The International FA Board (IFAB), the body who formulate the Laws, have attempted to write the Offside Law in such a way that, together with its advice included for the first time this season 2005/06, will lead to fewer varying interpretations amongst officials: the Referees and Assistant Referees (Rs/ARs).
Football is all about goals being scored, with the skill of one team defeating its opponents. The attacking team must use its skill to attack, and the defending team must use its skill to defend. If the attacking team has beaten the defence, the officials should not help the defence to defend by disallowing the goal for offside, where that player who was in an offside position had nothing to do with the actual skill that beat the defence. So the term ‘active’ was introduced. Being in an offside position is not an offence: active or passive has to be judged.
Another consideration is the number of stoppages in the game caused by a player declared offside. How can these stoppages be minimised? The ‘offside player’ (OSP) has to be ignored in certain instances. Furthermore, the emphasis has to be on attacking play. Officials should favour the attacking team rather than, as it has been in the past, the defence.
So the game needs fewer stoppages: fewer ‘flags’ for the OSP, with the AR delaying flagging, and with the emphasis on the skill of the attacking team beating the defence a prime consideration. The Laws and the IFAB’s advice have to be written so that the interpretations of the officials become narrower, namely, the OSP can only be penalised if he satisfies certain conditions. In the past, the wording of the Law led to a wide and varying interpretation of what was meant by ‘active’.
This season, Law 11, International Board Decision 2, has defined active play. Briefly, it requires officials to penalise the offside player if he: (1) plays or touches the ball; (2) interferes with an opponent; (3) gains an advantage. So a player who does not Play, Interfere or Gain (PIG) should not be declared offside.
Last August, ‘playing or touching the ball’ had to be clarified. There were occasions in the 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup (15th-29th June), when an Assistant Referee (AR) would wait for the OSP to play the ball. A player would chase the ball 30 yds before playing it, the AR would then flag, and the ball was then returned 30 yds for the free kick. The clarification said that the player “may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”
So if a team-mate in an onside position ran through to beat the defence, he can play the ball before the OSP, with the OSP not penalised because of his position. The OSP is not considered active: he did not play the ball. Of course, the defenders will put their arms up in the air and appeal for offside. They have been beaten by the run of the onside player. Their appeals have to be ignored. The R/AR must not help them defend.
Also, last August, the IFAB clarified a case for interfering with an opponent by saying that the offside attacker would be penalised “if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact.” Obviously, if a defender is challenged by the offside attacker, and there is physical contact, then the attacker is penalised. But what does “potential for physical contact” mean? This would be when there is no actual physical contact but the defender was impaired in his playing/clearing the ball. However, officials should not be too negative in their interpretation. There is no stipulation on how far away would “potential” be a consideration. Be positive. Call the clearance an error by the defender rather than penalise the OSP.
Another aspect of interfering relates to “clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision” which has prevented a goalkeeper, in particular, from being able to play the ball. The R/AR are often not in a position to judge “clearly obstructing”. They would have to be in line with the ball, its flight, and the goalkeeper to give an accurate decision. The AR is, more often than not, at 90 degrees to the flight, and the referee is rarely behind the ball to judge. The AR would be correct in flagging to indicate a player in an offside position but, if the referee penalises the player, it would be a guess at any interference, if any. A goalkeeper will have his eyes on the ball. If an offside player is close to (less than 3yds?) and in front of him, then the referee might consider the interference, but if the attacker is further away (more than 3yds?) then the goalkeeper should be able to position himself to see the ball. A referee who penalises the OSP in this instance will be thanked by the goalkeeper. The referee, though, is being negative and is defending for the defence. Maybe ‘interfering’ in such instances should be taken out of the Offside Law and called ‘impeding’ which would apply only if the OSP is close to the goalkeeper.
Then there’s gaining. This is clear cut. An OSP can only be penalised for gaining an advantage if he plays or touches the ball that has rebounded to him from a goal post, a crossbar, or an opponent (often the goalkeeper). So this means, an OSP can only be penalised for ‘gaining’ if he plays the ball from a rebound.
It is now easier for the officials to operate. The AR will always be looking to see if there is a player in an offside position. If yes, then he will first of all ‘Wait And See’ if the player has played or touched the ball. If he has not, then consider: has the player interfered? Has the defender been put off by his attempt to play the ball by “potential for physical contact”? If a player has played the ball without any ‘near contact’ from an OSP that might have put him off a clearance, then don’t flag. Interfering with line of vision is a minor consideration. It is very difficult to ask the officials to judge “clearly obstructing”. Then finally, did he gain an advantage from a rebound? If the three answers to PIG are all ‘no’, then don’t flag. If the answer to one of the three is ‘yes’, then flag. If the AR does flag, then the referee will decide whether to blow or not. He should read the game. He should not rely 100% on his AR, and if he can keep the game flowing, then ‘play on’.
With ‘gaining’, the AR should take a ‘freeze frame’ in his mind when there is, for example, a long shot for goal, so that when an attacker plays the ball from a rebound, the AR can refer to the ‘freeze frame’ and decide whether to flag or not.
Offside has always been in the Laws. It was intended to cut out the goal-hangers. It was called ‘sneaking’. An attacker is not sneaking when the defence moves out, maybe rapidly, to catch him in an offside position. The defence is hoping the AR will defend for them and flag. But being in an offside position is not an offence, and the elements of PIG now favour the attacking team. The ‘advancing defence’ is a dangerous tactic to use. The AR will no longer defend for the defense.
It is far easier for the media to be negative/destructive than positive, whether it is on TV, radio or in a newspaper. The media thrive in controversy rather than educate the public in the Laws especially on TV. The studio panel of so-called experts are ex-players. They offer their views from their own playing careers. They have not updated their knowledge. They have not bothered to look at the guidance offered on ‘active play’ through the elements of PIG. The IFAB have made advancements in narrowing the interpretation of ‘active’ but, on TV especially, how many times have the ‘experts’ said: “He’s got to be active there!”, but the OSP had not played, interfered or gained. And “Oh, that was a late flag there!” with rare comments from the TV ‘experts’ on the merits of a delayed flag. And “Surely he’s got to be gaining an advantage there!” when there’s been no rebound.
Think about it. Fans, media, everyone would like to see more goals being scored. The R/ARs have been asked not to be negative in their decisions, especially with offside. The IFAB have offered sound advice on when offside should be penalised and so, in turn, when to keep the game flowing. The public expect the ‘experts’ to keep them informed of any recent developments. This season the media have failed.
The IFAB have laid down its advice on when a player is considered to be involved in active play. It’s common sense, really. It has produced football that has fewer stoppages. Defenders will have to defend for themselves. Officials will be more positive and favour the skill of the attacking team.
Want to know more? Read Dr. Rob Webb's on Offside
Want to learn more about IFAB? Click here
Send in your questions about the rules and ask our experts!
You ASK the REF
ShareThis
Print
