I think the fact that his casually got dropped on a Wednesday in late July with very little fanfare, no aggressive PR and no warning will always be comical to me. But, if it is what it seems to be, I think it's good for the game and I like it. I'm sure there will be annual tinkering in the hopes of perfecting things, but generally I think what IFAB is trying to do here is a good thing and addresses something I've been complaining about for years. Now it's just all about everyone interpreting it and calling it consistently. And I wouldn't dismiss the VAR aspect of what "clearly wrong" is on these subjective calls. I go back to the Mbappe goal... it seems IFAB is laying out a roadmap for that to be offside again. But, if it was still called on the field as a goal, would VAR have it as clearly offside? Everything must be seen both through regular instruction and VAR instruction prisms now.
I think I largely agree that it is better, as I think the scope of deliberate play went too far. But I think the new definition, as far as I can tell so far, is mushier than the old one, where a deliberate act + ball contact was enough. That line, to me, seemed more sharp than what we are now supposed to parse when it comes to a header or kick out at a ball in the air while running. Seems we just got halfway back to the old USSF standard of “possess and control.” And I share the bewilderment of something this significant coming out so casually and so close to a WC.
So I'm reading it right, it's basically about the quality of your clearance/header. For clip 8 if the defender is able to take a full swing and punt the ball with his laces (even if it's a slice) it's onside. But if he just reaches and doesn't make as clean of contact, then it is offside? I'm still blown away at clip 11. That is huge. You're now putting into play an offside flag on every set piece.
That was my interpretation by just watching the clips. But watching the clips, reading the explanation and then studying the clarification, I think there's some nuance here. First, the directive explicitly says this: So for #8, the poor or failed clearance would not be enough to negate a deliberate play. But IFAB still says it's offside. So again, "control" is everything here. IFAB is saying that the defender was never in control of the ball. He was reaching in desperation. IFAB then says there are factors to consider regarding when a player is control of a ball: In #8, I'd say factors 1 and 3 are clearly met and 2 is probably met (though "not quickly" is both relative and in the eye of the beholder). But 4 was definitely not met and 5 comes into play. So I guess that's enough to arrive at "not in control." The problem of course is that there's a lot of wiggle room and subjectivity here. To start, the whole thing as couched as "when appropriate." Okay. When is it not appropriate to consider these things? I guess the 5th bullet is only in play sometimes, but aren't the rest always to be considered? And then, does only one need to be met to get "not control?" A majority? That's not defined. It's just "considered." There's going to need to be A LOT of instruction around those 5 bullets. A lot. So I guess, in #8, if the defender isn't reaching and is able to make a normal soccer play, so to speak, without having to jump or lunge or otherwise contort his body... then you get onside if it's simply just a bad clearance. He essentially needs to have "control" of the ball and an opportunity to clear it. It's a lot of subjectivity. I'll say again, how this overlays with VAR is going to be massive, particularly given flags will stay down on anything debatable until the ball is in the net. Will ARs and CRs give benefit of doubt to attacker or defender on-field? It seems like this change is driven toward giving it back to the defender. It's a huge shift.
I actually think 9 and 10 are very helpful in understanding where IFAB is going with this. Both of those are deliberate plays as the defender is in control. But they are poor clearances and aren't executed how the defender would have wanted to make them. But they reset everything. Juxtapose them against 11 and 12. That part is clear to me. It's still subjective, but I see what they want to do with headers. Kicking and other situations where the defenders are using their legs to intercept/clear are going to be more difficult, I think.
I think some of the previous instruction around whether the player has “options” likely applies here with respect to the question of “control”. In 9 and 10, the player has options to do different things: play the ball in different directions, possibly even move his body differently and chest it instead, etc. in 11 and 12, the player is running backwards and not fully in control of what he can do. He doesn’t have options. His only option is to hopefully just get his head on the ball. He doesn’t have much choice in direction or how he can play the ball. He can’t pass the ball. I’m assuming similar logic will apply to kicking, but agree that those can be harder to evaluate. But I think mostly it will come down to “did the player have options?” vs “was that the only possible way they could play the ball?”
Just a youth referee here, five years in. I am seriously confused. I would have called 4, 7, 8, and 11 deliberate. Jumping into the air or sticking your foot out to stop a thru ball isn't deliberate any more? It's not like the pass is 5 yards away in most of these clips. "A movement that achieved limited control"? Sounds like we're judging the outcome here. If I try to block a cross and succeed, that's deliberate. If I try the same block and mess it up, that's a deflection.
How does this impact the decision in the Aston Villa/Man City match last season? City''s goal was allowed, after Rodri who was in an offside position, dispossessed Mings. EPL initially said it was correct, but then later revised the opinion to say the goal should be disallowed. It seems Mings made a deliberate play, controlled the ball which came right to him, and son now it would be back to being a goal again? Confused does not begin to describe this mess! PH
This was also presented, without warning, at the gathering of UEFA Elite Referees in Frankfurt yesterday, many of whom have their domestic seasons kick off this weekend. Suffice to say, the conversation was a little animated! If they are having debate about this among the very best Referees, in discussion with some of the very best Referee Coaches, how can they expect the vast majority of (even professional) Referees to go into their opening fixtures this weekend without any formal coaching? Notwithstanding the question about whether this is good or bad thing, the timing and method of delivery is utterly ludicrous.
Can IFAB just once say. “You know, we had this wrong. It’s not the refs fault it was done this way, we told them to do it. We’re changing things again, dramatically. This is on us, not the refs who have been doing exactly what we asked of them.” If you’re going to try and reverse time, at least have the decency to own it.
At least at a FIFA level, such a change was expected. But that would be so Rosetti/UEFA if they did it like this in Nyon...
Yep. Looking forward to seeing how USSF boils this down into a video/slide deck for 15-year-olds to watch on their phones during their Entry Level courses.
Nothing new with this aspect of offside interpretation. It was the same at a top international referee instructors' seminar I attended a few years ago with the same issue. There was very little overall agreement with the scenarios presented and not a lot with the "official" interpretations, some of which were very similar incidents, but with different expected results. It was not possible to say with certainty what the "correct" result was supposed to be when viewing the clips the first time through, and even after the answers were given. Kinda like it is now! PH
I think the big change is on headers though. That was always pretty clear. If you have time to make a jump and contact the ball with your head, it’s deliberate. Not saying that was right or even consistent with the same threshold they had on plays with the body or feet, but it was pretty objective and easily determined. Now we’ve blurred that line.
I’d change the wording on the passback. “kicked to the keeper” becomes “passed with the foot to the keeper.” Removes all ambiguity.
I know I'm in the minority, but I never agreed with the original changes where you had to judge deliberate/deflection. If you played the game at any youth level, it does not seem to be within the spirit of the game that if you extend your leg instinctively to play the ball (regardless of the distance of the pass), and the player who was offsides scores was never fair. Offside is already the most difficult call to make in any sport, so let's send out a memorandum in late July clarifying the deliberate/deflection debate?
Well, we've had to do that for a very long time, but the scale was tipped heavily in favor or deflections for a time, and they reset it heavily in favor of deliberate plays. I wonder if you are in a minority. I know I thought they went too far when they made those changes. I liked the old USSF "possess and control" as the meaning of a deliberate play much better--and we seem to be getting close to that, but more of an "opportunity to possess and control" as a miskick/mishead is still considered a play if the defender had the opportunity to do it.
I really do hope we see #11 in a World Cup or Champion's League final to give it the full scrutiny it deserves. I see what they're getting at, but this pendulum swing is giving me whiplash and all seemingly thrown in under the cover of darkness.
I can foresee this going one or two ways. 1. The “new” interpretation saves a popular team from a loss or something in a major match, in which case the masses will cheer and celebrate. 2. The “new” interpretation stops a game winning/tying goal from helping a popular team in which case the fans will lose their you know what and scream about how they finally were getting on board with the way things were and now it’s changed again. Sounds a lot like what has been handling with handling but maybe I’m just remembering things differently.
It’s not a line at all. It’s a gradient in which reasonable experts will disagree on where to draw their own line. I am fascinated by the videos. It’s almost as if they purposely chose examples to create a gray area, leaving it to referee judgment. Maybe that’s the point.