Fellow colleagues do not be mislead by the USSF Q&A I use to introduce this concept I have no real issue with it as a debating point. It only serves to introduce a concept that for me remains cloudy at times. Does it matter which occurs first? DHB or OFFSIDE INVOLVEMENT BY way of a DHB deflection? It is a given there is an offside attacker somewhere nearby who could be the intended reciepiant of a pass or simply close by as a shot is taken. In the USSF case the AR had signaled for offside as the referee was seeing the handling as a foul Situation 2 Defender D1 (not realizing that A2 is in an offside position) extends his arm and handles the ball directed to A2. The referee correctly awards the indirect free kick for offside. USSF answer (December 3, 2002): The referee's decision was correct. In Situation 2, the offside offense must be punished by the award of the indirect free kick from the spot of the infringement. The referee may consider cautioning the defender for unsporting behavior and show him the yellow card. I have some issues to sort out. Must the involvement of the offside attacker be made prior to the handling? We know position in its self is not an offence yet if a shot on the goal or a pass towards an offside player has not reached him by what criteria do we judge him quilty of offside rather than punish the DHB of the defender? When is a DHB {deliberately handled ball} considered as a controlling move versus a deflection? If a deflection from the DHB of the defender is played as an advantage or delayed to await an outcome, say it is still rolling its way into or towards the net and the offside attacker is on the run towards it or plays it? Is a deliberately handled ball that could have entered the goal whereby the DHB deflection puts it at the feet of an offside attacker still a red card PK if the defender plays it? Perhaps I made more of this than there is but recent comments at different recert camps and intro courses has caused no end of confusion. Looking for a concise easily understood explanation. Any takers? :0) Happy New Year!
If you asked Jim Allen this question, his response would be, "you're thinking too much," which is sometimes his way of saying "I don't know and I don't care." But this may apply here. First of all we have to decide if the DHB is a handling foul. Apparently it is by your definition. Once this is established, this becomes the stoppage and defines the restart. The offside infringement is not, I repeat NOT determined when the ball is touched/played by a teammate as the law suggests. We always must be patient. When the offside position player receives the ball (or the AR is confident he WILL receive the ball), he therefore has "gained an advantage" thus completing the two-part requirement of the offside infringement (position + involvement). If the DHB went directly into the goal, we could apply advantage. Can we suggest "advantage" by allowing the offside player to receive the ball, and suggest the defender "played" the ball to him, (thus nullifying the offside) even if the defender played it illegally? This would be a very complex and tough-to-sell decision. If the defender "played" the ball legally to offside opponent, we would ignore the offside. Where the "lack of doubt" comes in is the intent of the defender. This suggests there is no nullification of the offside. If the defender "deliberately" handled the ball, would ITOOTR suggest his intent was to play to the offside opponent? This suggests it's purely handling, and this should be the stoppage and restart.