Waiting to Flag Offside

I just saw that YouTube video the other day, it made me cringe!!! First thing I thought was, "I hope he waits to flag it". How unfortunate for Donovan.

 

I watched the replay and my first impression was that the player in offside position made himself offside by attacking the ball. By taking four or five full speed strides towards the ball, he involved himself in the play. The defender was concerned with two attackers, not just one, which constitutes involvement in my mind every time. Had the offside position attacker stopped immediately or turned his back then yes, the flag would have been premature. By moving towards the ball, the attacker "involved" himself in the play and only backed off after Donovan gained possession. Good call in my mind.

You can even hear the announcers at the end of the clip moaning "if only he had removed himself" or something like that.

 

Good point. That has crossed my mind once or twice, that someone is involved in play for attempting to play the ball and the defenders are trying to defend that person. And I thought I knew offside real well.

I would have to agree with you on that, it would just depend on each specific situation.

If someone in offside position tries to play the ball, the defenders try to defend him. Then a teammate who wasn't in offside position gathers the ball, the offside call should be made.

Also at my recertification clinic this year, the instructor was showing us the elliptical area of active play. He said if someone is laying down on the ground, in that ellipse, should be called for offside.

I don't agree with that. The player is not participating in play, unless he being in the ellipse is considered participation.

 

Ah, yes I do remember that from the refresher, ok now things are clear .

 

No, I had not read that memo, and I thank you for referring me to it, although I do know who Al Kleinaitis is, thank you. What I did was open the video and watch it and go with my first impression...which is what we all must do when working matches.

Upon further review, I cannot say that my opinion is changed by your interpretation of the memo, or by what was written in it.

The memo states that an attacking player is offside if "...the action of the attacker coming from the offside position causes one or more opponents to be deceived or distracted."

That is the position I stated in my first post and INTOOthisR, I still believe that by attempting to gain possession of the ball (even though he did not) the attacker coming from offside position did cause the defender to be distracted.

I'm not arguing the fact that one player was in offside position and one was not, or any other technical dispute with the execution of delaying an offside flag to wait and see if the player in offside position becomes involved in the play. I myself do that all the time. My judgment is simply that the player in offside position did distract the defender by attempting to join the play.

I don't believe USSF says I'm wrong, just that our judgments conflict. The only way to prove who is right and who is wrong would be by reading the mind of the defender on that play...best of luck with that.

Uh, oh...now I'll sit here and wait for the lightning strike after disagreeing with THE MAN!

 

Not just disagreeing with USSF... with FIFA. Remember the "must touch the ball to be offside" FIFA directive that caused so much confusion a couple of years ago? Well, that directive was meant specifically for the case in the video. If an onside and offside attacker both go for a ball, you must wait to see which one actually touches it before flagging.

Yup, it would have been hard to keep the flag down. I might well have popped it too, but it still would have been incorrect.

 

No I do not remember but I will go looking for it. And I thought I knew the offside law pretty darn well. Well, always learning and trying to improve...

The reason I don't remember that directive is due to my on again, off again pattern of leaving the referee profession at various times for various reasons. My USSF badges run as follows: 1984, 1985, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2006, 2007. I like to say sometimes that I've forgotten more laws (that have been changed) than some of these young kids playing now (I'm 35) ever learned.

I've also worked matches with a variety of different applicable offside laws that have evolved over the years...remember "even is off?" Does that "must touch the ball" FIFA memo still apply? Because if that's the case even Mr. Kleinaitis is in conflict with them when he writes that a "distraction" can trigger the offside call.

 

Distractions refer to interfering with an opponent, not interfering with play. The ATR clearly states that if an offside player draws a defender into pursuit, s/he is guilty of interfering with an opponent. I don't know why the ATR says this, or how this conclusion is derived from any statements made by FIFA, but it is in general agreement with English referee sites. FIFA does not make clear what constitutes deceiving or distracting an opponent, which is a large part of the problem.


FIFA Circular 874 issued October 22, 2003 stated:

How should we interpret "interfering with play"?

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

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 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.


FIFA Circular 987 issued August 17, 2005 announced new “advice on the application of Law 11, IFAB Decision 2”:

“A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalised for interfering with an opponent.”



In the Jaqua case, it is clear that the defender pursues Donovan and/or the ball, not Jaqua. Clearly, if Jaqua was removed from the scene, the defense of the pass would not have differed in the slightest. There is the possibility that Donovan will ultimately elect to pass to Jaqua if the keeper comes out to challenge Donovan and Jaqua is wide open, that is, Jaqua likely could affect resulting play, but Donovan will have already put Jaqua in an onside position again by then so Jaqua should not be called offside (unless he somehow gets ahead of the ball and the second defender at the time of Donovan's future pass).

Since Jaqua was obviously offside and the pass did appear to be to him it was certainly understandable that the AR raised the flag early. But it clearly was a mistake.

 

I just screwed up an offside call last Sunday, as an AR. It was my first boys U19 game, I have done girls before. I've never had a premature offside flag, but the boys sure move around fast. The other player I didn't see, he was behind about 3 other people all bunched up. After I saw the offside player stop, the other got the ball, I tried to signal to the center to play on, by putting one arm forward, and also continue running with play. He knows that his son and I do that to help communicate. Unfortunately he blew his whistle, then asked if it was an offside, I said no, drop ball restart.

 

Tom, I disagree with the USSF official interpretation. The offside attacker made a very clear move to the ball and continued for several strides before stopping his run. Just because Donovan got to the ball first does not negate the fact the first attacker was actively involved in play.

 

And thank you for your support.

You and I are on the same page, although if PVan's given us all the necessary info from that circular (I have no reason to doubt it's not complete), then I am wrong because Jaqua is not "in the path of the ball" while distracting the defender but clearly away from the path. Personally I don't like the way that works out because a defender can be distracted by an offensive player who is not in the path of the ball...don't we and coaches instruct players to play until they hear the whistle? If so, then the defender must consider an attacker who might or might not have been in offside position even if they are not directly in the path of the ball. This puts the defender in the position of trying to read the AR's mind to figure what will happen and is an unfair position in which to put them.

As for the USSF interpretation, it just seems a bit incomplete to me as it did not include a clear statement that because Jaqua was not in the path of the ball, the AR's flag was therefore premature. In fact, the memo does not actually take a specific position at all, only instructing ARs to hold their flag until one player or another actually gains possession.

 

I don't like it either. Too bad we have to deal with it and follow it. I think they are involved in play for the same reason. If they draw a defender with them, or in someone interfere with a defender, they should be guilty of being offside.

Are you saying the USSF interpretation is different than other countries? I really don't know what it is in other countries.

 

Well, I guess we should all be following FIFA but I don't know about other countries either. From what I see of international play on TV, however, it seems pretty similar to the type of offside calls I think I make. From what I see on YouTube, though, mistakes by those in our profession can be sometimes severely punished by crowd violence (and even probably correct calls going against the home team sometimes).

 

Any call against anyone in a heated moment can result in crowd violence!

Since I began really ARing and was taught this way, I still call it that way. We are supposed to follow USSF though, aren't we?


Talking about heated, there was a replay of AC Milan vs Inter on FSC a few weeks ago. The game was suspended due to the referee disallowing a goal for some reason, I didn't see anything wrong with the specific play. The crowd ended up throwing water bottles, flares, anything on the field. Dida got hit in the back of the neck with a flare at one point! The crowd settled down after a little, game resumed after clearing everything. About 30 seconds in, more of everything, the referee ended it there, ran out of there pretty fast..

 

Interesting how this thread on extremely close offside calls has evolved to bring into question how they sometimes lead to crowd violence. Maybe this would be a good thread to start in the int'l section...get the reactions of fans and maybe a little insight. Also a good psychological study...if you're into that kinda thing.

After I graduated HS (in 1989) I was part of a team that was supposed to play a tournament in Peru. Apparently the embassy got threats a month before we were supposed to leave so they didn't even let us go. Something I'd really have liked to do...except for getting beat up or blown up, of course.

 

I shouldn't support a Tar Heel, but...

Your reasoning in earlier post about why Jaqua should be whistled offside makes sense. In my opinion, the offside law has been tightened up too much in recent years, with the ideas of 'interfering with play' and 'interfering with an opponent' being too narrowly defined. But... the guidance from FIFA and USSF in situations like the one in this thread is clear: the flag should have stayed down.

If you were the AR on this game and explained what you saw and why you put the flag up, the assessor MIGHT tell you that he understands your reasoning. He definitely WOULD tell you why, in this case, your reasoning was wrong.

The only reason I'm okay with the flag staying down on this one is, the presence of the offside-positioned attacker did not, in my opinion, affect what the defender did. Defender ran back toward his goal, trying to chase down the ball. His actions likely would have been the same even without Jaqua being where he was.

If Jaqua had taken a couple steps in a different direction and drawn the defender with him, to allow Donovan to run onto the ball uncontested, THEN we would have a legitimate reason to put the flag up for offside.

 

This seems a pretty clear example of that phrase in the circular "if no other opponent has a chance of playing the ball." Clearly here there are at least two options. And given the fact that the AR is looking across the field with a rather shallow depth perception...it's certainly necessary to wait and see.

I would disagree that the current offside interpretation is too strict--it certainly isn't compared to La Liga, for instance. And in this instance...why deny a legitimate goal? It's not like this is artful deception.

 

Could be seen that way. The defenders could have realized that he was offside and did not bother to react (hence, distracted). But, the LOTG are a bit clearer stating "involvement". That's why I hate the damn USSF memos...they think they clear things up when they really do not. Any sensible ref would have kept the flag down, waited for the play to evolve.

 

I just watched it again, and while I agree is should not have been flagged, I have two "ifs"

1) With the rate the back line/offside position was changing, Donovan was a good bit onside and may not have even been a concern of the AR??

2) The defender and Donovan and the other attacker all converge, at what point do you declare "involved"? Looks like the defender actually skips a step to avoid tripping Donovan, given the closeness of all 3 at that point, the offside positioned attacker removed his possibility of going left.

I have held flags to see which of the offside/onside attackers play the ball, just not sure I agree with this particular one.

 

I've watched this clip so many times and send it to my friends (not referees) and they all think the offside is a valid call.

As a referee I have to follow USSF guidance. I would also comment that this definitely favor the offense and as it should be.

But as I keep watching this clip over and over, I picture myself as the AR. At the point of the pass was made, I would look across the field and see 4 Chivas defenders, Jaqua, and another Galaxy attacker nearest to me. And Donovan is lurkying behind all these guys.

I believe I would definitely signal offside on this play.

While reading the memo, I was fixated on the phrase "each with an equally credible chance of getting to the ball."

I believe when I signal for that offiside, Jaqua's and Donovan's chance of getting to the ball would not have been equal. I would perceive Jaqua's position gave him the advantage already.

Again, if I am the AR, looking across all these bodies and having to wait and make a decision on "equally credible chance of getting to the ball", I would really have to wait wait wait and make a decision - which is not a bad thing. But this makes the eventual decision that much more controversial.

Another thing is this, if I raise my flag, then it is up to the center referee to wave me down and that is not good for anyone. I think this memo and the video clip will ignite a huge amount of controversy and feedback. I believe coaches will take advantage of this interpretation as well.

 

The more I look at this the more I shake my head.

1. The CR was even with the last defender and had a clear view of Donovan being onside
2. Donovan was clearly the first person to the ball.
3. The other attacker, though he did take a few steps, stopped and did not appear to effect play.

In terms on when to pop the flag? Had the offside attacked reached the ball at the same time as Donovan, or earlier (even without touching it), I might have popped the flag. Had he obstructed the defender running back or through his positioning otherwise changed play, I would have.

Perhaps from the angle of the CR he thought the offside attacker influenced the play.

You know, from the first angle it looks like the left back retreats to pull the one attacker offside...and from THAT angle I am not even sure HE was offside when the ball was played.

 

Well this Blue Devil won't agree with a TarHeel ;-)

I'm not sure, I might have called the offside too (of course, I could never keep up with the likes of Donovan!), but I think I would have been wrong. I remember watching a whole bunch of clips when I trained ... offside attackers who were right in the middle of play, even trying to make a play on the ball, but didn't actually touch the ball and didn't interfere with a defender. I looped this clip over and over and it just doesn't seem that the defender was distracted by the offside attacker.