U.S. Soccer Referee Position Paper: April 15, 2007

[09BIJAN09]

its only if he makes contact with the ball he will be offside

[Ilikemustard]

@09BIJAN09

No, he can be interfering with opponents, e.g if he gets in the goalie's way when he's trying to make a save.

[bmjbenjamin]

offside equals participation in the play the goal would of gone in even if he wasnt there and he did not get in the way of the goalie

[chitybam94]

not offside he jumped .. he didnt go for the ball

[ga1200]

being in an offside position is NOT a violation of the law. no offside.

[pneshati]

The player in white was involved in active play. He was right in the middle of the action. Offside position + Being involved in active play = Offside. Offside is correct call, no goal. Stop arguing unless you know the Laws of the Game.

[castro213]

It's absurd how many referee's are posting and claiming that this goal should be disallowed. You all need to go back and read the directives and position papers. This is not Offside and the goal should be allowed. Its stated very clearly in the position papers.

[buccos2324]

your absolutely right. Thank you! I mean, I'm a 15-year-old referee and I read the position papers and know more about offside than some of my colleagues 30 years older than me!!

[pneshati]

@buccos2324 Yo, I'm a ref, same age. The player in white was involved in active play. He was right in the middle of the action. Offside position + Being involved in active play = Offside. Offside is correct call, no goal. Stop arguing unless you know the Laws of the Game.

[TrekNeck]

@pneshati - I'm a USSF Instructor. This is NOT Offside. Being involved in Active Play means "Playing the Ball" or "Interfering with Play". It can come within inches of the player, and they NOT be "Involved in Active Play." If you remove the player from the situation, does it change anything? No. The ball went directly in the goal.

A lot of Referees get this wrong when a player turns to run and get the ball. Wait and see! Better to be late and Right, than quick and Wrong!!

[soccerrefwilcox]

@TrekNeck Thank you for letting people know the right call on this. I actually had another ref overrule a goal I called in this exact manner. We even put a beer on it. Needless to say he lost and I enjoyed that cold one.

[soccerrefwilcox]

@pneshati You couldn't be more wrong. This player was not involved in active play. If you removed this player from the video not one thing would have been different. The ball traveled the same path, the goalie didn't have to adjust his path to trying to make the save, no defender had to do the same, the player did not try to distract the goalie. Please don't call yourself out as an expert when you definately are not.

[zhe100]

A USSF Soccer official speaking here:

If you read the position papers, which the link to them is included in the description, you would see that USSF had determined that the officials were correct in not calling an Mathis (#13) offside. To be in an offside position is not a violation in itself of the Laws of the Game. Mathis simply tried successfully to avoid touching the ball.

Before reading position papers, I thought the officials were correct and would have made the same no-call.

[EtherialRock]

Goal allowed was a good call.

[robbyperez]

He is not offside because he is not involved in the "2nd phase" of the play...

[krimo10]

The player is definitely in an offside position, lest we forget the simple being in an offside position is not an infraction in itself.

Neither does he:

1. Interfere with play

2. Gain an advantage from his position

3. Influence an adversary

Therefore the goal is allowed, and the offside isn't called.

[buccos2324]

He is onside because he did not make an attempt to play the ball. He avoided touching the ball (see the official us soccer website) and therefore did not make a credible move toward the ball.

[jsberson]

Correction: he is offside, however because he neither impeded play nor approached the ball, the ref doesn't call it. Nonetheless, I have ref'ed hundreds of games, and I cannot remember one where a player being in between the goal posts would have been considered out of the play. It's controversial at best, but the no-offside-call rule was meant for players who are cherry picking in the corner, not inside the crease. I'm sure the powers-that-be at FIFA will be reviewing this one for a long time.

[trevorrappleye]

goal! he did not get involved with play in no way shape or form.

[soccersuperstar185]

doesnt matter if he tuched it or not.. he was still invovled by jumping over it so its an OFFSIDES fur shure

[jsberson]

I personally would have called it an offside if I was ref'ing that game...

[zhe100]

then read the rules until you know why you SHOULDN'T call it offside.

[zhe100]

actually, it matters whether he does touch it or not. To be CALLED offside, you must first be in an offside position obviously, but any of these three situations must occur.

- Be involved with the play (touching or not)

- Gain an advantage

- Distracting, impeding or blocking the view of the goalkeeper.

None of those three occurred here, but rather he jumped to avoid touching the ball. Simply trying to avoid being involved with the ball or goalkeeper is a way to not be called offside.

[babicz]

Well it's not making a difference in the play, so he's not involved. He's not distracting any players, getting in the way with the goalie, yada yada.

[ellbo2]

this is not offside, cos the player did not touch the ball and did not interfear with players or the ball

[jroy375]

The player in the offside position was not involved in the play, not interfering with an opponent, and did not gain an advantage from being in that position.

Therefore, NO offside call... goal is awarded.

[Kentarobravo]

its not offsides he was never in the play he didn't touch the ball nor prohibited movement of the keeper or defenders

[Nymiiii]

this is an offside because:

Yes the player is to be punished due to being in a offside position.

He never touches the ball, we all agree that!

But! he is involved in an active play when he jumps over the ball for it to be an goal.

A.K.A= OFFSIDE

[zhe100]

he jumps to AVOID touching the ball, which is allowed to avoid being called offside. He was active in the play. In this situation, the only way he would have been offside is if he had touched the ball or the ball deflected off of him into the goal. The goalkeeper was in front of Mathis so no interference or impeding of the goalkeeper exists here.

[smr1010]

the guys not offside coz he didn't touch the ball when he shot. ;)

[learnin2tap]

The player in the offside position is not required to touch the ball to be considered offside. In the opinion of the referee he has to be involved in the play. He was next to the post and not involved in the play. It's a goal !!!!!

[lincoin6]

it was offside because he was behind the last defender and the ball wasn't with him

[drbonzo9]

it's not that he didn't touch the ball...he is NOT in an offside position because he did not INTERFERE with play...usually in this situation you need to look for a keeper "screen"...since he was behind the keeper and in now way distracted him, this is not offside.

[carimaydegx]

No offside, the player in offside position clearly attempted to NOT TOUCH the ball.

[boles1389]

haha wrong the man in the goal is offsides bc he is in the play when the ball is shot. offsides is one of those lovely rules spectators do not get and cause a lot of problems for us FIFA referees

[bark009]

Frightening -- if you're a FIFA referee, and don't understand why this isn't an offside offense.

[Stinger49]

I'm a referee. This particular play is being used extensively in training this year. The final ruling is that the goal should stand as the player in the offside position didn't attempt to become involved in the play or didnt touch the ball. Great job on AR2!

[soccerballer124life]

that would be offside even though the ofside man was not involved he was in the way of the keep therefor making it a arguable offsides saying they gained an advantage because of the ofsides man blocking the goal keeper. plz coment back....

[xterrasr4life]

As a referee, I received an email with the position paper from USSF. The player in question (on the goal line) is not guilty of offside. There are three criteria for offside. The 1st is that a player may not play the ball, which he did not. The 2nd is that the player may not interfere with defenders, which he did not since he was behind the goalkeeper and basically on the goal line. The 3rd is that the player did not seek to gain an advantage from being in that position. So, the GOAL IS ALLOWED.

[Gordias]

Yes, this is NOT offside.

[sek120]

you don't have to touch the ball to be offside. however, it was obviously a shot on goal and the player who was off did not interfere with any other player's ability to play defense. and he avoided contact with the ball. this is a tough call with the ball so close to him, but i think it should be a goal.

[ionavalanche]

not offside.

[bernyglz]

the rule says that it is an offside when the player directly takes part or gets involved in the play and the rest is up to referee's interpretation and criteria.... For me it's clearly an offside cuz even when the player doesn't want to get involved or touch the ball, the ball goes right under his legs he is actively participating in the play.... Even when there was nobody else that could prevent the goal the player was in offside position and must be called.

[scorpionking1200]

that wasnt offside because the guy that was in offside postion didnt touch the ball so edemoman was right!

[LiquidYogi]

It is by rule, not a requirement of offside for someone to touch the ball. The Law states that if you are involved in the play while in an offside position you are offside. For instance if that player that jumped over the ball had been in front of the goal keeper distracting him, he would be considered involved in play and the Referee should call Offside.

[sampearl]

Sorry to be a stickler, "touching" the ball isn't a prerequisite for offside. More accurately, he did not interfere with play or an opponent, and thus was not guilty of being offside.

[Towniesoccer4eva]

Correct answer is OFFSIDES. The player was in an offside position and was near the line, therefore being involved in play. He also made an attempt at ball further making him offsides. the player does NOT need to touch the ball in order to make it offsides.

[deuteronpsi]

the fact that he did not touch the ball is not why he wasn't called offside. a player can be guilty of offside without touching the ball. in this case, his offside position did not give his team an unfair advantage nor did his position interfere with an opponent or the play in any way. therefore the goal was allowed.

[mbaptiste3]

The discussion is at US Soccers website (can't include a URL in the comment so...)

Look for an offside paper dated April 15th 2007.

US Soccer is using YouTube videos as examples for position papers. No question he was in an offside position, but he never touched the ball or interfered. Heads up play to jump up.

[aoppel]

It's not quite as simple as whether he touched the ball or not. A player in an offside position may not participate in or interfere with play. Touching the ball would only be one way that the player could do that. However, this player clearly did not participate or interfere with play.

[edemoman]

Right, this is not offside because the player in an offside position didn't touch the ball.

[galloots13]

actually, you dont have to touch the ball to be offside. You have to gain an advantage by being in an offside position, why he did not. It the goalie was say, behind him, then he would have been offside because it would have obstructed the goalies view therefore he is gaining offside advantage. Just like a dummy

[Thrashlord]

he doesn't have to touch the ball, if he is offside then he's offside

[daba13ref]

Your right it is a goal, but he doesn't have to touch the ball as learnin2tap said. Involved in play....but the outcome of the goal could not have been affected by him jumping out of the way and he is not blocking the keepers view so Goal!!!

[swordplay227]

i was expecting more of a commentary to the situation, and though van den bergh had a SWEET shot, the man making a run up through the center is debatebly offside

[laxmatt1984]

The run up the center is not debatably offsides. It's not offsides, period. The question is: did the man on the goal line when the shot was taken affect the play? He is indeed in an offsides position, but I say he neither interfered with the goalie nor made a difference in the shot. So I would not call offsides. Other referees would disagree.

[jorgejetson3]

The man making the run up the middle is NOT offside because he is behind the ball. You can't be offside if you're behind the ball.

[gcuellar82]

Just by taking a quick look at the play, I can tell that it' wasn't offside cause the player on the goal line did'nt touch the ball... Am I right?

[drdav1]

It's not offside if he does not touch it. And if he really wants to be safe, you are allowed to walk into the goal (or off the field) in order to show you are not getting involved. If the guy was in the goal, far enough beyond the line, and the ball hit him, it would still not be offside if the ball crossed the line already.

[erol12345]

it's not because he didnt touch, it is because he is behind the keeper and has no inluence and reflection towarrds keeper.