Now what do you do when the person running sees your flag stops running center waves you off and it now way out of position?
IMO, The Center is wrong is his instructions to wait for a touch. However, he is not SO wrong that you should not follow his instructions -- after all what is the pre-game for, if not to ask for small idiosyncrasies to be regarded. So, I'd say, the answer to the OP's question is to stop running when the Forward touches the ball, the final 10 yards doesn't matter much at this point. Face the field and signal. The question then becomes, whose problem is it to decide where to take the IFK. I say it it the CR's problem. (Maybe he will realize that his instructions are causing unnecessary unhappiness among those involved....)
Emphasis mine on that quote from the Laws of the Game from before. "A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball." No other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball while the player is running. When I'm raising my flag it is because I am informing the referee the player should be penalized for interfering with play. If the player stops running, good for them. We should still have an IFK coming out because the player should still be penalized. If the referee waves me down because the player has stopped running, we are going to be having a discussion at half time/full time for me to understand why. Obviously it is at the referee's discretion whether or not to penalize the player but the Laws make it clear the player in the offside position can be penalized and I, as the referee's assistant, have told the referee that I believe the player should be penalized. The referee would be over-complicating things to wave me down and, in my opinion, telling me he doesn't value my input on a very obvious decision. EDIT: But, in the meantime, before we can have that discussion, I'll do as Bubba says and get back to following play.
Just out of curiosity...why is this your line in the sand? Do you really believe that ARs should not flag OS in this case or do you power trip all your ARs with some macho complex? I suppose to answer your question. If he waved me down I'd run 10 more yards up the field and put my flag up a second time at the inevitable touch. You can deal with all the dissent then for ignoring both the spirit and letter of the law. I'm sure it will greatly increase your credibility when trying to convince these higher level players you know as much about the game as they do
If he mentions this to me, then I am going to question him as to why he wants me to (a) make an unnecessary run for the player and me AND (b) possibly risk a bad collision with the GK BUT (c) mostly ask why he's going against standard convention. At U-17, like the OP said, there is no reason to have a player run 40 yards just to call it back. We would hash this out before the match starts.
There could be legitimate reasons to wave down the flag. If the result of the OSP player stopping is that the ball is going uncontested to the GK, and I recognize that as R before I whistle, I'm not likely to stop play -- but I am going to say, loudly, "Thanks Chaos," as I wave it down, followed by a thumbs up, keeper has the ball, let's keep playing." As an AR, this is not a flag I would get worried about being waved down -- there are enough different interpretations of when diagram 4 should apply, I'm hardly going to be offended if the R has a different one that I do. The call is ultimately his responsibility. But I would ask about it -- indeed I think the R and AR should discuss every waved down flag.
In your scenario I am fine to be waved down. The way I envisioned cmonref to mean it was I am being waved down because the forward stopped and now it's going to be a footrace between an onside player and a defender way behind play to now run up and keep going. In that scenario I would be pretty miffed.
Hopefully they'll clarify this. My problem is that Law 11 says the kick is awarded "where the offence occurred." If you raise the flag before the player actually touches the ball or interferes with a defender, and the ref blows the whistle and the player stops running, where does the kick get taken from? It's not an "offence" to be standing in an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, so the kick can't be where the player was when the ball was kicked. It's not an "offence" to run towards a ball from an offside position. Until the player actually "interferes with play" or "interferes with a defender", there hasn't been an offence so there is no place for the kick to be taken. In the example in the OP, the offence occurred when the player played the ball, so the kick is taken deep in the defender's half. And what if you don't put the flag up while the player is running and their teammate calls out "you were offside, stop running" and the offside player stops before they get the ball. Has there still been an "offence"? Do you raise the flag after the player stops running? And again, where do you give the kick from? Also, notice diagram 5, which may be a situation closer to the example in the OP since it sounds like there was a chance the ball was going to go out. Offensive player near midfield is well offside. Maybe 3 yards or so. Long ball gets played over the top. He sprints after it. There is some debate as to whether or not he is going to catch it before it goes out of bounds. He finally catches up and stops the ball just before it goes out of play deep in the corner. As for the correct signal, I would say to stop and signal as soon as the offence occurs, and then after the whistle is blown continue to move to the point where the kick is to be taken. There is obviously contradictory instruction being given between Law 11 and Diagram 4.
Just to throw a scenario out there --- last minute of the game, ball kicked long into the corner and offside opponent legally shields the ball w/o touch to close out the game....
Rather than thinking of it as a contradiction, think of it as an exception. Imagine if the Laws read: "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate (EXCEPTION: A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.)" I dunno, maybe that doesn't help. I play a bunch of Wargames, which are rulebooks filled with rules and then exceptions to that rule. Having further clarification later doesn't bother me.
w/o touch on the ball or defender? As soon as the person shielding the ball gets touched by the defender, there is the interference and the offside call.
I think what he meant was: What if an offside position player just casually runs down a ball in the corner, beating everyone else there and just touches it deep in the corner. That is screwing with the field position of the restart. As I mentioned earlier, I just to dont think that is the intent of the interpretation. An player in an offside position should not get to determine where the restart is by deciding when the actually play the ball. As others have said, if the CR tells you in the pregame that this is how they expect you do make this call, and the two of you do not see eye to eye at that time, then your obligation under the Laws as AR is to follow their direction. And let them deal with the aftermath of a hacked off set of players and coaches. You can (should?) also follow up with a written report explaining why you were forced into making that call. Then let nature take its course.
That is absolutely not the purpose behind diagram 4. That diagram long precedes last year's change in location of the FK to the spot of the involvement. (Nor do I think it makes sense -- a team can blast the ball into the corner without an OSP player chasing it and the ball is down in the corner.)
Yes, as discussed above this uncertainty is a quirk of the new wording of law 11. If you make the call under diagram 4 then there is no set position but rather it becomes the position of the PIOP when the AR decides that offside needs to be called (and yes that means it can vary from AR to AR and match to match). And yes that isn't a wholly satisfactory situation but it is what we have under the current laws and guidance. Hopefully the IFAB will pick up on this issue and come out with a fix in a future re-write but as it is a call that's rarely made then it might take a while.
True, the purpose is to stop collisions and cut down on time (and effort) being wasted by a PIOP chasing a ball he can't play (and of those the former is most important IMO). But still... Under the new wording the longer the AR take to decide that the offside needs to be called the more the non-offending team becomes disadvantaged by the wait, and I don't think that was something the IFAB intended (ofc I'm not convinced the IFAB considered diagram 4 at all during the re-write). Diagram 4 is an exception to the "wait and see" principle right from the start and it's possible that this quirk means fairness dictates that, if called, it should be called as soon as possible. Of course this is such a rare situation that maybe you just accept that slight unfairness as the price of doing business.
Isn't this indeed a Schrödinger's call (as someone may have suggested upthread)? I.e., the offense actually occurs when it becomes "the opinion of the referee [that] no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball." @Thezzaruz sorry, I think this just repeats what you said.
I agree fully that this situation is under specified in the Laws. But, I disagree that it is rare. EVERY time there is a wait and see, the issue arises. And, EVERY time the PIOP is substantially behind the 2LD it arises. That is the majority of OS cases.
I disagree that this is anything close to the majority of cases. It really doesn't apply to wait and see -- if there is a second potential attacker, then diagram 4 is off the table. It only applies where there is a lone attacker who goes after the ball and is likely to get it with no not-OSP teammate having potential to get the ball. I think it is easy to overthink diagram 4 -- it is about the situation where the only plausible thing that is going to happen is OS. If there is another plausible outcome, then we are patient.