Question Number: 35661

Law 11 - Offside 8/17/2024

RE: Competitive Adult

Peter Babbage of Hjorring, Denmark asks...

I thought I had already asked this question but can’t find it or an answer. Bear with me if you have already answered it but I just can’t find it! The ball comes in. Attacker is clearly in an offside position . He tries to make contact but fails and the hall goes to an onside attacker who attacker who puts it in the net . What is the criteria for offside being given. Even though maybe the offside guy wasn’t in the line of sight of the keeper just by attempting to score can he be deemed to have distracted the keeper?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
The answer rests in the opinion of the referee to these two conditions
# clearly attempting to play a ball which is close 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

Have a look at this video

https://youtu.be/0p41ZtpAh0s?si=XCQCuC3bgVAV4Ssh

There is a PIOP who attempts to play the ball yet makes no contact and the ball goes to a Red player who was onside and scores.
The onfield decision was a goal yet when reviewed by the EPL Referee body it deemed that it should have been called offside as the missed attempt by the PIOP impacted on the goalkeeper and therefore met the interfering with an opponent condition of attempting to play the ball which impacts on an opponent.
Had the PIOP not been there it is likely the goalkeeper would have moved more to his left and quicker towards the scorer’s play of the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Peter,
Offside is 2 part equation requires

(a) POSITIONAL evaluation to put the restriction in place is YES OR NO.
(b) INVOLVEMENT has more opinion of what if or are we sure?

(1) offside restriction from playing means a physical TOUCHING/contact of the ball itself

(2) offside restriction from interference of an opponent means exactly that, in the opinion of the referee the PIOP affects the ability of the opponent to be able to PLAY/touch that ball

In response to TRYING to GET involved! AS funny as that is, it is NOT an infringement unless actual involvement occurs.

I watched a PIOP chase a ball that was headed into the goal, deliberately trying to kick it, but it bobbled and it hopped over his leg and continued into the goal. . I awarded the goal, the howls of protest by the defenders was to no avail there was no defender anywhere close to being able to challenge or get to the ball and YES 100% IF the PIOP had of touched the ball it WOULD be an INDFK except he clearly missed it!

In another match the the PIOP was inside the goal actually in behind the Keeper who deflected the ball across into the goal The PIOP desperately tried to weave backwards out of the way falling back into the goal but the ball accidently brushed up against him as it rolled over the goal line into the goal. If only he was 6 more inches inside the netted area chances are that ball would have COMPLETELY crossed the goal line BEFOE it contacted the PIOP for what then could be a good goal. The fact that ball was always going to go into the goal whether that PIOP player was there or not made no difference INDFK out because he was RESTRICTED from TOUCHING the ball. Accidental or deliberate makes no difference!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Peter,
The basic principle in this scenario is that the player in an offside position must do something to materially affect the ability of an opponent to play the ball. This means by physically preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball, or blocking their line of vision.

Obviously there is an element of the referee's judgement call in deciding if the oppontent's actual ability to play the ball has truly been affected but in the scenario you describe for instance, I wouldn't say that simply 'distracting' the opponent is enough to meet the criteria laid down in the law.