Question Number: 15819

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/18/2007

Bill Sayre of Greenwood, SC USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 15797

Re: 15797

When the attacker in the offside position contacted the keeper, had I been the CR they'd have seen some plastic. The attacker had no legitimate challenge opportunity, therefore they were guilty of at least a reckless challenge (in my opinion).

Actually, I agree with the CR that the flag and whistle should be held until it is clear that the other attacker could reach the ball (assuming that attacker is nearly even or faster than the one in the offside position). As soon as the contact was made though, the ball comes out with a DK and a caution.

Look at it another way - a player deliberately runs into and injures a player away from the ball and right in front of the officials - what would the likely call be?

Thanks for the forum you provide!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Bill,

we will have to agree to disagree here!
It is an assumption when you state
"The attacker had no legitimate challenge opportunity,"

If the offside call is made then there is no collision.
The ball is being pursued by both the keeper and the two attackers. The fact one of the pursuing attackers was offside positioned means by his involvement he creates interference if it looks likely he will be challenging for the ball. To wait until a collision occurs defeats our primary purpose which is to ensure their safety. When an onside and offside attacker are both in pursuit of the ball, we ONLY wait for a physical touch for interfering with play NOT for interfering with an opponent!

If we as referees know that a player making a challenge is not legally available to make that challenge you must remember that player may not be aware he is offside so he has no way to address this imbalance unless we pull him up for the offside.

I have to feel that the play on the ball was a legitimate attempt and the collision accidental more than deliberate. Also in the scenario it never indicates if the onside player actually got to the ball before the collision in which case your point in my opinion might be more valid.

Your analogy about a play away from the ball does not fit this profile. Do you mean we see it as two players looking in opposite directions collide accidentally or is an unsuspecting stationary player run over from behind?

We make decisions on what we see and what we know.
I see two attackers running for the ball towards a defender I see no reason to stop play even if there might be a collision. If I KNOW one is offside then the close proximity sets off the alarm bells because if I sense no clear winner in this race , I whistle play dead!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I likewise will have to disagree. Since the flag is waved DOWN, the offside attacker has every right to challenge the ball. As far as he knows, he's onside. I fault the CR because the offside attacker being close enough to cause a collision, obviously was close enough to interfere with play. You can't caution just because he was in offside position and challenged. Now, if you think the challenge was reckless on it's merits alone, that's the proverbial horse of a different color and I would agree to caution at that point. But not just because he was offside. It's the referee crew's job to inform him of this.

Answer provided by Referee Jon [Withheld]

Flag was down...he may have thought he was inches onside if it was a close call and therefore has a legit challenge for the ball. Until the referee's whistle goes play continues and players have the right to fairly challenge for the ball. Remember, 'It is not an offense itself to be in an offside position'

Regards

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 15848