Question Number: 20409

Law 11 - Offside 10/30/2008

RE: Under 16

Kirk of Los Angeles, Ca USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 20395

I want to take one more crack at this. As stated earlier, I have a good understanding of the Rule 11 and readily accept the prior answers given. I think I am trying to draw the finest of lines between what is 'interfering with an opponent' and what is not interfering, and the prior answers of the panel use a broader brush which tend to suggest that I would blatantly raise the flag just because a player is in an offside position. I would not.

Paragraph 11.4 of the Advice to Referees states 'a player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who, in the opinion of the referee, attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.' Referee Maloney's answer seems to suggest that interfering with an opponent only includes impeding a defender or blocking the keeper's line of sight, yet 11.4 appears to go beyond that. Remember, that 11.4 is addressing 'interfering with an opponent,' and that 'interfering with play' is addressed in ATR 11.5. Consequently, one must presume that 11.4 is talking about that phase of the factual scenario that precedes the offside player's actually interfering with play.

I think 11.4 is worded imprecisely inasmuch as it states 'when the ball is played toward' the offside player. Rule 11 states that the offside offense is judged when 'the ball touches or is played by' a teammate, and the specific direction of the last touch or play should not be the ultimate telling sign. In any event, when offside players are only 5-10 feet away from a teammate who is dribbling down the center toward the goal and they are running with him or her at speed, almost each touch of the ball is within reach of the offside players. So, in the words of 11.4 of ATR, if in my opinion, as the center referee or an assistant referee, I believe that one of the offside players did something to attract the attention of a defender, drawing that defender into pursuit, the offside player would be guilty of interfering with an opponent.

I would not make this determination lightly. I would take into account a number of factors, including (1) how close the offside player is to the absolute center of action, (2) whether the offside player yells out for a pass or shows the full physical animation of a player who wants the ball and hopes to get the ball, and (3) what is the liklihood of the offside player scoring or materially advancing the attack if he or she goes unmarked such that a defender should be expected to mark the offside player. If, despite the presence of these factors, I would be wrong in calling offside, then I do not understand the above-quoted sentence in ATR 11.4. I promise this will be my last inquiry on this subject.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Well you are ignoring the first paragraph in 11.4 which outlines just how a player in offside position 'attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing him into pursuit'. he does that by blocling site or movement of an opponent, blocking the view of the keeper, making gestures either verbal or physical that distract or deceive an opponent. You are correct that if in your opinion, a player in offside position does any of these things, he is guilty of interfering with an opponent. But after that, I disagree with the 3 things you list that would influence your decision. The first 2 are normal parts of active play although as a stretch you could say a player in offside posiyion calling for the ball may be unfairly distracting or deceiving. But #3 makes no sense to me. The liklihood of a player in offside position scoring is zero as he may not participate in play and if the ball goes to him, the flag will be raised. The defenders don't have to do anything and choosing to mark an attacker in offside position that is doing nothing to distract or deceive is just bad defense and you would be punishing that player for merely being in offside position. At Jim Allen's official Q&A site, he has dealt with this many times and has consistently said that if a defender chooses to go mark an opponent in offside position only because of proximity to the goal or opponent, there is no offside offense. Finally, this is reiterated in 11.5 when it states "mere presence in the general proximity of an opponent should not be considered a distraction for that opponent". I would agree with you about the wording of the ball being played towards the player in offside position. I think ot was used as an example but of course it matters not where the ball is played, a player in offside position when the ball is played may not participate in play. We will send suggestions as to the wording for next year.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

OPINION, to decide for ones self, O PIN ION to have an idea or belief on a subject matter that is your own
INTERFERENCE on offside, think a bit, interference from WHAT?
Words do not always convey direct meaning, something's are inferred or there is a leaning towards an idea. As in any foul there are doubtful or trifling aspects and to some extent, arriving at ay decision requires an evaluation and dismissal or acceptance of what it is you see is conditional to a yes or no decision. The wording on offside has under gone a few changes to help clarify (NOT CHANGE) the meaning but set down the guidelines in a cleaner fashion. For example all players SEEK to gain an advantage over their opposition, if not, what purpose of them playing? In gaining an advantage ONLY occurs after a deflection or rebound where the opposition never REGAINED a controlled ball possession and a PHYSICAL touch of the ball interfering with play or interfering with an opponent at that stage is STILL very much an offside infraction.

The USA ATR trys very hard to set into writing the irregularities of offside so that all things are covered in the same fashion to provide a consistent way of calling a game.
You are dealing with a crossover of interpretation and opinion to an exact standard with no doubt, very difficult to do.

A player screaming can be a form of USB if that scream is a distraction that prevents an opponent from having a FAIR PLAY! It matters not if offside was present or not or even if the player was on or off the field the interference is unsporting behavior cautionable and an indfk restart from its location drop ball if off the field .
A player calling for a pass when his team mate has the ball is in no way unsporting UNLESS he cups his hands and screams it in the ear of the opponent.
The phrase which gives interpretative headaches is
"making gestures either verbal or physical that distract or deceive an opponent."
What gesture is capable of deceiving an opponent? Could not a DUMMY satisfy that option, as in advance towards the ball as if TO play it but then not play it? Verbal distraction is to me totally misleading because how can we equate calling for a pass thinking we are open count as a deception not knowing for sure we are offside? It is more in line with running around waving arms and making gibberish noises in front of the opponents then being off to the side and wanting to receive a pass. There has to be a CLEAR opportunity to play the ball that is taken away BY the offside attacker's actions not the choice by the defender in how they respond. The point being the defenders do not even have to respond, we flag or do not flag offside based on WHAT the offside player does!!
Cheers

PS Remember too as a Canadian official I am not bound by the ATR although I do recognize most of what it contains as valid
For some more ATR that is hard to figure try 12.22