Question Number: 29618

Law 11 - Offside 8/19/2015

RE: Under 13

Scott of Santa Ana, CA usa asks...

Hi. This question deals with the part of the new offside guideline that says this:

'A player in offside position shall also be penalised if he:

'Clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent.'

My question: What does 'clearly attempts' mean?

Sure, if the player swings his leg at the ball that's obviously a clear attempt.

But what if a player in offside position runs up to the ball but then stops and doesn't swing his leg at it? Like in this situation with the Red Bulls:
https://youtu.be/ob1bZxTtKOg

Is that a clear attempt to play the ball?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Scott,

an intelligent question and a perfect example of how the new explanation to the offside aspect of involvement is still clouded with suspicion as to whether chasing the ball is clearly attempting to play it and how close to that ball do we permit to say that action clearly impacted the opposing player? You only included part of the clarification, but please note that both clarifications related it to the 'impact'. This is a clear step away from previous hardline stances of no touch, no involvement, if not directly challenging.


In your red bull example, where by previously I was initially ok to allow that goal, given he did not block the line of sight and the keeper chose to play him instead of staying on the ball but admittedly I felt compelled to play the devils advocate, and I applied the old adage, remove the offside player, would that goal have scored? In other words did HIS actions IMPACT the outcome directly? So if he was not present at all? Ask yourself or in fact any keeper, if that player does not make a run for the ball and is that close would the goalkeeper clearly have save the ball? I am pretty sure any goalkeeper will tell you that it would be saved. I always had doubts at that speed, from that distance, it would have positively found the back of the net but then again , the ball was well away from the PIOP's feet, out in front of the keeper, who was hoping/expecting the PIOP to play it . I often reiterate the decisions or thoughts of defenders do NOT play a part in offside decisions. Yet this aspect of ...impact... is making me revise that hardline stance given it will still be an opinion as to whether the action's of the offside player are RESPONSIBLE for a decision to come or not come to the ball to make a save by an opposing player. I STILL maintain we are punishing the actions of the PIOP NOT the reactions of the opponent. I think there will be some good goals not permitted by an indecisive keepers or defenders who will claim to be impacted and thus interfered with when PIOPS are in close proximity even if they have no direct impact. The challenge for the AR or referee will be to decide does the actions of the PIOP affect the outcome. There was a reason we used to imagine the PIOP as if he was not there in arriving at a decision, this might be a new way of thinking along those lines! As it NOW stands I believe that video is a good example of an offside under current interpretation so today the AR would be correct to raise the flag.


DIRECT FIFA QUOTE

To all football associations, confederations and FIFA Circular no. 3 Zurich, 17 July 2015 SEC/2015-C051/bru

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON LAW 11 – OFFSIDE Dear Sir or Madam, Following requests from a number of football associations and confederations regarding offside, The IFAB would like to provide additional clarification and/or guidance relating to the definition of the offside offence of 'interfering with an opponent' and also to the definition of 'save' in the context of offside (Laws of the Game, p. 110). This clarification follows detailed deliberations between our Technical Sub-Committee and the Technical Advisory Panel, which consists of refereeing experts from all the confederations.
Please be informed that this clarification replaces any non-IFAB instructions or guidance received previously with respect to this matter. We trust that this clarification will ensure a higher uniformity in the application of Law 11.
1. "Interfering with an opponent"
Clarification
In addition to the situations already outlined in the Laws of the Game, a player in an offside position shall also be penalised if he:

• clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
• makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
3 Guidance
• 'clearly attempts' – this wording is designed to prevent a player who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball).

• 'close' is important so that a player is not penalised when the ball goes clearly over his head or clearly in front of him.
• 'impact' applies to an opponent's ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent's movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player. However, just because a player is an offside position it does not always mean that he has an impact. For example:
• if the ball is on the right-hand side of the field and an 'offside' player in the centre of the field moves into a new attacking position he is not penalised unless this
action affects an opponent's ability to play the ball
• where a player tries to play the ball as it is going into the goal without affecting an opponent, or in situations where there is no opposition player near, he should not be penalised


"Save" Clarification
Law 11 outlines situations when an offside player is penalised by becoming involved in active play and these include (p. 110):
• "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position. A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. As indicated in the last sentence a 'save' can be made by any player and is not limited to the goalkeeper. Therefore, The IFAB wishes to clarify that:
• A 'save' is when a player stops a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of his body except his hands (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).NB: This clarification is consistent with the use of the word 'save' in Law 12 – Offences by the Goalkeeper (p. 122).


Additional information: change of FIFA Quality Program logos
Unrelated to Law 11, we would like to take this opportunity to mention the change to the FIFA quality marks on footballs (p. 16), which was not part of the previous correspondence. This change is already reflected in the printed editions of the Laws of the Game 2015/16, which you received recently.


Thank you for your attention and please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or enquiries.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the Board of Directors
Lukas Brud Secretary

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
This is what the new Guidance states
# 'clearly attempts' this wording is designed to prevent a player who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball).
# 'close' is important so that a player is not penalised when the ball goes clearly over his head or clearly in front of him.
# 'impact' applies to an opponent's ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent's movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player.
Now in the EPL referees are advised to ask themselves these three questions
1. Is the ball close to the player in an offside position?
2. Does the player in an offside position clearly attempt to play the ball?
3. Does the action of the player in an offside position impact on an opponent?
The answer has to be YES to all three before offside can be called.
Now we know that the reason for this advice change was for situations where the PIOP did not touch the ball nor does he challenge for the ball yet attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent. In May 2014 this goal would have been good.
Having looked at the video a few times under the new advice does Yellow# 9 dummy towards the ball so as to play it as goes past him making the GK hesitate? I believe that he does which then makes the case for offside.

In the Manchester United v Stoke City game last season. Juan Mata of United made a cross in from the left with Marcos Rojo is in an offside position when the ball is kicked. Rojo jumped for the balll, did not touch it and it went into the far corner.
The PGMOL in England is showing how this is a good example of a player who does not touch the ball having an impact. The Stoke goalkeeper could not decide whether to come for the cross or stay and make the save. As the ball is played over Rojo who jumps for the ball, he gets very close to it and clearly attempts to play it. The keeper can't commit to a dive or does he come for the cross? It clearly has an impact on him. Last season that was not penalised but this season it would meet the criteria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlyXxqfYBxE
Now have a look at this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CjH4C7x5OE
Red#10 clearly attempts to play the ball and in my opinion under the new guidelines should have been called offside. The scorer was clearly onside so no issue there. Offside was not called and the goal stood which has caused some controversy.
Personally I think the goalkeeper was clearly impacted by the actions of the PIOP Red#10 and that is why the guidelines were issued.