In thinking about an upcoming training I'm working on, I am again wrestling with the question of whether the "gaining an advantage" rubric has become completely unnecessary to the way that OS is called today. Can anyone give an example of "gaining an advantage" that is both consistent with modern application and not equally explainable as interference with play or an opponent? By this, I mean, A1 takes a shot while A2 is in OSP, which rebounds from the goal or the GK to A2. We describe this as gaining an advantage. But it also meets the criteria for interference with play: A2 touched the ball (interfered with play) having been in an OSP when the ball was last played by a teammate. (And offside had not re-set as a result of a touch or play by a teammate, defensive possesion, or a stop and restart of play.) So, is "gaining an advantage" still actually a useful concept, or is it ready to be relegated to the scrapheap of history? (I realize there is somewhat of a pedagogical value in it, as it can be used to cement the idea that OS restrictions continue on after a deflection/rebound. But, to me, it seems that value is equally offset by the confusion that the "advantage" language creates and the situations in which new referees get hung up on things like "he was going backwards so it wasn't an advantage" and such. Of course, I have no intent of departing from the standard interpretation/explanation in an introductory class -- no worries that I'm jumping off the reservation in this context.)
Fixing the "at the moment" part of the language is more important for me. No offside infractions occur "at the moment" the ball was last played or touched by a teammate.
If we are going to put this under the microscope, there is one fundamental difference between what is currently defined as "interfering with play" and what is defined as "gaining an advantage," and that is that "gaining an advantage" can only be punished when the player in an offside position actually touches the ball, whereas "interfering with play" can be punished without touching the ball as long as no other attacking player who was not in an offside position at the moment the ball was last touched by a teammate has an opportunity to touch the ball.
Perhaps that really makes the case on why it is irrelevant. Imagine a long pass from midfield to an OSP teammate with a risk of colliding with the GK. We're all going to flag early for interfering with play (or gaining an advantage) -- we're not going to call id differently because of the deflection (nor, I would posit, should we). I also agree with RichM about the "at the moment" language -- the interpretation and application has long since left that verbiage behind. T'would be nice if Law 11 really said what it meant in several different ways.
Offense A player in an offside position is only penalized if, from the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team until the ball is again touched or is played by one of his team, or is possessed and controlled by an opponent, or goes out of play, he, in the opinion of the referee: • interferes with play by touching or playing the ball • interferes with an opponent • gains an advantage by being in that position
I agree with you and believe that by simply moving the "at the moment" phrase to another location within the current text, the Law can read as it is officiated.
The overarching problem with Law 11 (as I aee it) is that it is presented as just a bunch of disjointed statements, exceptions, and elaborations. There is no cohesive statement of the principal that the law is seeking to allow or dis-allow. It needs a thesis statement. Something like: A player in an offside position may not play a ball kicked forward by a teammate. Then put in all the exceptions and elaborations.
I could be wrong, but if there is a scenario where Blue player is in an offside position at the Red 18 yard box with the ball in the blue half of the field and the line (second to last defender) is at midfield and Blue clears the ball, where another player on Blue and one on Red have a race to get to the cleared ball and Red slides at the ball, making contact to direct it back towards Red keeper, then after Red makes the touch the Blue player who was offside collects the ball before it gets back to the keeper it is the "gains an advantage by being in an offside position" that allows the ref to call offside.
Whether or not that could qualify as OS by gaining an advantage would depend upon whether, ITOOTR, the Red touch was of sufficient quality to be deemed possession and control -- if yes, then no OS; if no, then OS. But I think you get to exactly the same result by only considering intefering with play. Forwad was in OSP when the ball was played by a teammate. He interfered with play when he kicked the collected the ball. The only question is whether OS reset by the defensive player gaining control -- same result without the "gaining an advantage" concept. (Historical note: Once upon a time (I believe it changed in the great re-write but I haven't gone back to trace it) the language was "attempt to gain an advantage" -- a much broader concept that created a broad understanding of active play. (Which is why in old footage you may see a player walking back towards his own goal with his hand raised -- a way of saying to the ref "I know I'm in OSP and I'm not attempting to gain an advantage" -- or even stepping off the field to demonstrate a lack of intent to gain an advantage.) With the deletion of the "atempt" language, and the deliberate narrowing of what active play means, it seems to me that "gain advantage" language is now devoid of meaning -- except, as I noted above, if valued as a reminder that a deflection does not negate OS.)
At this time I believe the phrase "gaining and advantage by being in the position" is defined as touching the ball which has been received from a rebound (goal frame, keeper, etc). In practice, the language of Law XI should be changed to suggest that an offense is only committed when the player in a offside position either touches the ball or interferes with an opponent.
I trust socal lurker's description but I remember it differently from playing in youth matches that were on full size pitches when we weren't fast. Back then offside would be called if the defender's option of one time passing it back to the keeper when they were under pressure was prevented by a player who had gained that advantage by being in an offside position during the initial pass. I guess the argument for control could be made but I thought I heard it explained as advantage from being offside.
I agree that Law 11 would be well served by a full re-write. There is too much of it that needs quite deep insight to be understood and quite a lot bad/confusing language in the rest of it. It really isn't about cementing that idea, it is about introducing it to begin with. I understand that most referees consider the whole "control v deflection" reasoning as some sort of implied knowledge but really without the gaining an advantage text any touch by a defender would reset offside. But if you transferred that reasoning over to the general text then the gaining an advantage clause becomes superfluous.
I'm not sure what you see in the text of the law that would reset OS on a touch by a defender. (Another historical note: At one time, deflections did reset offside. Alas, I don't have all the resources any longer. I believe it was around 1980 when the official diagram of a defelction changed from being labeled as onside to beign labled as offside. [This was, of course, long before the great re-write, while even was still off, and while the language was attempt to gain an advantage.] The defelection resets concept was always a bit odd in implementation in those days, as OS was typicall whistled at the moment of the pass without waiting to seee what happened -- so the call would often already have ben made before thre was a chance to be deflected. I wish I still had more of those old materials.)
Back when? There have been a variety of tweaks over the years to both the language and the interpretations -- almost all of them to the benefit of the attacking side. Even today, the ATR explains that gaining an advantage includes "being near enough to the play to capitalize immediately on a defender’s mistake, having gained the advantage solely by being in the offside position" -- that seems to be what you are describing. (It might also be a case of interfering with an opponent if, before the defender has the opportunity to possess and control the ball, the challenge from the attacker takes place in a way that prevents the defender from being able to play the ball.)
Back then would be somewhere from 89-94, not exactly sure of the year because I was on the same youth team for u-little through u-17. To clarify my example the player who was offside would not challenge the defender for the ball but attempt to intercept the defender's pass back to the keeper that they are forced into by pressure from a different attacker who was not offside when the ball was played up.
No, that part of the Law is fairly clear: Infringements/Sanctions In the event of an offside offense, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 - Position of Free Kick)
You think it's clear in the Laws where an offside infringement occurs? I sure don't. Offside is a two-part offense that takes place at two different times: T1: The player is in an offside position when a teammate plays the ball. T2: The player interferes with play or an opponent. Let's say time T2 is 5 seconds later than time T1, and the player runs full-speed. Now, at time T1, there is no infringement because Law 11 tells us, "It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position". By time T2, the player is in a whole different location (perhaps even in his own half). When he then plays the ball, creating an offside infringement, the restart moves back to where he was in the "snapshot" at time T1. Perhaps because I never played soccer as a kid, there is nothing obvious to me about offside. It certainly isn't clear from a phrase like "where the infringement occurred" that the location of the restart is based on the position of a player at a time when there was no infringement. - QC
Don't sweat it. Everyone knows that the real restart location is where the AR is when the flag goes up.
Once upon a time, OS was typically flagged/whistled at the moment the ball was played toward a player in OSP unless the player was affirmatively demonstrating that he was not involved in active play (e.g. by walking away from where the ball would land with his arm in the air, stepping off the field, or lying on the ground). (Guilty until proven innocent, so to speak.) So the place/time of the infraction was obvious.) As the game evolved to more of a wait and see if the OSP player actually did something (innocent until proven guilty, so to speak), it changed when we know that an OS offense took place, but it didn't change when the offense took place -- hence the location of the IFK. (And it also is the reason for a perhaps non-inuitive result: OSP player and defender go up to contest for a ball. OSP player is interfering with an opponent (= offside = IFK) and the defender pushes in the challenge (= Law 12 offense = DFK). At first blush it appears to be two simultaneous offenses, but the interference with an opponent completes the OS, the OS actually happened at the moment the ball was played, so the OS offense took place first, and the IFK comes out. See http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=1514 & http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=2236, but also see http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3351.)
Stumbled across it while looking at something else adn thought I'd post it for anyone interested in the history: was the '78-79 revisions, which JA discusses here: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=270. ("a player remains offside when the ball is played by a member of his own team even if the ball strikes an opponent in flight. The only factors determining whether a player is given offside are whether or not he is in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a member of his own team AND is seeking to gain an advantage or interfering with play by an opponent")
The more this thread goes on the less of a point I think there is. There really are four different ways to get involved in play: 1) your teammate accidentally or on purpose passes the ball to you and you touch it 2) the ball is somewhere near you and you prevent or delay an opponent from getting to the ball 3) your teammate takes a shot and you prevent the keeper from being able to see it 4) your team takes a shot or passes the ball to someone else, and it rebounds off an opponent or the goal or even the referee, I guess, and you touch it That's just one way to break it down. There are others, and you can naturally group them in a few different ways, but I don't see anything to be gained by consolidating this any further because you have to give examples that break this down for clarification anyway. The more you consolidate, the more examples you need.