Question Number: 15902

Law 11 - Offside 6/27/2007

RE: Other

F. Rottles of Ottawa, ON Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 15867

Regarding the disallowed goal in the Canada-USA match...

A Canadian attacker tried to get his head to the ball but he missed it. However, some have said that the linesman and the referee might have thought that the player had touched the ball ever so slightly.

How would that touch have been possession, rather than a deflection, while the actual header of the USA defender would have been construed as deflection rather than possession?

Let's assume that the officials saw that the USA defender had indeed headed the ball before the goalscorer got to it.

If the Canadian attacker had slightly touched it with his head, first, was the touch posession of the ball?

If he had touched it, it did not go in the goal nor did it go to a Canadian attacker, so was it not a botched attempt to play the ball? How would that be different than the botched play of the defender?

If neither possessed the ball, then, the attempted header by the Canadian attacker wouldn't be decisive.

But this matters only if the goalscorer had been in an offside position prior to the long pass. He was not.

I do not think the linesman would be so incompetent to have seen otherwise, given his very good positioning and given that he was looking at the right place (see the video). So other factors come into consideration.

During the flight of the ball, a Canadian attacker attempted to head it. The ball was not redirected. So, no possession and no deflection.

The linesman may not have seen that, but the referee was in very good position and was looking at the right place. Again, I doubt that incompetency would have been so great on the part of the referee that he would have thought the attacker had been on the ball.

The defending USA player ran under the ball, leaned into it, and headed the ball deliberately. This was head-to-ball and not a deflection. The player controlled the ball, albiet poorly.

The defender clearly intended to intercept the ball. He clearly did so.

It was a weak header and it was something between a clearance to the side of net (there was another attacker on the other side of the defender as well as the guy who had missed heading the ball) and a pass back toward the keeper. This is not an unusual way to attempt to deal with this kind of ball in the air. It is not easy so I don't think the defender's mistake can be given so much weight as to nullify the goal that resulted.

Key Point: Botched possession is not a deflection. Calling it a misplay doesn't change that. All kinds of defensive misplays can occur to the advantage of an attacking side. Suppose the keeper had tried to intercept the long pass but he fumbled it or slapped at it and botched his clearance. That would not have nullified the goal scored.

The defender possessed the ball by dispossessing the attacking side.

If he had let the ball go through, the attacking side could have kept possession. At best his keeper might have tried to intercept while the other attacker rushed in. So the player who headed the ball deliberately moved the ball away from that harm. It was possession. The botched part is that the ball was played into more danger.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

There are totally different criteria for offense and defense touching the ball when considering offside.

For the attacking team, the least touch of the ball sets the offside. So if Hume touched the ball in any way, and it then went to his teammate in an offside position, offside should be called.

For the defending team, it has to be a controlled play on the ball with possession. Law 11 Decision 2 says, "Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position." We generally think of a rebound as coming back to the offside player, but there's no requirement on direction. If an opponent can only deflect the ball, even through a deliberate play, that does not reset the offside consideration. There must be control. USSF's publication Advice to Referees (section 11.6) makes this even more clear, noting when a defender's contact with the ball is not controlled, offside still applies if an attacker takes advantage of his position to cover the rebound.

I did not see the game, and have seen only low-quality-video replays, so it is difficult to have an opinion on the play. If Hume touched the ball, then the offside call was correct, as both attackers were in an offside position by that time. If only Gooch played the ball, it appears to be a deflection despite his efforts to head the ball. Now the positions of the attackers at the time of the through kick becomes important. It appeared to me, based on the low-res video, that the attacker who got possession of the ball was in an onside position at the time of the kick, but I can't say that for sure. The other attacker may have been in an offside position.

Given the crowd of players in the area and the speed of the incident, I can't say the AR made a blatant error. He may have been mistaken in what he saw, either in his decision of who deflected the ball or who was in an offside position, and that's a shame. We strive to get those things correct, but sometimes we just can't see everything clearly.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

To address the ball touching a player of the attacking team.

"So other factors come into consideration. During the flight of the ball, a Canadian attacker attempted to head it. The ball was not redirected. So, no possession and no deflection. "

THAT is when offside positions of team mates are evaluated. If the ball touches the uniform or even ONE hair on his leg the ball has touched him. Touched or played by, as in offside, means having made contact with. The attackers do not have to control, the ball needs to touch them -- whether or not it is felt by them is irrelevant.

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his own team...

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Deflections still qualify as a LAST touch of the ball by the team that player plays for even if it does not reset the positional aspects of the LAST touch of the ball for the opposition.
Any touch of the ball no matter how infinitesimal by a player sets up offside position for the rest of his team.
If the player was offside positioned and the offside phase of play is still in effect for his team that infinitesimal touch of the ball is involvement and an infringement offside INDFK out!

Quote,
During the flight of the ball, a Canadian attacker attempted to head it. The ball was not redirected. So, no possession and no deflection."
end quote
Possession of the ball has nothing to do with it if the AR or referee thought he touched the ball so much as skim off the hair it counts as a LAST Touch and offside position for his team is recalibrated from THAT exact moment not the initial kick.
Your assumption that because the USA defender's head contacted the ball it was a controlled possession is not correct in my opinion!
Your keeper analogy of a hand to the ball to knock down to be called a PARRY envisions an easily grasped slow moving ball with no speed or spin, an unpressurized situation with no impending threat that we allow to contact our hand and then fall to our feet or a two fisted punch out . If there was no offside positioned player within the vicinity to make a case for interfering then yes as a mistake that ball is available for any opponent to capitalize on such a foolish option. But how does an attempt to head a ball out of danger translate into a mistake of tactical execution?
You also need to consider if the officials viewed the attempt to head as interfering with an opponent? If the officials determined the Canadian attacker was offside positioned then is not the attempt to head the ball done so to prevent the through ball? So how does a ball destined to go through for an offside player that eventually winds up there not offside? You say because a defender played the ball to him with control? Look at he speed of play, the surrounding pressure, the possibility he was partially screened by Hume who also went for the ball and (MAY have touched it slightly) and the USA defender?s turned body position before and after upon contacting the ball?. He saw the Canadian attackers, he could not know their status as to on or off and was trying to stop the ball from getting through but failed. Could that of itself qualify for interfering with an opponent? All here on this panel classify the header as a deflection not a controlled possession. I polled all the active referees on the panel and we discussed it at length as to why those referees who see it as a controlled possession are incorrect in our opinions. We knew WHY he had to try and play it! We also know as a player and as a coach that we would not expect anyone to not try and play it! He tried and failed because he had NO options but to try! A through ball and I stick my foot out or I stick my head out, the ball contacts it WHAT makes it a controlled possession not the contact! Remember too, we punish only the actions of offside positioned players not the thoughts of defenders..
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Remember ... all an attacking teammate must do is touch the ball to reset the offside position of a teammate. It must be controlled by the defender to negate an offside, however.