Question Number: 31233

Law 11 - Offside 2/6/2017

RE: Rec High School

Salvador Flores of Indianapolis, IN USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31229

So what would be an example of a PIOP making an obvious action which clearly impacts an opponent to play the ball and call it offside?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Salvador
Have a look at this example
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7mp0qKln48
It was opined that the Liverpool player in an offside position by his action to play the ball, which he did not touch, impacted on the goalkeeper which then caused him to be poorly positioned to make the save from the goal scorer. This is clearly an example of interfering with an opponent as outlined in Law 11.
So had the PIOP done nothing there would not have been any offside yet he clearly attempts to play the ball close to him.
Here are a few other examples of interfering with an opponent by attempting to play the ball that impacts on an opponent.
https://vimeo.com/111415354

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Salvador,
I think this falls into the category of something that is difficult to define but you know it when you see it. If the PIOP carries out an action that is obvious to you (and everyone else) and you as a referee, judge that it has without a doubt, clearly impacted on the opponent's ability to play the ball, you should call it. If on the other hand it is not an absolutely obvious action or it is not clear and evident that the opponent was affected by it, you should not call it.

There is obviously some room for interpretation here and there have been a number of offside incidents this year that have provoked some fairly prolonged debates among pundits, commentators and even in refereeing circles.

Generally speaking though, I would say is more likely to occur if the PIOP is either in front of or alongside the defender, or closer to the ball than the defender and then moves either towards the ball and/or the defender, coming very close to one or the other in an obvious manner which you can see has a clear and unmistakable effect on the defender's ability to play the ball.

I would say it is unlikely to fulfil the criteria when the player is behind the defender, some yards away from both the player and the flight of the ball, never comes close to either and it is not obvious that the opponent's ability to play the ball was definitely and materially affected.

Obviously there will be some cases which fall somewhere in between two ends of the spectrum and these will be more tricky to judge.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Salvador ,
in ANY decision the referee chooses to intervene only when he is 100% certain he must for the benefit of the match, the safety of the players and to uphold the LOTG. The key word here is OBVIOUS. On offside for example, what does the PIOP do to ACTUALLY affect play unfairly?

If he is in behind the defensive opponent who makes a an effort to intercept a through ball and that ball is deflected into the opponent's own goal the question the referee must answer was did the PIOP create that situation by involving himself in an unfair challenge? As it is NOT an offence to be offside positioned the PIOP MUST be involved to the degree the referee is CONVINCED it was his actions that created the mishap not the DECISION of the opponent. The PIOP would have to be doing more than just being there, as in very close and moving to challenge. It might seem unfair that if the defender had missed the ball on its way to an offside opponent there would have been an offside should the PIOP have played the ball but the fact is he does not! In these cases an own goal really hurts because the referee is not convinced the PIOP was making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

If our PIOP is just trying to get out of the way on line of sight even if he does not intend to affect play his presence can be enough if he is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. DIRECTLY in front and or VERY close and has no way to avoid being in the way. He has less chance to be guilty if he does nothing but again if he affects play by blocking the line of sight to a degree where the officials find it sufficient to hold him accountable even jumping up or ducking might not affect the INDFK out. Then again a ball shot from an angle that passes in behind him towards the goal with the keeper able to see and follow the shot even if the ball runs close to the PIOP as long as he does not physically touch it or make a determined close effort to play it then no offside call is required. Yet if the ball is directed at goal at angle where the ball crosses the PIOP position so that the keeper cannot follow the path of the ball IF that is how the officials view it the INDFK might be awarded as the PIOP might have by position only inadvertently affected the line of sight!

As my colleagues have pointed out ITOOTR will always play a part in controversial decisions. But the basis for the decision will still be based on how the LOTG are to be applied. The degree of obvious interference with an opponent and or a physical touch of the ball ! Remember a referee with integrity sees what he sees no matter we might want, think, feel or choose to see it different!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Salvador,
In high school the action is included in Rule 18-1-1u and this is a movement of challenging an opponent for the ball. This is found on page 71 of your NFHS Rules book. I hope that you have a successful spring season.