doing on the non active attackers account, then that is no reason to penalise the attacking team.

If the attacker does something to attract the defender's interest then yep, offside..........

[chrisrun]

This is correct, provided the attacker does nothing to involve (or attempt to involve as the case may be) himself in play. In the scenario as described, however, we have an offside attacker trying to involve himself by playing the ball unsuccessfully. If the defenders then react to his involvement, he is considered to be interfering with them.

Again, gaining an advantage does not describe this particular (potential) offside scenario.
In this scenerio, the attacker was in an offside position in the center of the field on the original pass, which went out to the left flank. When the ball was subsequently played across, no one was in an offside position. Thus, no offside to be called.

See the video highlight at MLSnet, starting at the 2:20 mark.

[DadOf6]

Don't fully agree with this. If the attacker does nothing but stand there, and the defender adjusts what he is doing on the non active attackers account, then that is no reason to penalise the attacking team.

If the attacker does something to attract the defender's interest then yep, offside..........

A complete description of the ins and outs will take up too much time and effort, but if the offside player just stands there and a defender has to go around him, the flag goes up. It is still interfering with an opponent.

What you said is true, but not always.

[Statesman]

In this scenerio, the attacker was in an offside position in the center of the field on the original pass, which went out to the left flank. When the ball was subsequently played across, no one was in an offside position. Thus, no offside to be called.

See the video highlight at MLSnet, starting at the 2:20 mark.

This was the original description, which is not accurate:

One of the players in the passive offside position at the time of the original pass tried for the ball before it got to Wolff.Nobody that was offside at the time of the original pass made any play on the ball at all, thus the post was misleading. It was only on the subsequent cross from the goal line that one of previously offside players made an attempt, but he was no longer offside at that point. I can't even believe the AR raised the flag initially on that play, as the pass was nowhere near anybody that was offside. What was he thinking?

My previous comments were off the assumption an offside player made a play for the ball that distracted the opponents, even though he did not physically touch the ball. That obviously is not the case in this incident as nobody was offside at the time of cross from the goal line.

[PVancouver]

The 2006 Advice to Referees added this to 11.4, Interfering with an Opponent:

A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.

To me this is a twisted contortion of "interfering with an opponent" to force a square peg (the case of an offside attacker making a hard run to force an equally hard run from a defender) fit into a round hole (offside can only be called if a player interferes with play, interferes with an opponent, or gains an advantage).

However, if an onside player is able to reach the ball first, the previously offside players may suddenly become onside, thus the defender's hard run may not be in vain after all.

If the offside player will surely reach the ball first, he can be whistled for offside long before he plays the ball, whether or not he has a defender in hot pursuit, for his prospective interference with play. Yes, this is a stretch of the "interfering with play" rule, but this stretch is much easier for me to accept than the "interfering with an opponent" one.

If the pursuing defender might reach the ball first, then by my interpretation the play must be allowed to continue. If the offside player does not actually interfere with the defender, does not actually play the ball before the defender does, and does not gain an advantage from a rebound off the defender, then offside should not be called according to the law the way I understand it.


Here is another interesting change to the ATR. The 2005 said this about 11.5 Interfering with Play (emphasis added):

An attacker in an offside position is not considered to be interfering with play if, in the opinion of the referee, another attacker in an onside position will clearly make contact with the ball first. Officials must refrain from calling an offside offense until such a determination has been made. However, if the attacker in the offside position deceives an opponent other than the goalkeeper, that attacker is considered to be interfering with play.

The 2006 ATR says this:

An attacker in an offside position is not considered to be interfering with play if, in the opinion of the referee, another attacker in an onside position will clearly make contact with the ball first. Officials must refrain from calling an offside offense until such a determination has been made. However, if the attacker in the offside position deceives an opponent other than the goalkeeper, that attacker is considered to be interfering with an opponent.

This is a slight improvement over the 2005 version, but the phrase "other than the goalkeeper" clearly should have been dropped.

What is less clear to me, OK, completely unclear to me, is why the word deceives is used twice in section 11.5. What types of deception can this be referring to?