IMNTBHO, the Offside Law still would be thrown out of any court for being so poorly written as to be unenforceable. But let me just narrow this particular discussion to these two mind-boggling aspects. Am I crazy or does Decision 2 say the offensive player must play or touch the ball and USSF Advice to Referees flat out contradict it? Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball, but that doesn't mean that he has to play or touch the ball. What kind of contortions of logic does one have to perform in order to reconcile that? Secondly, just the phrase "playing or touching the ball"... I can understand how a player can touch a ball without playing it (it might hit him when he's not looking, for example), but will someone please explain to me how a player can play a ball without touching it? What?... does he blow on it real hard? Are we talking telekinesis? There must be some reason that "playing" is included by these masters of English language composition, but I certainly can't figure it out. (Are the people who write these things ex-players? Maybe headers do have a cumulative effect, after all.)
Wasnt this discussed and it was stated that USSF would have to change their "advice" because FIFA has now said the player must touch the ball? I believe when FIFA left "play" in, there was some wiggle room for USSF, but now that was taken out.
You're not alone. The PGMO (those in charge of referees in the PL and FL) said at their annual conference 2 weeks ago, that in their opinion, the law hasn't changed, and ARs are to apply it as they did last season. In other words, they've issued the same advice as your USSF. I can't see how they can either.
Like it or not the referee community has it’s self to blame. WHY? The LOAF has always stated that it is not an offense to “be” in an offside position. BUT what did FIFA see every time it looked down from its lofty perch? Every Tom, Dick & Mary referee raising the flag penalizing the attacking team for any player “being” in an offside position and not playing or interfering with the ball or an opponent. What was FIFA left with? First it tried issuing advice and direction... Did it work? NO we still had flag happy offside callers. So FIFA in frustration with the “hard headed” non compliance of the referee community said OK, we will fix them. And sent out this last change that in effect says “HEY STUPID” do not call offside until the ball is touched, (since it seams you can’t or won’t exercise “judgment” as to when a player is not to be penalized, we will take your “judgment” away from you.) Let’s all get onboard, make sure we are correctly applying the intent of Law 11 and get everyone around us, to also “get onboard”, and maybe in a year or so FIFA/IFAB will give us the freedom to again use our judgment to promote a free flowing, enjoyable game.
Any player who shields the ball without touching it is "playing" the ball. We see this all the time when the ball is near the touch or goal line and one player wants to force a restart in their favor or wait for a teammate to get close enough to help move the ball out. USSF has defined playing the ball as being within playing distance - usually 1-3 steps from the ball. My interpretation of the FIFA "play or touch" wording has allowed me to use this definition until someone reminded me of the other USSF directive that says for offside purposes, playing is "making contact with" the ball. Confusion still reigns.
Not necessarily. Remember that the infraction can also be called if the attacker interferes with an opponent (from FIFA): "Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent." Therefore the USSoccer advice can be construed not to contradict the new FIFA interpretations but to remind US referees that they have the interefering with an opponent rationale for making the call even if contact has not been made.
Get a tape of USA-Costa Rica from last night. Not for the football, which will allow many sports writers to abuse the word "desultory", but to observe the delayed offside calls. At one point in the second half (90+ IIRC) a Costa Rican pass goes through for a player making a run from near midfield. A US player (Conrad?) tracks the ball and is shielding the ball going back to Keller who comes outside of the PA to clear it with his feet.. Keller and Conrad kind of screw it up and the Tico gets a touch. Then the AR pops the flag! Would a goal have been allowed if Keller's clearance had simply ricocheted off Conrad to the US net? Doesn't the pressure on Conrad's back necessitate involvement? There were at least two other offside calls delayed for an extraordinary amount of time creating physically dangerous situations.
Until the 2005 FIFA Q&A came out, USSF had the wiggle room to define "play" and "touch" as two distinct things. However, now we have this: That makes it pretty clear. I think USSF's hands are tied - they will have to go along. And that's a shame. We can expect more instruction from USSF will be forthcoming.
I see this example as an attacker chasing down a ball that no defenders are going for as well. Why not let him do this? If he pulls up 2 feet from the ball and doesn't touch it, but one of his teammates who was onside comes and gets it, why should I pop the flag early? I think the point is that the directive to wait for involvement just wasn't working. Maybe refs were waiting an extra second or two, but they still weren't waiting for true involvement. They want refs to say "You want me to wait THAT long? You were SERIOUS about that?" The key is that the player is "not interfering with any opponent", and how that will be interpreted. If a defender is going for the ball as well, at what point do we call this "interfering" with the opponent. Does the fact that the attacker's running makes the defender run as well constitute interfering? Or does the attacker have to be between the defender and the ball to be considered interfering? This is where we will start to see the inconsistancies, and the debate will continue as to when to call some one offside.
red 1 is in offside position. red 2 plays the ball deep into the right corner. red 1 runs towards the ball along the touchline. blue 1, the nearest defender, runs from the middle of the field, about 35 yards out from the goalline. he gets to the ball in the corner, where red 1 has taken up a position 2 yards up from the ball, still near the touchline. blue 1 can either clear the ball over the touchline, over the goalline, or try to bring it back towards the middle of the field. red 1 has him pretty well pinned in that corner. has red 1 interfered with an opponent's ability to play the ball? or has red 1 merely limited the opponent's choices? or limited the choices to ones more advantegous to red? and is the limitation the interfering we are looking for?
UEFA has instructed all it's member associations to carry on applying offside as they did last season. They have written to the IFAB asking them whether they meant for the new definitions to be interpreted as ridiculously as they were at the Confed Cup. The IFAB meets in October, so there won't be any answer until then. And until the IFAB answer one way or another, all UEFA member associations, and European domestic and Int'l competitions will continue using last season's interpretation. What happens if the IFAB stick by the current interpretation waits to be seen...
It was one thing for the FA, USSF and Australian FA to protest. UEFA ignoring the new directive is akin to mutiny. I fully suspect this will be reversed or altered by next Spring and I expect a USSF memo soon that says USSF has also petitioned the IFAB.
The position FIFA have taken, regarding the touch to be guilty of an offside infraction by interfering with play, sets up this scenario: An attacker in an offside position has the ball hit in front of him and toward the opposing goalkeeper. Both run to play the ball and using the new criteria there is no flag. The attacker has not touched the ball and the goalkeeper is doing his job, stop goals right? So here we are, a collision waiting to happen. It happens just as the attacker touches the ball and using the new criteria, up comes the flag for offside. Good decision, indirect for the defense, well done referee. EXCEPT for this one tiny fact: the indirect free kick is delayed because both the goalkeeper and attacker have to be removed from the field because of the seriousness of their injuries. Later the injuries prove to be career ending... This is why FIFA must rethink what they have said. This is why there is no answer from US Soccer. This may be why the 2005 Memorandum has disappeared form US Soccer's website.
I still think this will come down to what "interferring with an opponent" is defined as. If there are no opponents near by, then I see no reason not to wait for a touch. But if there are opponents near by, then this in my mind changes things. I think we will need more guidance, as this clearly wasn't thought all the way thru. In the Confedation Cup several weeks ago, which were using this new interpretation, there was an incident where an attacker lifted a ball into the penalty area. An offside attacker started chasing the ball as the goalkeeper came out to snag it out of the air. Before there was any contact, the play was flagged and whistled dead. I assume the AR saw the attacker as "interferring with an opponent" and flagged the play before the attacker and the goalkeeper collided. To me, this is what should be done. If we wait for a touch to call that interfering with play, then we need a better definition of what interfering with an opponent is.
That's interesting if the USSF are opposed to it as well. As it's almost certain the British FAs will use their power within the IFAB to get a directive issued in October clarifying the intended interpretation of the law. However, despite being 1/2 of the IFAB, the other 4 members represent so many associations that Britain can't change laws or issue directives by themselves. So having someone like the US behind them, not only helps, but indicates there may be more associations and even confederations opposed to it. So I fully expect a directive to be issued after the October meeting telling referees to apply the offside law as they did last season (well words to that effect).
I just looked at the US Soccer web site, and the memorandum with the US Advice to referees is back. It still reads the same in that it is telling us to ignore the IFAB decision on offside. There is also a colorful slide presentation to reinforce it. After watching the USA v Panama game Sunday, that play where the Panamaian was offside and Keller almost took him out on the 18 could have very well been a red card if the player had not touched the ball before Keller went in. Once the player touched the ball it could not be DOGSO because the ball was no longer in play and no goal could have been scored....but that's another story.
Also interesting that the US Version of the Laws is different than the FIFA version. The pictures depicting offside are the old ones in the US version, the new pictures are in the FIFA version, which talk about having to touch the ball. Also, it says in the US verision that a player must be cautioned if "he completely removes his shirt over his head." The FIFA version says caution if "he removes his shirt over his head or covers his head with his shirt." There are also a couple of pages of "FIFA Guidelines" that aren't included in the US version. Nothing big there, except there is a pic of a player (I think Bobby Convey) covering his head with his jersey that says to caution.