Regarding The Offside Rule – Is Touching the Ball a Requirement?
A friend of mine who happens to be a certified youth soccer referee sent me this email from their Manager of Referee Development and Education and I thought it was interesting mostly because it proves a point I was trying to make with another friend regarding the Offside Rule.
Anyway here it is:
To: National Referees, National Instructors, National Assessors State Referee Administrators, State Directors of Instruction, and State Directors of Assessment
cc: State Directors of Coaching
From: Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject: An Offside Issue – Is Touching the Ball a Requirement?
New York Red Bulls vs FC Dallas (April 15, 2007)
Date: April 18, 2007
In a match on April 15, 2007, between the New York Red Bulls and FC Dallas (clip attached), Red Bulls player #19 (Richards) shoots on goal. The ball is stopped and deflected by Dallas goalkeeper #1 (Hislop) but it goes to Red Bulls player #11 (van den Bergh) who takes another shot on goal.
When van den Bergh strikes the ball, his teammate, Mathis (#13) is in an offside position – indeed, Mathis is just barely above the goal line on the right hand side of the goal – and the ball is moving directly toward him. Mathis jumps up and the ball passes under him into the net for a score.
The following issues and concerns are raised by this scenario:
• The only action Mathis took was to avoid contact with the ball.
• In so doing, he did not block an opponent’s movement or vision or deceive or distract an opponent.
• Mathis did not commit an offside violation because he was not actively involved in play by interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage.
On August 24, 2006, USSF issued a memorandum based on the developing interpretation and application of Law 11 which specifically laid out the proposition that “interfering with play” requires either touching the ball or making a credible move to play the ball. Acting to avoid contact (if successful) does not meet either of these criteria. An attacker in an offside position must act (touch the ball, move to the ball, interfere with an opponent, block an opponent, distract or deceive an opponent) to be declared offside. Action to avoid involvement (if successful) must be excluded.
Referees should remember that a scenario such as this one, which might have been called differently in years past, must now meet more stringent standards for an offside violation. Although the basic requirements for an offside violation under Law 11 remain the same, our understanding of how to implement these requirements has been evolving to match the modern game.
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
|
Comments


There was another instance of this a couple of seasons back when Fowler scored for Lverpool against Blackburn. See Youtube below….
For me, these goals should stand – the players do not play the ball – even if Cisse looks as though he really wanted to.
However if attacking players now start to seek an advantage by moving into these positions and throwing elaborate dummies to confuse defenders and goalkeepers then we are back in the grey area….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVXXwYnqB3M




Wow! This is a good one. As you said Cisse made a move (half raising his leg for the ball) and Blackburn may have a point there because it did freeze their defense for a split second. So it was as close to the dummy scenario that you mention above.
However, I think it was a goal too. I prefer the new offside rule to the original one that gave the advantage to defensive minded teams. remember the Belgian team of the 80s? Those guys were the International masters of the offside trap. That tactic would not work now half as well as it did then.
Posted from
United States




In Cisse’s case, he was within playing range of the ball so he was interfering with play (ie: Blackburn defenders will have been drawn to him), AND he made a move towards the ball, which would fall under the ‘distract or deceive an opponent’ provision.
Just because Cisse was not able to reach the ball, he still played at it from an offside position. Therefore he is offside and should have been penalized. If he had been running back towards the halfway line and made no attempt to play at the ball, he would not have been offside.
I think the video is a great example of a situation where a player is offside, whicle the Mathis video is a great example of when a player is not offside. Mathis is not obstructing play, not distracting any other opposing player and does not touch the ball. He is not offside.
Posted from
United States


Comments are closed
Send Your Tips!
Email tips[at]worldcupblog[dot]org
Iran Club Football News
- Would You Rather: Club Win the League? Or Country Win the World Cup?
- Daily Dose: October 11th, 2009.
- The Atlantic League: A European Not-Quite-Super-But Still-Quite-Good-League for Celtic, Rangers and Others
- Is Watching Football on the Internet The Future?
- The FFT100 - Agree? Disagree?
More Asia Blogs
Japan World Cup Team Blog
160 Articles | 240 Comments
Australia World Cup Team Blog
338 Articles | 3,521 Comments
Iran World Cup Team Blog
700 Articles | 2,242 Comments
Saudi Arabia World Cup Team Blog
174 Articles | 493 Comments
South Korea World Cup Team Blog
128 Articles | 759 Comments
China World Cup Team Blog
1 Articles | 0 Comments
North Korea World Cup Team Blog
4 Articles | 5 Comments
Monthly Archives
World 







