Here's the scenario: Blue right winger takes the ball to the endline while his teammates crash the goal with their defenders in tow. The winger plays a soft ball back towards the penalty spot, and all defenders step out. The keeper at this point is central in the goal mouth, and there is an attacker at his right post (opposite side from where the attack developed) now left in an offside position due to the defensive step out, not obstructing the keeper's view of the ball or of the blue attacker about to shoot from the spot. The shot is low to the keeper's right. The blue attacker in an offside position dummies the ball, and it goes in. He did not play the ball or obstruct the keeper's view, or prevent the keeper from diving to his right. No defensive player was in a position to make a play at the ball, so this attacker did not interfere with any opponent. In this scenario, is the dummy "active play"? My interpretation was that it was not, and I allowed the goal. I see this play as fundamentally different from the disallowed Beasley goal in USA-Italy at the '06 World Cup where McBride's position obscured Buffon's view of the intial shot. In this particular case, the player in offside position did not obstruct the keeper's view. So, was I right?
Was the play much different than this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf-Yf9JbREQ&feature=PlayList&p=A60788D95BFA05CB&index=1 If not, then USSF says this is not offside. http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/04-15-2007_RefPositionPaper.pdf
The play was fairly similar, except for one notable difference. Put the keeper closer to the goal line, and move Mathis out to near the top of the goal box, then it's nearly identical. The key difference here is that the keeper is already beaten by the time Mathis steps to avoid the ball. If that move to avoid the ball is made before the keeper is beaten, you're more likely to get protests from the defending side. According to the position paper, though, if the attacker does not block the keeper's line of sight or prevent any opponents from playing the ball, the goal stands. That means I was right, so thanks!
Any thoughts on me playing devils advocate? Couldnt you say that he was making an attempt to play the ball. That would constitute offside wouldnt it? By playing the ball, couldnt you interpret a "fake" or "dummy" one in the same as "attempting to play and making motions toward active play"?
From the initial description, the ball was played to the goal line and then passed back toward the penalty spot. At this point all other attackers are behind the ball and there can be no offside, reguardless of the defenders position. If that description is flawed, then we are back to the point where an offside attacker attempts to play the ball, even if the keeper is beaten and the ball is going to enter the goal on its own. This is a good question in itself and my take is that it is an offside infraction. Any action by the offside player toward the ball must be considered interferring with an opponent. Unless there is another attacker who could get there first or good chance the defense could get to the ball, the attacker should be called for offside.
This is NOT true. If there is no opponent affected by or near the play and the offside player does not touch the ball, there is no offside infraction. The existence of another attacker is immaterial. The existence of an affected defender is critical. I agree the initial description was a little unclear.
Something that might help crystalize the difference is to imagine if anything would change if you could magically erase the offside player's existence: If plucking him away would change nothing---not the line of sight, not the defender's responses, not the direction of the ball...nothing---then the offside player will NOT have affected play and the ruling would be "not offside." In the cited example, the offside player's only action was to avoid contact with the ball as it rolled past the keeper into the goal. Since this neither interferes with an opponent or with play, and cannot constitute "participating in active play" since the actions demonstrated the AVOIDANCE of active play, it follows that can't be an offside offense.
Well...now you're describing this situation. Keeper near his line--defender in an offside position near the six (which side of it? goalside?). So at least vertically, keeper and offside attacker are pretty close to each other. And the offside attacker is now described as in front of the keeper (Mathis was well behind the keeper). Onside attacker takes a shot, offside attacker dummies it, keeper misses it. You had to be there, I guess. This could sound very much like the disallowed Beasley goal in the World cup. Not saying it is automatically offside, but you now have an offside defender in between, at least vertically, the flight of the ball and the keeper, which isn't anything like the Mathis play. Where was the keeper in relation to the shot? All the way at the opposite post? Right in the center of the area? Close to the offside defender? The closer the keeper is, horizontally, to the offside defender, the greater the probability of an offside call here. In your mind, keep sliding the keeper horizontally across the goal line, closer and closer to the line of the shot. As the keeper gets closer, more chance for offside.
Let's see if this works: -------------__________--------------- ___________|o----------|____________ ---------------\---G------------------ ---------------A\--------------------- -----------------\-----D-------------- ------------------\------------------- -------------------o------------------ --------------------A----------------- A stands for Attackers, the o's are the ball, the diagonal dashed line is the ball's path, G is the goalie, and D is a defender. The attacker in the offside position lifts his left leg to let the ball go through.
Good drawing, Hattrix. Now from the question posed above, consider that the attacker near the goal moved toward the ball from his offside position. I, for one, would call the offside because I believe any action would influence the keeper and therefore interfer with an opponent. If neither the keeper or any other opponent reacted to the attacker, the call would not be made but with these distances I can't see that happening. The drawing as is, is a perfect example of not playing or attempting to play the ball so no offside.
Thanks; I tried to draw something, but I don't have your skills This is very different from the Mathis play, and i'd just restate my point--the more that G is closer to post where the shot goes in, the greater the chance for an offside call if A dummies it.
from a ussf document: If An Opponent Moves … It is highly unlikely that opponents will fail to challenge an attacker (whether they know he is in an offside position or not). When an opponent challenges, the attacker is involved in active play NOT by interfering with play or gaining an advantage but by interfering with an opponent. the offside player in this example is not challenging for the ball and is not making a movement to distract the opponents. no offside penalty.
Agree with ref47 but to be clear, his comment applies to the drawing and not to the original question. In the original question an attacker makes a movement as if to play the ball but does not touch it. In the drawing Hattrix says the attacker moves to avoid contact with the ball. We need to be clear about which situation we are commenting on.
And, according to the drawing, the offside attacker is not blocking the keeper's view of the ball, unlike McBride in the World Cup. If he was, offside, as in the Cup.
Is it just me or have we wandered off the path a bit? In my opinion the situation that was orginally presented is VERY different than the one that you guys are discussing. I know that each and every one of you has the ability to read but let's look at the situation again. Here's the situation: I think a very vital key to this questions becomes the word "dummy." How does an attacker "dummy" a ball? Are we reffering to "dummy" as a deliberate, tactical manuever employed for the sake of decieving the defense? I'm just curious...
Good point. I am interpreting a "dummy" as an intentional drive toward the ball as if you were going to play it but not making contact at the last moment. An intentional swing and miss would be the same thing. Any differing interpretations?
THANK YOU refmike! If "an attacker who dummies a ball" = "intentional drive toward the ball as if you were going to play it but not making contact at the last moment. An intentional swing and miss would be the same thing" or "deliberate, tactical manuever employed for the sake of decieving the defense" we, by definition, have an offside infraction.
The word Dummy sort of implies non-soccer activity, as if a mere manikin were on the field. Simply existing on a soccer field suggests a willingness to play the ball at some point. Let's expand this analysis to the one where a player is in an offside position and another player is not off. The ball is played toward the offside guy, who jogs towards it, head down, and hand up, but does not touch it. Meanwhile, all defenders stand there raising their hands, and the on-side guy runs through for a breakaway. Call or non-call?
I just want to go on record by saying the following: The word "dummy" being to referenced to as "non-soccer activity" is quite possibly the worst definition to describe that kind of situation. The following are good examples of a "dummy" situation: A player on the blue team has possession of the ball near the touch. Another blue player checks to the ball and demands that his teammate pass him the ball. The blue player in possession of the ball passes it to the plaer that is checking to him. Instead of playing the ball, the checking player lifts his league or purposely allows the ball to be played through his leagues another player on his team to run on to the passed ball. Again, I know that it's not that big of a deal and that it's simply a matter of how somebody operationalizes a concept but the meanings that people apply to concepts, terms or ideas have an adverse affect on how somebody views the situation or scenario. It's highly possible that when a person asks a question that he is thinking one but the person that is attemption to answer the question is thinking another. This makes it hard to answer the question. Okay. I'm done with my rant now. It's still a good question and it's somethign that we, as referees, need to be aware of through out the course of play.
DLG...you are right on and your post re use of the term "dummy" needing to be clarified seemed to jump from my mind to my computer screen via your post. We are on the same page. The soccer use of the word "dummy" implies a tactical move intended to deceive the opposing team without actually touching the ball, while the player in Hattrix's example deliberately and clearly showed effort to avoid involvement in the play. The best (and about only, in my mind) way for the attacker in the scenario to avoid the offside call is to turn his back on the play. Having played keeper some, I can't imagine that any GK would not be distracted by the presence of an attacking player at his goalpost...be they in offside position or not...the GK doesn't know exactly where his 2LD is. Any move towards the ball (even not a good effort to get out of the way) would change the attacker's status (IMHO) from offside position to offside.
Since clearly the word "dummy" should never be used in reference to the official, what do we call it when the referee lifts a leg or steps out of the path of the ball to allow it to continue its trajectory? That certainly would qualify as non-soccer activity. So we need a word for "deliberate avoidance of active play." No doubt the Germans have this word already. If a player in an offside position calls for the ball and then checks to it, but then dummies it for a previously onside teammate, you'd call that? Would it have been called in Holland two years ago, or whenever they ran that experiment that you had to touch the ball to be in active play? The Holland experiment was foolish for requiring wasted 60 yard runs, but did temporarily eliminate this kind of issue. Not the offside attacker at the post, but the central one dummying the ball for a teammate. How do we now treat this guy? HE doesn't gain an advantage from the through ball, his teammate does. If he actively shields the ball, then he interferes with an opponent, but just being there, regardless of how loudly, isn't active play.
Even if that is non-soccer activity. How is it relevant? When we use the word "dummy" we're talking about a specific action that a player commits in an effort to decieve his opponent. We're not talking about the "non-soccer" activity of the referee. When a referee lifs a leg or steps out of the path of the ball to allow it to continue its trajecotry he is doing his job. I would call it: Giving the players the space they are entilted to in order to play the game. Why do we have to define it? It's unrelated to the offside instance that was presented.
Presented when? In the first post of this thread? I accidentally used the word that means "trying to convince the opposition that you will make a play that will alter the path of the ball" when I meant to use the word that means "trying to show the entire world a clear lack of intent to play the ball or be involved in active play in any manner whatsoever." You ask "why do we need to define it?" And the answer is, so we know what we're talking about. And actually we have defined it. What we haven't done is named it. Now that these two distinct concepts are out there: the Dummy: not touching the ball but conveying an intent to be in active play; and the [Insert New Term Here]: not touching the ball but conveying a lack of intent to be in active play, we can move on to discuss whether the flag should be raised or not. The Holland Experiment--the mandate to lift the flag only when a player touches the ball--would decree that dummying is not grounds for lifting the flag. That experiment has been done away with, but has the the interpretation that provided the spirit for that experiment also been dumped? Dummying, when combined with shielding, interferes with the opposition, and is certainly active play and grounds for raising the flag. How one could effectively shield a forward pass from an offside position is the subject of further studies in physics, but let's let that go for now. Onto the Sheildless Dummy, complete with feint, undertaken simply to make defenders stop playing; does this constitute interfering with them? My take is yes, it does, but two or three years ago, for a month, it didn't. What is the official word now days?