An Offside Issue -- Is Touching the Ball a Requirement?

New York Red Bulls vs FC Dallas (April 15, 2007)

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.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• Soccer
• Football
• Offside
• Red
• Bulls
• FC
• Dallas
• MLS
• lastkick.com

[rdarfi]

@ershlaft Please could you show me where this is stated in the Laws Of The Game? 2010-2011 Fifa LOTG Page 102 clearly shows this is NOT offside. Page 100 also gives the definitions which clearly explains this is NOT offside. He is not interfering with play because he did NOT touch the ball. He is not interfering with an opponent because he did NOT prevent an opponent from getting the ball. He is not gaining an advantage because he did NOT receive the ball from from a rebound.

[Stuartcgsb]

i would say hes not gaining an advantage, hes not interfering with the keep so i'd keep my flag down personally

[TheJPDH]

@dannypineda Fair point.

[dannypineda]

@TheJPDH it doesnt matter if he moves or not, it matters if he would have changed the play. obviously the ball was going in. if he would have said something to the goalie while it was going in to distract him. then flag goes up. he clearly wants no part of the play

[TheJPDH]

If he doesn't move the ball doesn't go in so yes he is interfering with play. Clearly offside.

[SJRCS011Productions]

It depends on what the referee thinks. In the Laws of the Game, 2011-2012, it just says " interfering with play...interfering with an opponent...gaining an advantage by being in that position". Some referees may call it, some may not. It is all "In the opinion of the referee."

[88wardie]

@Lifespenalty As a ref I will tell you that just isn't the law. The gain an advantage clause only applies to rebounds off opponents or goalposts. So besides such a rebound the player is only offside if he interfers with play (touches the ball) or interfers with an opponent (prevents an opponent from playing the ball)

[88wardie]

@cphthomsen correct quote incorrect application and in fact this example is specifically given in the guidelines as an example of not offside. the line irrelevant .. he doesn't interfer with play (this is interepreted in guidelines as touches the ball) he doesn't interfer with an opponent and he doesn't gain an advantage by being there (guidelines limt this clause to rebounds off opponents or posts) So 100% onside and the guidlines show this specifically.

[cphthomsen]

Its 100% offside.. He interferes with the game being in the line from the place it was struck and towards he goal. Fifa's Laws of football says:

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

So no doubt. He is offside in this situation!

[bdriz16]

He wasn't involved play...not offside.

[supahdupahguy81]

he didn't touch the ball or impede the keeper so it's a goal...

[jerban100]

regardless, any striker should realize they will immediately be put offsides if they are standing on the goal line and should step up the field