Becoming onside

[Bill C]

USSF ATR 11.14 says: A player who is in an offside position at the moment the ball is played by a teammate can become "onside" in only four ways:
1...
2...
3. An opponent intentionally plays or gains possession of the ball.
4...

Scenario: Team A Goalkeeper A1 punts the ball high and deep into Team B's side. Player A2 is in an offside position at the 20 yd line when the ball is punted.

Player B2 lines up to head the ball at his 30yd line and, after waiting for the ball to drop, heads the ball. The ball is poorly played and goes to the feet of A2.

Question: Is A2 offside?

My answer: No

My analysis: B2 clearly intended to play the ball. The player watched the ball get punted, moved into a position to head the ball, waited for it to drop, and headed the ball. Thus under ATR 11.14.3, he is "an opponent (that) intentionally played" the ball.

My problem: I asked a number of high level referees and a national instructor at a recent clinic, and they all said that A2 was still offside because "B2 didn't control the ball", even after reviewing the language of 11.14. This interpretation seems to contradict the language in the ATR which has an "or" connecting "intentionally plays" with "gains possession".

I assume the national instructor and other experienced referees are correct. Until I read the ATR, I would have answered the same way. So is the USSF defining "intentionally plays" to really mean "plays the ball intentionally and it goes where the player intends"? That, in the spirit of the game, we are not to penalize a player for a lack of skill and since it is obvious that he didn't intend the ball to go to an attacker, it cannot therefore serve to reset the offside?

Certainly there are cases like this where it is obvious that B2 didn't intend to head the ball to A2, but there are other easy to construct scenarios where it is not so obvious as to what the player "intended" to do with the ball. Is this a case where we have to assess the actual intent of the player and then judge whether the outcome was what he intended before determining if the offside player is now onside?

Bill

[FIFARay007]

I think if I was the AR on that side of the field, I'd signal for offsides. But that being said, I think a lot of it has to deal with the skill of the players on the field. If you're dealing with U-13s or something like that, it should definitely be ruled offsides. At the older level I think it really depends, but I doubt there will be many instances where the player guilty of being offsides doesn't get called for it.

[macheath]

(snip)...Scenario: Team A Goalkeeper A1 punts the ball high and deep into Team B's side. Player A2 is in an offside position at the 20 yd line when the ball is punted.

Player B2 lines up to head the ball at his 30yd line and, after waiting for the ball to drop, heads the ball. The ball is poorly played and goes to the feet of A2.

Question: Is A2 offside?

My answer: No

My analysis: B2 clearly intended to play the ball. The player watched the ball get punted, moved into a position to head the ball, waited for it to drop, and headed the ball. Thus under ATR 11.14.3, he is "an opponent (that) intentionally played" the ball.

My problem: I asked a number of high level referees and a national instructor at a recent clinic, and they all said that A2 was still offside because "B2 didn't control the ball", even after reviewing the language of 11.14. This interpretation seems to contradict the language in the ATR which has an "or" connecting "intentionally plays" with "gains possession".

I assume the national instructor and other experienced referees are correct...(snip) Bill

That's the right assumption. The call hinges on whether the defender has possession, not on the defender's "intent." If the defender makes a fully controlled play of the ball, then the offside position of the attacker is moot, as the ball was last played by an opponent. If the defender does not control the ball, the offside is called, as the ball was last played by a teammate.

This usually comes up regarding goalkeepers, and whether a deflection from a keeper counts as possession, and resets the offside. It doesn't. Here's an old answer re goalkeepers from Jim Allen, but it is relevant here--I've inserted the word "defender" after "goalkeeper" in the answer, to illustrate the point. But the most important line is the last one, "Don't overcomplicate offside."

...Offside. The goalkeeper ("defender") must establish full possession before the player in the offside position when his teammate played the ball is to be considered onside.

You have to be certain...that there was this full possession before you can call the player onside, otherwise it is the same as if the goalkeeper ("defender") simply deflected the ball, which makes that player now offside, as he is involved in play by gaining an advantage from the offside position.

Don't overcomplicate offside!

[NHRef]

the LOTG, in general, are very simple and mean what they say, only what they say. Do not try to imply other things or add words in. It says....

"3. An opponent intentionally plays or gains possession of the ball"

Did the opponent do either? Nope.

The LOTG do not say "try to play", "intends to play" etc, they say "plays or gains possession" he did neither, so offside is not reset.

this is somewhat similar to a recent discussion on here, that Jim Allen responded to. What if a through ball goes towards the keeper and stops, the keeper stands next to the ball without touching it. Does this reset offside? His answer was no, keeper did not possess or play the ball.

Recently taught a Grade 8 class and tried to continually stress this to the students (who all passed!!). Do not read more into the LOTG than are there and you will be covered most of the time.

[Bill C]

the LOTG, in general, are very simple and mean what they say, only what they say. Do not try to imply other things or add words in. It says....

"3. An opponent intentionally plays or gains possession of the ball"

Did the opponent do either? Nope.

The LOTG do not say "try to play", "intends to play" etc, they say "plays or gains possession" he did neither, so offside is not reset.



Not to be a wiseguy, but the LOTG don't actually say anything specific on this topic (unless you consider the LOTG = LOTG + ATR, which I would agree with and thus the reason for my post)...the words "plays or gains posession" is not in the actual LOTG. It is not me, but the USSF who are "implying other things or adding words in" via the ATR, which is the purpose of the ATR as I understand it.

Back to my example, it seems that you contend that the player that:
(1) watched the ball get punted
(2) ran to the spot where it would land
(3) watched it drop
(4) refined his position, and then
(5) headed the ball with no interference from any other nearby opponent
had no intent to play the ball.

How can it be said that the player "didn't intend" to play that ball?

This is what I am having a hard time understanding about how to interpret this "clarifying" language from the ATR. I'm not adding ANY words, just trying to understand the USSF definition of intent. I see no way to deny that his act was intentional. The ball going to the opponent was an accidental outcome of his intentional act, but I don't see how that changes the fact that the player "intentionally played the ball".

[Bill C]

The call hinges on whether the defender has possession, not on the defender's "intent."

It seems clear to me that the ATR directs us to determine if the player either "intentionally plays" or "gains possession" of the ball in order to determine if the offside player becomes onside.

In your response, you seem to be saying to just ignore the ATR "intentionally plays" portion of 11.14.3 and focus only on "gains possession".

If this is true, why does the USSF have "intentionally plays" in there? Perhaps to set up a new trick question on the Referee Exam?
:confused:

[Ref Flunkie]

This is semantics (as always). My reading of "intending to play the ball" means the ball went where the defender intended it to go. I can "intend to play a ball" using your definition and not even touch it. If I jump for a header and it goes over my head, did I not "intend to play the ball", but simply miss? Using my definition, the skill level comes into play. Was the defender intending to play the ball back to his GK for him to control? Or was he simply making a play on the ball, causing it to go somewhere he did not intend? Just my opinion.

[macheath]

(snip)...Back to my example, it seems that you contend that the player that:
(1) watched the ball get punted
(2) ran to the spot where it would land
(3) watched it drop
(4) refined his position, and then
(5) headed the ball with no interference from any other nearby opponent
had no intent to play the ball.

How can it be said that the player "didn't intend" to play that ball?

This is what I am having a hard time understanding about how to interpret this "clarifying" language from the ATR. I'm not adding ANY words, just trying to understand the USSF definition of intent. I see no way to deny that his act was intentional. The ball going to the opponent was an accidental outcome of his intentional act, but I don't see how that changes the fact that the player "intentionally played the ball".

With all due respect, I think you are overcomplicating this. Let's take a spectrum of situations. At one end of the spectrum, the defender does steps 1-4 as you list above, but misjudges the ball, and it hits him in the back of the head, rebounds to the attacker. Offside, right? Not a play of the ball.

At the other end of the spectrum, defender does steps 1-4, traps the ball cleanly, lets it sit on the ground, and then kicks it to a place where the attacker gets it. No offside, as a clear possession and play of the ball by the opponent.

Your scenario is somewhere on this spectrum, and you are wondering whether the "intent" modifier in the ATR cancels the offside. As you noted earlier, (seemingly) unanimous opinion of the senior and experienced referees whom you consulted was that the defender's misplay of the ball is not enough to reset the offside. Against that, you go back to the modifying (and admittedly less than clear) use of the word "intentionally" in the ATR, and keep pressing the case for offside.

Go back to the Jim Allen answer I posted, which concludes "Don't overcomplicate offside." You raised a good question, and got expert feedback, which says your scenario is offside. Why? In the judgement of experienced experts, the particular play by the defender that you described is a deflection/mistake, not what was "intended" from his play on the ball.

[ref47]

herein lies the rub. when do you credit a player with playing the ball, misplaying the ball, or a deflection?

certainly, if b2 dropped the punt to his feet and then kicked it towards his keeper, wherein a2 intercepted the ball - no offside call. if b2 attempted to head the ball to his keeper and a2 intercepted the ball - no offside. if the ball deflected off b2 and a2 was able to get to it - offside. but, b2 has ample opportunity to play the ball. he misjudges the flight of the ball and while trying to play it forward, it goes off the top of his head to where a2 can play it. offside or not? ah, the rub! it could be either depending on your judgement regarding skill level, weather conditions, match conditions, etc.

your casestudy allows for b2 to have poorly played the ball. that judgement puts it into 'misplayed' for me. and, i am not calling an offside violation.

this is not a black/white situation. plays like these can go either way.

macheath's ja example is not a direct parallel to this situation. the keeper standing by the ball is lightyears apart from b2 actually playing the ball. we need to judge if b2 had a reasonable play and misdirected the ball or if it was more a deflection situation, in my opinion.

[USSF REF]

I think if I was the AR on that side of the field, I'd signal for offsides. But that being said, I think a lot of it has to deal with the skill of the players on the field. If you're dealing with U-13s or something like that, it should definitely be ruled offsides. At the older level I think it really depends, but I doubt there will be many instances where the player guilty of being offsides doesn't get called for it.

One thing I know for sure... Offside isn't plural.

[intechpc]

Think of "intentionally plays" the ball as a controlled play of the ball and it might help you resolve this in your own mind. Intentionally plays is not the same as intentionally attempts to play and that's the key for this discussion in my mind. The player in your scenario as I understand it, attempted to play the ball but failed and instead merely deflected it.

Don't confuse the terms control and possession, they aren't necessarily the same thing. Control is a component of possession but possession is not necessarily a component of control. You can say a one touch ball is controlled by the player however would you really call that possession by that player?

[refmike]

Bill,

The clarification you need is in the definition of the word PLAY.
I define a play to be from one controlling contact to another by a defender or any contact by an attacker. So for a defender to play the ball it must be a controlling contact, as others are trying to describe. Likewise the offside attacker cannot participate in that play, which ends (and therfore offside position is reconsidered) at the next attacking touch or defending control.

[macheath]

(snip)...macheath's ja example is not a direct parallel to this situation. the keeper standing by the ball is lightyears apart from b2 actually playing the ball. we need to judge if b2 had a reasonable play and misdirected the ball or if it was more a deflection situation, in my opinion.

Just a clarification--I wasn't using the "stands by the ball" scenario. The JA answer I posted was about a keeper deflecting a ball in active play to an offside attacker, so it closely parallels the deflection by another defender.

[Bill C]

Yeah, it is all semantics...in this case, it is not the classic "what the definition of is is", but what is the USSF definition of "intentionally plays". Since the actual LOTG does not address how a player can become onside and the ATR is the only place to find this, it would seem to be important to follow the language precisely. Thus my question.

I can "intend to play a ball" using your definition and not even touch it. If I jump for a header and it goes over my head, did I not "intend to play the ball", but simply miss?

Since the precise language from the ATR is "intentionally plays", my interpretation is that intending to play the ball but failing to do so would not actually constitute "intentionally playing" the ball, and thus would not reset the offside attacker.

But I do take your point on this. A slightly different scenario illustrates why. Let's say the ball is rolling on the ground towards a defender and he runs up and attempts to kick it away, but the ball isn't squarely kicked and goes instead to an attacker who was in an offside position when first played by his teammate.

If the attacker was somewhat near where the defender was apparently intending to direct the ball, and he manages to run and get the ball, does that make him onside. What if the attacker is further away from where it appeared that the defender intended to kick the ball but he still manages to run there and gain possession. Does that make him onside?

Where do we draw the line? Do we just say that if the attacker ever manages to get a ball that was intentionally played by a defender, that by definition the defender could not have intended to play it to his opponent, and therefore he remains offside? If that's the case, why have the "intentionally plays" language in the ATR, since it would be impossible to become onside after a defender "intentionally played" the ball, but it went to an attacker.

[Bill C]

herein lies the rub. when do you credit a player with playing the ball, misplaying the ball, or a deflection?


Exactly. And where in the rules does it say the player has to intentionally play the ball and the ball needs to be well played in order for 11.14.3 to come into effect?

Until I read the ATR, I thought the same thing everyone else did, that there had to be possession of the ball. However, 11.14.3 clearly opens it up to more than just gaining possession by adding this "intentionally playing" language. In the absense of any other written instruction on how a player can become onside, in order to accept the common interpretation that we have always used, we must ignore the "intentionally playing" language and just stick with possession. Becauise by the language of 11.14.3, all we need do is determine if the player is intentionally making a play for the ball. It does not mention anything about the outcome of that intention to play the ball being a factor in the decision.

[rippingood]

Hi Bill:

There have been several replies here that have already given some information to assist you with your dilemma.

The key issue is that: 'intends to play' does not equal 'intentionally plays'.
If your issue is with how 'intentionally plays' differs from 'gains possession', perhaps the following will help.

A ball is played form an attacker (A1) to a teammate (A2) in the penalty area. The only defender in the PA is the goalkeeper. The pass is made such that it can be intercepted by D1. D1 decides to play the ball back to the keeper such that the only contact is a kick of the ball back to the keeper. In this case, the defender intentionally played the ball, but would, by some, not be considered to have gained possession of the ball. Thus, the wording in the ATR (my humble opinion...)

“Intentionally plays” does not mean “intends to play” or “makes an attempt to play”. The USSF includes a question and answer web page to clarify the LOTG and the ATR and there it is stated that “It IS NOT correct to assume that any touch by a defender effectively changes the possession, because Law 11 clearly requires the ball to be controlled by the defender before a new phase of play can be said to have begun (and offside positions re-evaluated). It IS correct to say that the referee must make the judgment as to whether the opponent established full control over the ball and thus relieved the player in the offside position from being called offside. (August 2003)”

and elsewhere as

“the attacker in an offside position must refrain from becoming involved in active play from the moment his teammate touches or plays the ball until a defender plays the ball (gains clear possession and control)”(October 2005).

The ATR is just that, advice to the referee. The Q&A on the ussoccer.com site answers questions that arise from questions about the LOTG and ATR. The Q&A, as noted on the web site, provides ‘official’ interpretations for the USSF, so if the ATR works for you, the Q&A applies as well.

[macheath]

Yeah, it is all semantics...in this case, it is not the classic "what the definition of is is", but what is the USSF definition of "intentionally plays". Since the actual LOTG does not address how a player can become onside and the ATR is the only place to find this, it would seem to be important to follow the language precisely. Thus my question.



Since the precise language from the ATR is "intentionally plays", my interpretation is that intending to play the ball but failing to do so would not actually constitute "intentionally playing" the ball, and thus would not reset the offside attacker.

But I do take your point on this. A slightly different scenario illustrates why. Let's say the ball is rolling on the ground towards a defender and he runs up and attempts to kick it away, but the ball isn't squarely kicked and goes instead to an attacker who was in an offside position when first played by his teammate.

If the attacker was somewhat near where the defender was apparently intending to direct the ball, and he manages to run and get the ball, does that make him onside. What if the attacker is further away from where it appeared that the defender intended to kick the ball but he still manages to run there and gain possession. Does that make him onside?

Where do we draw the line? Do we just say that if the attacker ever manages to get a ball that was intentionally played by a defender, that by definition the defender could not have intended to play it to his opponent, and therefore he remains offside? If that's the case, why have the "intentionally plays" language in the ATR, since it would be impossible to become onside after a defender "intentionally played" the ball, but it went to an attacker.

We may be beating the poor horse to death, but again, I think you are too hung up on parsing the issue of "intent" for the defender, and missing the bigger picture. "Intentionally played", in the ATR, is meant in large part to rule out accidental deflections as resetting onside, not as an invitation to try and figure out what is in the head of the defender.

Offside is meant to prevent unfair advantage accruing to the attacking team, while still keeping the game moving and flowing fairly. Again, think of a spectrum--an obvious deflection off the defender at one pole (offside, no question), and a very deliberate trap and control of the ball by the defender, who loses it subsequently to the attacker (no offside.) Everything else falls along this spectrum.

Consider, again, saves by a goalkeeper, even when the keeper is "intentionally" blocking a shot--still offside if the ball rebounds to the attacker. See offside diagram 10 in the LOTG. Or look at 11.3 in the ATR, which shows a keeper making an "intentional" save of the ball, but not controlling it--the ball rebounds to the attacker, offside. In these keeper situations, it is clear that an "intentional" play does not necessarily reset the offside--that is, the keeper makes a deliberate play on the ball for the save, but doesn't control it, and the attacking team is considered to get an unfair advantage. It's the same logic for a field player.

Occasionally, we have to make a judgement call that isn't and cannot be exactly spelled out in the LOTG and ATR (that's why we get the big bucks!) The consensus among experienced refs is that the type of misplay you described is not sufficient to reset the offside. But there will be situations where it just isn't clear, and we have to then make a judgement call, as consistently as possible with the LOTG, ATR, advice from more experienced refs, but most importantly, spirit of the game.

[intechpc]

Occasionally, we have to make a judgement call that isn't and cannot be exactly spelled out in the LOTG and ATR (that's why we get the big bucks!) The consensus among experienced refs is that the type of misplay you described is not sufficient to reset the offside. But there will be situations where it just isn't clear, and we have to then make a judgement call, as consistently as possible with the LOTG, ATR, advice from more experienced refs, but most importantly, spirit of the game.

And to me this is the crux of this and so many other discussions where we get down to nit picking detail. In my very humble opinion, this is part of "understanding the game". In most cases a referee should be able to tell if the play on the ball was controlling or merely a deflection. In the rare cases where a skilled referee can't tell, chances are one side will be happy and the other not, no matter which way you call it anyway so just use your best judgement and common sense.

Honestly, although I've gotten involved in a few of them myself, I hate to see discussion where we as referees try to cut things down to black and white. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the thing I think is so great about the LOTG is that they leave room for referee discretion and common sense. Unlike so many american sports where the rules have been setup to try and make everything black and white (which doesn't work out well anyway) our sport allows for more grey area. No matter how hard you try to elminate the inconsistencies between referees it will still be there. However, the frustration it causes is lessened when it is understood that discretion and judgement play a part.

[Bill C]

The USSF includes a question and answer web page to clarify the LOTG and the ATR and there it is stated that “It IS NOT correct to assume that any touch by a defender effectively changes the possession, because Law 11 clearly requires the ball to be controlled by the defender before a new phase of play can be said to have begun (and offside positions re-evaluated). It IS correct to say that the referee must make the judgment as to whether the opponent established full control over the ball and thus relieved the player in the offside position from being called offside. (August 2003)”
Thanks to everyone for their replies, and thanks a lot to you for pointing this Q&A out to me! I will have to go to the site and check that Q&A. To make sure I understand how this all works, is it correct to say that the LOTG are officially elaborated on by not only the ATR and any memorandums from the federation, but also by the Q&A web page on the USSF site (eg. I can point to any of these documents as official interpretation of the LOTG?)? Is there any other source for official interpretation of the LOTG, or is The LOTG=LOTG+ATR+Q&A web page?

Back to the question at hand...what this Q&A language seems focused on is a definition of "full control". Is that defined anywhere? Again, from all the discussion, it appears that in my scenario, in the spirit of the game we would say that full control was not gained because a defender who had been in full control of the ball would not have passed it to an opponent in such a position.

If I change my scenario just a bit, by placing another defender near my offside attacker, then because there is a teammate near where the ball goes, my feeling now is that since I can't really tell if the defender wanted to clear the ball upfield or cross it to his teammate, I now consider full control to be gained and the attacker becomes onside.

Thus the referee must judge where the defender intends the ball to go, and if in the opinion of the referee if the ball goes somewhere other than where the player intended, then full control was not gained. I can live with that, although I hate having the responsibility of determining the players' intent in this kind of situation (as opposed to handling, for example). In most cases this judgement is not difficult to make.

But that raises another question. For those cases where the judgement is difficult (such as my modified scenario above), are we to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker (to foster more attacking play) or to the defender (and not reward an attacker who was in an offside position)?

[Bill C]

We may be beating the poor horse to death
I've been called a horse beater before, and likely will again!
Consider, again, saves by a goalkeeper, even when the keeper is "intentionally" blocking a shot
Glad you brought this up. I had thought of this scenario, which had deepened my confusion as to the language used in the ATR.