Offside?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by stanger, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Saw this at a College Showcase over the weekend.

    Direct kick from about 35 yards. Coach tells one of his players to mark the keeper even with the defense at the top of the 18. As the kicker moves toward the ball, the girl marking the keeper moves toward the top of the 18 but not toward the ball. AR calls offside. Coach argues the girl marking the keeper wasn't in the play, to no avail.

    Another identical situation. Before the kick, coach tells the center what he is doing, no offside call.

    Neither FK results in a goal, but I am curious as to how you guys would handle this situation.
     
  2. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I couldn't care less what the coach says . . .

    The only question as presented is whether the OSP attacker interfered with the keeper within the meaning of Law 11.

    And there are only two ways to do that. (1) Challenging the GK for the ball. (Which did not occur.) (2) Interfereing with the line of vision of the GK. (And there isn't enough information to be clear on this -- you don't say whether there was a shot or not.)

    I suspect one of three things happened.
    • The AR flagged because he or she believed the player met the inteeference with an opponent criterial.
    • The AR jumpged the gun and flagged early.
    • The AR flagged for something else -- potentitally impeding or pushing the GK.
     
  3. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    No contact with the keeper and the player marking the GK started running away before the kick. The service wasn't on goal, rather bent toward teammates running at the far post, so no direct shot.
     
  4. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #4 Sport Billy, Nov 25, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    Ask yourself this: Why are they doing this?
    When the only answer that makes any logical sense is "to distract the keeper"
    Then the call is easy. Flag up.
     
    dadcoachref and BTFOOM repped this.
  5. refinDC

    refinDC Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There was a question on one of the recert tests a few years ago that basically said this should be called offside.

    While one question tested wait and see, and the answer to that one was that players not directly touching the ball/screening an opponent should not be penalized -- the applicable question showed a (two?) players lined up in offside positions in the goal area on a DFK from outside the PA, with defenders at penalty mark or farther toward midfield. The shot went in. Should the crew call offside?

    The answer (and explanation from an instructor who had reffed at pretty high level) was that of course they were interfering with an opponent, why else were they lined up there? It's a free kick, so they knew exactly what they were doing.

    Not sure I agree with that, especially if the player(s) gets away from the keeper, and even more so if she gets away from the keeper before the ball is even kicked, but it was out there, and could be what AR was thinking of. (Along with trying to nip it in the bud before a frustrated keeper/defender did something -- not that that's a good rationale for calling offside, but could be for calling the slightest bit of impeding/pushing etc)
     
  6. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But that happens all the time and isn't called. Even if a player is obviously OS but makes no attempt at the ball, that player has distracted the defense to some extent and maybe altered the positioning of the defense.

    I didn't realize distraction was an offense.
     
    Battler repped this.
  7. Baka_Shinpan

    Baka_Shinpan Member

    Mar 28, 2011
    Between the posts
    Club:
    Vegalta Sendai
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    College showcase does not necessarily imply that the AR (or the ref for that matter) knew what they were doing.
     
    stanger repped this.
  8. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    That seemed to be obvious :(
     
  9. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    It's not, in and of itself. Absent any potential offside call, you can distract an opponent all you like (up to the limits of what constitutes unsporting behavior). But when considering offside, it falls under the category of “interfering with an opponent”.
     
  10. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    It can. But it has to satisfy the criteria for interfering with an opponent, which is more than distracdting the keeper. To wit:
    [2] clearly isn't met in this scenario as there was neve a challenge for the ball. And to answer [1]. it takes more than just an intent to distract. It requires that the OSP player 'clearly obstruct[] the line the opponent'sline of vision." Running around in OSP near the keeper isn't -- by itself -- enough to meet that standard. While calculatd doofustry may make me more inclined to form the opinion that the vision of the GK was obstructed, if the vision isn't obstructed in this scenario, it's not OS, regardless of the opinion of the referee as to intent to distact the keeper. (Whether it could rise to a level of USB is a separate question.)
     
    dadman repped this.
  11. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006

    It still comes down to common sense.
    We are told time and time again that the laws do not foresee all situations.
    Intentional distraction is one that is not foreseen.

    Think about it.
    As long as he's neither obstructing a line of vision or challenging for the ball, would you allow a player to:
    - lie down on the goal line?
    - lean against the far post?
    - do cart wheels?
    - sing out loud?

    Of course not.

    Common sense dictates that if a PIOP is intentionally acting to distract an opponent, you flag the offside violation.
    If the coach challenges you, respond, "Coach, would you prefer the offside call or the caution for USB: Lack of respect for the game?"

    Those are the two choices here.
    I think offside is probably the better decision.
     
  12. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    This isn't even close to being a violation unless as SoCal puts it the vision of the GK is obstructed. And where does that obstruction start? A foot from the wall? Two feet? Ten yards? It's truly a stupid pet trick type of play, but inherently not a violation.
     
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Disagree. IFAB consciously put in the challenge/obstruct vision to replace broader language about making a movement to deceive or distract. So this isn't something unforseen -- IFAB took out distraction. So, I disagree that you as a referee have authority to use your vision of common sense to create an infraction that doesn't meet IFAB's definition of interference with an opponent.
     
  14. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    If the coach doesn't want offside called, he shouldn't intentionally put a player in a position where an AR is likely to make a call.
     
  15. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004

    No, not in the least. What this thread is asking is did the AR make a mistake. I have seen and heard too many coaches worry obsessively about their players in OSP instead of allowing them to go back and forth. Going back and forth forces the defense AND the AR to be on top of their games. How many times have you heard a coach yell at a player in OSP? So what. The ball is 20 yards from them and the defender is a step away from putting them on side. Make the defenders make the bad play and make the AR work for his money. And since we aren't professionals there will be several very close OS calls that might spring a breakaway.

    My toughest call as an AR is a late forward getting back OS and a ball played over the top quickly. As an AR, you are moving back up the field with the defenders and watching the new line, and watching the ball 30 yards down the field. Boom. It is played over the top and everyone is now moving for the ball. Did I get it right? Hope so, but there will be times that both coaches are screaming and the far defender hasn't gotten up the field as quickly and the center forward is actually on but the forward closest to you isn't. As a coach, I would always be messing with the OS line.
     
  16. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    But this is not the type of incident we are talking about.
    According to the OP, the coach ordered a player to mark the keeper.

    That is done for one reason and one reason only: to distract the opponent.

    It violates the FairPlay standard.

    There's two way to deal with it - we can card every single instance of it or we can bend the OS law. I prefer the latter. But I would go to the former before I permitted coach-ordered FairPlay violations.
     
  17. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    I understand your position, I just disagree with it.

    The I&G still reads,
    So we set up a scenario where someone runs to the keeper, if he steps off the pitch and distracts, it is a violation but if he stays on the pitch and distracts, no violation. That's ridiculous. You've got to see the larger picture - the coach is trying to get an unfair advantage.
     
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. IMO, just because you and I don't like the tactic doesn't mean it is unfair or warrants sanction from the referee. Distracting opponents (within the LOTG) is part of the game. Players make runs all the time to distract opponents and move defenders. Goalkeepers move sideways before a PK solely to distract the kciker. The question, IMO, isn't whether it is a distraction, but whether it violates the LOTG. I don't see it (as described in the initial scenario) as even close to USB. Nor do I see it, as described as violating Law 11. (Recall, as posted, the player moved away from the keeper before the ball was kicked.)

    (I also suspec that a key goal of the strategy isn't even to distract the GK, but to get another defender to drop back and cover the OSP player, disrupting the defensive scheme and allowing other attackers to move closer and still be on side.)

    From a coaching perspective, I think it is a poor tactic -- it wastes the attacker and accomplishes nothing as the attacker is moving away from the GK before the play even takes place. From a GK perspective, I'd love to have the opposing team do this -- I can simply ignore that player, knowing anything he actaully does to interfere with me is going to be an offense. The reason we don't see this tactic at high levels isn't that it is a violation, but because it is wholly ineffective with players who understand the game.

    YMMV.
     
    dadman repped this.
  19. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Apples and kumquats. The player in the I&G passage you quote did something while the ball was in play to distract the GK. The player in the scenario presented moved away from the GK before the ball was put into play. Nothing in the scenario presented suggests that the player did anything provacative as or after the ball was kicked that could possibly be USB.

    We dissgree. OK. Whether that is substantive or because we have different pictures of the event, I'm not entirely sure.
     
  20. camconcay

    camconcay Member+

    Atlanta United
    United States
    Feb 17, 2011
    Georgia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would tend to agree, and certainly at higher levels you would likely be correct. However, I do not believe it is up to us in most cases to decide what the reason a player or coach does anything - only to judge what happens.

    Say in this scenario there was a defender on the post plus the keeper, no problem having an attacker right there. So anticipating a defender being on the post the attacker moves into this position then realizes there is no second defender so before the ball is played they jog out and away from play as described. No attempt to play, not in line of sight, no "distraction" (although distraction isn't part of Law 11 any more). Taking a position on the field of play and changing that position is allowed, and if it is "distracting" so be it.
     
  21. Lucky Wilbury

    Lucky Wilbury Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    United States
    I've definitely seen this thread somewhere before...

    Person A gives a scenario
    Person B gives an answer that involves LOTG
    Person C gives an answer that involves SpiritOTG
    Person A gets an answer that they wanted and then thanks everyone
    Person B says Person C is inventing their own sport with their own rules
    Person C says Person B is being naive and you must look beyond the law
    Person B gives a scenario that proves Person C is wrong
    Person C says "nonsense" and gives a scenario where Person B is wrong
    Neither scenario is that plausible
    Persons D through F pile on with a good one-liner here or there that make us all chuckle
    Persons G through Z see that the thread is still near the top of the forum, so they decide to take a peek. And choose sides.
    Now it's on.

    Person LW chimes in and says that there is no way this player is offside. Person LW also says that being a dumbass is not in and of itself a violation of the LOTG. However, Person LW says that he often bends the law book to punish dumbasses when, by not recognizing the dumbass-ery, would look incompetent by not punishing them.

    Person A keeps getting notifications that people are replying to their thread even though Person A got verification of the answer they wanted long ago.
     
    Doug the Ref, dadman, NHRef and 3 others repped this.
  22. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I wasn't looking for any specific answer, I was looking for clarification on what was presented. I have been playing/coaching/watching this game my entire life and I have read all the responses with interest in the opinions. I think the debate has been pretty interesting and I can almost predict the opinions of certain posters based on previous opinions.

    On an different note, I have been asked by a few of the coaches I know and have been considering getting my official referee certification when my daughter is out of HS in a few years so the directions you all approach different scenarios is interesting to me.

    That's why I started the thread.
     
    dadman and Lucky Wilbury repped this.
  23. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    You left out the only-tengentially-related offshoots embedded within the endless chain . . .
     
    dadman repped this.
  24. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Like the occasional recursive digressions regarding the nature of forum threads ...
     
    dadman repped this.
  25. SccrDon

    SccrDon Member+

    Dec 4, 2001
    Colorado Springs
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Recursive digressions? Bubba knows him some words...
     

Share This Page