Agreed but in this case RVN was in the middle of the field with two, possibly three, defenders within a few metres of him. I believe that even if the ball had not touched RVN he would have been close enough to the ball to be called offside. The call would be deciding if RVN's position interfered with the defence. Since all the defence stopped as RVN was around 3m offside you would have to say that his offside position interfered with play. Crowdie.
Right, but did his location interfere with their ability to play the ball? That's a very difficult point to argue. It's just become tradition for defenders to stand around and put their hands up, asking for the offside call when they don't think they can get back. Sometimes, like this case, they are right and the attacker is in an offside position. Other times they are completely wrong. But it still remains the AR's job to call offside, not the defenders'. If Van Nistelrooy had not been so close to the ball, then Scholes would have had a perfect right to run onto the ball and score and the defenders still would have been standing there with their hands in the air, despite the fact that Van Nistelrooy was only in an offside position--not actually offside. To put it in other terms, we don't call fouls merely based on the reactions of players who think they are fouled. There has to be an actual foul for us to whistle play dead. Likewise, we can't just call offside because the defenders think the player should be called offside, even if he's in an offside position. There has to be interference or an advantage gained. The only 'interference' that exists in the hypothetical instances that we're talking about is self-created by the defence. Attackers can't be penalized for that. With that being said, we're talking about hypotheticals now. In the instance in question... On this, I agree with you completely. However, I disagree here. Even though you might think it's just semantics, there's an important distinction here. I feel he should be called offside for interfering with play, not for interfering with an opponent(s). Even if he hadn't touched the ball, being close enough to the ball constitutes 'interference with play'. Nothing he did could be classified as 'interference with opponents'. They stopped playing on their own free will based merely on his position--not on anything he actually did. Again, in this situation, since the ball was so near him (and he actually played it) this distinction is of absolutely no consequence. But, if the ball had been a bit further away, the distinction would be vital. Because if the ball is far enough away for an AR to decide that the player in an offside position is not interfering with play, then we can't punish him for 'interfering with an opponent' just because the defence stops and asks for a flag.
One of the advantages of being a referee in a small country is that we get a lot of access to FIFA ranked CRs and ARs. I was at a National League game here in Auckland and I was lucky enough to spend over an hour speaking to a FIFA ranked AR and he gave me some advice that I have always remembered and I will reproduce it for the newer referees: In their spare time referees can go to a game and watch the referee's positioning, calls, signals, etc but forget to watch the game. Soccer is a game. It is not a collection of laws. Go to a game and enjoy it for the game. Always remember that soccer is a game first... If you apply this to this incident and watch RVN's mannerisms he shows that he knew he was offside. He was walking slowly back onside and didn't really care when the ball came to him. He was just waiting for the offside call. The defence had stopped as RVN was at least 3m offside and they expected the call. In this incident the call was obvious. I agree with you that just because the defence stops and calls for offside doesn't mean that an offside call should always be made. If you take RVN out of this incident and the pass was still made but Scholes came across from the left wing and collected the ball then the calls for offside (against Scholes this time) would be ignored (as Scholes was onside) and the goal would be valid. Agreed. Any good coach will tell you that the role of attackers off the ball is to draw defenders away from the position they want to be in. Attacking players just outside the active zone (or whatever you want to call it) can still be called offside because their team gets an advantage from them drawing a defender out of position. However, this is always a difficult one to call and normally it has to be very obvious to be called. RVN should have been called offside because he touched the ball in an offside position NOT because he interfered with the Bolton defence. I believe that the Bolton defence just reacted to how far offside RVN was. Some posters believe that because RVN didn't deliberately play the ball that he can't be called offside and other posters have mentioned that the Bolton defence saw him offside and stopped - hence an advantage to being offside. Crowdie.
As a mental exercise I try to imagine my reaction to the play if I were running the line, and the ball had not touched RVN. Here's what I would probably do, as a matter of practice and not strict rule interpretation. I would do my best to read the intentions of the passer. In the replay, it sure looked like the pass was intended for RVN, and thus I would flag offside. However, I think if the pass read like it was actually intended for Scholes and RVN just happened to be near its path, I would be inclined not to flag for offside. Sometimes players in an offside position have absolutely no intention of being involved with play, but the ball runs near them. Take that player out of the picture and the end result would be exactly the same -- a clear way of determining non-involvement. From the standpoint of a player, I don't have an "active area of play" if I'm not actively playing. I'm not running around trying to have an influence on the game. I'm just a passerby on the field trying to get back to a valid position. Whether the ball runs by me or not, I am not involved. If the pass was intended for me, then yes I am at fault for influencing play. But if the pass never was intended for me, it was just done near me, what have I done wrong? My teammate was in a perfectly good position on a great run, the pass was made, what more can we ask for? It would seem highly unfair to be punished in this situation.
I agree with almost everything in your post, including the quote from your local FIFA AR (our current State Director of Assessment told me something very similar 4 years ago). My only disagreement is with these two points, which are essentially the same. I just think it's too much of a stretch to argue that drawing a defender by being in an offside position constitutes 'interfering with opponents'. I have heard, as you suggest, coaches tell attackers to draw defenders away. I have heard, probably with equal frequency, coaches tell defenders to 'let the attacker go' because he is in an offside position. To me, this is an issue of tactics and the officiating crew shouldn't be sucked into it. The Bolton defence stopped of their own free will. Van Nistelrooy's position did not cause them to stop. They did so because a player was in an offside position, not because he was offside. They are trying to induce the AR into making the offside call. I think the above response by Statesman best summarizes what I think would be an accurate interpretation of this or similar situations.
This type of call for offside normally occurs in or around the penalty area. Once you head further out the influence of moving defending players is reduced. The further out you go the less the effect. Crowdie.
Who's fault is it that a defender feels compelled to guard an ineligible attacker? Certainly not the attackers! Why would you punish them for the stupidity of their opponent? Again, it is not an infringement to be in an offside position. Defenders reacting to a player in an offside position is not that player's fault and he should not be penalized for it.
What you have to judge is whether the offside attacker is moving solely to influence the defence. Normally this is done to create a gap for other attacking players. If the offside player is just walking towards his own half trying to not interfere then I agree that a defender to stupid to mark him. As an example that I see quite often on Saturdays: An attacking player (A1) inside the opposing penalty area mistimes a run and ends up in an offside position. The attacking player with the ball (A2) holds the ball with two defending players (D1 [to the left] and D2 [to the right]) marking/containing him. So far so good. A1 now moves back towards D1 and ensures that D1 knows he is there. A1 now moves across the goal towards the left hand corner flag drawing D1 away from A2 and creating a gap to the left of D2. A2 now runs into the gap created by A1's actions and passes to another attacking player. By A1's actions in an offside postion the attacking team has now gained an advantage. This is what makes A1 offside. Crowdie.
I wouldn't call that offside at all, that's a smart play. The attacker is free to run on the pitch wherever he desires. If a defender follows, that is the bad of the defender. So long as that offside attacker doesn't interfere with the ability of the defender to play the ball fairly (in your example he does not), then he can't be considered involved in the play.
Speaking for all American referees.... All kidding aside, I would call it the same way as Statesman and I would guess that most Americans, at least based on current USSF instruction, would agree. However, the way you pose your example makes me see the validity of your point. In rare circumstances, there most certainly can be 'interference' with opponents by purposeful runs off the ball. With that said, I would still have to refrain from calling it because it creates a slippery slope. As you said, we have to 'judge is whether the offside attacker is moving solely to influence the defence'. Ultimately, we have to read the minds of the attacker. While it may be obvious is some rare cases, in most it is not. If we call plays like this offside, defenders will be asking for much more controversial plays to be called similarly, and coaches and players alike will want to know exactly what the criteria is for 'interfering with opponents'. I'm not prepared to give a response that involves judging the intent of an attacker.
I'll make it unanimous on behalf of all American referees. The area of active play is defined by where the ball actually goes, not where the players think it might go or could go, nor where the players themselves go. Players can't create their own zone of active play separate from the ball. Unless the attacker interferes with the defender's ability (as opposed to his choice) to move to the area of active play, the attacker hasn't committed an offside infraction simply by drawing that defender's attention and/or physical presence away from the area of active play.
So what is the concensus on an offside recieving touch.? As the laws have adapted so to the players. Just as it is not unsporting for defenders to consciously place attackers offside by running the trap it is the same for attackers trying to draw defenders with them on offside runs away from the ball. I fully concurr with Massref, Statesman and others the thoughts of defenders are not a criteria and intent is not something we need to consider rember the law change to seeking to gain an advantage was striken as it is on face value that all attacks seek advantage. THe RVN touch though is interesting I could not see for sure if Scholes was in fact offside when RVN touched it. If he was then the issue is the AR missed it. The queston that I want answered is is a touch inadvertant as it might be a "LOCK "on interfering with play by an offside positioned teammate? THe word "touched or played" in LAW 11 tells us what sets the criteria for offside to be called on the pass but at the other end of the spectrum on recieving the ball could a referee be of the opinion the touch, a slight brush or tiny deflection poses no reason to conclude active involvement of interfering with play "When the ball made contact with RVN, whether by his intent or inadvertently, he was in an offside position. COULD the referee or AR have the opinion that RVN did NOT 'interfere with play' - if he felt the contact was inadvertent - and allow play to continue." Lets assume Scholes was not in an offside position at anytime for sake of argument.
Scholes was not in an offside position when the ball was touched by RVN -- by the time the ball ticked off RVN, it was past Scholes and Scholes then chased it down. Personally, I think that if it hits a player in an offside position, then even if he was TRYING to avoid it, he is in the play and it should be whistled. I still think that inadvertent touch by RVN was so slight that the AR simply missed it.
I thought so too but no replay I could not confirm I have seen posts here and on other threads that say he was but I think you are correct as it was my gut reaction too. It is hard to argue against that logic but if we erased RVN would not the outcome be the same?
What I really enjoy about talking to referees from other countries is the difference in interpretation in the grey areas not covered by the LOTG. The example of the attacking player drawing a defending player away is, I believe, one that can only be called at the time and is dependent on the age group and how it was executed. In New Zealand we are getting a number of retired English players coaching and they are bringing their tactics with them. The example of drawing the defending player out of position is, I have been informed by one of the coaches, commonly used in the English Division One (where most of these coaches are coming from). Crowdie.
Sorry, I think RVN was offside... My logic (hopefully) follows. 1) he is in offside position. 2)I believe whether or not the ball touched/played him is mute. If it came close enough to brush his shirt he's offside. If he "dummy"s the ball, ie lets it run between his feet with no touch, he made an effort not to have the ball touch him, yet I still consider him being involved in the play. He became involved by the ball. And if a player goes down in offside position and the ball hits the down player, I believe he too is offside. Whether the ball played the player or not (reserved for handball I believe) is not at issue. The player is now involved in the play. You can't describe what happened without mentioning that the ball hit player x and then went... I'm sorry, the player is now involved whether it was intentional or not. Also, we judge offside at the moment the ball was played to a player (in offside position). Not by if the player played to touched it or not. In your mind how can you discredit the large possibility that a ball travelling right to/by an offside player, was played to him on the basis of whether or not the ball touched that player?
I am no ref, but reading from the letter of the law and using basic logic, he should be called offside, period. From the LOTG Page 13: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by …" The facts were at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team: 1. He was in an offside position. 2. The ball was played to his direction/vicinity. Given those facts, how could the AR decide at the moment of ball played by Djemba-Djemba that RVN would not be in active play?? Moreover, there is no real logic justification to say RVN at the ball's vicinity not involved in active play. The very least he impeded/confused the view of some defenders, not to mention potentially obstructed any possible play of the defenders toward the ball at that vicinity, even if he jumped over the ball. He should be flagged. The fact he actually touched the ball just made it an even bigger missed call.
I'm looking at the screen frozen before RVN gets the ball and Scholes is clearly offsides by a yard or two. That alone makes Scholes offsides. I fail to see how that is even debatable.
From LOTG: A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. I'm looking at that same frozen screen, just as the ball arrives at RVN. Although Scholes is behind the defenders when the ball makes contact with RVN, Scholes is even with the ball (Thankfully, the cut of the grass makes it easy to spot). As such, Scholes is not offside at the moment the ball struck RVN. Kryten
No. RVN should clearly have been judged offside, even if he was lying on the ground and the ball bounced off him. Want proof from FIFA on this? Take a look at the diagram on page 47 of the LOTG (http://images.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/2003/LOTG2003_e.pdf). Here is a player lying on the ground and is "passively offside" (I love that new term the commentators are using!) when the shot goes by him an into the goal. FIFA says this is offside. I can't fathom how anyone could possibly say that RVN was not involved with play since the ball hit him. Had it not hit him there could easily be discussion as to whether he was or not but once the ball hits a player in an offside position the flag should go right up. Why did they not call it? Could the AR have just missed that RVN was in an offside position? Worse examples have certainly been seen. Or if he did, did he think RVN did not touch the ball and was not involved in the play? That to me is the more likely conclusion. We'd have to hear what the AR said in the debrief with the match inspector to know.
I'm on the side he was offsides because he touched the ball. But, the sample you show has no relation to this particular case. The sample shown is somebody interfering with the goalie by being in the way. If the same player was lying a few yards over it wouldn't be offsides.
I know that the picture was not an exact match to the question raised but one point made by wjarrettc was what if RVN was lying on the ground injured and would that change the call. The example I used from the law book showed an injured player who was lying on the ground in front of the keeper. By wjarrettc reasoning this player should also not be judged offside. I can not find an example of the ball hitting an offside player and having him judged either offside or not offside. The closest are the examples of the ball traveling very near to an offside player (one example in the Offside video USSF put out following the last WWC--I've shown that one many times at new ref and recert clinics). I also remember a case in the last year or so where a player in an offside position had to jump over the ball to keep it from hitting him and that the ref crew was chastised for not ruling him offside (cannot remember the game anymore--must be an age thing!)
Actually, that doesn'tseem to be what wjarrettc was alluding to at all. Ther reason the injured player would be offside is because he interfered with the keeper's ability to play the ball by being between the ball and the attacker. The player who jumped over the ball was shielding the keeper from being able to see the ball. That being said, I remember this game, and it should have been an offside call, and I believe the AR was not aware that the ball had touched RVN, and furthermore he believed that RVN was taking himself out of the play by walking towards the halfway line when the ball was played through.
Let's remember the offside call Terry Vaughn made in the first week of the MLS season in Dallas. A Burn player was in an offside position and lifted his leg in a dummy to distract the keeper. The Burn player interfered with play, and Vaughn and his AR made a 100% correct call in this case. Based on the discussion, I have to say that offside should have been called. If the ball hits you, you're interfering with play. This should be a black-and-white issue. If we're going to interpret offside this way, we're getting dangerously close to not calling offside period. (Note - that last sentence was tinged with a healthy bit of sarcasm.