Law 11 ambiguity

[OldAndNew]

In another thread - 'ender or extender' - I mentioned FIFA's poor wording regarding Law 11.

I say it is poor, because I don't believe ANYBODY applies the the Law as it is written. It says (on page 32):

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of
the referee, involved in active play . . .

I contend that, probably, we ALL apply the Law as if it says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, is only penalised if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes involved in active play . . .

In fact, the guidance passed on a year or so ago, (whereby we are told to wait in case a player - from an 'onside' position - becomes active) results in us holding up from flagging the offside-positioned player until he becomes the sole active player. In other words, though he may NOT be 'involved in active play' at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team we still flag the offense when he does become involved in active play.

A case of 'make the words say what the IFAB means - as understood and practiced by almost all.

[ref47]

you are correct. we all do. send ifab a letter.

[Rufusabc]

What? I have read it three times and I have no idea what you are talking about....but then again that's just me.

Have I mentioned I hate parsing the laws? If I haven't mentioned it, let me now do it. I HATE PARSING THE LAWS.

[ref47]

current reading of the law says that one of the 3 things that causes us to punish an offside position player happens when the ball is first touched by the teammate, not later but at the initial touch. yet, the 3 actions can only happen at a later time, absent time travel or bring a dr who fan. so, it is being suggested that this timing problem be fixed in the law.

[ThreeCards]

To me, the most ambiguous part of Law 11 has always been the line about "gaining an advantage" by being in an offside position. Have fun explaining that to some soccer mom. :rolleyes:

[PVancouver]

I agree with OAN completely, but hopefully you already knew that.

I also agree that the gaining an advantage clause is unnecessary and misleading.

[constructor]

The way I see the "gaining advantage" clause being meant was for situations where a player was clearly in an offside position when the ball is played forward, but is not anywhere near the play nor is able to influence it, hence not offside.

[jkc313]

The way I see the "gaining advantage" clause being meant was for situations where a player was clearly in an offside position when the ball is played forward, but is not anywhere near the play nor is able to influence it, hence not offside.
This is why thecurrent LOTG and also Advice defined gaining an advantage to the narrow following instances

gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing
a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having
been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him
off an opponent having been in an offside position

Before this we had referees inventing almost anything as gaining an advantage to justify an offside call

[refmedic]

It is important that referees know that even though offside position is determined when the ball is played or touched by a teammate for the purposes of penalizing the infraction, that just because you aren't involved in active play AT THAT TIME, you can still be penalized for offside if you later become involved in active play from that same pass. If the ball is touched or played by a teammate again, then your offside position is reevaluated. The OP is exactly right that confusion is generated because the text is written in terms of an instantaneous determination. Determining offside position may be an instantaneous determination, but the conditions under which we penalize are dynamic. It's interesting that the first part of the law states that it isn't an offense in itself to be in an offside position, and then instruct referees to penalize a player for being offside if they are involved in active play only at the instant that the ball is played. The way it is written, any player that runs on to a long-ball who was in an offside position at the time the ball was played by a teammate would have a valid arguement that he wasn't involved in active play until he reached the ball, and since the offside is determined at the instant the ball was played he wasn't involved in active play yet.

[Alberto]

Don't waste your time sending a letter to the IFAB or FIFA and especially don't identify yourself as a referee, the USSF will come down hard on you. You'' be sure to hear from the Federation regardless of how meaningful your insights or observations may be. Trust me I know

[refmedic]

Don't waste your time sending a letter to the IFAB or FIFA and especially don't identify yourself as a referee, the USSF will come down hard on you. You'' be sure to hear from the Federation regardless of how meaningful your insights or observations may be. Trust me I know

You mean the powers that be in US Soccer might try to silence or blackball non-believers and dissenters? (Sarcasm added for emphasis)

[Alberto]

You mean the powers that be in US Soccer might try to silence or blackball non-believers and dissenters? (Sarcasm added for emphasis)

Never, they are beyond reproach especially, well he's not there anymore is he? What was it he wanted a position at FIFA? The Shah wanted his kingdom back too.

[OldAndNew]

Don't waste your time sending a letter to the IFAB or FIFA and especially don't identify yourself as a referee, the USSF will come down hard on you. You'' be sure to hear from the Federation regardless of how meaningful your insights or observations may be. Trust me I know

Got bitten once?

It is somewhat two-faced if they'd do that, since the ATR contains a quasi-solicitation: Many of the additions and changes came about as the result of questions or suggestions from referees, players and coaches across the country.

However, it wouldn't surprise me - it IS a political animal, after all!!

I don't think they'd bother a ref if he was one of the 95%+ that is below the Grade 5 level, but it certainly would be suicidal for someone with 'National' aspirations.

He who is no-longer there? Vinnie?

[Falc]

How about the situation where a player in an offside position comes back to retrieve the ball? If he collects it at a point where he would not have been in an offside position when the ball was played, did he not lose any advantage he had being in an offside position? I've argued this one with many referees and no one can give me a satisfactory answer.

[Gary V]

How about the situation where a player in an offside position comes back to retrieve the ball? If he collects it at a point where he would not have been in an offside position when the ball was played, did he not lose any advantage he had being in an offside position? I've argued this one with many referees and no one can give me a satisfactory answer.

It doesn't matter whether he gained or lost advantage. He was in an offside position at the time the ball was last played/touched by a teammate. Therefore he cannot become involved in play, by any of the three methods - playing the ball, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage. If he does any of the three, he is offside.

But that points out the OP's original premise, that Law 11 is incorrectly written. At least they've taken out the commas so that all tackles are no longer ipso facto dangerous. Maybe in another decade or two they'll fix up offside.

IFAB writings mean what they mean, not what they say.

[refontherun]

How about the situation where a player in an offside position comes back to retrieve the ball? If he collects it at a point where he would not have been in an offside position when the ball was played, did he not lose any advantage he had being in an offside position? I've argued this one with many referees and no one can give me a satisfactory answer.

I think this is akin to there being no offside on a throw-in or goal kick. there is nothing to explain. That's just the way it is.

[Falc]

It doesn't matter whether he gained or lost advantage. He was in an offside position at the time the ball was last played/touched by a teammate. Therefore he cannot become involved in play, by any of the three methods - playing the ball, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage. If he does any of the three, he is offside.

But that points out the OP's original premise, that Law 11 is incorrectly written. At least they've taken out the commas so that all tackles are no longer ipso facto dangerous. Maybe in another decade or two they'll fix up offside.

IFAB writings mean what they mean, not what they say.

It is not any of the three, it is all three combined. A player can be in an offside position but is not called for being offside because he is so. If a player has to run back to his side of the pitch to retrieve the ball, explain how he was in an advantageous position by being offside? By your reason, because he was in an offside position when the ball was played, he is not eligible to touch the ball at any point until someone else touches it. If a ball is played square instead of forward and he has to run back, he gained no advantage. I know that is how it is called but it does not follow the logic of the rule.

[DadOf6]

How about the situation where a player in an offside position comes back to retrieve the ball? If he collects it at a point where he would not have been in an offside position when the ball was played, did he not lose any advantage he had being in an offside position? I've argued this one with many referees and no one can give me a satisfactory answer.

Once the offside position has been determined there are three factors to consider before calling offside. If any one of the factors is present offside should be called.

"Gaining an advantage by being in that [offside] position" is one of the factors and it does not apply in your scenario. This has been narrowly defined to mean that because he is in an offside position he is able to play a ball that rebounds off of a defender, post, crossbar, etc. It does NOT mean that a team's pospects are improved because of the offside position.

"Interfering with play" is what triggers the offside call in your scenario. It is defined as touching the ball. The relative benefits of the offside position and the position where the ball is received is not considered; just whether or not the ball was touched.

Losing or realizing an advantage as per Law 5 does not apply here. This is not a resurrection of the "advantage only applies to Law 12" argument, it is much more basic that that. You cannot give advantage when the offending team gains or maintains possession of the ball.

[Falc]

It is the rule because that is the way it is called but it still defies logic and the intent of Law XI. The law was never intended to freeze a player but instead to prevent a player from getting an unfair advantage. It is just one of those circumstances that make no sense but is called because someone who interpreted that it should be called that way had done so. If the IFAB was the review the situation, they should then include it in their definition of gaining advantage.

[todler]

It is the rule because that is the way it is called but it still defies logic and the intent of Law XI. The law was never intended to freeze a player but instead to prevent a player from getting an unfair advantage. It is just one of those circumstances that make no sense but is called because someone who interpreted that it should be called that way had done so. If the IFAB was the review the situation, they should then include it in their definition of gaining advantage.
except that I've seen situations where the offside player is able to either get a better angle on the ball, or make a quick pass that frees another team mate, all because he started in an offside position. One I flagged was an attacker comming back, challenged for the ball, flicked it to an onrushing teamate, who would have had a break away if not fo rthe offsides.

Certainly he had an unfair advantage, due to his position and view.