Change in offside rule in England

Statesman,

Remember to air is human... to forgive, devine.

If by "generatng" you mean that the ball was last touched by a teammate who had advanced beyond the 18, I find the concept of #3 intriguing with the problem being the judgement or enforcement since the AR would now have two parralax problems, and even with 4 AR's it might be difficult to judge.

 

Re: What an idiotic phrase!

I like it and anything else that will aid the attackers.

As for wording, let me try. I would think that FIFA could work the section as:
A player is in an offside position if:
- he is nearer to his opponent's goal line and completely ahead of the second last opponent and closer to the goal line than both the second last opponent and the ball.

 

Well, I'm usually a CR for the clubs I do but this past weekend I was placed as an AR for the first time in a few years on some games. The reason these ideas came up were just based on some calls I had to make I felt were a bit trivial.

The first scenario was rather a simple situation, actually. Very recognizeable and easy to call because it's usually pretty obvious. The idea is when the SLD dispossesses an attacker of the ball, only to have a teammate subsequently recover the ball and send it back forward to the now-offside player. The duration would be a single possession -- if the ball is recovered from the SLD and sent forward, offside is ignored. If the SLD passes the ball to a teammate and the ball is recovered then sent forward, offside is flagged.

The second scenario was also meant to be a simple adjustment. Basically, if the forwards of the attacking team do break the offensive trap by running past the defenders after the ball was sent over them, passes between those players should not be considered for offside if one is done forward. I had a few situations where an excellent attack was unfolding after 2-3 attackers cleared the defenders, only to have one of them sprint ahead of the ball and receive a pass -- offside. Kind of pointless IMO.

The third situation is the one that adjusts gameplay quite a bit. Basically by "play generating" within the area, I'm meaning the attacker with the ball is passing from within the area to another player within the area. Once the ball leaves the area, any further forward passing to traditional offside players would be flagged. However an attacker could easily dribble the ball back forward into the area and then make the pass without it being flagged. The only pressure on the AR would be deciding whether the pass was within the area or not.

 

I'd like to see the rule adopted by all refs. Ties are supposed to go w/ the offense(much like plays @ the plate in basball) but we all know, that the defenders in both sports are given the benefit of the doubt & we have less scoring. This way a player will have to be clearly offsides b4 the call can be made.

I like it, too bad it prob won't last beyond the 1st 2wks; much like basballs failed attempt to speed up the game w/ a pitching clock.

Much like the Bill of Rights, the FIFA rulebook is a living document & we should interpret freely its meaningsin accordance to our needs as a soccer nation ;-)

 

Remove Offside rule?

The offside rule is always poking its controversal head into games.

Having never seen a game with no offside rule, I cannot forsee the big problem with removing it. I understand removing it would change the nature of soccer, but maybe for the better.

Can people explain why the offside rule and why not just get rid of it?

 

I don't see why everyone is freaking out. The English FA has merely codified what "even" is.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Statesman,

In the first situation you describe a situation that punishes the defender for making a good play. Possession changed, that's a new play. Logic dictates that the player is offside because he gained an advantage from the position. You're suggesting a change to the law that makes law 11 even more difficult to understand.

In the second situation, your description eliminates offside when a break begins onside but an attacker is a head of the ball. I see where you're going with this, but it's not very hard for an attacker to stay behind the ball. This is just stupid on the part of the attacker because the hard work of breaking the trap was already done. In this case, do you allow an attacker to sprint right at the keeper an interfere with him as well?

In the third situation, you're suggesting a change that requires the AR to see the opposite boundry to the penalty area. That's not always possible. A field may be crowned, and we also all work on fields that aren't lined that well. That makes things very complicated and again the spirt of law 11 is broken because attackers are free to interfere with the keeper.

I understand what you are trying to do with these suggestions, but the beauty of TLOG IMO is that they are simple. They don't describe every possible situation that can occur. If you suggest this, why don't you just suggest that we eliminate law 11 instead of making it more complicated?

 

And, considering that the AR must still maintain a positon with the SLD and observe both postion and invovlement, adding that one extra observation of making certain that the ball is played from within the PA, or even if we added an 18 line from touch to touch, it could be even more problematic than what we have now.

I, as a note, am an AR for a lot of games, and adding complexity may be the last thing we need, even if we think is is an improvement or might in some way make things easier. For example, this idea of seeing light between an attacker and a defender is as doubtful as the old one step behind, lattitude we had back before 68 or 70. In essence, even with the tie going to the attacker is the least subjective, and should, if properly instructed provide for the greatest consistency in applicatin, even though there will still be mistakes.

Along these lines, I totally blew an offside call on Saturday, right at the beginning of the second half while running a line for a B17. I hate to admit just how many times I have made this identical error where I mistakenly raise my flag calling the defenders offside. Even though my flag is only halfway up and realizing my mistake, I begin to yank it down, the CR whistles and I start lookng for a hole to crawl into. Of course the players all know you blew it so there is no sense denying it.

I have had other experineced referees do the same one on me, as well, usually I get sucked in when their flag goes up, but occassionally you get away without the bad call or can salavge it. Two years ago, same tournament, I was the CR in a final, and right after the start of the half the AR's flag went up, and I blew the whistle quckly, then when I looked at the AR to signal where on field the offense occured, he had the flag in his mouth, and was shaking his head.

I immediately knew what had happened and awarded a drop ball for the inadvertant whistle. The beauty of his mechanic of putting the flag in his mouth was that no matter how disappointed the spectators were at his obvious mistake, he faced up to his and added a little touch of humor. I don't know how well such an approach would do at the World Cup, but it seems to work at the youth level.

Sherman

 

I totally disagree. What "even" is, is codified into the training. If half your torso is ahead of the head of your SLD, you are offside, according to the training. In practice I've found most players are a 1/2 yard in play, to ensure they are not out of play.

Now, the FA has said you have to be completely past your SLD to be called. That's the only way you can see light between them. Having been an AR and made a lot of offside calls, this is much different. The difference is essentially an entire yard of more space where you are in play, and not offside.

If you want to see the difference, take a piece of chalk and draw a line on the ground. Take your soccer ball, and look at the ball from the side while it rolls across the line. Take your chalk, mark where the ball is when it's out of bounds.

Then take your ball, and roll it across the line while looking at the ball from directly above the ball. Stop the ball when you can see the ground between the ball and the line both times. Compare where your "out of bounds" calls are. The ball will be several inches more out of bounds when you see it from above.

I hope it works. It will make the game more open and refs may have an easier time making the right call, both phenomenal improvements if they work.

 

I like it, too, but not because it aids the attackers, but because it is more in keeping with the spirit of the offside rule than the present situation, in which there are far too many false positives on offside - that is, players who are NOT in an an offside position when the ball is played but are nonetheless called offside.

I'm not a referee, and I'm not ashamed to say it. But I do get tired of having to say it every time I post in this forum. Frankly, the attitude that some refs seem to have that the only people who could possibly know anything about the game, in fact the only people who matter, are referees, annoys me sometimes. It's one reason I don't post much here, although I've read almost every word posted in the forum in the last couple of years. (I read a lot )

I respect and appreciate the job referees do. But that doesn't mean I think they know everything. Or that no one else knows anything.

It prevents cherry-pickers (players camping out near the opponent's goal) and it allows defenders to become involved in the attack. As much as I've ranted and raved about the false positives on offside, I'd be opposed to doing away with the offside rule.

Hardly. Fully past is not even. The English FA is redefining what "on" is or, to be more precise, they're redefining what "off" is.

I am amused by the phrase "see air". Whoever thought of that needs to get out in the sea air for a while. If FIFA actually uses such a phrase they will deserve all the ridicule they get.

But, except for the silly phrase 'see air', I like the idea a lot. It would make the offside rule like other rules in the LOTG, such as those which say that the entire ball must cross the entire line. (Imagine the nice pictures FIFA could put in the LOTG!)

The offside rule could say something similar, for example: "A player is in an offside position only if his entire torso is closer to the goal than the entire torso of the 2LD, and the entire ball."

Also, it's going to be harder to complain about false positives. It's easy to complain about a player who is farther from the goal than the 2LD being called off. But complaining that a player who is past was not fully past is going to be nit-picky, even for me.

I like the idea the English FA has. The phrase "see air" has to go!

That's my 2 cents. Keep the change.

 

Would you prefer the term "see daylight" to be used instead? That'd be better.

But, darn it, there are all those night matches.

 

Re: What an idiotic phrase!

Just play all matches in Mexico City.

 

offside question

Just a question that has bothered me for years. I played ball at the NCAA level (UNC Charlotte) and the D-3 level for one season (charlotte Eagles, before they got moved up to A league) and this happened to me once and i never quite got it...

I was playing in a match against St. Louis U my junior season and I was on the right flank on Defense at this particular moment. One of their mids had possesion around the center stripe and we were pretty bunkered in and protecting a 1-0 lead at about the 85th minute or so.

They were on all out assualt for the equalizer and had basically a 2-2-6 formation out there. Anyways their mid swings a ball to the left flank which took a wierd bounce off the chest of one of their guys which led to the ball bounding to the basically the center spot. At this point 3 players on SLU all converged on the ball with our lone forward, including my mark.

In a scene that would make the 3 Stooges proud all three of their guys collided and the ball squirted past them all and our forward grabbed it and made his way downfield with no one but the keeper who was standing about at the 25 yard mark for some odd reason.

So being caught by surprise by this, our forward made a wierd touch to get by the keeper who made a lunge at him the ball. the ball comes to me and i slot it home for the 2-0 lead.

Nope! Lineman has the flag up, offside on me. 2 minutes later SLU score the equalizer.

Basically, to sum it up, we had a 2-0 rush downfield and the lineman was bassically saying that if our forward didnt score the goal, then it was offside. Why? Ive seen it a zillion times and never heard it called. When our guy got possession there was not one player on SLU in the defensive half of the field, why couldnt he pass it off?

 

If you were in the opponents half (you were), in front of the second last defender (you were), in front of your teammate when he touched the ball (I assume you were), and took advantage of your position (you did) - you were offside.

 

what do you mean by that?

 

I was on our half of the field when our forward got possession, and trailing the play at about a half speed run. I just assumed he'd easily beat the keeper, which he did, sorta...he did a quick turn to his LEFT instead of the right which would have brought him into the 16 yar box, but going left he fired a weak lob/shank/cross thing with his right foot towards the net and it was so bad that it curved BACKWARDS towards me, when I slotted it in, i was at about the 16 and the keeper was in front of me, as was the forward.

As MassachusettsRef said i was CLEARLY behind the ball and got caught for the "offside" Yet the second the ball hit the net, every SLU player with an arm, had it up and running to the referee for the call.

 

This is my biggest complaint and there's one in particular that really bugs me. The "He's to open not to be" offside.

A lot of ARs take the approach that if the player winds up wide open with yards and yards of empty space between himself and the goal, that the player must be offside because how could he get so wide open. Donovan got caught by this one in the opening minutes of the Germany game (bad defending the two German defenders didn't keep their line so the one closest to Donovan was five yards ahead of the one on the far side). He had no one between him and Kahn and the flag went up, and Donovan threw a minor tantrum.

It's tough to complain about it because I see the "wide open" offside called at least once a game where the defender screws up (moves late in the offside trap and leaves the attacker onside) and the attacker finds himself alone with the ball, only to get flagged because it looks so horrendous.

Before they eliminate the offside rule they should try the hockey method (draw a line midway between the goal line and the halfway line and the ball has to cross that line before an attacking player can, and maybe they can even go as far to outlaw the "two-line" pass). It still neatly prevents "cherry-picking" and Hockey refs don't screw up the offside call nearly as much as Football refs do. Positioning wouldn't actually change much as the central defenders would generally play right about where they do now when the ball is forward (a little before midfield).

From a fan's perspective, the rule can simply get very aggravating.

 

Then it was a bad call - if you were behind the ball at the time it was kicked you couldn't be offside.

 

eheh that's the same thing I told him right before I asked him, and direct quote "If I was f*****g your wife and you walked in on us, would you miss that too?"

Then I offered to take him to LensCrafters.

Maybe thats why I got the red card

 

mmm - maybe you were a bit harsh (but fair)

 

Finally, a common sense interpretation

Simply put, England is applying the clear, simple interpretation that the attacker is not in offside position until the entire attacker has passed beyond the entire second last defender (in the attacking half and in front of the ball, of course)

A look at the two key components of the offside law (which I think we'd all agree could and should be more precisely written) strongly support their approach.

Nearer To : "A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent."

The most obvious interpretation of this is that whoever has the nearst part of themselves to the goal line is the nearest player. I sincerely don't see why this idea is controversial or complex--where in the letter of the law or the spirit of the game is it necessary to add special body part rules about the positions of torsos vs heads vs legs?

Level With: "A player is not in an offside position if... he is level with the second last opponent"

Again without special body part rules for determining offside position (which add unnecessary complexity), the simplest interpretation is that a player is level with the opponent if any part of their body is level with any part of the opponents body.

By the way: you don't need this Level With exception if you think every attacker body part must be level with the opponent because then there's no possibility of any part being nearer--this rule would be merely redundant and add no meaning to the main section requiring the attacker to be "nearer to" in the first place.

The whole attacker past the whole defender...

Isn't it interesting how this interpretation fits both the language of the law and the spirit of the game (no cherry picking) while also matching up with the mechanics of other laws?

England's "seeing air" interpretation is nothing more than a colorful (or colourful) way of saying the exact same thing. A referee must see that the attacker is both nearer to the goal line and not level with the defender.

 

As correctly stated by one writer, it is not a change in the law. This "see air" was advice given to the referees in the World Cup just passed, and the English F.A. have now published it this season's "amendments" to the laws of the game, that this will be continued with during this season. Had this confirmed at our Referee Society meeting tonight when the amendment pamphlet from the F.A. was distributed. The reason to to give more advantage to the attacking team to encourage more adventurous football.

 

Jeff I would be interested in any articles noting a change in the interpretation during the world cup to seeing air between the next to last defender and the attacker. Given the many dubious offside calls it would appear the AR's misintepreted the edict to mean the defender closer to the goal line not the attacker.