Injured Player off pitch and offside?

[campbed]

We've discussed before, but for those new to the board...

UEFA Euro 2008 Italy v Netherlands today, 26th minute.

Incoming kick to Italy far post, goalie/defender/attacker contest ball, goalie parries the ball back into play, defender goes down injured, ball shot back to Netherlands with attacker standing at the 6 with no one but goalie and the injured player off the field of play.

Shot. Goal. Goal stands.

Usual hysterics from announcers, "worst decision he has ever seen", "player was off the field so you can't count him for offside." Etc.

October 22, 2007 Askasoccerreferee states:
"A defender who is momentarily off the field legally (not attempting to place a defender in an offside position) is still considered, in determining the second to last defender, as being on the perimeter line nearest to his off the field position."

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=19&paged=2

Does the fact the player is laying "injured" change anything? The referee did not stop play.

Sounds like a goal to me. As far as the law, he was standing on the goal line, and goalie was next to lat defender.

[Gary V]

The player could be dead and he still counts as one of the defenders.

I didn't see the aftermath, just the videos of the players going off the field and the goal being scored. Just how injured was he? Did he require assistance? Had to be subbed off? Or was he just flopping around and taking a rest?

[CanadaFTW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KQLOcyUrs

Buffon palms the ball at 7 seconds, and the ball is in the net at 12, so the defender has been off the pitch for under 5 seconds.

[Ref Flunkie]

The player could be dead and he still counts as one of the defenders.

I didn't see the aftermath, just the videos of the players going off the field and the goal being scored. Just how injured was he? Did he require assistance? Had to be subbed off? Or was he just flopping around and taking a rest?

He was sleepy. The only "damage" done to him was a push by his own GK.

[OMGFigo]

The player could be dead and he still counts as one of the defenders.

I didn't see the aftermath, just the videos of the players going off the field and the goal being scored. Just how injured was he? Did he require assistance? Had to be subbed off? Or was he just flopping around and taking a rest?

The downed defender got up and took his place for the KO restart. No muss, no fuss. Buffon took him down along with the Holland attacker who'd come in to crash the net. The Holland player jumps up and runs back into play, as does Buffon who bravely tries to make another save, meanwhile the defender buries his face in his arm and lays there where he stopped sliding across the grass.

At least that's my recollection.

[Alberto]

The downed defender got up and took his place for the KO restart. No muss, no fuss. Buffon took him down along with the Holland attacker who'd come in to crash the net. The Holland player jumps up and runs back into play, as does Buffon who bravely tries to make another save, meanwhile the defender buries his face in his arm and lays there where he stopped sliding across the grass.

At least that's my recollection.

It's quite clear why, it was Panucci. He probably was upset his hair got messed by Buffon, and he wanted a make up case with mirror to adjust it.

[Dead Badger]

It certainly seems to be the establishment's consensus that the call was correct, with the referee, Uefa spokesman, Austrian refs' chairman and EPL refs' chief all coming out with the same response (i.e. that players off the pitch without the ref's permission still count for offside). However, no such rule appears anywhere in the LOTG published on FIFA's website. The USSF's ATR says in the preamble that it's based on IFAB rulings, but I can't find any convenient repository of the circulars in which these are published. The only ones I can find online refer to the definition of an active player.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone can provide a solid reference to this rule that isn't from the USSF's ATR. This Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/euro_2008/article4101053.ece) claims the rule was passed five years ago, but I doubt the author because he refers to numbered clauses (which suspiciously match the USSF's ATR, when anyone with eyes can see that FIFA's published laws contain nothing of the sort. On the other hand the fact that he claims to know when the rule was passed suggests he's got more information.

I'm not arguing that it should have been offside, by the way - I'm only interested in finding out where this rule is actually published. It seems bizarre that every reffing authority seems to have heard of it, yet the only people who see fit to publish it online are the USSF. Maybe they're just ahead of the curve on this whole internets thing. :)

[andymoss]

However, no such rule appears anywhere in the LOTG published on FIFA's website. The USSF's ATR says in the preamble that it's based on IFAB rulings, but I can't find any convenient repository of the circulars in which these are published. The only ones I can find online refer to the definition of an active player.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone can provide a solid reference to this rule that isn't from the USSF's ATR. This Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/euro_2008/article4101053.ece) claims the rule was passed five years ago, but I doubt the author because he refers to numbered clauses (which suspiciously match the USSF's ATR, when anyone with eyes can see that FIFA's published laws contain nothing of the sort.


The FIFA LOTG also has an ATR of sorts - Additional Instructions And Guidelines For Referees. It appears after the LOTG on the FIFA site.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws%5fof%5fthe%5fgame%5f0708%5f10565.pdf

If you look at page 102, it cites:

"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in the offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission when the ball is next out of play."

Of course it could be argued that he didn't leave the FOP deliberately, but I'd counter that his own momentum and the assistance of his own goalkeeper contributed to his leaving the FOP. The attacker and goalkeeper all managed to return and the defender was able to resume his position for the resulting kick-off leading me to believe that his injury was minor at best.

Had the attacker dragged him off the field, I'd be more likely to call an infringement coming out, but what if the keeper alone had caused him to leave the leave the FOP? Either in an attempt to clear the ball as we had here, or intentionally - he pushed him over the GL?

The current thinking is to promote attacking football.

Great call, particularly understanding that the world and his wife were watching.

Andy Gray, Tommy Smyth and Julie Foudy should be ashamed and should unreservedly apologize to the crew for their abject lack of knowledge of the LOTG and the application of the same.

But of course they won't. Instead, they will continue to spout this nonsense instead of using their position to educate and eradicate some of these damaging myths that continue to plague the game.

[shawn12011]

The FIFA LOTG also has an ATR of sorts - Additional Instructions And Guidelines For Referees. It appears after the LOTG on the FIFA site.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws%5fof%5fthe%5fgame%5f0708%5f10565.pdf

If you look at page 102, it cites:

"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in the offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission when the ball is next out of play."

Of course it could be argued that he didn't leave the FOP deliberately, but I'd counter that his own momentum and the assistance of his own goalkeeper contributed to his leaving the FOP. The attacker and goalkeeper all managed to return and the defender was able to resume his position for the resulting kick-off leading me to believe that his injury was minor at best.

Had the attacker dragged him off the field, I'd be more likely to call an infringement coming out, but what if the keeper alone had caused him to leave the leave the FOP? Either in an attempt to clear the ball as we had here, or intentionally - he pushed him over the GL?
The current thinking is to promote attacking football.

Great call, particularly understanding that the world and his wife were watching.

Andy Gray, Tommy Smyth and Julie Foudy should be ashamed and should unreservedly apologize to the crew for their abject lack of knowledge of the LOTG and the application of the same.

But of course they won't. Instead, they will continue to spout this nonsense instead of using their position to educate and eradicate some of these damaging myths that continue to plague the game.

What I find funny is those who defend the call by talking about above in bold. I think more exploration of why he went off the FOP needs to be brought into the discussion.

Personally I am still leaning towards no goal offsides but I am ok with the call that was made. I want to make sure we all discuss this and don't arrogantly dismiss the no goal crowd, and please know Andy that I am not refering to you. :)

[andymoss]

I want to make sure we all discuss this and don't arrogantly dismiss the no goal crowd, and please know Andy that I am not refering to you. :)

Understood, accepted and embraced! That's what separates us from the animals; the ability to intelligently debate emotional subjects....

[mkoenig_1]

I think more exploration of why he went off the FOP needs to be brought into the discussion.


Why does it matter why he went off the field of play?

The LOTG have been written specifically to eliminate the responsibility for a referee to read minds of players and instead evaluate the facts of play at any particular moment of the match and decide whether those facts are within the laws or infringe them.

In this case, Law 11 itself hasn't been changed for some sort of special circumstance here that deserves an asterisk. Rather, the ATR and AIG have provide guidelines for referees as to where to place a player for purposes of determining offside if that player is beyond one of the boundary lines of the field. So, looking at the FACTS, Panucci becomes the last defender, and Buffon the GK the second last.

In the same vein, why should it matter that it took so long for him to return to the field of play?

Everyone seems to be so focused on the fact that Panucci might have been injured that he didn't return to the field for five seconds or more that therefore the law should automatically change. But let's not forget that Law 5 tells us that the referee stops play for serious injury to remove a player from the field, and allows play to continue in the case of minor injury. Frojdfeldt was in good position to see the collision between Buffon and Panucci judge whether any injury was serious. But since Panucci was already off the field, there was no reason to stop play. Again, these are FACTS that the referee evaluated.

Thus play continued and since the attack didn't infringe Law 11 - Offside before the goal was scored the goal stands.

To ask the referee to make decisions based on anything other than by evaluating the facts that he or she sees during the match is opening up a very unpleasant can of worms.

[CTRef]

I think more exploration of why he went off the FOP needs to be brought into the discussion.




No, it does not. Why he went off the field is totally irrelevant. Unless it was with permission of the referee, he still counts when determining offside.

[Dead Badger]

The FIFA LOTG also has an ATR of sorts - Additional Instructions And Guidelines For Referees. It appears after the LOTG on the FIFA site.Yeah, I know - I'm essentially counting those as integral parts of the LOTG. However, the paragraph you quote only deals with penalising players who deliberately step off the pitch in order to try and exploit the offside rule. Since Panucci clearly did not do this, nor can he reasonably be considered to have stayed off to gain an advantage (only five seconds elapsed between him going down and the goal), the paragraph on page 102 doesn't apply in my opinion (and since the ref didn't book him for unsporting conduct, apparently this was his view too).

What I'm perplexed by is the fact that all the European refs' chiefs seem to know for a fact that players inadvertently off the field still count for determining offside, and yet I can't find a single official reference to this rule anywhere but on the USSF's website. It seems like there must be a repository of extra rules somewhere, but no-one anywhere on the web seems to know where it is. Certainly this rule 11.4.1 of "the refereeing code" referred to by the Austrian refs' chief is a complete mystery.

Why does it matter why he went off the field of play?Because the only relevant rule we've been able to find at present specifically deals with players who deliberately leave the field to gain an advantage. The LOTG on this issue specifically require the referee to divine a player's intent.

In any case, at this point a debate about what the law should be is getting ahead of ourselves, IMO. We've been told by multiple refereeing authorities that there's a very specific rule to deal with this circumstance, and yet we can't find it anywhere. I'd rather sort out this issue first, then we can start haggling over should'a and would'a... :)

[mkoenig_1]

The LOTG on this issue specifically require the referee to divine a player's intent.[QUOTE]

No they do not. The word intent no longer appears anywhere in the LOTG. "Deliberate" is used in this case because a referee can make a decision as to whether something is deliberate based on a player's actions.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger;14844071]We've been told by multiple refereeing authorities that there's a very specific rule to deal with this circumstance, and yet we can't find it anywhere. I'd rather sort out this issue first, then we can start haggling over should'a and would'a... :)

As I noted in the other thread, the specific part of AIG deals with Law 3 - Number of Players. You will find it on page 64.

[lmorin]

No, it does not. Why he went off the field is totally irrelevant. Unless it was with permission of the referee, he still counts when determining offside.

Agreed. Elsewhere, I saw it phrased another way: If the player does not need permission of the referee to re-enter the field of play, then he is still regarded as being on the field of play.

[Dead Badger]

No they do not. The word intent no longer appears anywhere in the LOTG. "Deliberate" is used in this case because a referee can make a decision as to whether something is deliberate based on a player's actions.What on earth is deciding whether an action is deliberate or not, save for determining intent? The referee is asked to decide whether the player took an action with the intention of gaining an unfair advantage. You'll have to excuse me for citing the dictionary, but the first definition of "deliberate" at dictionary.com is:

"carefully weighed or considered; studied; intentional"

Bolding mine.

As I noted in the other thread, the specific part of AIG deals with Law 3 - Number of Players. You will find it on page 64.I saw that; it says that the player leaving the field accidentally is not deemed to have committed an infringement (irrelevant), and that he may be considered to be making part of a playing movement. It does not explicitly deal with offside. It certainly might be something you'd take into account when making an interpretation of the rules, but it is absolutely not a categorical answer. UEFA say this is "a widely-known interpretation amongst referees". How do they get this common knowledge? Where is it published? Why can't anyone point to it?

[mkoenig_1]

UEFA say this is "a widely-known interpretation amongst referees". How do they get this common knowledge? Where is it published? Why can't anyone point to it?

Badger - I commend your diligence in trying to get to the answer here. You have found all the most relevant portions of the law that are used to arrive at this decision. All referees, even at the entry level, are familiar with this interpretation. (Whether they recognize it when it happens and make the right decision is a different matter.)


There really isn't anything left to point you to. I'm really at a loss as to how better to explain it at this point except to say that referees are only concerned with the facts in front of them at any particular moment in time, and that a player's intent, which cannot be known by anyone other than the player, has no bearing.

[Dom. FC]

I think a little too much effort is going to finding something in writing specific to this instance when the correct decision, to me anyway, seems intuitive. Can someone find a specific reference that states that players on the bench are not considered in offside decisions? I don't think there is one because the laws taken in their entirety make it clear that they are not -- so it doesn't need to be stated.

Having said that a thorough search of FIFA memorandums might reveal more than has been found thus far. Those really don't get the broad readership or archival treatment that they probably should. After the smoke clears look for one that is generalized but derived from this call? ;>)

[vabeacher]

I think what confused the announcers was VanNistelroi's actions just before scoring the goal. He seemed to try to get himself into an even position with the last active defenders (ignoring the defender on the gound behind the goal line), even though he didn't have to. I thought it was interesting that VanN never looked over his shoulder, after the goal, to see if the flag had been popped. I'm guessing that as soon as he scored he realized there was a defender just behind the goal line, and that there is no way he could have been considered offside.

[PVancouver]

Why does it matter why he went off the field of play?

....

But let's not forget that Law 5 tells us that the referee stops play for serious injury to remove a player from the field, and allows play to continue in the case of minor injury. Frojdfeldt was in good position to see the collision between Buffon and Panucci judge whether any injury was serious. But since Panucci was already off the field, there was no reason to stop play. Again, these are FACTS that the referee evaluated.

Thus play continued and since the attack didn't infringe Law 11 - Offside before the goal was scored the goal stands.

You say that Frojdfeldt would have not stopped play whether or not Panucci's injury was serious, since he was already off the field. What if Frojdfeldt had determined that Panucci's injury was very serious and clearly needed medical attention. However, play was not stopped. Should Panucci still count in the offside equation? What if, three or four minutes later, due to what could be a serious neck injury, Panucci is still being treated by medical staff next to the goal. Should he still count in the offside equation? This is not as cut and dried as people are saying it is.