Chicago's final goal this evening against the Rapids revolved around a "passive offside" non-call against Damani Ralph, which allowed Kelly Gray to sprint forty yards or so and fold up in the box for what I thought was a cheap penalty call, but that's neither here nor there. What is here or there is the fact the Ralph waited about half a second, then turned and sprinted after Gray, and was about 4-5 yards away from him, waiting for a centering pass, when Gray went down. How the hell is that passive offsides? I thought the guy who was actually offsides in the play had to stay out of the play completely, which is why I bought the NE/KC argument (sort of) a couple weeks ago. As a defender, I have to say this is ridiculous. As it was, Ralph was occupying a defender on the play. What happens if Gray had touched the ball over to him? What does Brian Hall call then? Was that violation of the spirit of the passive offsides? Can Hall actually blow his whistle on it? It was clearly the same play--so what happens? There is no room in soccer for these "gray" areas, and passive offsides is way too gray for my taste, first of all because a defender's attention is taken away (even for a moment), and secondly and more specifically, when the guy who was offsides in the first place makes an attempt to get in on the same play, this violates the spirit of the law. Can anyone explain what happens in such a case, what is the written rule for the sport?
I don't want to say never, but "occupying a defender" is very seldom a reason for an offside call. And I for one don't blame the refs. If the defender, who has a better view of the situation than anyone else including the refs (he's almost by definition the last defender), can't figure out the guy he's trying to catch up to is in offside position, then he deserves what he gets. Besides, it's easy to argue that one attacker and one defender both removed from the play isn't an "advantage." There isn't really this "grey area" you speak of. In order to have any real chance of drawing a call, the advantage gained must be fairly definitive. More definitive than what you've just described. {As to getting fouled in that situation, I don't find that concept ridiculous, either (though not having seen the play, I don't know if it actually happened or not). Were two guys alone, lollygagging on the other side of the half line 50 yards behind the play and totally uninvolved, but one dealt a mean elbow to the other that the ref saw, he'd have to call that. So why not two guys 10 yards in front of the play, similarly uninvolved?}
I think he was implying he thought it was a pretty soft penalty. I have to agree - Gray went down like a sack of potatos on the slightest of nudges. And it was shoulder-to-shoulder.
Well, he asked the question "How the hell is that passive offsides?" and I answered it. The inevitable followup is, "can a player be fouled in passive offside position?" with the presumption that being fouled would prove one was "involved" in the play (a predictable, but ultimately fallacious argument). I thought I'd field that one, too.
The law itself is rather terse: LAW 11 – Offside Offence A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is 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 does one interpret "interfering with play"? Making contact with the ball or another player might constitute "interfering with play" and generally is considered to be, but is it even possible to be contacting the ball at the "moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team"? No. How does one interpret "interfering with an opponent"? The law does not say a player can't be involved in active play--it says the player can't be involved in active play by "interfering with play" or "gaining an advantage". Somehow, "interfering with an opponent" has come to mean "be a distraction to an opponent". A player on the other side of the field might still receive a cross and thus should be a distraction to the defense. Even a player slowly walking back in the direction of his own goal could turn around at at some point become part of the play, so he too could be considered a distraction. The 2001 USSF Advice to Referees states: The USSF's declaration that... "The referee's decision to penalize the player for being in that position can... also be made at any time from that point forward until a new action on the field puts the attacker 'onside'" is critical to how Law 11 is interpreted today but it isn't even hinted at in the actual Laws of the Game. Personally, I would like to see the first two conditions of the Law dropped and the third condition be made a requirement. Restating the law as "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play and gaining an advantage by being in that position" should be enough to have a fair and equitable law. Then silly offside calls like the one against Igor Simutenkov at the 32:05 mark of the KC-LA game would not have to be made.
I really meant to just use the Damani Ralph thing as an example--I know the particular play didn't have any bearing on this game, but if this were the MLS final, and a guy avoids an offside call by standing still or walking back up the field, then in half a second turns and sprints after the play, takes a pass from the guy who was allowed to run onto the ball (in this case, Gray) and scores a goal--what happens? Is that half a second that he pretends to not be involved in the play long enough? Or can he not be involved in that particular attacking play at all? I read through PVancouver's post and I'm still somewhat hazy on what interfering with the play might mean. Ralph DID gain an advantage simply by being so far down the field when he started sprinting. In other words, if I'm ten yards offside, I stand still to let my non-offside teammate take a thru-pass, then start sprinting right behind the play a second later, I'm ten yards ahead of where I would be--and that's obviously a huge advantage.
The law says "involved in active play", not "actively involved in play". If you are standing still within passing distance of the ball you may not be "actively involved in play" but you are certainly "involved in active play". And being 10 yards further downfield so that you can later turn around and sprint with less effort to goal is certainly an advantage. I didn't see the play. It sounds like Ralph should have been called immediately for "gaining an advantage by being in that position", unless he was already walking backward at the time of the play, not watching the ball, etc., etc, and giving every impression than he had no intention of becoming involved in active play--until put onside again. And even then he may have been too close to the active play not to be considered part of it. If Ralph waited until he was in an onside position, then, according to USSF, waited still more until another player played the ball, he could legally turn and become involved in active play again.
Although I'm far from an expert on this (or most anything else) isn't the nub of the problem whether or not a referee can call a "delayed" offside? If the decision has to be made at the time the ball is played or touched by a teammate (which I gather is the Law) then it becomes REALLY difficult for a referee to judge whether the player IS involved in the play (roughly speaking) at that point. Does "involved in active play" mean COULD BE, IN THE NEXT MOMENTS, involved in the play? My understanding is that a delayed call isn't allowed, thus making this a real problem for the game. Note I'm not saying the referee is doing anything wrong by following the Laws and advisories, just that those Laws are problematic. Just my $.02. =NLK=
But it says "actively involved in play *by:*" and then lists three conditions. It is therefore presumed that there are several ways in which one can be actively involved and not an offside violator. The way it is legislated, describing what upon what a player could do rather than what he actuually does, you have cited the textbook definition of what should be a non-call under the rule. Think about this in theory. If what you described were offside, a player would *always* be gaining an advantage by being in front of the defense. And if that were true, why would there be all that superfluous language in the Law? Or, think about practice. Start watching with a specific eye toward offside calls. You may not get the right siutation coming up in one game, but over time you'll see refs making the pssive offside quite frequently, and there are really only a comparative handful of times you'll ever see a player called when there was not a ball headed in his general direction. If I'm understanding you correctly, in this scenario Ralph gets the defender to leave him pretty much completely, then lines up with Gray for a lateral pass. It could be offside at that point. But, it's gotta be pretty darn clear that Ralph used offside position to lose the defender, not that the defender gave up on the play (if the defender was 'drawn off' Gray to cover Ralph, then he better darn well have tried his level best to stick with Ralph). The rules don't bail you out when you give up on it, or get lost trying to be two places at once. Yes it is, and yes you can. There are practical limits, but if the advantage was gained, the ref can 'go back in time' a little bit (certainly no more than one pass or a few seconds, but the dvantage lingers).
I don't know why there is all that superfluous language in the Law. But the USSF does its best to explain it... So according to the USSF, being 10 yards upfield and waiting for the play to catch up is NOT gaining an advantage, NOT interfering with play, and NOT an offside offense. Merely standing to the side of the goalkeeper away from the play would also NOT be interfering with play. The explanation of "gaining an advantage" is particularly curious. It's nice to know I can be offside as much as I want to be as long as I am not moving toward the opponent or the ball or impeding an opponent when the ball is touched by a teammate, and I don't have an immediate shot on goal. Oddly enough, the Advice to Referees doesn't even talk about the ball moving toward a player in an offside position.
Offsides sucks Why does offsides even exist? It only serves to restrict the offense. I understand the rule, but don't know why it was ever created. Without offsides, the average soccer game would be 4-3 or 5-4 wouldn't it? If I'm wrong, please correct me, I'm only trying to figure out anything positive about having the rule in place. -Von
Re: Offsides sucks The purpose of the offside rule is not to restrict the offense, it's to reduce the number of defenders needed to protect against attacks. Before the offsides rule, it was necessary to have more players back close to goal. Now there are defensive strategies (the offside trap) where it is advantageous to have fewer defenders, unless you screw it up. Fewer defenders = more attackers.
When the ball was played upfield by Chicago, Ralph was in an offside position. Since he didn't try to get the ball or screen any defenders from getting to the ball, he was passively offside. As soon as Gray touched the ball farther upfield than Ralph was, Damiani was onside again. When Gray touched the ball, it's no longer the same "play" and all of the offsides reset. When Ralph ran onto the play behind Gray, it was no different than if he had been behind Gray all of the time. Also, as for gaining an advantage, that means that you never get back onside. For instance, if Rasov is standing in the box when Gray takes a shot from 25 yards out, he's passively offside. If the ball hits the bar and bounces to Rasov, he gained an advantage from his position. There are definite reasons for a passive offside rule. one of them is a corner kick or cross from the corner. If the defense pulls up when the ball is kicked and any offensive player (including the guy who kicked the ball) is farther upfield than the guy who heads the ball in, should offside be called? How about if you do an offside trap? Wouldn't the offense lose the ball because of the offside player? If you agree that there are times that players can be offside and still have play continue, then the defenders have to be forced by the rules to ignore those players. If someone were passively offside (even sitting on the ground) the defender could leave the ball to cover that player when a play developed, and claim the play was offside because the "passive" player changed his positioning. Because of these reasons (and more reasonable examples that actual referees could come up with), they need a rule that defenders need to ignore offside players who are not trying to play the ball or to try and seem like they are going to receive a pass (trying to distract a defender).
There is an offside rule because... it has always been part of the game (which in and of itself is not reason enough) and... it encourages a combined team effort from the offense to score rather than just individual opportunism, i.e., isolated 1v1 attacks which are the goal of most offenses. It used to be you needed three defenders between you and the goal, and "even" was not "on". soccertime, I don't think anyone is arguing that "passive offside" should disappear. I could even accept that being 10 yards upfield and "resting" should not be construed as "gaining an advantage", although you seem to think it is because you require Gray's touch farther upfield to put Ralph onside again. As far as the USSF's discussion of what is "interfering with play", it derives from a 1924 IFAB ruling, which states: "If a player in an offside position advances toward an opponent or the ball and, in so doing, causes the play to be affected he should be penalised." To me, "affecting play" is a lot more encompassing than "interfering with play", and I suspect the IFAB used this ruling to clarify the meaning of "interfering". Here is a sure-to-be-knocked-down suggestion: How about changing the term "offside" to "offattack"? Yes, it's an extra syllable, but it is a much more descriptively accurate term than "offside". Descriptions of the offattack rule could refer to an "attack zone".
How else would Ralph ever get back onside other than being behind the ball when someone else touches it? I was saying this because some of the posts (at least to me) seemed to imply that once Ralph was offside he was offside for the rest of the play (where play is similar to an advantage continuation). The reality is that each time an offensive player plays the ball, offside is reset, and Gray's touch put Ralph onside regardless of where he was when the ball was played to Gray. As for gaining an advantage, that's kind of a "moment of opportunity" occurence. It doesn't matter why the player is offside (resting, offside trap, injured....), and it doesn't matter where he is. It isn't considered to be gaining an advantage unless the ball comes to him without an event which put him back onside. In other words, if Ralph stands around until Gray gets past him and then Gray passes it to him, the fact that he was standing there after being offside as opposed to running there doesn't mean he gained an advantage by being offside. If he's still offside and the ball comes to him (mainly from some type of deflection) then he's gained an advantage and the whistle should blow. As for people arguing against having a passive offside rule, sorry. That was part of the KC argument and not this thread.
Re: Re: Offsides sucks Thanks for the explanation. I kind of thought the rule was to stop teams from just huffing the ball upfield, then running after it, and to promote more team play. I just got a little confused because I remember reading somewhere, that teams back in the 20's and 30's used to use anywhere from 4 to even 7 strikers and I guess I thought it was because they didn't have to worry about being offsides. Scores were also higher back then too. Now I know. -Von
Refs and linesmen miss the regular ol' run-of-the-mill offside so often I have no idea why we'd expect them to get the more complicated stuff right. And my favorite example of this rule being missed... Chicago's first goal in MLS Cup '98 damn near forced a player in an offside position to duck or be hit and he wasn't rule as interfering with the play. Not that I'm bitter.