Much Ado About Nothing . . . words about offside

In the twenty-first century, the football world has finally absorbed the intent of law 11, just as the United States did in the final decade of the twentieth.  But even after that blatantly chauvinistic lede (journalism's word for "opening"), I have to admit that we still do get small controversies, the latest of which concerns interfering with play when offside, and in fact the comments to this morning's post express one of them.

Consider these statements, one from FIFA, in the new version of the laws of the game (with comments), and the other from the memo that Alfred sent out about that first goal of the season in MLS.
    • FIFA: "The (offside) player cannot be penalised because he did not touch the ball."
    • USSoccer: "This memorandum confirms that “interfering with play” cannot be decided unless the attacker in an offside position makes contact with the ball."

They both say the same thing, and yet people wonder about someone standing in front of the goalkeeper, or running towards the ball, or even the wording of "gaining an advantage".  The fact is this: There are three infringements for which a player is punished in law 11:

    1. Interfering with play, recognized by the referee and assistant because the offside player plays the ball.

    2. Interfering with an opponent, recognized by the officials by the effect that the offside player has upon an opponent, even if he doesn't play the ball.  The effect could be: obstructing a defender in a challenge, obscuring the goalkeeper's view of the flight of the ball, or simply by his presence, preventing an opponent from reaching the ball.

    3. Gaining an advantage, recognized by the officials because he gets to the ball from a rebound or a deflection from a defender, even though he might have been well away from the play when the ball was played by one of his teammates.  This would be a delayed call.

    So, to the question "Does an offside player have to touch the ball in order to be penalized?" the answer is "Yes" for 1. and 3., "No" for 2.

    To the question "Should the AR wait before flagging an obviously offside player?" the answer is "Yes" when there are two players possibly offside, because you need to be sure that the ball is played by an offside player, not by one who ran through.  Hesitation before flagging by the AR rarely hurts in offside situations.

    With this explanation in mind, I have annotated the comments received after I posted the first piece this morning.

Comments

[Jim Lavigne]

I am puzzled about the continued discussion of of Law 11.

It is one of the simplest Laws, and easily broken down into a few bullet points.

Our entry level clinic used to devote 2 hours to this Law. We now allow an hour, and I complete it in about 45 minutes.

Not only do I cover the specifics of the Law, but I also teach that it is a dynamic situation taught in a static manner.

I also teach why such a simple Law leads to so much dissension. I demonstrate 'lag-time' in attention and perception, and demonstrate the error of parallax.

Actually, it takes about 20 minutes to teach the Law, and determine that the students understand it. The rest of the time is spent in explaining why they will receive abuse for a proper call.

lather

[EPLFan]

The problem with this, as I see it, is that paragraph 11:5 of the 2007 edition of Advice to the Referee states that "... a player can be considered playing the ball even without touching it...If contact is likely, the offense (offside) can be called when the official makes that determination, even if there is not contact with the ball (although I’ve heard this has been changed in latter versions of ATR – this is most current PDF on ussoccer.com)." This is all discussed under the heading Interfering with play, is unambiguous and yet consistently ignored by those who believe you must make contact to have interfered with play. I don’t know why some hold this opinion in the face of 11.5 and am curious as to why some choose to ignore this black & white advice. MLS, WPS, EPL, Champions League, World Cup Qualifiers, Serie A and all other televised leagues are still calling offside without contact. Some may say that offside calls without contact are based on interfering with an opponent, but ATR 11.5 is what it is.

[pat smith]

I once assessed a game officiated by three Internationals, since retired, but still active in other capacities. The winger had the ball, took the defender one on one, beat him and drove towards the near post. He found a gap between the near post, and the G.K.body, and slotted the ball home. There was an attacking player standing by the far post doing absolutely nothing, either vocally, or physically. The flag came up Offside, no goal. In the post game i didn't ask too many questions, i did say, If God in his infinite wisdom would remove that man by the far post, would you give the goal? The answer was yes. SO I said he had no bearing on the game. They thought and one of them said we blew it didn't we?
What you heard from me was some of Bob Evans' logic. I said, that is what he would have said, if there was no harm, it is difficult to disallow. I further said you were lucky God smiled on the team you took the goal away and gave them two more.Go in peace, and sin no more!

[Wolfram]

Bob,
your first definition of interfering with play is in slight contradiction with an August 24, 2006 position paper stating that "interfering with play" requires either touching the ball or making a credible move to play the ball. This was re-emphasized in another publication on April 18, 2007 (An Offside Issue - Is Touching the ball a requirement?). Therefore, there are exceptions to the "Yes" answer under 1. - I am not aware of any subsequent corrective publication by USSF.
http://209.197.9.173/v7c5x3f7/cds/Documents/cms/ussf/04-15-2007_RefPositionPaper.pdf?dopvhost=images.ussoccer.com&doppl=3c6e4736758434bb75d434eb30c4b1a3e101b82c&dopsig=1ede38a25750a786ffd8b8f7bd5bb9be

[But see FIFA's explanation in the new laws: pages 100 et seq. RE]

[Florian]

Bravo. Simply stated and very easy to understand. I will incorporate your exact words in my next referee instruction class, with your permission, of course.

[bert rizzo]

to those looking to the 06 and 07 memos on "making a credible play for the ball," -- see jim allen's "ask a soccer referee" cite wherein he says - things change.

[Gary Voshol]

And of course you've seen Jim's answer of March 30, which is being bandied about on the various fora as "O tempora! O mores!"

[Richard Marnhout]

Okay then.... since you said it, please define "PLAYS THE BALL"

R.M.

[Mike Futrell]

The 3-25-09 USSF position paper on offside says "This memorandum confirms that “interfering with play” cannot be decided unless the attacker in an offside position makes contact with the ball."

However, Page 102 of the 2008 version of the laws of the game says "A player in an offside position (A) 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."

It seems to me that the new USSF directive is in conflict with the Laws Of The Game.

[Note that in the memorandum, the case described was one where the player had no chance to play the ball. No matter what the referee thought about his attempt to get the ball, there was no infringement. The conflict is only an APPARENT one. RE]