Question Number: 29059

Law 11 - Offside 12/18/2014

RE: Recreational Adult

russell Montgomery of Sydney, New South Wales Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29054

With regard to the offside ruling regarding deflections of a defending team player, I continue to struggle with various footage examples provided to show when an attacking player is considered on or offside.
In the FIFA examples from the recent WC (http://garcia-aranda.com/offsideifab/eng001.html), I struggle to see the difference between the third last example, and the second last - other than the degree of the deflection.
In the second last example (Walcot of England), the goal stands as the defender clearly jumps for the ball, however, only succeeds in heading the ball onto the attacker who is in an offside position. I fully agree with the AR call on this.
With the second last example, effectively the same scenario occurs - attacker has a shot, defender attempts to block, ball deflects to offside positioned attacker. In this example, the call is offside. Why.
In both examples, the defenders made deliberate attempts to plat the ball - just with different degrees of contact. Their intent was the same - both deliberately played at the ball. One is deemed to allow the phase to continue, while the other not.
If in the second last example, had the ball simply hit the defender and rebounded for the PIOP to play the ball, then I would totally agree with an offside call. However, the ball did not merely hit the defender - the defender made a deliberate play at the ball.
I'd agree that in this example the defender had less time to effect his intention, however, he was still far enough away to have time to decide what to do (ie he was not only a metre away and had no time to react). He had time to decide to swing a foot at the ball - irrespective of how successful he was in doing so.

I'd welcome your thoughts.

Thanks for a great site providing valuable insights and points of view and clarity.

Regards
Russell

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Applying the new definitions to when a player is or is not offside for gaining an advantage can present a challenge to the referee.

The first question is whether the ball deflected off a defender? If yes, the player in offside position (PIOP) may not play the ball.

The second question is whether the defender made a deliberate save of the ball? If the defender's action has blocked a shot, then the PIOP may not play the ball. This explains the second last example.

The final question is whether the defender has made a deliberate play (that is not a deliberate save). I believe that, on the field, an important factor for the referee to consider is whether the defender has time and space to play the ball. What is enough time or space may vary greatly from an unskilled rec player to a professional. But, the changes in the definition have removed the concept that a defender must have clear possession and control of the ball.

The changes promote attacking soccer, so the old mantra remains true: when in doubt, the flag stays down.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
actually we all struggle to compare offside examples and pair them with individual opinions on facts of play when it comes to defining if a ball is deliberately played versus deflected. As mentioned we try to evaluate the directives we are given by the associations we officiate under and apply them with a leaning to promoting attacking play. That of all things is evident in the reasoning presented. It may well be that some are a bit too strict in application of the criteria of time and space or how a deliberate save is only a deliberate play but as each referee will have to engage his reasoning and enforce his opinion. His match, His decision, thus his Reputation is being created.
In the offside explanation presented on the main page I try to point out that interpreting the criteria as an "opinion" on a fact of play has multiple considerations but effectively controlled possession is no longer the basis of consideration.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
The two examples are different. In the Walcott example the Blue defender tries to heads the ball backwards and makes a rickets of it. On the second last example it is seen as a deflection rather than a kick that was poorly executed. It is not a great example and it does pose problems for me as it does look like moving into the played area.
Having said that I would be flagging offside if the second situation happened in a game. It will look like a deflection. I have seen though a few recent strange decision at the highest that were not given as offside when I considered them to be a save or a deflection. I think that when it is shown and assessed with with the imaginary line on the last defenders position it will be seen as offside. It would raise significantly more debate if it was not called.