A Query About Offside

I think a million ways is an exaggeration, but I agree that the suggestion that a player must touch the ball etc. is ridiculous, especially since the law is not currently enforced that way.

However, it would be easy to claim that ANY player in an offside position who is still standing gains an advantage by being in an offside position, since s/he is closer to the goal than s/he otherwise would be allowed to be at the time of his/her teammate's kick, and the best way to score is to get close to the goal. As it is now, an attacker in an offside position is not penalized if s/he is unable to affect play before a defender or a teammate places the offside attacker back into an onside position. This concept seems preferable to me than the alternative--that a player is deemed offside whether or not s/he affects play before another touch is made.

I think your idea could work, certainly better than the current method, if "gaining an advantage" were well defined, but currently it isn't. In fact, "gaining an advantage" is currently used to explain a very specific situation and is not nearly broad enough to describe your million ways.

 

The way you've proposed writing it isn't any different than it is today. What are you really suggesting?

Give us an example of something that would not be penalized for offside under today's interpretation, but that you believe should be penalized.

 

Give us an example of something that would not be penalized for offside under today's interpretation, but that you believe should be penalized.

I have one that still bothers me because everyone (instructor, assessors) says differently.

I ran the line on a U12G match. Two girls are standing about two yards out of the goal both about one yard in from the goal post on opposite sides of each other. The goalie is standing almost dead center on the goal line. Both players are offside.

Before the shot is taken, the player farther from me raises her hands and yells to her teammate to pass her the ball. The goalie takes two steps towards her, as one of her teammates (somewhere out in the field) kicks the ball. It looked to me like she was kicking it to pass to her teammate who called for the ball, but instead she miss-kicked it, and the ball went towards the OTHER player who was offside and did not call for the ball. The other player wisely stepped away from everything as the ball got to her and the ball went in.

I put up the flag for offside. I am a state emeritus (so I am old school) and my CR was an 8 who was getting an informal assessment, so he blew the whistle and called the offside without even a discussion with me. The assessor didnt like the call. I told him, that to me the opposite player calling for the ball, drew the goalie towards her and exposing a large empty part of the net thereby gaining an advantage. Also, at U12G they arent going to use much trickery and I believed the goalie honestly was doing what she was trained to do.

Personally, I think the term gaining an advantage is stupid. Every player is out to gain an advantage. If an offside player is drawing the defender towards them, I asked the assessor, what more of an advantage is that?

 

I am seeing this one more often, especailly by high school players:

A player will intentionally move to an offsides position. His teammate will play the ball through, somewhere near the offsides player but not directly to him and then another teammate will run onto the ball from an onside position while the defense is paused expecting the offsides to be called. the onside player then usually gets a 1 on 1 with the keeper at that point. I have heard this one argued both ways, as with many situations in soccer, but I am not sure which camp I want to side with on this one, offside or onside?

 

One problem I see with the "new" rule is similar to the one nonya is describing.

A slightly offside attacker calls for the ball (or otherwise attracts a defender's attention). The defender has no choice but to cover the attacker, he doesn't know if the attacker is for sure in an offside position. Once the defender starts to make a move (it might even be just a shift in balance or a glance) the pass goes to an onside attacker that was covered by the defender.

The net result is that while the attacker did not gain an advantage by being in an offside position, his team did gain an advantage. In some/many cases this might be very hard for the AR/CR to notice what happened, even when they do notice, today's interpretation makes it harder for them to call this as an offside.

 

This is a textbook non-call. The defense stops playing before any call by the CR or AR, shame on them. If an onside player breaks for the ball you MUST wait to see what happens. Even if an onside and offside player both break for the ball, you must wait to see what happens.

If there is someone who can legally play the ball you need to wait and see.

 

Offside was the right decision. If the assessor didn't like it, that is his/her problem. What did the assessor say in response to your explanation?

There IS wording in the current law to support the offside decision in this example -- it's the part about the 'making movements or gestures that deceive or distract an opponent.' I suspect others will chime in with the opposite view, saying that this situation CANNOT be penalized.

Technically, you should have stood at attention with no flag signal rather than raising the flag -- since the offside-positioned player did not score the goal. The ref should have understood what you were doing and if he wasn't sure, he should have conferenced with you briefly before making his decision.

I'm not emeritus yet, but like you, I have more of an old-school idea of what offside is.

From one of the USSF offside memos...
To "interfere with an opponent" means that an opponent must actually be prevented from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly blocking the opponent's line of vision or direction of movement or by "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent." To be deceived or distracted, however, the opponent must be within some reasonable distance of the play.

There is no hard and fast test test of "nearness" beyond the opinion of the referee but the interference with an opponent must be clear (not just hypothetically or theoretically possible) before deciding that an offside violation has occurred.

 

Well Blue, I'm in agreement with you on this. To me this is a textbook example of "Interfering with an opponent".

 

and don't forget this memo which says players can be a distraction thru their position.
http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/Apr2006Offside.htm

 

Thanks. Somehow I missed that one -- which is very similar to nonya's example -- when I skimmed recent USSF offside memos.

 

The way Esse explained this at Pro Clinic last year was, if the defenders positon themselves within the "goal frame" of the shooter, position alone is considered "interfering with the opponemnt" even if the defender is not in the GK's "line of site"

 

I thought then and still think this is one of the dumbest memos to come out of USSF, for two reasons:

1. They backstabbed the judgement of the referee that the players were not blocking the vision of the keeper. Blocking the vision of the keeper is an obvious point of offside. Any 08 understands it. If the referee had believed that the vision of the keeper was blocked, he would certainly have penalized offside. Instead, USSF decided they were going to overrule the ref's judgement on the field.

2. They claimed to understand the intent of the players, which referees should never do. It is not for us to read minds. It is for us to judge facts.

3. They claimed that two stationary players fell under "makes a movement or gesture that deceives or distracts" because they deliberately moved to the position prior to the kick. That makes no sense. Getting there prior to the kick is not a movement.

The only reason these players should have been called offside is if they were blocking the vision of the keeper. The ref thought they weren't. USSF thought they were (so do I). USSF scrambled with this memo because they didn't want an epidemic of players camping offside.

But I digress...

...how is this similar to Nonya's example?

Nonya: dynamic play, offside-positioned player verbally distracts the keeper, keeper responds to distraction, ball shot into goal.

Memo: free kick, offside-positioned player(s) stand still, ball shot into goal, ruled (by USSF) to have been blocking the vision of the keeper and causing a distraction by being there.

I agree that Nonya's example should have been penalized for offside (distracting the keeper), and also that the example cited in the memo should have been penalized for offside - for blocking the vision of the keeper, but NOT for making a movement to distract.

Example from a tourney last fall: attacker camps the far post on a corner kick. Keeper on the line. Other attackers and all defenders are in the goal area - attacker on far post is offside by probably four yards, maybe five. Ball is served into goal area and shot by an attacker into the goal on the near post side. Did the offside-positioned attacker distract the keeper by moving to that position before the kick? That's what the memo would have you believe.

 

In both cases, players positioned near the GK and affecting the GK's decisionmaking process. As ref47 said, players can be a distraction based on their position. Yes, there are some differences (dead ball vs. dynamic play), but in general I see these 2 situations as a similar type of thing.