Probably? I would say definitely. I don't think there is any more conclusive evidence of interfering with an opponent than making contact. It's all the other nuances we must discuss. (stay tuned...I am supposed to be working...next post)
SoCal has already covered the details very well but still... No, No, No... A "goalkeeper/defender reacting" and "interfering with play" are two concepts that just aren't related. In any way. At all... If you are going to call offside due to a defender reacting to the play then it would fall under the "interfering with an opponent" clause. I might look like a bit of a knob for being strict on this but IMO the fact that people cba to be specific (and correct) about these definitions is a big part of why people get confused about offside. Making the decision on the pitch during a game about just how much reaction, how close, how much interference is needed for it to be "interfering with an opponent" is far from easy. But off the pitch, conceptually, offside really isn't hard to understand.
If the OSP attacker initiates the contact, agree. But it's possible for a defender to foul an attacker who has not yet interfered with play or an opponent (says so right there in Law 11!) or perhaps initiate contact that does not rise to the level of a foul--that's why I said probably. Perhaps "almost always" would be correct.
yep...sounds good. As always, we all have a slightly different scenario going on in our heads when we write this stuff. Anyway...moving on. This is a good resource for those who don't know about it. https://www.proassistantreferees.com/interferingwithanopponent/ From ProAssistantReferees, who break down challenging an opponent: "A player is offside if he clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent OR he makes an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball." (And we have to realize that also includes the action of deliberately NOT playing the ball.)
Dang, I step away for a few hours and an offside food fight breaks out. Knock it off you knuckleheads. And they didn't even change the Law (again) this year. (Did they?)
Maybe it would help if IFAB wouldn't define "interfering with play" and "interfering with an opponent" as different things? I think they should add "interfering with the ball" and have it not be dependent on whether the ball is involved. Maybe IFAB could use a few editors. Happy to help out. For a fee.
Here’s another thread with content pertinent to this one. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/piop-involved-in-play.2086633/
My fault -- I missed that when I peeked at the forum before starting the thread. Should've gone back farther.
Not sure why that's a problem. Different situations and thus different definitions, helps with clarity IMO.
sigh.....offside. It's kinda gotten like pornography. I know it when I see it, but I can't really define it. Think about it. Those of us here have read the rule, care enough to want to get it right, discuss it, and we are still all over the map. Imagine the much larger population of less dedicated refs and their interpretation/implementation of the rule..... I assume the purpose of having offside in the first place was to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage by getting behind the defense. Not sure if the changes adhere to that concept. In my fantasy soccer world, there is no offside. As a result, players spread out and have more room to show skill moves. Speed becomes a bigger factor. Less fouls occur because players tend to be further apart. And most importantly, scoring increases, making the game more interesting to more people. (and solo reffing becomes easier and clubs save money on ARs)
You're moving the goal posts. In your original scenario you describe a 1v1 situation (no other onside attacker capable of playing the ball) with an offside attacker sprinting towards the goal with a goalkeeper sprinting the other direction at the attacker. If THAT'S your situation, then yes, raise the flag. In an online forum, you can't just start throwing in a million other variables (goalkeeper clueless standing frozen, etc.) as everyone will get off track and no one is going to keep track of the various debates going on. Well, you can and then you have this thread. It has always been and still is common instruction to raise an early flag in these situations to prevent an unnecessary collision when there is no onside attacker capable of making a play on the ball. Otherwise your outcome is an attacker and goalkeeper hitting each other at full speed for absolutely no reason. There goes the only reason you're there in the first place - safety.
Ah yes, no referee on TV has ever made a mistake. Regardless comparing pro and the other 99% of games isn't always practical anyway. If there is no other onside attacker capable of making an attempt on the ball then raise an early flag to prevent unnecessary collisions. If there is an onside attacker(s) capable of playing the ball, wait and see. You'll often either see the offside player recognize it on their own and tell their onside teammate to go after it, or vice versa. If a collision happens so be it as we must wait and see and allow the play to develop for a bit. It's not complicated. However if you like seeing full speed collisions between offside attackers and goalkeepers which result in concussions and trips to the hospital then referee how you see fit.
I agree that one of the big problems is lack of consistency, both because of changes and because of refs who don't keep up or aren't able to understand the nuance. The changes that have been made have (almost) all been made with the idea of limiting when OS will be called, so they really are trying to limit OS to when attackers get an actual advantage. It's not that long ago that passing the ball in the general direction of an OSP attacker was enough to warrant a call--because the OSP attacker was attempting to gain an advantage from OSP. As far as I recall, the only changes that have increased when OS can occur in recent times have been to tweak a decrease that had unintended impacts--and those tweaks have been part of what has made things more complicated. But I don't think eliminating OS is going to have the effects you hope for. As I recall, there have been some experiments done with it, and it really didn't improve the game.
With respect to Law 11, I agree that it would be best taken completely apart and put back together. (Of course that, too, has the risks of unintended effects.) Back when we knew the second great re-write was coming, I was hoping that was in their simplification plans. Changes have been made over time from a very different (and more simple) OS law and interpretations. The best example is gaining an advantage--which today really doesn't mean anything close to what the words are. But that is because of the history behind it. The old language was "attempting to gain an advantage"--which was very broadly interpreted. There was no "wait and see"--if an OSP player did anything at all to suggest he was interested in being involved, that was enough (hence the language about being able to step off the field to show you were not interested in getting involved). Really all that "gaining an advantage"means today is that a deflection or save does not reset OSP--that could be written much more cleanly by ditching the historical language. I haven't traced interfering with play language--I don't recall if it split from interfering with an opponent at some point. But I do agree that we could simplify by changing to interfering with the ball--or, heck, drop the intermediate step and just say "touch the ball or interfere with an opponent," as that is what it really means today. (And we could still keep the diagram 4 concept that we can punish touching before it happens when it appears inevitable.)
Funny story from a game I coached today -- as the ball was played, three of my guys realized they were IOP, and they nearly ran into each other trying NOT to play the ball. (We're not very good.)
They're covering it...but not very well. Just last spring, I had a similar experience others have mentioned here where you swear someone is offside, only for the AR to lift his flag after you've already needlessly made a 40 yard run. The plays involving keepers are dangerous, so I've had to include it in my pregame with guys I've never worked before, so that a goalkeeper isn't decapitated since the AR is waiting for the player to touch the ball while the nearest teammate is 30 yards away.
I think the reason we get grief is that we have too many referees who don't enforce the correct restart location. If we can get the restarts to take place at the offense location instead of the offside position at the time of kick hopefully we can get the players, coaches and parents to change their thinking of offside.
Correct. I had this happen in a high school playoff game last year. Defense is up almost to midfield. One attacker is in OSP, one is onside. Both attackers take off for the ball. Unfortunately, my AR raised his flag immediately. Thankfully, I waited to see which attacker got to the ball. When it was the attacker that was in OSP, I blew the whistle. Here comes the problem. The coach wanted the free kick to be where the AR raised his flag, up near midfield. I explained to him that the actual offense did not occur until the player played the ball, so the restart was from that point, which was about 30 yards back. A few minutes later, at a stoppage, he screams across the field, "I texted the assignor, and you're wrong!" Needless to say, the resulting conversation did not turn out well for him. At halftime, I even went and got the rule book and showed him the exact rule. His response was "I still think you are wrong. Let's just agree to disagree." After that, I then had to have a talk with my AR about offside and when to raise the flag.