Law 11 can be confusing..

At the beginning of the week I focused on further explanatory videos for the new offside rule and one special facet of it. One of them showed a situation having occurred in German Bundesliga in the match between Hertha BSC Berlin and 1. FC Nürnberg. While the pre-dominant emphasis was put on challenging an opponent for the ball and what this term means at all in this specific video, another question for debate was raised by a user's comment. Before unfolding it, please check the video again.

The - unfortunately anonymous - user canvassed the following scenario: Imagine the red-dressed defender on the goal-line would not have committed a deliberate handball in order to deny the obvious goal. Imagine that the blue #20 had not interfered with the goalkeeper in a way that made the assistant referee flag for offside. Given that scenario, the defender would have used another part of the body, most likely his head, to clear the ball and prevent the goal from being scored. Imagine the ball would have nonetheless arrived directly in front of the blue forward whose task to score a goal from that position would have been surely very easy in this case. It might claim some faculty of imagination from you.

Let's sum up the scenario:

1) The blue #20 is closer to the goal-line than the second last defender (the goalkeeper).

2) The high shot on goal obviously reaches the goal (if there is no defender).

3) The red-dressed defender clears the ball on the goal-line, let's say, with his head.

4) Blue #20 receives the ball from this clearance and scores.

Law 11 has a special facet that was already subject to debate in the blog: gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. Usually, attackers are in punishable offside as soon as they gain an advantage from being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender. However, the rule says that players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberate plays the ball, are not considered to have gained an advantage. Deliberately playing the ball means the clear intention to play the ball, mostly indicated by a clear movement towards the ball, regardless of whether the outcome exposes an advantage or disadvantage. But the rule makes one exception here: Players receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately played the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. In other words: when a player receives the ball from a deliberate save, he is considered to have gained an advantage and is in a punishable offside position. A deliberate save is defined as preventing a clear goal from being scored and basically targets at protecting goalkeepers or defenders who block a dangerous shot on goal. 

So...what we have to constitute here is that - in our fictive but possible scenario - the defender on the goal-line clearly and intentionally moves his head towards the ball. He therefore deliberately plays the ball. But, he does so in order to prevent a clear goal from being scored - if he does not make the header on the goal-line, it is a goal.
Two criteria are theoretically colliding here. On the one hand, Law 11 prompts that the goal would be scored legally (deliberate play), on the other hand, the same sentence in this new rule suggests that the goal would be scored illegally, i.e. from an active offside position (deliberate save). The important thing is that the rule calls the deliberate save an exception of deliberate play. So this means, in the presence of this deliberate save, the deliberate play becomes irrelevant. The goal should not have counted in this case, as the attacker has gained an advantage from being in that position by receiving the ball from a deliberate save. Even though the law seems to be precise in this case, it can be quite confusing. The law does not define that deliberate saves can also contain clear movements towards the ball and can be one sort of deliberate play. It rather prompts that they are two distinct things. This led me to irritation and I apologize for the previously wrong analysis of this situation. Anyway, this scenario illustrates "except a deliberate save" in a good manner and shows how much empathy Law 11 is demanding from assistant referees in the current form, since the intention of defenders is emphasized in an extra-ordinary manner.

What "challenging an opponent for the ball" means

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.

Offside! © The Third Team

The relevant part of Law 11 in written form:

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... (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.

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.

What "deliberately playing the ball" means

Last July, football's lawmakers of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) have approved an alteration of Law 11 dealing with offside. Several guidelines and exemplary videos were necessarily given to the national associations and referee panels in order to instruct referees and particularly assistant referees properly in a worldwide dimension. This blog tried to make the changes comprehensibly explained as well. But how did the officials put the new guidelines into praxis? In many situations, the new offside rule was well applied by the assistant referees at the highest level. But some mistakes were and are still being made, also on UEFA level, which shows that this topic demands continuous attention. The following two videos are again supposed to emphasize and internalize a specific form of the new offside rule.

Tarik Ongun taking a correct offside position © The Third Team

Offside means being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender (some other restrictions do not have to be mentioned in this specific analysis). Some criteria is needed to be checked when raising the flag for offside:

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... (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 movement or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Gaining an advantage (old version)

- “Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goal post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

Gaining an advantage (new version)

- “Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…

• - That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
• - That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
• - A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

I am going to analyze a situation that occurred in the Champions League match between Olympique Marseille and SSC Napoli. Please go to video minute 28:15 if this automatically starting link does not work appropiately.

Because of the low quality of the video, you can find screenshots (first move in the rows and then in the columns) edited with different colors that will be used in the analysis here:

As you have hopefully seen in either the video or the screenshots, the blue team (Napoli) have started a very promising attack on Marseille's goal. A defensive player has made a long pass into the direction of two attackers (#9 and #14), who had been about to move apart from their defending opponents respectively. The attempt was stopped by an offside flag of assistant referee 1.

First question: Was one of the attackers or were even both of them in an offside position in the sense of being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender?
No. The first screenshot shows that both attackers #9 and especially #14 were in an onside position, while their team-mate touched the ball to pass it. The screenshots naturally withhold the high pace of the action. Some parts of a second after the pass had been executed, the attacker at the bottom of the screenshot (Higuaín) was closer to the goal-line than the second last defender. Our analysis could end here, as the flag was undoubtfully wrong. But in this case there would not be any added value..

Second question: Let's imagine that #9 had been slightly closer to the goal-line than the second last defender. #14 was obviously onside for almost a metre. Would the flag have been correct in this scenario?
Maybe. It depends on the interpretation of the referee and assistant referee. Even if #9 had been in an offside position, one would have had to gauge whether he was interfering with play or an opponent at all. The green marked attacker had been far away from getting the ball but then moved towards the bouncing ball. Having recognized that his team-mate #14 would have a better chance to get and process the ball and maybe even score a goal than himself, he stopped his run and did not interfere with play. Dries Mertens (#14) took the ball and would have appeared freely in front of the goalkeeper. #9 neither touched the ball nor was in an absolute playing distance. There was more than a metre between him and the ball. He did not challenge an opponent for the ball either. The only opportunity to justify an offside flag would be a clear obstruction of the opponents' line of vision. The goalkeeper was surely not influenced by #9, but maybe the defender (white jersey) who was closest to the two attackers. One can have different ideas about this matter, personally, I think that #9 did not interfere with any opponent despite his original movement towards the ball. But this alone is not enough for active offside any longer. So, with a better wait-and-see technique, the assistant referee could have recognized that #9 would not interfere with play, would not interfere with an opponent and did not gain an advantage from being in that position in the sense of Law 11. However, the most decisive circumstance is still to come now:

Third question: Was offside possible in this situation at all?
No. The defensive player surrounded by a red circle in the second screenshot had touched the ball before the attacker could receive it. The ball being touched by a defender during a pass does however not necessarily mean that offside is impossible. Only if the defender makes a deliberate save (commonly interpreted as blocking a shot on goal) or if the touch occurs unwittingly, i.e. if the ball reaches an attacker after a deflection from a defender, the offside rule is still effective. The attacker(s) receiving the ball from a deliberate save or deflection, while being closer to the goal-line than the second last defender, are to be deemed as punishable of "active" offside.
In the situation presented, this was however not the case. The assistant referees have to grasp the intention of the defender. The defender did not deflect the ball in this case. He actively moved towards the ball and carted out a foot in order to deliberately play the ball. This mere fact precludes offside, regardless whether the defender succeeds in clearing the ball by deliberately playing it or not. #9 and #14 could have been 10 metres closer to the goal-line than the second last defender, it would not have changed anything; due to the defender deliberately playing the ball, they would have been in a legal position.
At this point, it becomes obvious that the new offside rule really differs from the old rule, where the distinction between a deflection and a defender really playing the ball was not that much stressed. Turkish assistant referee Bahattin Duran got an onside position wrong, which is an acceptable and comprehensible mistake. The bigger area to think about and to worry about rather is that he furthermore failed to apply the new offside rule properly. Apparently, this rule requires more clarification at UEFA seminars and needs more internalization in the assistant referees' minds that were used to deem players as punishable of offside in different scenarios for quite a long time. In the concrete case, referee Cüneyt Çakır could have overruled his assistant referee by recognizing that the deliberate action of the defender excluded an offside flag. Thus, it is also a matter of teamwork to prepare better for such situations.

Renato Faverani perfectly interpreted the new rule © The Third Team

Please also check another situation where the new offside rule was perfectly applied by assistant referee Renato Faverani (maybe upon teamwork with Tagliavento) in the Champions League match between Schalke 04 and FC Basel (0:55 video minute):

In addition, there was an incident in the Italian Cup Round of 16 in Napoli, which can function as a paramount example of how the new offside rule works as well (the decision concerned the question of whether an attacker challenged an opponent for the ball or not):

What a "deliberate save" means

Certainly, when the altered offside amendments were visible and accessible to all referees in the new edition of the Laws of the Game, one could have thought that this had only been a small adaption without that much impact on future match situations. This conjecture was wrong.

World Cup 2010 (/2014?) assistant referee Mike Pickel of Germany (c) kicker.de

In the last weeks there were however already plenty of examples that all could have functioned as paramount examples to illustrate what was written down in the interpretations of Law 11. One of them should be highlighted and clarified now. It happened yesterday when Italy met Argentina in form of a FIFA friendly match. Please go to 2:34 in the following video!

It is visible that after the rebound from the Argentine goalkeeper a shot on goal is executed by an Italian player that would have reached the goal in a dangerous manner. After a deflection by Mascherano, that should be discussed later on and that is crucial for the correct assessment of this situation, Italian forward #7 received the ball and scored having been in a clear offside position at the point of time when the original shot on goal was executed. Now the question is to what extent Mascherano's deflection is relevant and how it has to be classified.

The Laws of the Game define that “gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball

I) that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position (not applicable for this situation)

II) that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."

What is a "deliberately playing the ball" and what does mean "deliberate save"?

According to FIFA and UEFA instructions:

Deliberately playing the ball requires a clearly deliberate act of a player making a clear movement towards the ball while the quality of this action is to be ignored by the referee.

A deliberate save can be compared to a goalkeeper's save. It is applicable for every player on the pitch though and means that a potential goal is prevented from being scored by this save.

Mascherano surely moved towards the ball to save it. This is however not enough to classify it as deliberately playing the ball. What Mascherano was aware of is that his goalkeeper had tried to make a save before the ball rebounded from the crossbar, meaning that the whole goal was empty and the ball, having moved towards it, would have very likely been a goal scored by Italy. That's why he had to face this ball with a deliberate save saving a goal from being scored. Italy's #7 gained a clear advantage by this deliberate save and was therefore correctly flagged by Wolfgang Stark's assistant referee Mike Pickel.

What's behind the amendments of Law 11

During the last weeks, the world's football governing body FIFA announced that the offside rule would be changing from 1st July 2013 targeting at the aim to simplify the definition of passive offside for the match officials, players and also supporters.

The press has widely managed to confuse football fans around the globe with wrong descriptions and analyses of those amendments, so that even UEFA referee committee member Herbert Fandel stated that "this medial hype was fully unnecessary". But how do these changes exactly look like? Those aspects which have been added or changed are written in bold letters.

Current version

New version effective from 1st July 2013

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: (…) ·         “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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent ·         “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: (…) ·         “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 ·         “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball I) that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position II) that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

Interpreting these amendments, one has to clarify that they are only changes "on the paper". In fact, nothing has really been altered, the definitions "interfering with an opponent" and "gaining an advantage by being in that position" have merely been specified. Following the old form of Law 11, the assistant referees had to assess whether an action by a defender who e.g. deflected the ball had been deliberate or not. This led to some confusion not only within the refereeing team. FIFA has now differed between "deliberate saves" by a defender (offside) and defenders who "deliberately play" the ball (e.g. a return pass, no offside here). Furthermore, FIFA's goal surely was to clarify what is meant by a deflection or rebound.

The following two videos can additionally function as explanations for the amendments I and II of the definition "gaining an advantage by being in that position".

In this UEFA Champions League match between Schalke 04 and Arsenal FC, Arsenal forward Olivier Giroud received a long pass by one of his team-mates which was "deflected" by Schalke defender Joel Matip having been in an offside position when the ball was played. Italian assistant referee Renato Faverani did not raise his flag though. Taking into account the new rule, it becomes clearer why. First it must be clear that Matip did not unintentionally deflect the ball by his header. He clearly went towards the ball with intention and thus deliberately played the ball: 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.' Additionally, Giroud did not press Matip, he did not challenge him. Assistant referees do not have to care about the question of whether Matip's action was successful or not, the intent to do so was deliberately made and this is what it is all about.
For this reason, it is no offside offense.

Same goes for the next example taken from 2010 World Cup 1/8 final match between Germany and England, where Uruguayan Mauricio Espinosa took a correct offside decision, as Rooney gained an advantage by being in that offside position despite a deflection of a defender. A totally correct decision under the old rule and but a wrong one taking into account the new instructions.

Rooney did not make pressure on the German defender and hence did not challenge him. The touch the German defender made with the ball was intentional, he therefore deliberately played the ball. Offside in 2010, no offside starting from 1st July.

A quite current and for sure the easiest example for what is meant by a rebound occurred at this month's Confederations Cup in the match between Italy and Brazil.

Assistant referee Bakhadyr Kochkarov unfortunately missed this offside position. Dante, having been in an offside position, got the ball from a deliberate save and a rebound off the goalkeeper. Thus, his passive offside position became clearly active.

Now an example for what is meant by "challenging a player". Jan-Hendrik Salver correctly raised his flag for offside in the World Cup 2010 match between Slovenia and England.

Slovenia's player #11, having been in an offside position (the deflection at the English wall is to be considered as undeliberate), challenged the English goalkeeper so that it became an active offside offence due to interfering with an opponent.

FIFA moreover attached several exemplary videos at their amendments of the Laws of the Game that can be found on José García Aranda's website.

All the videos posted here are only for educational and not for commercial purpose.

IFAB puts offside and GLT on the agenda

The 127th Annual General Meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) will take place on Saturday 2 March under the chairmanship of The Scottish FA in Edinburgh, Scotland.

(c) Der Westen / WAZ

Amongst the items on the agenda, the IFAB will discuss a clarification to the interpretation of Law 11 – Offside, following proposals developed by FIFA’s Refereeing department and the IFAB technical sub-committee. The technical sub-committee is comprised of the respective Heads of Refereeing and/or technical experts of FIFA and the four British Associations.

IFAB has evaluated the current definition of the offside variant "interfering with an opponent" as too unprecise and not allowing a consistent interpretation. 

Concretely, the lawmakers propose the following change:

Current Definition		Proposed Definition
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: (…) - “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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent - “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position		In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: (…) - “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. - “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball (i) that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position (ii) that rebounds, deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position. A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

  

Other topics for discussion include the usage of electronic performance monitoring systems; the Dropped Ball (Law 8 – Start and Restart of Play) following a submission by the Danish FA; as well as an update report on Goal-Line Technology following the implementation of two systems at the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan in December 2012. The IFAB will also discuss its future consultation and decision-making processes, as well as its future structure.