Question Number: 29626

Law 11 - Offside 8/23/2015

RE: Intermediate Under 13

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29601

I am troubled by the vague phrase 'impacts on an opponent' in the offside rules.

In the scenario by the original poster, let's assume that the PIOP makes a clear attempt to play the ball. Also, assume that the GK rushes out toward the PIOP. Now we don't know if the GK was 1) trying to get the ball or 2) narrow the shot angle that the PIOP would have if he got the ball (or challenge the PIOP for the ball).

If the first, then the PIOP presumably didn't impact the GK, as the GK simply misjudged the ball. In the 2nd situation, I guess it did because the if the PIOP wasn't there, the GK would likely run to a spot between the goal & the opponent who did get the ball.

Referee Dawson said that thoughts and actions of the defender aren't to be considered. But wouldn't the action of the GK (or even another defender) to challenge the PIOP or block his angle to the goal 'delay' the GK (or defender)??

P.S. I do know that if the PIOP made no attempt to play the ball, then there would be no offside infringement, even if his 'presence' affected the GK decision.

Hope my question is clear. Thanks again for all the great advice.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
The phrase in the opinion of the referee is key to many decisions in the game. If a player in an offside position makes a play at the ball and it is clear that say the goalkeeper dived / moved/ did not move to anticipate that play then clearly that had an impact on the goalkeepers actions for which offside can be called. Under the old advice the fact that the player did not challenge or touch the ball it was interpreted that it was not offside.
Now the referee has to ask 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?
Here are some good examples
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2015-16/jul/290715-international-fa-board-offside-guidance.html

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Phil, I have a referee T shirt made, that says this about offside! I can explain it to you but I can not understand it for you! Do not be too troubled. ITOOTR is still a large part in match making decisions. As your understanding evolves, you will find those queasy sensations will settle as time goes on!

There has ALWAYS been the FIFA diagram of an offside player in pursuit of a ball that he will likely get to before it exits play! The ORP in pursuing the ball, is trying to actually play the ball, he is the only player on his team trying to do so. The flag is raised even though HE DOES NOT GET to touch it!

So there is precedence in thinking offside criteria are in play without a physical touch. This is where the introduction of close,, attempt to play and impact are related.

I still maintain what a defending opponent may choose to do or not do has no bearing on offside involvement. We STILL judge the actions of the PIOP ! What does the ORP actually do that in our opinion impacts i.e. INTERFERES with the defenders?
(1)Was the PIOP CLOSE to the ball?
(2)Is the ORP actively seeking to play that ball?
(3)Does the fact our PIOP is guilty of items 1 and 2 have any REAL impact on an opponent?
To do that try the erase method, if we REMOVE the offside player, would the results be different?
In the header attempt, the keeper is waiting to see if the offside player who is CLEARLY trying to play that ball (while standing and jumping out in front and to the side of the keeper) and if he redirects it. However that ball just skims ever so CLOSE to his head and into the corner of the goal on the bounce. No touch BUT the PIOPs actions put him in the IMPACT zone. Switch that PIOP to the back post and his attempt to play, but close miss ,we likely allow the goal, because, he was in behind the impact zone! As long as his presence was not hindering a defender from getting to the ball.
The same goes for when the PIOP extends his foot out clearly attempting to play the ball by redirecting it, he barely misses (so very close) but the opposing keeper was in the immediate impact area. Now put the PIOP at the very corner of the goal and he does the same actions, but NO defender is impacted, we have a good goal.

Keep in mind while they alter the wording of offside, trying to make it more malleable to those enforcing and understanding this law, the real premises of offside has not altered . Words like distracted and gestures are in essence what close and attempt and impact are trying to convey that the ACTIONS of a PIOP/ORP ...CAN NOT... have DIRECT influence in the outcome of play. If you are a PIOP you ...CAN NOT... participate in play! So by attempting to participate and getting to close is a very poor idea!

What I mean by defenders actions not being part of offside involvement decisions is their decisions/thoughts do not reflect the impact a PIOP MIGHT have if they forget the ball is their primary target. A PIOP goes and stands by the left post so the keeper chooses to go and mark him claiming, look at the impact this PIOP has, while a team mate deposits the ball into the goal near the right post, the keeper is to put it bluntly, an idiot for thinking or taking such a position. IMPACT is based on what the PIOP /ORP is actually doing that will directly or indirectly affect an opponent's ability to get to the ball.
If the PIOP went and stood directly in front of the keeper blocking him that again is different in it is what the PIOP is doing that IMPACTS play, not the choice of the opponent.

The red bull video was in fact reviewed by the FIFA referee committee and deemed as an offside! After the fact mind you, that goal did count in that match, just goes to show you not even the pro levels fully grasp the nuances of the game and how just a slight shift in thinking changes one perceptions. Just a note of caution, if a PIOP blocks the line of sight even if he ducks to get out of the way or makes no attempt to play the ball, by his position alone, can still interfere with the keeper if he is in the line of sight.

Cheers