if the aim is teaching that’s exactly the opposite of what you would do. You would provide clear and concise definitions and clear examples and counterexamples. They did exactly the opposite.
My issue is still that a defender has to try to make a play on the ball until the whistle is blown because there is no way he knows for certain if an attacker is offside or not. As soon as he does make a play on the ball he's resetting the situation. An attacker gains an advantage from being in an offside position and the defender choosing to play a ball simply because he doesn't know for sure. (or the defender chooses not to play the ball and the attacker actually wasn't in an offside position.) 1. I assume that an offside attacker pressuring a defender into a bad, but still deliberate, touch by being involved in the play should be whistled for offside. (Am I wrong here?) 2. At the same time, an onside player can pressure a defender to make a deliberate play on the ball, again for fear that the ball is going to an attacker maybe or maybe not offside, to that attacker who actually was in an offside position. This doesn't sit well with me, but maybe this is what they want? They want defenders to have to make a play on the ball no matter what? It keeps attacks going more and in theory leads to more goals? Doesn't sit well with me though.
I don't think this is likely, because the interpretation that we referees have been using (or have been taught) for the last 6 or 7 years has existed almost exclusively in the referee world. The very few times this past radical interpretation has emerged into the general soccer world's consciousness, it has been hooted at (if not hooted down). And, if any of us made a call in the last few years based on it, no one has been the wiser, because no replay on TV existed on our games to highlight the radical nature of the instructiion. ( A defender jumps to head, but can't jump high enough and the ball skips off his hair -- this resets OS?!?!) This latest instruction set, IMO, puts OS closer to where most players, coaches, fans think it should be. Its the difference between could have made the play and should have made the play. If the defender's body is twisted around or too close to the ball to react fully #4, #13, #14, then OS is not reset. If the player is trying to head the ball, but is not really tall enough to put it in a good spot #11, #12, the OS is not reset. If it would have been an extreme play to prevent the through ball #7, #8, but the play is not made, don't punish the D for almost making a great play. But if the defender is set, with his feet under him and a decent amount of time and just muffs the ball, #1,2,3,5,9 too bad for him. The timing of this instruction set may be off, but, IMO, they have done all refs a favor by pushing this pendulum back into the middle.
I think this is exactly right. And it's also worth remembering the game is for the players, not the referees. Do these changes make our lives easier? No. But that's life.
Keep in mind that this interpretation change reduces the times that a defender will be considered to have made a deliberate play that resets OS. Last month any deliberate attempt at the ball plus contact was enough to reset. Now many of those are going to not reach the level of a deliberate play because the defender didn’t have an opportunity to control the ball. as to a OSP player pressuring a defender, it depends on what you mean. If you mean just creating pressure by being somewhere, no, that would not constitute involvement. But if he challenges the defender for the ball, that would be interfering with an opponent and result in a OS offense.
Well, this reduces it IF anyone can figure out the clear and obvious training video. This piece just gets under my skin and has for some time. It's like an anti-advantage. Yeah, he's offside, but because the defender didn't know that and made a bad deliberate attempt at the ball you get a free pass! I guess on the 'pressuring', I have the same feeling. If the attacker is not directly pressuring the defender but has a clear angle to the ball if it goes through, then that's certainly influencing what the defender has to do not knowing if the attacker was in an offside position or not. It's just never sat well with me. BTW - I think I was thinking about the 'what rules to change' question in this trail when writing this. It's certainly a cross over.
A tweet from Rapids pbp announcer Richard Fleming says MLS will start using these new interpretations this week
Again, I’d go back to who the game is for and what the point of the offside law is. A defender conceded a corner kick solely in a desperate attempt to stop the ball from going to an offside attacker. If that offside attacker wasn’t there and wasn’t offside, he wouldn’t kick the ball out for a corner kick. So why should it be a corner kick? It might make life more challenging as a referee, but I don’t believe it’s “stupid” for that to be offside. Seems very consistent with the fundamental purpose of Law 11.
My complaint is they need to make up their mind. The powers that be treat Law 11 (and handling in 12) like the yo-yo at the end of a string. Not 5 years ago we were holding the flag and decision until the attacker actually touched the ball. Now it’s more a question of how much control the defender had when they played the ball. I get it. The attacker gained an advantage by being in an OS position. Fine. Say it and stick with it.
I don’t disagree with your complaint. But I’d also rather the powers that be acknowledge that much of the jurisprudence around Law 11 for the last 15 years was a mistake rather than continue with the mistake.
What am I missing here? It is not an offense to be in an offside position. The attacker is in an offside position, but he has not interfered with play, interfered with an opponent (if he was right on his back I would have a different response), and did not gain an advantage since there was no rebound. Defender had time and space to see the ball, unlike the IFAB video of the long ball over the top. Maybe there is another video that shows something more like this that I am already forgetting, but I do not see this as a play where the flag goes up. Convince me I’m wrong. I do not mean that in any sort of arrogant or sarcastic way, I’m just having trouble justifying this as offside and want to be able to get it correct.
I think we're talking about two different things with that old UEFA clip. If the ball went to the attacker after the misplay by the defender then yes I'd agree with the others that this is now offside for gaining an advantage. But you're right that this should be a corner kick since the attacker didn't interfere with the opponent.
that’s what I was thinking, but @MassachusettsRef is rarely wrong about things like this, somI’vd been thinking that I needed to go back to the new FIFA clips. MassRef, hope you weigh back in here.
I mean, this is both subjective and brand new, so it's quite possible I'm wrong. Or, rather, that there is no clear answer here. But I'd say the defender never had control of the ball, which is determinative. As we went over above, there are multiple considerations for determining control and IFAB didn't make it clear how many have to be present (I think deliberately). But if we look at the list: The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it The ball was not moving quickly The direction of the ball was not unexpected The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air The ball wasn't on the ground and though the ball was in the air for awhile, given the way everyone was running it seems clear that this is an instinctive stretch that achieved limited contact/control. It's also a cross in an attempt to score a goal so I wouldn't say the ball was "not moving quickly" if we apply that question relatively. That said, it did travel from distance and the direction of the ball was expected. So somewhere between 2-2.5 of the 5 bullets seem checked in my book. Is that enough? No idea but I default to the idea that the ball didn't go to a place where the defender would have wanted it to (back to the video of the header that goes out for the corner kick, as an example) so land on offside. But I think @Mikael_Referee brought up this clip precisely because it doesn't neatly fit as offside or onside based solely on the text and videos.
For me, I think you have hit enough considerations for this to not be a deliberate play. However, the change did not address when a player has become involved. Since as pointed out, the attacker hasn’t challenged for the ball or interfered with an opponent, I think I still want the flag down here. If instead this exact play had the ball kicked to that attacker, then I’d say offside because he has now interfered with play
What about clip 11 that shows the header go out for a corner kick? That seems analogous. The attacker in the OSP isn’t challenging the defender who heads the ball out of play. Honestly, feels like the exact same thing here.
That's where I'm at. I would strongly prefer this to be called offside, but @SouthernYank is quite correct (at least in my understanding), no active offence committed. And this is where I find the IFAB revisions quite irritating - it isn't really a return to common-sense, but more of an attempt to have 'their' cake and eat it.
So we’ve redefined deliberate play but not expanded what could be interfering with play or interfering with an opponent? That’s how we are supposed to read all this? Great. Again, though, how is Clip 11 offside? Or is it not offside but just an (entirely pointless) example of a non-deliberate play?
Are those clips saying that it was an actual offside offence or are those clips just being used as examples on what a deflection versus deliberate play is? And not if they meet the taught standard of interfering with an opponent. I would assume it would be the latter.
I'd assume that. Because of clip 11 is actually an offside offense now then we should have 25 more offside offenses each game.
Okay. And I can see how that is the literal interpretation based on what's actually presented in text. But, in my eyes, that's crazy. To put out a new interpretation of one of the key components of offside and to present a bunch of videos that trigger that relevant component but are not actually offside? Like... why on earth would you do that? You could just as easily chose video clips that were offside. I am more confused now. I think we both have reasonable perspectives here and we are assuming the exact opposite on Clip 11 (and, most likely, a couple others).