Offside DFK question

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

In the first video, the attacker is pushing backwards into the stationary defender. That is the type of stuff I'll warn about when I see it, before the kick is made. It's what you see the pros doing when they hold up the kick.

The 2nd video looks like the little red dude is getting pushed while he is simply moving around, but not back into the goalie or defender. Goalie should be warned in that instance.

In your scenario, the keeper can only be impeded on if he was trying to move forward, and the attacker stepped in front of him. A sideways back and forth of standing in his view of the ball is not impeding, but will likely be interfering in an offside position once the ball is kicked if he is still doing it.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

Concur but this was a U11 game which is why I highlighted the age in the OP....thoughts?

Well I'm of the opinion that a referee should do d in all ages, including professional. Merely stating the laws is not coaching, it is just informing. If the referee were coaching, he would be telling the player how to respond to that information.

Furthermore, from an optics perspective, how would anyone else know what you are telling the kid. All they see is you going to talk to the offending party, having a few private words with him, and then he backs away. You just look like a referee that laid down the law. One of my favorite things to do is to pull aside the player I am going to yellow card for stopping a promising attack... and everyone thinks I am chewing him out when I am actually saying "That was a really smart foul, good job, you stopped that break away, here is your card". Sometimes I will even tell a player to "pat me on the back so everyone can see" after I have a talk with them, usually after a frustrated borderline reckless foul.

Referee are humans, players are humans. You are doing yourself a disservice if you ignore those truths and ref like a robot or treat players like they are emotionless husks. Empathy, repoire, trust, goodwill, and fairness; you should referee with those as your goal along with the Laws.

 

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

Well I'm of the opinion that a referee should do d in all ages, including professional. Merely stating the laws is not coaching, it is just informing. If the referee were coaching, he would be telling the player how to respond to that information.

Furthermore, from an optics perspective, how would anyone else know what you are telling the kid. All they see is you going to talk to the offending party, having a few private words with him, and then he backs away. You just look like a referee that laid down the law. One of my favorite things to do is to pull aside the player I am going to yellow card for stopping a promising attack... and everyone thinks I am chewing him out when I am actually saying "That was a really smart foul, good job, you stopped that break away, here is your card". Sometimes I will even tell a player to "pat me on the back so everyone can see" after I have a talk with them, usually after a frustrated borderline reckless foul.

Referee are humans, players are humans. You are doing yourself a disservice if you ignore those truths and ref like a robot or treat players like they are emotionless husks. Empathy, repoire, trust, goodwill, and fairness; you should referee with those as your goal along with the Laws.

But if the player in an OSP was not impeding, he is not an "offending party".

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

But if the player in an OSP was not impeding, he is not an "offending party".

To quote The LOTG: " A Player in an offside position... is only penalized [when]...
interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision..."

 

[Emma]

I don't think the player was obstructing the opponent's line of vision or ability to play the ball. The ball was clearly over the head of the offside positioned player, therefore not obstructing anyone's line of vision. Difficult to say that there was any visual obstruction with goalie being much taller than player in off side position. Looks to me like goalie misjudged when the ball was going to bounce or when to jump for the ball after the bounce. Goalie had two chances of preventing the ball from hitting the net, without any obstruction by player in off side position.

Goalie did choose to take his eyes off the ball and look at the player but that's a goalie error, not bc offside player was obstructing his vision.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

I don't think the player was obstructing the opponent's line of vision or ability to play the ball. The ball was clearly over the head of the offside positioned player, therefore not obstructing anyone's line of vision. Difficult to say that there was any visual obstruction with goalie being much taller than player in off side position. Looks to me like goalie misjudged when the ball was going to bounce or when to jump for the ball after the bounce. Goalie had two chances of preventing the ball from hitting the net, without any obstruction by player in off side position.

Goalie did choose to take his eyes off the ball and look at the player but that's a goalie error, not bc offside player was obstructing his vision.

Lack of clarity, the line of vision point is for the OP's descriptive scenario about the player behind the wall on a DFK. For the video of the coach getting sent, that payer is offside because he does all 3 of "make a clear attempt", is "close" and has "impact". I posted the IFAB circular on a previous comment in response to espola.

 

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

To quote The LOTG: " A Player in an offside position... is only penalized [when]...
interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision..."

You said talk to the offending party. I assumed you meant before the kick was taken. It is not an offense to be in an offside position, so I am asking you who is the offending party? If he is not physically impeding the defenders (with or without contact), they are not offending anything, except some people here that think it is unsporting.

 

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

Lack of clarity, the line of vision point is for the OP's descriptive scenario about the player behind the wall on a DFK. For the video of the coach getting sent, that payer is offside because he does all 3 of "make a clear attempt", is "close" and has "impact". I posted the IFAB circular on a previous comment in response to espola.

This I completely agree with.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

You said talk to the offending party. I assumed you meant before the kick was taken. It is not an offense to be in an offside position, so I am asking you who is the offending party? If he is not physically impeding the defenders (with or without contact), they are not offending anything, except some people here that think it is unsporting.

You are just letting them know that they will become an offending party if they do not move. It's just preventative refereeing. You are right that he/she hasn't broken any laws yet.

But looking at the 2 real options from the OP: "d" and "e". I feel that e is a lose, lose, lose situation. The team that gets the goal taken away is mad after because they don't understand the laws and will be frustrated mad and confused after you take their goal away. The defending team is mad at you before the kick thinking that you are allowing the other team to get an unfair advantage. And lastly, you lose, because now you have to deal with all that headache. The only one that "wins" is some sort of vague Soccer Laws God that smiles upon you for enforcing the laws without "coaching" the kids. Because no one else is going to pat you on the back for doing that.

Meanwhile option "d" is a win, win, win. Defense doesn't have to deal with random dude in front of keepers line of vision. Attackers weigh the advantage of having 1 guy behind the wall vs potentially getting a goal called back. That's a no brainer, and they will feel some sort of good will to you if you say it in the right way, like you are doing them a favor. And you win, because there are no headaches.

 

[carla hinkle]

I choose d. Then e if it comes to that. I wish I had the video, but the was a professional game where a player was doing the exact same thing and the referee just kindly reminded the attacker that if a goal was scored, then it wouldn't count. It's just common sense proactive refereeing.

How is it any different from "Step back 10 yards for the throw in", "Don't run until the KICK (on a pk)", or "Don't pick up that pass back keeper". You aren't giving a team an unfair advantage. You are simply telling them, if you do x, I will do y. We are not there to trick the players.

U11 kids are born 2009 so 9 turning 10, first year of 9 v 9 and no build out line. I have a kid in that age group and I still expect (or at least hope for) some instruction from the ref. Even kids who have been playing club for a few years are still seeing variations of situations they have never (or rarely) seen before. Parents too for that matter (often parents know the rules less than the kids, depending on how long they have been around soccer).

 

[espola]

U11 kids are born 2009 so 9 turning 10, first year of 9 v 9 and no build out line. I have a kid in that age group and I still expect (or at least hope for) some instruction from the ref. Even kids who have been playing club for a few years are still seeing variations of situations they have never (or rarely) seen before. Parents too for that matter (often parents know the rules less than the kids, depending on how long they have been around soccer).

Any division that uses the build-out line should expect the referee to explain the rules on every free kick from deep in the defense, since they make no sense anywhere else.

 

[Grace T.]

Goalie did choose to take his eyes off the ball and look at the player but that's a goalie error, not bc offside player was obstructing his vision.

Agree with definitelynot on this point...because the goalkeeper needs to move forward to get that ball and because the goalkeeper saw someone coming towards him, he needed to check it out and look (probably being fearful of either hurting himself or hurting another player). A more experienced keeper would have just jumped forward knee up (yeah I know....I'm hearing the groan from some of you). Because the keeper looked away, that's making an impact (the keeper even stutters his feet a little). The AR also has to make the decision in a split second having only a side view....if he's going to give the benefit of the doubt without the benefit of video review, it wouldn't be with the player in the offside position (as opposed to arguing whether the keeper would have missed it anyways).

 

[Emma]

I'm still not able to understand how an objective decision was made as to what is the impact of the off side positioned player on the goalie. I've heard many refs agree and give examples that it is not an offside penalty if an offside positioned player runs towards a loose ball, so long as that player does not obstruct a defensive player from getting to the ball or block their vision.
Coaches use this method to coach their offensive players also - Have the offside player run towards ball but not touch ball and a non offside teammate then runs up and plays the ball. Here, objectively, the goalie was not obstructed in any way, visually or physically, and could have stopped the ball on multiple occasions. How is the goalie's decision not to catch the ball on multiple decisions any different than a defender's decision not to go after a lose ball because an off side player is near? Not arguing (bc I don't know the answer) but would like to understand the nuances between the two.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

I'm still not able to understand how an objective decision was made as to what is the impact of the off side positioned player on the goalie. I've heard many refs agree and give examples that it is not an offside penalty if an offside positioned player runs towards a loose ball, so long as that player does not obstruct a defensive player from getting to the ball or block their vision.
Coaches use this method to coach their offensive players also - Have the offside player run towards ball but not touch ball and a non offside teammate then runs up and plays the ball. Here, objectively, the goalie was not obstructed in any way, visually or physically, and could have stopped the ball on multiple occasions. How is the goalie's decision not to catch the ball on multiple decisions any different than a defender's decision not to go after a lose ball because an off side player is near? Not arguing (bc I don't know the answer) but would like to understand the nuances between the two.

Well, its not a completely objective decision. The referee needs to have a feel for the game and know what crosses the line from mental impact (ie: a defender kicking the ball out of bounds because an offside attacker is running at him. Ruling: NOT OFFSIDE) and a physical impact.

Here is the law:
...a player in an offside position shall also be penalized if he:

• clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when his action impacts on an opponent
• OR makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

For the 1st bullet point: As an AR, as soon as the kid is kicking distance away from the ball and makes to kick, dribble or touch it, I put my flag up. What makes you offside is not the touch, and its not the run: it is attempt + playing distance + impact. Hopefully that answers any questions as to when a player on a run is technically offside. And yes, running next to the ball and pretend dribbling is an attempt + playing distance + impact situation equivalent to a dummy.

The 2nd bullet point the question is impact. To quote circular 3: ‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player.

The impact needs to be physical. Not body on body, just physical ability to play the ball. If the keeper or defender hesitates to run through an offside player, that is impact. If the defender or keeper has to physically change his run to avoid the offside person, that is offside. A player can be standing still with their hands up and still physically impact unintentionally.

 

[Surfref]

Well, its not a completely objective decision. The referee needs to have a feel for the game and know what crosses the line from mental impact (ie: a defender kicking the ball out of bounds because an offside attacker is running at him. Ruling: NOT OFFSIDE) and a physical impact.

Here is the law:
...a player in an offside position shall also be penalized if he:

• clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when his action impacts on an opponent
• OR makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

For the 1st bullet point: As an AR, as soon as the kid is kicking distance away from the ball and makes to kick, dribble or touch it, I put my flag up. What makes you offside is not the touch, and its not the run: it is attempt + playing distance + impact. Hopefully that answers any questions as to when a player on a run is technically offside. And yes, running next to the ball and pretend dribbling is an attempt + playing distance + impact situation equivalent to a dummy.

The 2nd bullet point the question is impact. To quote circular 3: ‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player.

The impact needs to be physical. Not body on body, just physical ability to play the ball. If the keeper or defender hesitates to run through an offside player, that is impact. If the defender or keeper has to physically change his run to avoid the offside person, that is offside. A player can be standing still with their hands up and still physically impact unintentionally.

That is spot on from last months training.