Sunday night in the Fire / Rapids game, the anouncer talked about 'Passive Offside' and how the officials were instructed not to call it. What is 'Passive Offside' ?
Passive offside is when an offensive player is in an offside position, but not involved in the play. Passive offside is not a foul or an infringement. An example is when a player is offside and not involved in play and his onside teammate kicks the ball into the goal. The proper call is goal, kick off for the defending team.
This could be a bad precedent. Trying to determine what an announcer thinks in terms of the law. Passive offside infers non involvement on the part of an offside player. It is NOT an offence for a player to be located in or come from an offside position. As long as the offside player is not involved in the shaping of events, by interfering with play directly as in playing the ball or interfering with an opponent by such activities as impeding or blocking the line of sight of the keeper or at a later stage before the offside resets gains an advantage from his offside position. The offside player by way of not imposing his presence on the action, in awaiting the outcome of his teammate's atempt or until the the opposition has regained control as he is not affecting said outcome in the opinion of the AR and referee he is thought of as "Passive"
Just to clarify the original post, Jack Edwards was saying that MLS was encouraging the officials to allow the passive offside (not to call offside in the case of a "passive" player in an offside position). Edwards made a big deal about how this was something that the MLS was encouraging the refs to allow as it provided better entertainment value. The fact is that this has nothing to do with MLS. It is a FIFA law and we call it the same way in U-12 rec that they do at the MLS level. USSF drilled this into us in our introductory class. I wish that commentators were required to get a grade 08 badge before being given a microphone. It should increase viewers understanding of the game!
BTW, I think "passive offside" is actually an ice hockey term. I've never really heard a player in an offside position that is not involved in the play being called "passive offside". My guess is Jack just screwed up his terms. Have others heard this term officially used in conjunction with soccer?
The term we normally use is "not involved". Typically it is active non-involvement such as stepping out of bounds, throwing up ones hands and moving away from the area of play, and even sitting down to show the CR and AR that they know they are in an offiside postion but have no intention of participating in play. This was the case durinig a final I assisted on Monday. The yellow defenders had pulled up leaving a blue attacker in an offside position. The ball was played through and the attacker immediately pulled away from the ball, raising her arms and looking straight at me to make sure I recognized that she was not involved in the play. The defenders stopped contesting the ball and raised their arms looking for a flag, while a speedy attacker came from onside, went one-on-one with the keeper and easily scored. The coach was not a happy camper and even when I explained that the player in the offside position was not involved, argued that because his team had assumed there would be a call, and this effected their play, that even if the player indicated that she was not involved and was nowhere near the ball, she still should have been called. Coach logic sometimes eclipses announcer logic when it comes to understanding the Laws.
Interesting take on the origin of the term "passive offside". I've been hearing it for the past year or so. We would say "not involved" and I still say that because most people (and TV announcers) cannot differentiate between offside position and the off-side infraction. The term "passive offside" is not found in the LOTG. I still think about the refs that I saw when I was coaching U16 many moons ago. Half step off on the far side of the pitch. TWEET!!! Of course, I was one of them. Bob Evans' presentation in the early 90's was an eye-opener.
Jack Edwards' comments on Sunday night achieved the highest level of ignorance regarding TLOG that I have ever heard. If you ever wonder why we catch so much grief, its because of announcers like that spouting off like they are Collina himself! First he goes off about 10 yards on free kicks and then he starts killing the ARs and MLS for "passive" offside not being called. To make matters worse, Brian Hall was the referee, and he did a great job in that match! This was a world cup referee and reject Jackie wants to give a lecture on 10 yards during the next National Camp. Please... We had fans and commentators lamenting the false positves on offside decsions last year at the World Cup, but as soon as the same people realize that we've been giving the attackers the benefit of doubt in the US for years the same people whine once it affects their team.
passive offsides Everyone the Term is actually offside position and area of involvement. They tell me that the area of involvement is smaller the higher the level of competition. Meaning in like Youth soccer the area involvement is say a 20 yard circle, And in the professional league it is say 5 yards. Bilf are u a national referee??? Or are you like me just have friends that are referees???
Nooooooooo, I'm nowhere near a national referee. I'm a grade 7 working on a state badge. I watch MLS games for tips on what to do in some cases and what not to do in others. It just offends me that someone who would embarrassed beyond words if he knew how ignorant he was spouts off like he's a member of the IFAB.
Re: passive offsides No, actually, though the area is one aspect of judging involvement there are other criteria as well. High level or low level it is based upon the flow of play, positions of the players, and the players actions. And, as a note, it is offside without the "s".
anyone see the champions league final? this "passive" situation arose on a milan goal early in the first half. the goal was called back due to player in an offside position pretty much, although not directly, in line between shooter and goalie. i thought it was a good call. anyone disagree? [as a reminder, some may not yet have heard the result of the game, so please keep any comments to this play and not to the eventual outcome]
Yeah I watched that game, and am just now reading this thread. That was a brilliant call by the AR; it was a very difficult one to catch but he was spot on. Anyway, back to the whole definition of "passive offside" issue. I haven't seen the correct one mentioned yet, and it surprises me so many would reply with a misleading answer. Maybe you all refer to being in an offside position as being "passive offside," but the terminology does indeed have a specific definition. It isn't mentioned much in the United States but you do hear of it all the time in Europe. Passive offside is when a player in an offside position is involved in the play but not actively playing the ball. Perfect example from today's game -- a player is taking a shot near the top of the 18, his teammate is in an offside position in front of the goalkeeper, blocking the keeper's view. The shot goes in the goal but the score is disallowed due to the offside player being involved "passively" with the play. The point is that a player in an offside position doesn't have to be playing or making a play for the ball to be whistled for involvement.
Great point, Statesman, and that play in Juv-AC Milan is a great example. The player near the 'keeper blocked his view of the dribbler until the last step and shot.
Statesman, I think the original question was whether being passive, while in an offside postion could be equated with not being involved in play - no infraction. As you have correctly pointed out, a player can be passive and yet still involved so passivity is not a criteria. The criteria we apply are position and involvement. I have had several situations when players in an offside poistion have attempted to remove themselves from involvement and still interfered with play. In one final several years ago, I called back what would have been the winning goal when an attacker, trying to back out of the goal area while a teammate took a shot, accidentally blocked the keeper from making a save.
I understand what you are saying, but think that this effort to simplify it is too much of a generalization. We are looking at whether the player is in an offside position and whether the player is involved in the play (the ever-elusive concept of seeking/gaining an advantage). In making this second determination, you must consider a number of factors, including the player's "position" in terms of proximity to the play (in addition to his being in an offside position in the first place), whether the player is passive, the impact or effect on the defense, and, at least from a triviality aspect if not more, even the outcome of the play. There are probably others that could be added to the list. As a result, I think it goes to far to say that passivity is not a criteria. It is a factor, albeit one of many and one that may be trumped if others are present. In the Juve-Milan example, he may have been passive, but his position, the impact on the goalie, and the resulting goal required that he nonetheless be involved. Had this same play occurred 30 yards further out, and rather than a shot it had been a pass to a player who was onside, the player's passivity might have been enough to warrant a no call notwithstanding his proximity to the pass. In other instances, I can recall balls being passed to players in offside positions, who effectively turned their back on the play where a ball was being passed directly to them, indicating that they would not play the ball -- the referee correctly allowed play to continue. Of course, if the ball is zooming into the net, as opposed to rolling into a corner, you can't simply allow play to continue, but you must judge whether the offside player had any impact on the goal being scored. I don't think being passive has nothing to do with the equation, but fully agree that it alone does not automatically save a player if he is nonetheless still impacting play.
I agree. The judgement of involvement is actually quite involved. There are many factors, activity versus passivity is but one. I remember an upopular decision on an offside, for a match in which I was not involved, and I think Nat might have been there, too, where the keeper knocked an attacker sensless during a corner kick, as he batted the ball away, but then tripped over the same senseless opponent as another attacker headed the ball into the goal. I don't recall whether the offside was called or not, but there was a lot of discussion on what should and should not have been done, particularly since, the game was abandoned shortly after this occurred. Part of the discussion was whether an unconcious player could be guilty of an offside infraction.
I think this is a great idea, but it would also require that they actually pay attention to what is going on on the field. At a recent DC United telecast, the our keeper, Rimando, caught the ball and punted it upfield. Earnie Stewart was called offside as he streaked up the field. Rather than making comments about whether he was or wasn't, the announcer said that there shouldn't have been an offside call because "you can't be offside on a goal kick." Well, that's nice to know, but it wasn't a goal kick... Sigh. Of course, this may also really prove your point. Maybe he was paying attention and believed that anything kicked out of the penalty area by a keeper is a goal kick...
passive offside Hey i have a idea .. lets look at the laws of the game.. It states that you cannot be declared offside unless u are : 1 closer to the goal line then the ball 2 nearer to the goal then 2 oppenents and then you will only be declared offside if: 1 you interfer with an opponent 2 seek to gain an advantage by being in this position 3 interferung with play so unless any or all of the above mentioned ideas is bothered it is not OFFSIDE
L-b, No offense, but please refer to the current LOTG. "Seek to gain" an advantage went out somewhere around '95. The current language states: position: nearer to opponent's goal than the ball and the 2nd last opponent offense: 1. interfering with play, or 2. ininterfering with opponent, or 3. gaining an advantage by being in that position One would hope that every player on the field was seeking to gain an advantage, otherwise the coach would yank him.
I was going to add being in your attacking half, and at the time the ball is played to the previous two posts, but then I realized that the last 20 posts have been by referees who understand when offside should be called, who are responding to a single question on "passive" offside.
Hilarious reply, IASocFan I think the key point to bring away from the discussion is that the term "Passive Offside" does indicate an offense that should be whistled. The typical call we make is known as "Offside." To be in an "Offside position" is not an offense. "Passive Offside" is merely an extension of "Offside" meant to indicate the guilty player was not actively playing the ball but rather got involved in the play through some other means (such as blocking the view of the goalkeeper). Writing about offside is never an easy thing due to the convoluted language required! Maybe FIFA should hire a linguist