Question Number: 30502

Law 11 - Offside 6/11/2016

RE: Intermediate Under 13

Phil of Tarzana, CA United States asks...

I have an offside question under the new rules. I remember a pro game a couple years ago where the A1 kicked the ball toward an offside teammate, A2. A2 realized that he was offside & so let an opponent get the ball, although he sort of danced to about 1 yard of the opponent. As soon as the opponent started to dribble, A2, challenged & was called offside. i.e. the defender didn't really have unfettered control.

Under the new rules, I would think that a dribble would be a deliberate kick & control would not be considered.

Under these circumstances, would you consider offside reset?

Thanks again,

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
The question is really around the time between the defender getting and controlling the ball and the PIOP challenging for the ball. If there is a decent gap in time then offside has been reset. If the PIOP in on top of the defender in a manner that uses his offside position to an advantage then I would call it.
I also think that location has a bearing. In a wide open area the defender may have the opportunity to move the ball away into space so the offside player has limited influence on play. Compare that to a defender who is in a corner and he has no place to go, closed down by a PIOP then a referee would be entitled to call that offside.
I think each situation is different. I have seen plenty of PIOPs having no influence on play by the defenders and play is not stopped for offside. I also think that referees have to take into account the skill level and ability of players. Pro players have exceptional control and in many situations they might not even want a free kick as they want to get on with play and move the ball away quickly. Less skilled players will require more time and a PIOP will have more influence when close to a challenging position

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Phil,

This falls into the subjective area of whether the opponent was interfered with. I would agree that immediately challenging the defender when he takes possession could be 'interfering with an opponent'.
Under the new laws we also have 'making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball ' - by immediately challenging the attacker is reducing the options that the defender has so is certainly impacting upon his ability. The grey area is just how long would the idea of an 'immediate challenge' last - at what point can the attacker challenge the defender?

If he's had a fair opportunity to control and play the ball then I think it's open for challenge. You may take into consideration how many touches the defender has had the opportunity to make - or if the first controlling touch had to be done in a way to take him away from the attacker and was challenged immediately. I actually think the new laws make it more likely, not less likely, that the attacker has committed an offence here.