New FIFA Guidelines on Offside

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Quaker, Oct 28, 2003.

  1. Quaker

    Quaker Member

    FC Dallas
    Apr 19, 2000
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-fifaoffside&prov=reuters&type=lgns

    Seems there's more clarification issued on the topic of "passive offside." The main difference from the way I've seen the game usually called is that it seems the fact that the ball is heading in your direction is no longer sufficient to be considered offside. You need to actually play or touch the ball to be called for offside.

    As pointed out, this can result in a delay before the flag is raised. The linesman may have to wait until the attacking player tracks down a ball and touches or plays it before calling him offside.

    I recently saw a play where a corner kick was sent back to a teammate who proceeded to dribble down the sideline toward the same corner. The corner kick taker was then in an offside position, and although the dribbler pushed the ball forward for himself (rather than passing to the offside corner kick taker), the fact that it went in the general proximity of his teammate (who made no indications of attempting to play the ball) resulted in a raised flag. Seems that according to the new directives, that shouldn't happen.
     
  2. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    According to the way the USSF has been teaching law 11 and the way it has been applied in MLS, this is already true in the US. It has been said here many times that the US is ahead of the curve on this.

    Passive offside really isn't descriptive enough. Active involvement is more descriptive IMO.
     
  3. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    This does not change the call of offside all that much. The only difference from what I can tell is WHEN the assistant referee puts the flag up, not IF.

    Technically, the restart for an offside infringement takes place where the player first becomes involved with play. Referees have always been instructed that a player running toward the ball from an offside position signals intent to become involved. This judgement is reserved for those instances where the player running toward the ball clearly has the best chance of possessing it barring any intangible occurance (the poor guy slips and falls to his embarassment). However, this player does not become involved with play until he does reach the ball. Hence, the restart would be where the ball is, not where the player begins his run. This is counter to how the game actually ends up being played -- the AR puts the flag up immediately, the ball is brought back in line with the AR.

    Now, the AR is required to sprint on down with the offside player and wait for him to touch the ball before putting the flag up.

    It appears this change is to give the benefit to the attackers. The offside attacker might realize he was offside and stop his run while a teammate takes up the pursuit. It also allows an offside attacker to run down the field and set up a position, not pursuing the ball specifically, and wait for a teammate to send it over to him after placing him onside. It will take some while for teams to really take any kind of advantage of this change, and I doubt you will see many opportunities in the first place.
     
  4. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    Also it should be pointed out that the circular has not been distributed yet, and referees should not act on this information until their national association (USSF for most of us) comes out with the official position paper on the new law change as well. Yahoo might be breaking the news, but it may still be some time before any change is put into place.
     
  5. Crowdie

    Crowdie New Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I can't see anything there that is different to how offside is called down under either. Oh well, yet another document to collect dust :)

    Crowdie
     
  6. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Statesman, I like your explanation, but thought I'd add the highlighted addition. I think there will be frequent opportunities for teams to take advantage of this change, particularly the more field aware and smarter teams.

    It's going to take a little more brainpower and running from the AR in remembering who was offside when the ball was played, and may be a good time to use a positive/negative hand signal to the CR when offside players may be involved or when all players are onside when a ball is played.
     
  7. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    PLAYING is TOUCHING????

    Statesman Just how sure you are that the offside player must touch the ball?

    This is a HUGE change if play and touch mean the same thing..
    In particular a ball being pursued by an offside attacker where the keeper feels it is a race to the ball since the keeper has no way of determining if the offside will now be given. Assumming the keeper and the Offside attacker arrive at the ball at almost the same time a mightly collision on what the attacker may well think is a 50 50 ball?

    In my opinion playing distance is still the criteria I would use as the area of involvement if the attacker was in pursuit of any ball.. If we condsider touched the same as played than it will have to be impeding when the ball is sheilded from exiting the FOP.

    In my opinion touch refers to the accident or deflection moments where the ball makes contact inadvertantly.

    If an offside player just misses the ball by inches if he dives to head the deflected ball after a save by the keeper and the ball crosses the goalline we can judge the attempt to play served as no impact on play and allow the corner or the goal?

    Since he did not TOUCH the ball no advantage was realized although the fact he attempted to play it and score would likely be flagged the moment he lunged for the ball?

    I guess my position is, interfering in play does not neccessarily affect the ball but rather how the PHASE of play develops, it simply adds more to the equation. I think if we must wait until an offside player touches the ball a lot more balls are going to dug out of the net where an earlier whistle is warranted. The same as interfering with an opponent we do not have to touch either the ball or the opponent although either is offside.

    An example might be an offside player chasing the ball. Since the AR is running with the ball as that is what he should be chasing not the offside attacker.

    A defender will have no way of knowing when that attacker finally gets to the ball it will be called offside so he will be forced to pursue. If the attacker has the inside track to the ball that defender will have to swing out wider to get by. Would that not consitute interering with an opponent?

    I find it difficult to believe we must wait until that touch of the ball is needed when by evey step that attackers takes closer to the ball he showing intent to play it.

    It would be a waste of playing time to let an offside player chase a ball all the way into the corner from midfield only to be whistled after he gets there.

    This is going to be interesting as to what developes from what I thought was straightforward at first but now see a lot more confusion until this touched versus play thing is straightened out in my mind anyway.
     
  8. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Involvement does not necesarily include a touch. Being in the vicinity doesn't imply involvement, may doesn't preclude it either. As in the past, it's still in the Opinion of the Referee.
     
  9. Jimjamesak

    Jimjamesak New Member

    May 3, 2003
    Anchorage Alaska
    Took the words right out of my mouth. As a Ref I would certainly say we are ahead of the curve and have been for at least 2 years.

    Remember kids; It's better to have a late flag and a correct call than an early wrong call.
     
  10. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    For those who are asking about the "touch" issue, please do read the article. It speficially does state "interferes with play" is to now be interpreted precisely as "touching the ball."
     
  11. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    confused and upset Iwas convinced of simplicity now I am not

    October 22 2003.

    Law 11 - OFFSIDE

    We would like to inform you about a decision passed at the Annual Business Meeting of the International FA Board on 16 September 2003, in order to achieve uniform interpretation of Law 11 "Offside", based on the following principles:

    This is not a change to the Laws of the Game as it
    adheres entirely to the original wording of the Law.

    ----This is nonsense as this document completely alters how offside has been called at EVERY level of the game for years---

    The aim of this interpretation is to respect the Laws of the Game and to protect attacking play intended to result in a goal, which is the ultimate objective in football.

    Law 11 reads as follows: "A player in an offside
    position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is touched or played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

    interfering with play, or interfering with an
    opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that
    position."

    How should we interpret "interfering with play"?

    PLAYING OR TOUCHING A BALL PASSED OR TOUCHED BY A TEAM-MATE

    If playing and touching are the same why say both?????????????????????????????????????


    How should we interpret "interfering with an
    opponent"?

    PREVENTING AN OPPONENT FROM PLAYING OR BEING ABLE TO PLAY THE BALL, FOR EXAMPLE, BY CLEARLY OBSTRUCTING THE GOALKEEPER¹S LINE OF VISION OR MOVEMENTS.

    MAKING A GESTURE OR MOVEMENT WHILE STANDING IN THE PATH OF THE BALL TO DECEIVE OR DISTRACT AN OPPONENT

    -----Why in the path of the ball???????????????????
    Why can I not distract the player simply by being close enough to take advantage of my position?

    I can not gain an advantage and if by strict definition I do not touch the ball I do not interfere with play. I also do not interfere with my opponent as I am not standing in the path of the ball obscuring his view

    Two attackers are chasing the ball into the corner flag area after running through at the midline. One is offside positioned the other is not . The offside attacker is in close pursuit of the ball and has not yet touched it. The keeper begins to run out and intercept the through ball having no way to know one player is offside the one he is in a race for the ball with.

    At what point can I flag?

    If touching is interfering with play that cannot happen.

    If interferring with an opponent means blocking line of sight not possible and impeding the keeper (he has direct access to the ball and since I am running after the ball I can not be in its path nor standing for that matter I am quilty of none of that.

    If the keeper and I are on a collision course and I as the attacker have no idea the AR is waiting with baited breath to pop the flag. All I am thinking is going in on a 50 50 ball when it in fact is NOT!!!!
    BY my actions I have brought the keeper OUT into the FOP and I am as involved in the active play as you can get. In 30 years of football my flag is up before that collision will take place. IF the keeper looks likely to arrive there well ahead I delay the flag to see if he gains control and there is an opportunity to advance the ball under controll and posession thus negating the offside phase of play .
    This is not applied advantage so much as NON involvement or so I thought.

    Lets say the keeper arrives several yards ahead of the offside attacker but outside the penalty area .The keeper has an opportunity to clear with control and posession and kicks the ball upfield right to our other friend the onside attacker who then waltzs in and scores into a wide open goal. How in earth is the offside player NOT interferring with PLAY?
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????

    Go a step further. The offside player from the mid line pursues the ball in to the corner where the ball rolls slowly to a stop. He stands over the ball but does not touch it as retreating defenders try to cover the streaking in attackers thinking a cross is coming. Instead an on side attacker runs over and takes the ball along the goalline as our now no longer offside attacker goes in and heads the cross for a goal.?????????????????????????????????????

    Is the involvement criteria and involvement area distance down to zero and OFFICIALLY dead????


    How should we interpret ³gaining an advantage by being in that position²?

    PLAYING A BALL THAT REBOUNDS OFF A POST OR THE CROSSBAR HAVING BEEN IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION.
    PLAYING A BALL THAT REBOUNDS OFF AN OPPONENT HAVING BEEN IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION.

    We are aware that there will always be controversial incidents, but as stipulated in the Laws of the Game, the referee¹s decision is final.

    We also believe, however, that with clearer
    instructions, referees will be in a better position to make informed decisions based on uniform criteria.

    (General Secretary)

    IFAB.
     
  12. Kevin in Louisiana

    Kevin in Louisiana New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Metairie, LA
    What about a situation like this:

    Team A has the ball. A1 dribbles into the left half of the box and is about 15 yards out. A2 makes a run to the right post and is standing 5 yards off the line.

    Meanwhile, Team B's goalkeeper is on his line and there is one defender about ten yards off the end line. So A2 is in an offside position. The GK would have to worry about A2 receiving a cross and slamming it into the back of the net. So he might have to come off his line to guard against a cross and thus leave himself vulnerable to a shot from A1. It seems to me that in a situation like this Team A is being helped by having a player in an offside position, even if he doesn't touch the ball. Should the GK be responsible for knowing if a player is offside or not?
     
  13. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No.

    There were many clinics held in the US back in the late 80's when the first tweaks to the offside interpretation were being made. I asked this same question of Bob Evans. Bob was a goalkeeper (before moving to the dark side to become a FIFA referee). He said that the 'keeper's first priority is the ball. If the 'keeper is thinking about that player at the back post, then the coach should yank him.
     
  14. soccertim

    soccertim Member

    Mar 29, 2001
    Mass
    How about this? Two attacking players, the one farther upfield, chasing down a through ball behind the defenders. The goalie comes out, but holds up his run as he won't beat the first attacker to the ball. The first attacker jumps over the ball without touching it, the second attacker takes the ball around the goalie and scores. Hope I'm wrong about this interpretation.
     
  15. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On Tim's scenario, it sounds like the offside first player was involved in the play by faking a play on the ball. OFFSIDE.

    I'm not sure, from the description or seeing a similar play, that you would get 100% agreement from 10 FIFA Instructors. Just like any close call on physical contact, you'll get a difference of opinion.
     
  16. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: confused and upset Iwas convinced of simplicity now I am not

    Link, please?
     
  17. Statesman

    Statesman New Member

    Sep 16, 2001
    The name says it all
    I think we should wait until FIFA comes out with the circular and USSF with a position paper before speculating what the change in wording truly means. We are talking about an AP news release, afterall. Until the appropriate memorandum is published the law has not officially changed. I'd hate to think referees reading this release will alter the way they make the call prematurely.
     
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.fifa.com/en/display/mrel,72504.html

    Not an official circular yet, but it is a FIFA press release. I'm not sure what the IFAB action at it's Business Meeting means. Will this be an IFAB decision added to Law XI? Will it re-work the text of Law XI, as it seems to do? Or will it just be a FIFA interpretation?

    Regardless, until FIFA either implements it by a circular to National Associations, or the IFAB formally adopts it in March (to take effect in July), it doesn't look like it is in effect in the United States.
     
  19. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    Re: Re: confused and upset Iwas convinced of simplicity now I am not

    http://www.fifa.com/en/display/mrel,72504.html

    Media release

    FIFA Circular No. 874

    Laws of the Game: more detailed interpretation of Law 11: Offside



    Zurich, 29 October 2003 -At the Annual Business Meeting of the International Football Association Board on 16 September 2003, a decision was passed in order to ensure uniform interpretation of Law 11: Offside (see below). The aim of this decision is to respect the Laws of the Game and to protect attacking play intended to lead to a goal, which is the ultimate objective in football. This is not a change to the Laws of the Game as this interpretation adheres entirely to the original wording of the Law.
    Law 11 reads as follows: “A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is touched or played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

    interfering with play, or
    interfering with an opponent, or
    gaining an advantage by being in that position.”

    How to interpret:

    “interfering with play”

    -> PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

    “interfering with an opponent”

    -> PREVENTING an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movements.

    -> Making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to DECEIVE OR DISTRACT AN OPPONENT.

    “gaining an advantage by being in that position”

    -> PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position.

    -> PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.

    With these clearer instructions, the referees will be in a better position to make informed decisions based on uniform criteria. However, as stipulated in the Laws of the Game, the referee’s decision is final.


    ###
    Enquiries to be addressed to:
    FIFA Media Office
    Tel: +41-1/254 9800
    Fax: +41-1/384 9696


    FIFA Communications Division
     
  20. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I do find it strange that this interpretation would be presented in the annual business meeting and not as MassRef noted at the annual IFAB meetings in the spring.
     
  21. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Do you think what's on the link that Grizz has provided is "official"?
     
  22. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    He provided the exact same link that I provided, so no, I do not view at is an 'official' circular, it is only a press release.

    However, Grizzliebear refers to it as FIFA circular 874. If that's true, it's an official circular and will be distributed to national associations. I just don't see that designation in the press release (I might just be overlooking it).

    Still, I don't see how FIFA (or, moreover, the IFAB) can effectively reword the text of Law XI via a circular (or, at an annual Business meeting in the case of the IFAB). Circulars have also clarified text or implemented policies based on text. Yes, this is a 'clarification' in the broad sense of the term. But, it truly does change a fundamental interpretation of Law XI, and is tantamount to a modification of the Law. It's akin to the change of saying that 'even is on'. Such a drastic change should be in the Law itself, and I would hope to see the IFAB act at it's AGM in the spring to clarify the situation.
     
  23. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    I agree Mass this is not the way they do things however they state this is NOT in fact anything new
    Quote
    This is not a change to the Laws of the Game as this interpretation adheres entirely to the original wording of the Law. End Quote
    So they fel justified in doing this? This is not the same as that daylight thing that was circulating at he beginning of the season.

    I learned of this from this

    Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:26:23 -0400
    Reply-To: Fred Speirs
    Sender: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees <SOCREF-L@PETE.URI.EDU>
    From: Fred Speirs
    Subject: FIFA Circular No. 874
    In-Reply-To: <200310240939.h9O9b38I005053@pete.uri.edu>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

    I received this this morning. It's dated October 22 2003.

    --------------------------------------------------
     
  24. jacathcart

    jacathcart New Member

    Oct 11, 2002
    Tacoma WA
    This discussion sounds like law school - you can always come up with a hypothetical that will result in an impossible decision. Without spending too much time thinking I remember the discussions about whether or not an O/S attacker was interfering with the keeper by inducing the keeper to come out - we were always told that the keeper should know that the guy is O/S and can't complain that he came out on him. This is a LOT harder under this intepretation.

    Jim
     
  25. Tame Lion

    Tame Lion New Member

    Oct 10, 2002
    Southern California
    It's Official

    I have talked (e-mailed) with Jim Allen and have obtained the following information.
    #1. It's official.
    #2. USSF finds no major changes.
    #3. At e-mail time USSF plans to do nothing about it.

    From which I conclude continue to flag offside as you used to.
     

Share This Page