To ensure that the new version of the offside rule is understood in the appropiate way, this blog will continuously spotlight match situations that serve as paramount examples to explain the differences and partly similarities between Law 11's old and current version. Having already examined the terms deliberate save and deliberately playing the ball, this post focuses on interfering with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the ball.
Interfering with... (old version)
- “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movement or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movement or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
Interfering with... (new version)
- “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.
- “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
- “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.
Comparing the term challenging an opponent for the ball, it must be pointed out that this means much more than the old interpretation which settled for the quire woolly circumstance, when a player makes a movement or a gesture which deceive or distract an opponent. While it surely goes further than that, the new term stays comparably vague. What is meant by challenging an opponent? Do players have to touch him/her? And if they touch their opponent, is that enough for raising the flag? Even though the precise wording of the law does not specify this challenge, their are clear instructions and guidelines that achieve further clarification. We can quite freely understand this challenge as a fight for the ball. The attacker must show the will to reach the ball and is bount to fthe following two criteria:
1) physical interference
2) being in playing distance (UEFA defines that as maximum 1 - 1,5 metres)
As emphasized above, challenging an opponent for the ball means a real fight for the ball. So, it is already clear that physical interference with an opponent having been in an offside position at the moment when the ball was touched is not enough for the assistant referees to raise their flag. This physical interference must happen in the context of fighting for the ball, i.e. in playing distance. But physical interference is not essentially necessary to deem the player as guilty of "active" offside - we can utilize the flowery term "active offside" here. There does not have to be body contact between the forward and his opponent. Being in playing distance (< 1,5 m) is enough. This was actually similar in the old formulation of Law 11, too.
Therefore, criteria 1) is only fulfilled for active offside by requiring criteria 2). If the physical interference happened far away from play, i.e. (the scenery around) the ball, nothing has happened in the sense of Law 11 (of course, if no foul happened with regard to the body contact). But when a forward player is challenging an opponent for the ball being very close to the ball, i.e. being in playing distance, the assistant referees have to consider this as active offside. So, criteria 1 depends on criteria 2, but criteria 2 is independent from criteria 1.
After this quite arid theoretical explanation, you can check two very current examples of the practical application of this facet of Law 11 on the pitch.
This situation happened at the start of February 2014 in Germany's Bundesliga. After a defensive clearance of the red-dressed team, blue-dressed #12 made a high shot on goal. The ball would have reached the goal, if it had not been obstructed by a deliberate handball on the goal-line of red #31. Referee Michael Weiner first awarded a penalty kick in favour of the blue team and sent off #31 with a direct red card. However, upon consultation with his first assistant referee Norbert Grudzinski, he changed his decision and accepted his assistant referee's advice, who had seen an offside position of blue #20, who was crossing the goalkeeper's path and had physical interference with him (no foul). The German association, DFB, has in the meantime made an official statement declaring this decision as wrong. Why?
As stressed in the previous theoretical part, physical interference is not enough to classify it as a sufficient criteria for an active offside position. The assistant referee should have considered whether blue #20 and the goalkeeper are in a fight for the ball - as the ball was approximately 7 or 8 metres away instead of the recommended limit of 1,5 metres, this is surely no active challenge for the ball. In addition, there was not any player who could have interfered with the offender of the handball (#31), who was the one who had to be challenged for the ball by any opponent (and not the goalkeeper). For this reason, the correct decision would have been to let the flag down, to award a penalty kick and to send off the defender. If the handball had not existed, the goal would have been legally scored. Despite the courage proven by the match officials, the decision was consequently wrong. Personally, I am quite surprised that, in the opinion of DFB, the phrase "by clearly obstructing the opponent’s [...] movement" was totally irrelevant in this situation - actually, the goalkeeper's movement was indeed obstructed. Anyway, it is surely good to have a precise and official statement of a football association on this matter. More statements of this format are needed in future - they merely lead to more comprehension and will not undermine the associations' referees and their authority.
Next example.
In this video example taken from the Italian Coppa Italia, you can see the black-dressed #6 while delivering a long and high direct free-kick into the penalty area. By coming out of his goal, the goalkeeper was able to clear the ball with his hands and collided with one of his team-mates. Assistant referee Nicola Nicoletti raised his flag and ruled black #5 offside. Was that correct?
Well, at first, it must be said that the commentators were apparently not capable of making a well-reasoned judgment on that, since they did not understand the officials' decision at all. Then, we can consider whether the two relevant criteria were fulfilled or not.
Contrary to the situation in Berlin, there was no physical interference between the forward, who was in an offside position, and an opponent. But as reinforced above, this is not essentially required. The fight for the ball is decisive. And this existed. The forward, #5, was in immediate playing distance; he was very close to the ball and challenged the goalkeeper in order to get it. Or, simply said, the goalkeeper had to clear the ball due to the presence of this attacker, whose offside position had become active by that. He feared the attacker, he was challenged by him, he had to do something for this reason. Or, in the formally more correct wording, the forward was in playing distance. In conclusion, the decision was absolutely correct - and would have been correct in the old form of the Laws of the Game as well.
As you see, the same passage in Law 11 can be pretty much taken for granted for years and hence goes without saying, but - at the same time - creates confusion and a visible difference to the old version of the rule, too. Assistant referees are still struggling with putting the theory into praxis on the field of play and are not less confused than common football fans. It once again shows that world federation FIFA has rather managed to make things more complicated by failing to explain the changes in an adequate manner to referees, players and fans, than simplifying it. The responsible men have contributed to further confusion about this perpetual issue of dispute in football. Certainly, this does not mean that the new rule is bad in its principle - but its communication and internalization have been close to poor for now.
As stressed in the previous theoretical part, physical interference is not enough to classify it as a sufficient criteria for an active offside position. The assistant referee should have considered whether blue #20 and the goalkeeper are in a fight for the ball - as the ball was approximately 7 or 8 metres away instead of the recommended limit of 1,5 metres, this is surely no active challenge for the ball. In addition, there was not any player who could have interfered with the offender of the handball (#31), who was the one who had to be challenged for the ball by any opponent (and not the goalkeeper). For this reason, the correct decision would have been to let the flag down, to award a penalty kick and to send off the defender. If the handball had not existed, the goal would have been legally scored. Despite the courage proven by the match officials, the decision was consequently wrong. Personally, I am quite surprised that, in the opinion of DFB, the phrase "by clearly obstructing the opponent’s [...] movement" was totally irrelevant in this situation - actually, the goalkeeper's movement was indeed obstructed. Anyway, it is surely good to have a precise and official statement of a football association on this matter. More statements of this format are needed in future - they merely lead to more comprehension and will not undermine the associations' referees and their authority.
Next example.
In this video example taken from the Italian Coppa Italia, you can see the black-dressed #6 while delivering a long and high direct free-kick into the penalty area. By coming out of his goal, the goalkeeper was able to clear the ball with his hands and collided with one of his team-mates. Assistant referee Nicola Nicoletti raised his flag and ruled black #5 offside. Was that correct?
Well, at first, it must be said that the commentators were apparently not capable of making a well-reasoned judgment on that, since they did not understand the officials' decision at all. Then, we can consider whether the two relevant criteria were fulfilled or not.
Contrary to the situation in Berlin, there was no physical interference between the forward, who was in an offside position, and an opponent. But as reinforced above, this is not essentially required. The fight for the ball is decisive. And this existed. The forward, #5, was in immediate playing distance; he was very close to the ball and challenged the goalkeeper in order to get it. Or, simply said, the goalkeeper had to clear the ball due to the presence of this attacker, whose offside position had become active by that. He feared the attacker, he was challenged by him, he had to do something for this reason. Or, in the formally more correct wording, the forward was in playing distance. In conclusion, the decision was absolutely correct - and would have been correct in the old form of the Laws of the Game as well.
As you see, the same passage in Law 11 can be pretty much taken for granted for years and hence goes without saying, but - at the same time - creates confusion and a visible difference to the old version of the rule, too. Assistant referees are still struggling with putting the theory into praxis on the field of play and are not less confused than common football fans. It once again shows that world federation FIFA has rather managed to make things more complicated by failing to explain the changes in an adequate manner to referees, players and fans, than simplifying it. The responsible men have contributed to further confusion about this perpetual issue of dispute in football. Certainly, this does not mean that the new rule is bad in its principle - but its communication and internalization have been close to poor for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment