New FIFA Guidelines on Offside

If USSF finds no "major" changes, that implies there are at least some minor changes.

So, what will the minor changes be?

I think it is premature to say we will continue to flag exactly as before. For now, yes. But by next year, after USSF has fully digested it, I would expect something to trickle down.

Unless we are already doing what they are doing in Serie A this season. This is a quote from the Reuters article:

"Serie A has operated informally with such interpretations this season and the changes have resulted in linesmen being forced to delay their decisions until the end of a move.

When players have been in a 'passive' offside position not involved in the game, the linesman's flag has stayed down but has later been raised if the player touches the ball."

So, either (1) we in the U.S. are already using the interpretations/changes in Serie A this season, or (2) if we are not, there are at least "minor" changes in store for next year.

But I agree that, until we get it in some official document/memorandum, continue to call offsides in the way we always have.

 

Your logic escapes me.

In any event I just got this from Jim. "Told XXX we believe the memorandum not to affect how we interpret the Law, but to stay tuned until next week, when USSF will issue guidance."

 

If there were no changes, period, Jim Allen would/should have said "USSF finds no changes." Instead, he said "USSF finds no major changes." His statement implies there are changes, but they are not major. If they are not major, they are minor.

End of logic.

Why does the Reuters article say that Serie A referees have been experimenting with the supposed new interpretation so far this season? Has anyone watched any Serie A games this fall and were you able to notice anything different in the way the AR's were flagging for offside violations?

Maybe Serie A was behind the times and now they are catching up with the U.S. Or is it the other way around?

 

I'm sure Jim has been bombarded with emails about the release. The response he gives now is pretty much copy/paste. He sent one to a friend of mine saying "the wording of the memorandum does not
change our practice in the United States." We'll just have to wait until next week and see what is officially decided upon.

 

There definitely has to be a formal pronouncement from USSF before we would do anything differently. Keep your offsides flags as always until we receive the official word.

 

OK - how about the SJ-LA game as an example?

The case in point is the play that led up to Landon Donovan's goal.

Apparently, when the ball was sent behind the LA defensive line, toward the defense's right side, Landon Donovan was in an offside position on the defense's left side. Subsequently, in the direct flow of play, Landon scored a goal.

At the time of the through pass, Landon was not directly involved in the play, so some would say he was in a passive position. However, he was Jamil Walker's only potential outlet after he collected the ball, and his positioning to receive the ball in the box might have been gained with an unfair advantage, having been in his original offside position.

The part I don't get about all of this "interferes" or "touches the ball" debate is that it's all about advantage. Why don't they just state that if you're in an offside position and you gain advantage as a result, then the flag should be up.

To extend this argument, if Landon hadn't been close to onside, but had been flagrantly deep behind the LA defenders, but had been across the field from the through ball, and still racing towards the goal, would he have been called?

 

Isn't the "could have gotten there" argument quite a subjective judgement for a ref to make?

For example, what if the play that had followed was this: Landon is 2-3 strides deep into offside territory at the time of the through ball. An even speedier defender trails him in hot pursuit, but is only even with LD when LD strikes Jamil's backwards & legal pass into the net? (In this case, the defenders pursuing Jamil all trip and fall are behind the keeper, Jamil, LD, and LD's pursuer.)

In this case, although LD *could* have gotten to his position from an offside or onside starting point, the only way he was able to get there unmarked was as a result of his original offside, but passive, headstart.

 

Jeff,

You're making this too complicated. Each touch of the ball has to be looked at seperately. On the first touch, LD my have been in an offside position, but he was not in the area of active involvement nor was he gaining an advantage. Once Walker, who was onside, plays the ball and then passes LD, the play resets and LD is now onside. At this point, there is a seperate play and LD can now receive a pass from Walker.

Now if the ball misses Walker and a defender doesn't gain possesion of the ball, LD would have been guilty of offside if the ball squirted to him.

 

Not really.

Suppose that every single second of this sequence, Landon was even with Jamil. On the initial pass, Jamil was onside, so Landon is in an onside position. At the time of Jamil's pass, Landon is even with the ball, so, again, onside.

You're saying Landon slowed up after the initial pass and let Jamil catch up to him. Him slowing up to get behind the ball (obviously, to me) negated his advantage from being in an offside position on the initial play.

 

Bill, SuperDave -
Thanks for the clarifications. I certainly don't want to make this more complicated than necessary, it's just that I do think that it's an interesting example, and I feel Landon benefitted singificantly from his position and should have been called offside. And I hate the Galaxy.

I still haven't heard good answers as to how much further into offside territory Landon would have had to have been for it to have been called - 10 yards, 15 yards? Or, is it that if you're out of the area of active involvement? Also, how big is the area of active involvement? The through pass was down the middle of the field and Landon was the radius of the midfield circle away - not super close, but certainly not super-far away. It seems to me that Landon's subsequent role as Jamil's only hope makes him an "active" membe of the through ball, even if the pass was not to him.

Dave - I certainly didn't mean to indicate that Landon slowed down. There is also the possibility that Jamil and the ball were both faster than Landon. I just re-watched the play on Yahoo! Platinum, and that was pretty the case, as Jamil started his run on the fly and Landon started his from a dead stop.

What I also noticed is that Landon's closest defender stayed almost a constant distance (the original offside advantage) behind Landon all the way to the point where Landon reached the ball. Had Landon been in an onside position originally, the defender might have been able to hang with him or run him off course. Clearly, he was advantaged by his original position.

In addition, he would have had a much lower-angle shot on goal, as he wouldn't have reached the ball until another stride or two towards the endline, and he wouldn't have had as much clearance in front of the sliding defender's leg. So, he gained proximity to the ball, a clear run to the ball, angle to the goal, and a less obstructed shot to the goal, all as a result of his original offside position.

In another sense, I do think that the defenders were disadvantaged, even if Landon had slowed down to get behind the ball, as they were playing a trap that did catch one of the Quake players at the time of the pass. If the offense can avoid a trap by passing away from infracting players, then that's a new twist for defensive tactics to handle.

Anyway, I just want to feel like SJ won on unquestionable goals, and this one just seemed like a really bad call to me. Did I mention I hate LA?

 

Time to lock this thread. Y'all have as much chance of convincing Jeffy that the call was legit as I had convincing a team manager that the rules of the league were properly followed and his player must sit out the semifinal next weekend.

Jeffy, I'll give you the same answer that I gave that guy (after 30 minutes talking) - pony up the protest fee if you think you have a real beef.

 

No lock-y, please - how embarrassing. Mucho apologies for dragging the discussion OT... I will relent.