Offside, but is he active?

[JackBastard]

I can't find a video of it at the moment, which is a shame as I'm not sure I'm going to be able to describe it properly, but I'll give it a go.

Swansea vs. Blackpool, in 2005/06, Trundle attempts a one-two with Britton on the edge of the area, 'keeper comes out to try and intercept the ball before the second pass, but fails to get there. As the ball reaches Trundle in the penalty area, he is clearly offside, flag goes up immediately. However, the referee doesn't blow up, as Trundle doesn't touch the ball, and instead jogs towards the post and watches as it rolls over the line, despite the attempts of a defender to clear it.

Blackpool were furious, claiming that Trundle had become active, but, he didn't touch the ball or prevent any defenders from getting to it, and although they may have stopped because they thought he was offside, that's really their problem for not playing to the whistle.

I'll try and find a clip of it if I can, if not, you'll just have to trust me.

[refmedic]

That is a very good question!!! I think I remember this situation, and it caused some controversy on the field. This is a really tough call, though. Did the attacker gain an advantage from being in an offside position? There is an agruement that he might have, but I think that the only advantage he had was a front-row seat to watch the ball cross the goal line. Did he become involved in active play? If he didn't play or touch the ball, and he made an effort to remove himself from the play, I think you can make the argument that he did not. The harder part of this is determining whether this attacker interfered with an opponent. Where is the line here in regard to the defenders playing the whistle? If the defenders stopped because they thought the attacker was offside did that attacker technically interfere with them? I'm going to say no, but it is an arguable point. My initial reaction is that this is a nearly impossible call to sell, but the goal should stand.

I guess you could also consider his offside position trifling and allow play to continue. :)

[whyref]

If the defenders stopped because they thought the attacker was offside did that attacker technically interfere with them? I'm going to say no, but it is an arguable point. :)

A player stops playing on their own rather than playing to the sound of the whistle of the center or the ball crossing out of play is "an arguable point"? Since when? If a player chooses to stop playing on their own that is a choice they make. But they do so with no guarantee of any call being made. Otherwise, who has control of the match?

[refmedic]

A player stops playing on their own rather than playing to the sound of the whistle of the center or the ball crossing out of play is "an arguable point"? Since when? If a player chooses to stop playing on their own that is a choice they make. But they do so with no guarantee of any call being made. Otherwise, who has control of the match?

The fact that the defenders didn't play the whistle is not argueable, because they DIDN'T. Whether they stopped playing before the whistle because they were being interfered with by an attacker in an offside position is argueable. I don't have any sympathy for the defenders who didnt play the whistle like they were taught to do when they were 8 years old (too bad, so sad). It just generates discussion about what exactly can be considered "interferes with an opponent" and what can't.

[JackBastard]

Managed to find a video for it, should work ok: Click Here (http://www.fish1987.com/bpool.wmv)

It's the last goal in the video.

[PVancouver]

I don't know why no one has given you an answer yet, but this play, which at one time would have been controversial since the player clearly came within playing distance of the ball and was in a position to play it, is no longer considered controversial at all, since he must actually touch the ball in order to be considered actively involved in play. Had he convinced the AR that he was likely to play the ball, he could have been called offside before he actually played it, but the AR rightly waited to see if he actually did play the ball in this case.

You will notice that some of the goalkeeper's teammates actually tried to prevent the ball from going into the goal, despite the "obvious" offside. In the goalkeeper's defense, he may have initially thought that the ball was not likely to go in the goal unless the offside player kicked it in, which is what I thought when I saw the play, but he arrogantly held his position despite having more than enough time to save the goal.

Today, this play would not be considered controversial in the least. It may have been somewhat controversial in 2005. FIFA issued its Circular #874 defining "interfering with play" as "playing or touching a ball" on October 22, 2003.

[refmedic]

What about "gains an advantage from being in that position"? It's tough to see, but I think the defender played the ball off of the defender who was originally offside, and then it went into the goal. Since the determination of his offside position was made when the original pass was made by his teammate, the attacker was in an offside position. Even though the defender tried to play the ball off the goal line, it appears he wasn't able to because the attacker was standing there, and deflected the ball into the goal. Now ask youself, did that attacker gain an advantege by being in an offside position? I think you COULD say that he did. However, since he makes no attempt to actually play the ball, and the defender kicked the ball off of him rather than him kicking the ball into the goal, I still think the goal should stand, because according to the interptretaion of "becomes involved in play" from 2003, the attacker in an offside position didn't play the ball, the ball was played off of him by the defender. Talk about parsing words!

[DWickham]

PVancouver noted the recent IFAB definitions in IBBD for Law 11. They also limit "Gaining an Advantage" to the situation where the player in offside position touches the ball after it rebounds off the goal or an opposing player.

If the player in this situation is to infringe the offside law without touching the ball, it would require interfering with an opponent (movements or gestures which interfere with the opponent's ability to play the ball.) Didn't happen in this situation, but a close example would be the player in offside position who shielded the ball to prevent a nearby opponent from playing the ball as it rolled into goal.

[boylanj64]

Yep, the referee was right. At the time , it may have been controversial, but he clearly does not play the ball. If, however, there had been a defender located behind him, his bending over and pseudo shielding of the ball would count as involvement.

[PVancouver]

An argument could be made that the offside attacker interfered with the opponent's ability to play the ball, but this is certainly not what the goalkeeper argued.

My view is that the white #10 did not block the defender, but if one decides he had, then he would indeed be guilty of interfering with an opponent and offside should have been called.

I don't believe the ball ever touched the white #10 even after the orange defender tried to kick it out, but even if #10 did kick it in at that point, he would not be offside, as clearly the orange defender deliberately played the ball (it was not a deflection or rebound which would allow the prior offside position to remain applicable via the "gaining an advantage" clause), and thus the prior offside position of white #10 would be reset.

[OldAndNew]

Interesting:

Swansea's 2nd goal was also vehemntly protested by Blackpool defenders using gestures as if 'claiming the ref is blind', when in fact it is quite clear that the attackerw as two yards from being offside.

I wonder why the AR (on the goal cited in the OP) took so long to 'run up the line'. Maybe that 'mechanic' is peculiar only to US refs - and not to FA refs?

Trundle sticks his foot out toward the ball as it is about to be swept away by the retreating Blackpool defender. Could that have been construed as interfering with the opponent - or perhaps just a heads up play to prepare to block what may have been a goal-line clearance (that would have 'reset' play) Maybe the AR couldn't see that.

Interesting video clip. Must have been at Liberty Stadium, not the Vetch.

[boylanj64]

I wonder why the AR (on the goal cited in the OP) took so long to 'run up the line'. Maybe that 'mechanic' is peculiar only to US refs - and not to FA refs?

The AR took so long to run up the line because that is the signal for a good goal; he initially signaled for offsides, as he saw the ball come to the offsides player, which is the point when most CRs ask for the flag to come up. The CR held his whistle, waiting for a touch, and then runs over to tell the AR the goal is good. The AR shuffles rather than sprints up the sideline so he can maintain his view of the field, watching for misconduct and in case he has to rapidly intervene in any confrontation.

[Nesto]

I'm not so sure the referee got this one right. No question the initial plea by the keeper for offside should not be given. But it sure looks to me like the offside attacker interfered with the defenders ability to clear the ball off the line - he was physically in the way and probably also obscured the defenders view of the ball. If you could pluck the offiside attacked off the field, I think that's a pretty easy clearance to make.

[jkc313]

[QUOTE=PVancouver;16496292]I don't know why no one has given you an answer yet, but this play, which at one time would have been controversial since the player clearly came within playing distance of the ball and was in a position to play it, is no longer considered controversial at all, since he must actually touch the ball in order to be considered actively involved in play.
QUOTE]

That's not quite true. the only time the AR HAS to wait until a player that was in offside position at the time the ball was played to actually touch the ball is when there is also an onside player with a chance for the ball.If a player that was in offside position when the ball was played is running towards the ball and the opposing keeper is running out to challenge for it, the AR does not have to wait until he touches it to raise the flag. Law 11 still reads playing or touching. That aside, in the video, the only way the player could be sanctioned for offside was if in the referee's opinion, he was shielding the ball from an opponent.

[snolly g]

for some weird reason, i thought that there is no offsides if the ball is already past the second last opponent. this is wrong, of course.

i think i got this idea from a call that a ref made in one of my games a couple years ago.

[DadOf6]

for some weird reason, i thought that there is no offsides if the ball is already past the second last opponent. this is wrong, of course.

i think i got this idea from a call that a ref made in one of my games a couple years ago.

OK. There can be offside when the ball has passed the 2LD. It is just that the ball now defines the offside position, not the position of the 2LD.

[DWickham]

JKC313 describes the exception as the general rule. I believe the better focus is that the AR must always wait for the player in offside position to touch the ball (before judging interfering with play) except: (a) if no one else has an opportunity to play the ball from an onside position; or (b) if there is a risk of imminent collision.

Waiting a second or two is the best way to avoid raising the flag only to then see the overlapping player streaking from an onside position.

[hradilv]

This play still bothers me. If the player is that close to the ball, "escorting" it, he's playing it, even if he doesn't touch it. If he really want to get out of the play, he should run back away from the ball. He didn't make that effort, therefore I call offside. MHO.

[IASocFan]

This play still bothers me. If the player is that close to the ball, "escorting" it, he's playing it, even if he doesn't touch it. If he really want to get out of the play, he should run back away from the ball. He didn't make that effort, therefore I call offside. MHO.

My test is: if he weren't there, would the play have been different? In the opinion of this referee, the ball would still have gone in the net. He didn't interfere with anybody. GOAL!

How close he was to the ball is irrelevant! As long as he doesn't interfere!

[Doug the Ref]

My test is: if he weren't there, would the play have been different? In the opinion of this referee, the ball would still have gone in the net. He didn't interfere with anybody. GOAL!

How close he was to the ball is irrelevant! As long as he doesn't interfere!

I'm kind of with hradilv, this bothers me. IA says, "How close he was to the ball is irrelevant! As long as he doesn't interfere!" Isn't playing distance - PLAYING? Isn't shielding a ball going out of bounds PLAYING, even though the defender does not touch the ball, only runs with the ball ans shields it?

My tendancy as an AR and Referee is to delay the call to determine involvement. I like getting it techically right, and I think a no call is technically right. However, I do think the attacker is influencing the play and gaining an unfair advantage, so I would call it. Probably not until the defender comes into the play. If the atacker just follows the ball in the net, no problem.

There, I think I have now stradeled both sides of this fence. :eek: