This is where I'm not so sure. The defender is actually trying to switch the ball to his stronger foot in order to clear it upfield. He hasn't taken one step upfield. He hasn't attempted to dribble forward, or even pass the ball a few feet forward to his wide open teammate. Given how deep he is in his own end, it's 100% obvious to me he's trying to clear the ball upfield. Was he able to do so? No. Why? Bc of the intervention of a player challenging from an offside position. I'm not so sure one touch resets offside, or rather should reset offside. If, for example, the ball had been played in the air and the Herta defender first chested it out of the air and was in the process of clearing the ball upfield with a subsequent volley when the attacker snuck in and stole the ball, would that one touch have constituted a play and thus reset offside?
Yes. The defenders first touch was a deliberate play of the ball. At that point, the attacker cannot be adjudged offside. Did he interfere with an opponent before the defender first touched the ball? No. Not offside. We don't get to choose the version of the laws that we like. This is 100% not an offside offense.
It's a deliberate touch, not a deliberate play imo. So what happens in the scenario I described above with the defender chesting the ball so he can volley it out? Is that a deliberate play as well?
Yes. If the defender has time to make a controlled touch on the ball, then it is a deliberate play. Even if it's chested or headed. Here's an example of the defender (in white) misplaying a ball to an attacker in yellow who was in an offside position. Since the defender deliberately played the ball, the assistant referee correctly kept the flag down. I want to be clear on something and I don't want this to come across like me being a jerk. That's not what I intend. I understand that some fans and players (especially TV pundits) say that these two examples should be offside. But that is what you think the law should be. I'm telling you what the law is. The Bundesliga example is never a debate in the current version of the laws. It is not an offside offense.
Btw, I'm not debating the way this is currently interpreted. I just find it odd. There's a distinction in the offside law made between touching and playing the ball for offside purposes. In other words, one can not touch the ball and still be deemed to have played it. So why cant one or two quick touches, especially when the player doesn't move from his original spot at all, not be considered a play likewise?
But the defender lost control of the ball in this play..it was basically a mishit clearance. In the sample I cited above, the defender is still in the process of making a play, even after two quick, successive touches.
You're not the only one. If you want to see a debate on it, dig up the Tottenham Liverpool thread from the end of February. The only requirement is the defender "deliberately playing the ball". That means his first deliberate touch resets offside. Players make dozens of touches a game where they are immediate pressured after their first or second touch. In this case the defender failed to do his job and clear the ball out. He doesn't get bailed out by the offside flag.
I understand that. I'm not debating the way the law is currently interpreted. What I'm saying is that it's odd a single touch can be considered a play. In this case, the defender couldn't possibly clear the ball out, the play he was trying to make. The heffenheim player intervened before he could move the ball to his stronger foot to clear it. If he took a dribble forward, even just one, I could see that being considered a play. If he passed the ball forward and it was intercepted by a player coming from an offside position I could see that as well. But in our case, the defender never got a chance to make the play he was intending to make on account of the hoffenheim players interference. It's not like the Herta player mishit his clearance. He never got a chance to make that clearance.
I disagree. When the defender makes a touch on the ball, the player is 5 or 6 yards from him. He could hit it out for a corner. He could boot it upfield with his left leg on the next touch. He could pass to two open teammates. He simply did not realize that the opponent was there.
Why would he want to give up a corner? He's looking to clear the ball upfield, that's the play he's trying to make...not tap it out for a corner. He really can't play the ball with his left...he's a right footed right fullback
Because he's a ref. Because it's his opinion. Because he should be able to read the play. Because he's asked to make subjective decisions continuously.
I would also imagine the ref needs to take all of the above into consideration bc he's already drawn the subjective conclusion that the hoffemheim player hasn't left the field to evade an offside infraction. Refs have to make decisions like these all the time. In this instance, if he decides that the hoffenheim player has stepped off to avoid an offside infraction (or the possibility of an offside infraction), then this is a caution, no pk. But he obviously made the subjective decision not to caution here by reading the play.
The defender has had 2 controlled touches of the ball and then the attacker steals the ball, then the defender trips the attacker. Penalty kick.
Consider the touches. The first is with his right, but the ball comes to him in such a manner that he can't do what he wants to (clear it), but rather he has to go right-left in order to re-position the ball back to his right so he can clear it. That's evident by the fact that he doesn't move from the spot he's standing at all, despite having two touches on the ball. Actually, it appears to me he was quite surprised the Hoffemheim player fanned on his shot and that the ball got to him when it did, and how it did. Once again, I liken this to a scenario where the ball is played in the air to the Hertha defender. If it's played to him chest level and he chests it out of the air and then attempts a volley to clear when the Hoffenheim attacker steals it, would this also be a controlled touch for offside purposes? Because granted it may be two physical touches, but he really hasn't been given the opportunity to make the PLAY he intended to make all along, by a player come from an offside position. Once again, I remind people that Law 11 makes a clear distinction between touching the ball and playing the ball.
You're digging way too deep into what it means to play the ball. This is your typical 'player v referee' debate here. It's really this simple. The defender here plays the ball. Play does not equal desired outcome.
Well, considering I'm a retired ref with over 2,000 adult matches under my belt, I'd say that characterization is a bit misplaced. I'm not talking outcome, I'm talking not being allowed to complete the desired play. For all we know, the defender could have flubbed the clearance. That would have been an undesired result. But he never got the chance to complete the play.
I'm just curious as to what "play" you believe the Hertha was attempting here? Do you really believe the defender was attempting to put on a juggling display here? Or was he attempting to clear the ball?
You're over thinking what "played the ball" means in the laws. It simply means a touch. It's not a pass or clearance or shot.
Yes, that could be so...but the Laws do make a distinction between play and touch for offside purposes. And since I know it's touch, I find it highly inequitable in this instance.
Which is pretty ironic, no? The attacking player, by being in an extreme offside position, was able to effectively hide out, sneak up on an unwitting defender and win a penalty. I'm about to be all over the map here, so bear with me. First, it is pretty crazy that the IFAB doesn't want to penalize this attacker for being offside. Not penalizing the attacker here only encourages the defender, presuming he is aware of the attacker at all, to not play soccer (let the ball go out of play or to the offside attacker) or to play soccer poorly (clear the ball out immediately or deliberately hit it out of touch). It's a perverse incentive system. Second, with that said, you're absolutely right that the IFAB almost certainly wants this to be onside and then a penalty. I'm 99% confident that's my call in a match. So my paragraph above is just a personal opinion as a fan of the game. As a referee, I know this is almost certainly onside and consequently a penalty kick. You are spot on in your posts in that regard. Third, the reason I use the qualifier "almost certainly" above is because what constitutes "challenging" hasn't really been adjudicated to the same extent the definition of "deliberate play" has. There is overlap here, but we shouldn't be conflating the two issues entirely. If I, as a defender, make a deliberate touch or play and then am challenged a nanosecond letter by an attacker who was in an OSP, that deliberate touch or play doesn't override the fact the attacker challenged me and the attacker should be penalized for offside. So there is a grey area here where if a challenge occurs immediately or very soon after a deliberate play by a defender, you still should penalize the offside. Otherwise we'd have attackers in OSP's standing next to defenders, not playing the ball and not doing anything to distract, but then immediately challenging their opponent upon the touch, which would become a touch that a defender would never want to make... game it out in your head and you can imagine the chaos. I am not aware of formal instruction on this because it's a grey area that is still being sorted out. I believe PRO ARs have had debates about this issue while reviewing a couple clips in the past year or two. Ultimately, I am sympathetic to @aek 1924 's point as a fan and we should all be cognizant of his point as referees. Because, while in this situation (attacker is 5+ yards away and defender takes two full touches) I believe the IFAB would say "onside, penalty," there are similar situations where we should be penalizing the offside. I just think this one wouldn't fit the bill. But our conclusion, which I fear is the one people have made above, should not be "deliberate touch negates offside for challenging." Because it doesn't.
I didn't even consider offside. Even without the modified offside guidance, I consider this "controlled by a defender." Completely stopped the ball and then touched it again after that. With the new guidance this more than qualifies as playing the ball. Given that the defender lunged at it, he could have just nicked it and the attacker would no longer be guilty of an offside offense.
Of course. Here's an obvious example from the PRO website of a case where the attacker challenged an opponent and should have been called offside. Note: It's 18 MB so I choose not to embed. https://i.imgur.com/icmOf7l.gif
MassRef, I think we're saying the same thing here, just phrasing it differently. You're looking at it from a "challenge" perspective and I'm looking at it from a "controlled play" point of view. But the fact of the matter remains that a player who effectively hid out in an extreme offside position was allowed to sneak up from behind an unsuspecting player and not allow him to complete the play he was intending. That is wrong on so many levels and runs contrary to the spirit and purpose of the offside law.