Advantage & Offside

[CDM76]

In a match last weekend, an attacking player was clearly in an offside position (close to a yard) when a ball was played over the top to open space about 10 yds from the top of the penalty area.

AR raised his flag on the strike of the ball for the offside call.

Keeper charged from the 6, beat the player to the ball by a few yards and knocked it over touch 15 yds upfield.

Referee awarded a throw to the team whose player was offside.

After the match, the ref told me (coach of the keeper's team) he had not called the offside because we had an advantage in that he was certain my keeper would beat the opposing striker to the ball. So we traded an indirect free from about 25 yds off the goal line for a throw from about 40 yds off the goal line for the opposition. What advantage did I gain?

Since the definition of the offense is being in an offside position with the ability to interfere with play, an opponent or gain an advantage, how can that circumstance benefit my team?

BTW, this was a U12 match and I thought my keeper was brilliant just to charge a ball like that.

[AlsoRan]

I would expect the referee to wave down the offside flag if the ball was obviously to a place where the keeper was able to pick it up unchallenged, or if it was going out for a goal kick. The AR may have been a little quick on the flag, but I believe that you are correct to expect a whistle in the situation you described.

[jacoismyhero]

I think this is a situation where you had to be there. If the goalkeeper was clearly going to reach the ball before the attacker, and no contact/risk for injury will take place, then no offside infraction. You say that the keep kicked the ball, were they inside or outside of the box? If they weren't able to pick it up, then I can imagine why a referee would hit the whistle.

[Chubbywubby]

Hopefully this referee will learn something from his next recertification class, and in the meantime he is not assigned to anything higher than U12. Advantage applies only to fouls and misconduct. Even if it did, as the other poster says you certainly did not benefit by having the offside waved down.

[Nesto]

Hopefully this referee will learn something from his next recertification class, and in the meantime he is not assigned to anything higher than U12. Advantage applies only to fouls and misconduct. Even if it did, as the other poster says you certainly did not benefit by having the offside waved down.

Yeah, what Chubby said. Advantage cannot be applied to offside. It sounds like the AR flagged it too early as well - striking the ball with a player in an offside position is not an infringement. You have to see the offside player involved in active play - which he clearly eventually was.

There are some times to not call offside - if the ball is going right to the keeper and he will be able to pick it up easily (not be rushed and have to parry it away like what you saw), then a referee can easily say that the offside player wasn't really involved in active play.

[CDM76]

I think this is a situation where you had to be there. If the goalkeeper was clearly going to reach the ball before the attacker, and no contact/risk for injury will take place, then no offside infraction. You say that the keep kicked the ball, were they inside or outside of the box? If they weren't able to pick it up, then I can imagine why a referee would hit the whistle.
The keeper was outside the box, running very hard and only beat the attacker to the ball by a few steps. There was certainly no opportunity to legally gather the ball and, considering we're talking about an eleven-year-old, a reasonable probability the clear could have been muffed.

[Gary V]

As stated above, advantage was the incorrect word to use. If the ref thought the keeper would be able to play the ball without interference from the offside-positioned opponent, then he was correct to let play continue, as offside hasn't happened yet. It's not advantage, it's just that there is no call to make yet.

The keeper was outside the box, running very hard and only beat the attacker to the ball by a few steps. There was certainly no opportunity to legally gather the ball and, considering we're talking about an eleven-year-old, a reasonable probability the clear could have been muffed.However, this description seems to indicate that the offside-positioned player did in fact interfere with the opponent (keeper) because the keeper did not have an unhindered play on the ball. Incidentally, inside or outside the PA has no bearing, and the keeper could legally play the ball with his foot. The offside call should be made when there is interference with play (touching or nearly touching the ball) or interference with an opponent (the oncoming keeper needing to boot the ball away rather than getting good control of it).

At younger ages like U12, we should also be more proactive in stopping play to prevent possible injuries via collision when it's an offside situation.

[Rufusabc]

I think in this case with the way it is described, an offside flag by the AR almost has to be accepted. And the end result bears it out as the attacking team clearly gained an advantage by being in an offside position. Plus, I would hate to have had an injury to either the attacker or 'keeper.

R

[refmike]

Agreed that the CR should have called the offside because the keeper was being rushed by the offside player who was then "interferring with an opponent". The CR's comment about advantage was incorrect but not critical. What I do not understand was if the AR put the flag up because he saw the comming clash between the attacker and keeper (good job, guy) or if he just saw the ball going toward an attacker in an offside position and needs to learn the new procedure.

[CDM76]

Agreed that the CR should have called the offside because the keeper was being rushed by the offside player who was then "interferring with an opponent". The CR's comment about advantage was incorrect but not critical. What I do not understand was if the AR put the flag up because he saw the comming clash between the attacker and keeper (good job, guy) or if he just saw the ball going toward an attacker in an offside position and needs to learn the new procedure.
I didn't ask the AR about his reasoning for the flag. From my angle (and my bias as a coach), the attacker was clearly offside and the ball was played to him in a dangerous position. If the keeper had cleared him out, it would have been a Lehmann on Eto'o in the Champions Cup.

[PVancouver]

One should have to impede in some way in order to interfere with an opponent. If the opponent reacts to defend a player because they can't be sure if the player will be called for offside should not constitute "interference". It stretches the meaning of the word too far. And the offside positioned player may well become onside with subsequent play.

Since the keeper beat the offside attacker to the ball, and nothing got between the keeper and the ball, the keeper's play was certainly unhindered.

While one could stretch the term "gaining an advantage" to apply to this situation, it opens a huge can of worms. Suppose the ball gets to the keeper a yard or two sooner, with the same result. Did the offside player still gain an advantage? Did he interfere with play or an opponent? Should he still be called for offside? Where do you draw the line? The rules are much easier to enforce if the lines are drawn clear. Once the goalkeeper deliberately played the ball, offside was reset, for better or worse.

If the attacker was clearly offside and the flag already up, the keeper did not need to hurry to play the ball. If the attacker was not clearly offside (after all, it wasn't even a whole yard), then he did not gain much of an unfair advantage, did he?

Defenses are under most duress immediately after a turnover. In this case, the opponent played the ball over the top but into the reaches of the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper's team now has possession of the ball following the opponent's turnover. So yes, one might say that the goalkeeper's team has an advantage. Obviously, the advantage was lost when the goalkeeper kicked the ball into touch. The referee knew that the goalkeeper would reach the ball first, he could not know how the goalkeeper would play it.

[PVancouver]

I didn't ask the AR about his reasoning for the flag. From my angle (and my bias as a coach), the attacker was clearly offside and the ball was played to him in a dangerous position. If the keeper had cleared him out, it would have been a Lehmann on Eto'o in the Champions Cup.
What you meant to say is that the attacker was clearly in an offside position and the ball was played to him in a dangerous position.

Had he played the ball or interfered with your keeper, or benefitted from a rebound off your keeper, he should have been, and undoubtedly would have been, called for offside.

As for your Eto'o reference, hadn't Eto'o already played the ball by that point?

[Rufusabc]

My feeling is that the attacking team gained an advantage by being in an offside position causing a rushed clearance. BTW, you are either in an offside position or not. A yard equals fifty in this one or any one. A little bit in an offside position still equals an offside position. I think at this level of play the benefit of the doubt should go to the defenders. A player who was in an offside position charging the keeper, imo, needs to stopped by a whistle. I think in this description he has interfered with play, and his team ultimately gained an advantage with the bad clearance.

Rog

[PVancouver]

What advantage did I gain?

Since the definition of the offense is being in an offside position with the ability to interfere with play, an opponent or gain an advantage, how can that circumstance benefit my team? To make a long story short, and to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, the "gain an advantage" clause in the offside law probably does not mean what you think it means. The offside positioned player did not "gain an advantage"--this only applies to rebounds--even if it seems like he did.

[PVancouver]

Rufusabc, suppose the keeper had time to trap the ball. After a few moments, the offside positioned player decides to challenge for the ball. The keeper, who is not very strong on the ball, is surprised by the attacker's speed and hurredly knocks the ball out of play. What would you call then?

[AlsoRan]

If the offside attacker were not present, would the keeper need to run out of the penalty area to clear the ball, or would the keeper have been able to collect the ball in the penalty area and punt it upfield? If, ITOOTR, the offside attacker forced the keeper to make a play, he has interfered with an opponent.

[PVancouver]

The keeper doesn't need to run out of his penalty area even with an "offside" attacker present, as the attacking player will be called offside if he plays it.

However, the ATR now backs you up:
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.

It's not exactly the same scenario, but it's close enough for me.

I consider it a kludge at best and a bastardization at worst.

Why not call it "interfering with play"? Isn't that what we used to call it? Now, you can't be called for "interfering with play" unless you get within playing distance of the ball (at worst), but if you show any interest in playing the ball, from no matter how far away, and any opponent is bothered enough that he is somewhat concerned that you might actually play it, you can be called for "interfering with an opponent". And yet the base definition for "interfering with an opponent" is "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements".

If the most common way, by far, of "interfering with an opponent" is by "distracting" him in a way that "forces" him to play the ball or to pursue an offside opponent, then let's bring this to the forefront. If he happens to be impeded by the attacker along the way, that should just be icing on the cake.

[CDM76]

What you meant to say is that the attacker was clearly in an offside position and the ball was played to him in a dangerous position.

Had he played the ball or interfered with your keeper, or benefitted from a rebound off your keeper, he should have been, and undoubtedly would have been, called for offside.

As for your Eto'o reference, hadn't Eto'o already played the ball by that point?
I guess I sort of meant both. The player was offside (in offside position and effecting play) and it was not a matter of pulling a defender out of position without playing the ball. The ball was center of the pitch, 25 or so yards from the goal line, one-on-one against the keeper hence my use of "dangerous position".

Since we are talking about 11 year olds, I would consider another player closing to within 2 yds of my keeper at full speed "interfering" by "distracting" him. Obviously, Law 5 allows for each referee to interpret the circumstance but since Law 11 requires a benefit (elaborated by FIFA Board Decision 2 ne: "involvement") to the player in the offside position to transmute the player from being in an offside postion to being offside I don't understand how advantage can be applied to offside. The referee did not say he waved down the flag because the attacker was not "involved" in the play. He specifically stated "advantage".

As I mentioned earlier, the referee's decision changed an indirect free kick for my team to a throw-in for our opponent. The keeper's play of the ball was the immediate and only touch of the ball following the offside signal from the AR. I don't see an "advantage" to my team. The action certainly took place in less than a 2-3 second interval recommended.

As far as the Eto'o reference, I was pointing more to the "train-wreck" than the actual play.

Don't want to open another can of worms but thought the center botched that call pretty badly. Should have signaled advantage (it was a foul, not an offside call), let Barca have the shot (as you said Eto'o had already touched the ball on to a teammate) and then yellow-carded Lehmann for a reckless trip. My opinion, a humble thing yet mine own.

[Rufusabc]

That is a totally different scenario, because the defense has recovered possession. If imo, the keeper has possession and then fires it into touch, well so be it. Throw for the attackers! But I think we have a collission course developing and (for a moment, I put on my coaches hat) and I look at the safety of the players and the AR's flag and it is all happening a lot faster than I can type, and I have the whistle going. It doesn't change the outcome of the game one way or another. Unless, Phil Neville is playing right back for the U12's.

But,I tend to rule for safety, and keeping th players in the game, and in one piece.

Rog