So basically, NFHS is adopting the FIFA offside interpretations. http://nfhs.org/articles/offside-rule-revised-in-high-school-soccer/
"To be offside, a player must be involved in active play, interfering with play or an opponent, or seeking an advantage.”
But...“This change makes offside more understandable and should result in better administration of the offside rule.” Uh huh.
Waitaminnit “An example of this new rule would be if attacking player A1 kicks the ball to teammate A2 who is in the offside position behind defender B, and defender B jumps to play the ball but is unable to control the ball as it touches the top of his/her head and deflects to Player A. In this situation, since B played the ball, A2, although in an offside position, is not offside,” Wynns said. “One important point to remember about offside is that being in an offside position does not mean that a player is offside. To be offside, a player must be involved in active play, interfering with play or an opponent, or seeking an advantage.” In that scenario it seems to me we have a ball touched by a defender, not played by a defender. Anyone else? It may be fruitless to use touch/play in a discussion involving NFHS rules, but I for one feel like the opacity in the room has just gone up.
If the definitions of "deflected" and "rebounded" are still the same within the scope of the NFHS rules, it would seem to me that any contact with the ball by a defender, deliberate or not, would nullify the offside. I don't believe I have ever seen deflection or rebound used in the definition of a deliberate play other than a deliberate save. Of course we're still not sure exactly what that means. Voiceoflg, I thought the whole point of the game was to seek and advantage. This does sound a little like paraphrasing to me, so we may be jumping the gun being too critical.
Seeking is already back this year! Don't know why they left it in there if next year they are basically adopting the FIFA interpretation, though.
Don't less the press release confuse you. Here is the new language that is actually in the rules: A player is offside and penalized if, at the time the ball touches or is played by a teammate, the player is involved in active play and interferes with play or with an opponent or seeks to gain an advantage by being in that position. A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. Rationale: The addition of this information aligns NFHS with other rules codes.
I would say this one is fairly easy. The player jumped to make contact with the ball. That is a play in the ball, doesn't matter how bad it was.
...unless she misses entirely, in which case OS is not reset. Correct? 1.a. Defender jumps for the ball and misses, no contact. OSP attacker is OS. 1.b. Defender jumps for the ball and just kisses it with her hair. OSP attacker is not OS. 2.a. Defender attempts to clear the ball and misplays it, managing to touch it only slightly. OSP attacker is not OS. 2.b. Defender attempts to clear the ball and whiffs. OSP attacker is OS. Makes sense to me. Well, actually it doesn't. I hate it. I hate it almost as much as I hate when an OSP attacker attempts – or pretends to attempt – to play the ball and whiffs, and we say he did not interfere with play or an opponent and therefore was not OS. Argh.
If those two rather conflicting things are in the rules then that is going to muddy the water quite a bit. It's NFHS though so I'm not shocked.
I guess I don’t see much of a conflict. With respect to offside, if you attempt to play the ball and make contact, however slight, it counts as playing the ball. If you attempt to play the ball and miss completely, it doesn’t count as playing the ball. Of course the decision of whether the contact is the result of a deliberate play or accidental deflection is going to be ITOOTR. The only inconsistency I see is that if the player in an offside position is the only player capable of playing the ball from his/her teammate, we may call offside before they touch it to avoid an ugly interaction with the keeper. Now, with respect to the ever popular pass back…
No I don't think you do. I was reading too quickly and I am Friday drunk and want to go home. As has already been said. An attempt to play where there is contact resets offside no matter how bad the play. An attempt with no contact is not a play and no reset occurs.
Okay I think I fell in a wormhole Is the mis-kick now a dead concept? Doesn't have to be a controlled play on the ball, any touch (except a save) will do to reset offside? Not to worry though, when I'm reffing in a few weeks I won't be multi-tasking while on conference calls.
Unhappily (to me at least), yes. I get it, kinda, for pro and high level games, but for most youth games I don't like it. If the defender is attempting to play the ball, yes. But a true deflection off a defender who is not attempting to play the ball will not reset.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue... When was this abomination change disseminated on the USSF side? I honestly have "WTF" closed-captioning running across the bottom of my screen right now...
That sounds about right. Go to the archives of this site and there are discussions and links. I believe there are a couple of plays of the week on the PRO site, too. (And there might have been something specific about what play meant on the PRO site, but I'm not sure.) Safe to say, however, that for better or worse a defensive play being defined as "possess and control" is ancient history. At least until history repeats itself . . .
Aside from people's different learning modalities, I'm worried stuff like this is just not getting covered in our online recerts. Maybe I just miss the old Memoranda :aargh: Hmm so I found this slide in https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/ruqcsf0671k1bcf6dzwf/1/2182791477 , concerning Law changes 2013-14. I sure don't remember seeing this. But see where it says "No change"? Still seems to retain the controlled v not-controlled distinction. But then there's (deliberate or not). I'm really sorry if I'm threadjacking here but I am a bit fussed. Commiseration and talking-off-the-ledge accepted with equal gratitude.