Question Number: 31229

Law 11 - Offside 2/5/2017

RE: Rec High School

Salvador Flores of Indianapolis, Indiana USA asks...

So I have a question about an offside. I was watching a video between two Australian teams. There was a play where an attacking player was running and was in an offside position and a defending player ran next to him and the attacking's teammate crossed the ball and the defending player tried to block the ball before getting to the attacking player on offside and while the defending player blocked the ball he scored on his own goal. Is it an offside. Here is a link to the offside video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JeLj_Dq5uo

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Salvador
There are two ways that a player in an offside position can be called offside. One is interfering with play by touching the ball and the second is interfering with an opponent which has been clarified for referees in the Laws.
To interfere with an opponent a player must prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by
# clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or
# challenging an opponent for the ball or
# clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
# making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Now in your video example the player in an offside position does not interfere with play as he does not touch the ball. One can opine that he does not interfere with the defender who scores as he does not obstruct his line of sight to the ball, he does not challenge him and he does not attempt to play the ball impacting on the defender. So no offside on that part.
Referee Wright makes a good point in that the defender by playing the ball has in fact nullified any possible subsequent offside. So one can also argue that even if the player in an offside position challenged the goalkeeper that is not offside under the new interpretation as the defender last played the ball. So for me the correct decision was to award the goal.
Now let us assume that the ball was deflected by the defender. Can interfering be claimed for the actions of the PIOP on the goalkeeper. He certainly does not challenge the GK for the ball as it is not there for that to happen. The GKs line of sight to the ball is not affected by the PIOP so we are left with making an obvious action which clearly impacts on an opponent to play the ball. That is a judgement call and in real time without the luxury of video the AR will have seen the own goal by the defender as the defining action hence no flag. Would the GK have reacted differently without the PIOP present and I doubt it as the GK moves to the flight of the cross which he was going to do anyway and he has full sight of the ball. It is the action of the defender that changes the circumstances.
BTW I gave an offside in my game yesterday when the ball skidded off the top of a defenders head to a PIOP. The moment I gave the offside my immediate thought was perhaps I got that wrong as one could argue that the defender played the ball. There was not much debate about the offside given the position of the PIOP. Historically it was offside. It is now much more questionable.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Salvador,
As the resident Australian panelist I am very familiar with the incident and the intense debate it has caused!
I concur wholeheartedly with Ref McHugh, who has provided the relevant quotes from the law.
The defender has not been challenged for the ball nor has he been impacted. Yes, his decision to play the ball was most likely made because of the Player In the Offside Position (PIOP) behind him, but FIFA have maintained that a decisions like this (like when a defender is drawn away to mark a PIOP) are the defender's fault. You may disagree with FIFA's position, but that is how the law is interpreted. So, the defender who touched the ball isn't impacted.

Is the keeper? Well, the striker does 'attempt to play a ball which is close to him', but given that the ball went to the other side of the keeper and the keeper was directly reacting to the ball, I don't think that the striker's actions impact the keeper. Take the striker out of the equation, and leaving the defender play the ball and I don't think the keeper would be able to do any better.

Finally, bear in mind that any consqequent offside offence is nullified when a defender plays the ball - and, unless the defender has really had not opportunity to react, a misplay is still a play. Here, the defender has clearly played the ball - so even IF the goalkeeper is impacted in the moments after, the fact that there has been a play on the ball by a defender means nothing that happened after matters.

So, even if one was to make the argument that the goalkeeper was impacted (which I disagree with), the fact is that it occurred after the defender played the ball, resetting offside anyway.

Following from that, if the striker had actually gotten a touch on the ball, I believe that based on the defensive touch there would still be no offence.

I thought the referee handled the scenario well (unfortunately in the A-League from this clip, mobbing the referee in this fashion is highly tolerated). The AR may have been better off by not raising his flag but standing on the goal line and making eye contact with the referee - remember, running up the line is his signal that the goal is fair - or using the 'talk' signal or your country uses one. That would perhaps be less controversial then raising the flag, and place less focus on the referee for overruling an offside decision.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Salvador,
In high school play this would not be considered offside because the attacking player did not interfere with the play by touching the ball (NFHS Rule 18-1-1v; did not interfere with an opponent by obstructing the opponents vision or movement (NFHS Rule 18-1-1u); or gain an advantage by being in that position since once again, the attacker did not touch the ball (NFHS Rule 18-1-10). Thus the goal would be scored for the attacking team and a kickoff by the original defending team would be the restart. Thank you for this question. I was in Indianapolis several weeks ago for the NFHS 2017-18 rules meeting. Several rules changes were made by the committee and have been sent to the NFHS Board of Directors for approval. The will be available on this site when approved.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 31233