Question Number: 29627

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 29614

Do any of you think the new offside guidelines are a step backward?

A couple years ago, a PIOP could interfere with an oppponent if they 'deceive or distract' them. This, of course, was vague & it seemed that a PIOP could do this, even if they weren't near the ball. It also seemed to mean that you had to determine if the defenders were 'deceived or distracted', which is a mental state.

Then the language was replaced with 'challenging for the ball', which seems clear & doesn't involve the defenders' state of mind.

Now, the new guideline, although narrower than 'deceive/distract', might involve the defenders' mental state to see if they were impacted (although it's limited to a PIOP making a play for the ball when it's close).

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Phil,
we try very hard to stay on top of the shifts or paradigms FIFA puts forth as protocols for offside deliberations but the real truth is a PIOP or ORP CANNOT participate in play. If their actions affect play then by the standards of historical tradition and in the opinion of most players he has unfairly affected the match.
As I stated previously, if you apply the eraser method, in which if we yank the PIOP out off the field, would play have unfolded as it did, would that goal have been scored?
Such an analysis can focus your thoughts on the impact that person ...might... have on play. In trying to pin down exact wording to describe EVERY evolving situations, it is always difficult.
Personally I find the ...close... and ...clear... aspect conforms to a more realistic playing/touching where the attempt or even a contrived dummy does in real match time affect and impact the opposition in a negative manner when PIOP/ORPs are involved. It still boil down to an opinion but as I often point always ask, WHAT did the PIOP/ORP actually do? Was he CLOSE? DID he CLEARLY ATTEMPT to participate? Was there a CLEAR IMPACT on the opposition based on WHAT the PIOP did??

Mental state plays no part, never did. If there is confusion it stems from trying to think we need to worry about anything except the real time actions of the PIOP or ORP given they are NOT permitted in law to interfere in play or with an opponent! If you can see they affect or impact usually it is based on THEIR choice of actions. Once a player is PIOP or ORP there is NOTHING they can do on their own to LIFT that restriction of involvement. If they try to get involved and fail as in say trying to kick a ball already headed into goal as long as that CLOSE CLEAR ATTEMPT in no way prevents/hinders an opponent from challenging for the ball. A PIOP deserves no excuses if he is trying to participate, he is trying to get involved. Just hold them accountable for WHAT they actually do!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
The advice on Law 11 is the most amended of the 17 Laws. However please remember that the wording of Law 11 has not changed. A player in an offside position who interferes with play or an opponent must be penalised. There has been countless changes over the years to the advice and in my opinion there will be further changes.
The law makers have always tried to put advice in place that gives support to call offside where it is just and correct to do so. There have been situations where the law makers saw that offside was not called where the player in an offside position blatantly interfered yet did not meet the offside conditions under the previous advice such as touching the ball or challenging an opponent. The change in the advice is an attempt to put that right.
Now you mention state of mind. Referees only look for actions and in the offside situation we look for the impact on the opponent. Does the opponent move because of the action of the PIOP in his attempt to play the ball or does he not move because of the same action when expected to do so? The advice now allows the referee to penalise in those situation where in his opinion the PIOP has clearly attempted to play the ball which has an impact on an opponent. The referee is left to opine on the impact and we can only do that from what we see.
Now in the recent Liverpool v Bournemouth game the Liverpool goal IMO should have been called offside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CjH4C7x5OE
The Bournemouth goalkeeper can be seen to be clearly raising his hands and stopping in his anticipation that PIOP Red #10 is going to play the ball. That is clear impact. #10 does not play the ball and under the old advice there was no offside. If #10 did not attempt to play the ball the GK would have moved more quickly to his left to try to stop the goalscorer. It is situations like this that the new advice speaks to.