Question Number: 32315

Law 11 - Offside 3/16/2018

RE: Pro Adult

Andy Vasilopoulos of Maroussi, Attica Greece asks...

Hello

Your feedback has been invaluable, keep up the good work.
Going back to the PAOK-AEK offside, I have a question.
(Not about that offside call)
PAOK published an article about UEFA rules regarding offside, and has a video, that PAOK claims is a similar case, and the instruction by UEFA is to call it offside.
The link to the article is below.
They are talking about the second goal in the video.
In your opinion are the two plays similar in any way?

Thnx
http://www.sdna.gr/podosfairo/superleague/article/444930/video-odigia-uefa-se-epo-gia-pathitiko-ofsaint

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Andy,

The UEFA Video-Direction at EPO for passive offside!

http://www.footytube.com/video/dinamo-minsk-fiorentina-oct02-303220

In 2014 they were STILL tweaking the new offside interpretations. The fact the keeper line of sight was not blocked by the PIOP was used as the reason the goal was allowed but it was discussed that because the keeper had to freeze and play the expected deflection off the PIOP which DID not occur because he just missed touching the ball , there is no doubt the actual challenge and proximity by the PIOP crippled the keeper's chances of intercepting and perhaps being able to stop the eventual goal scorer who WAS onside! Today this is an OFFSIDE decision by the standards now defined . It was NOT clear back then.

There are MANY examples of offside videos but more than a few years old are likely incorrect or have altered outcomes or changes in wording. . They have been tweaking the offside for several years and uniformity is obviously still not yet achieved! On this site we have answered thousands of question on offside but if you scroll back many of our arguments earlier no longer are correct, it is why we put the disclaimer on our front page to look at current LOTG. Things do change!

the offside situations are criteria based; the easy one is interfering with play, as it requires a physical touch of the ball is much easier to make out because we see or do not see contact. There will be little hops that jump over a leg or a toe tip goes unheard and could be misinterpreted depending on speed and angle of view. . But most certainly a PIOP TOUCHING the ball will nullify a good attack or goal dead in its tracks even if the ball is 9/10 over the goal line between the posts and under the crossbar INDFK out! Mind you the AR or CR has to know the ball position when it is touched Ronaldo lost a good goal in the video I included below

The one that is harder to gauge is interfering with the opponent because there is no contact with the ball, there maybe no contact with an opponent, it is an OPINION, a judgement if you will, that IF we remove this PIOP from the situation, just erased him off the field could the play have occurred any differently? We speculate when a PIOP is running towards the ball at top speed and the keeper is coming out at his top speed do we allow them to crash together? no we stop it BEFORE it occurs likely ten yards apart so they have time to break off. It is why we can flag for offside before ball contact if we believe safety is an issue. Yet if there are onside players also in pursuit we need to wait unless the PIOP actually interferes wit play or causes the opponent to be impeded because of his challenge and proximity . A PIOP 30 yards from the ball cannot cut in front of an defender who is trying to get to that ball or slow down and shield so an onside player can get there first. ANY direct positive or passive action that interferes with an opponent created by the PIOP is offside involvement and you award the INDFK out.

A referee is NOT responsible for the choices attackers make he ONLY concerns himself with WHAT does the PIOP do?

The thing is a PIOP can ACTIVELY try to join play and FAIL by not touching the ball and as long as no opponent was disadvantaged the goal should stand We do not WANT to take away goals where the PIOP is NOT affecting the play.


In a reverse scenario n a PIOP can do everything in his power to NOT participate yet wind up INVOLVED just because of his proximity to an opponent. That latest controversial Greek match that was abandoned is a CLEAR example of the PIOP trying to get out of the way YET by simply being there created problems for the defender and keeper. He is involved simply because he is interfering with the oppositions ability to get to the ball unimpeded. Go back to the idea of thinking IF we could magically make the PIOP disappear COULD the opposition have stopped this goal? I see a very good possibility that they could .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlc8IPdWPPA
Goal 1:06
Not offside
Goal 2:06
Not Offside
Goal 2:54
Not Offside


Here is a video completely incorrect NO IDEA how this guy came up with the logic?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsdq5bNoIhc
This WAS and IS a good goal!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Andy
As we said on previous answers interfering with an opponent is subjective and based on the opinion of the referee and assistant on what is presented.
IFAB, UEFA and others try to advise referees how to interpret interfering. However ultimately it is up to the officials on the day based on what is seen.
On this particular offside we could view this probably either way although the consensus from many is that it is more offside than not.
Like any subjective question arguments can be put forward either way that supports a particular opinion. It is one of the vagaries of offside as it currently stands. Your idea of impacting on an opponent can be different from mine and so on.
On the video shown on the PAOK website that may not have been offside in the past as the law was constantly bring amended to deal with situations as they arise.
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsNKDmzOm5A
That goal was also awarded however the FA came out publicly and said that it should have been called offside. IFAB subsequently amended Law 11 to deal with such situations. It is now offside without doubt should a player attempts to play the ball which impacts on an opponent