OFFSIDE LAW: Post Seminar Sunday 17^th September 2006After my presentation on Sunday 17^th September, I thought I would send you this re-enforcement of what I said with some other facts as well, as I understand a number of Assistant Referees were unsure as to the validity of the interpretation of certain incidents I was portraying as good practice. It is most important you read and understand this thoroughly in the interests of consistency and interpreting Law 11 as the IFAB intends.

The International FA Board (IFAB), the body who formulate the Laws, have attempted to write the Offside Law in such a way that, together with its advice included for the first time last season 2005/06, will lead to fewer varying interpretations amongst officials: the Referees and Assistant Referees (Rs / ARs).

Football is all about goals being scored, with the skill of one team defeating its opponents. The attacking team must use its skill to attack, and the defending team must use its skill to defend. If the attacking team has beaten the defence, the officials should not help the defence to defend by disallowing a goal for offside, where that player who was in an offside position had nothing to do with the actual skill that beat the defence. So the term ‘active’ was introduced. Being in an offside position is not an offence: active or passive has to be judged.

Another consideration is the number of stoppages in the game caused by a player declared offside. How can these stoppages be minimised? The ‘offside player’ (OSP) has to be ignored in certain instances. Furthermore, the emphasis has to be on attacking play. Officials should favour the attacking team rather than the defence, as it has been in the past.

So the game needs fewer stoppages: fewer ‘flags’ for the OSP, with the AR delaying flagging, and with the emphasis on the skill of the attacking team beating the defence a prime consideration. The Laws and the IFAB’s advice have to be written so that the interpretations of the officials become narrower, namely, the OSP can only be penalised if he satisfies certain conditions. In the past, the wording of the Law led to a wide and varying interpretation of what was meant by ‘active’.

Last season, Law 11, International Board Decision 2, defined active play. Briefly, it requires officials to penalise the offside player if he: (1) plays or touches the ball; (2) interferes with an opponent; (3) gains an advantage. So a player who does not Play, Interfere or Gain (PIG) should not be declared offside.

In August 2005, ‘playing or touching the ball’ had to be clarified. There were occasions in the 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup (15^th-29^th June), when an Assistant Referee (AR) would wait for the OSP to play the ball. A player would chase the ball 30 yds before playing it, the AR would then flag, and the ball was then returned 30 yds for the free kick. The clarification said that the player “may be penalised before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.” So if a team-mate in an onside position ran through to beat the defence, he can play the ball before the OSP, with the OSP not penalised because of his position. The OSP is not considered active: he did not play the ball. Of course, the defenders will put their arms up in the air and appeal for offside. They have been beaten by the run of the onside player. Their appeals have to be ignored. The R/AR must not help them defend.

Also, the IFAB clarified a case for interfering with an opponent by saying that the offside attacker would be penalised “if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact.” Obviously, if a defender is challenged by the offside attacker, and there is physical contact, then the attacker is penalised. But what does “potential for physical contact” mean? This would be when there is no actual physical contact but the defender was impaired in his playing / clearing the ball. There is no stipulation on how far away would “potential” be a consideration. However, officials should not be too negative in their interpretation. Be positive.

Another aspect of interfering relates to “clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision” which has prevented a goalkeeper, in particular, from being able to play the ball. The R/AR are often not in a position to judge “clearly obstructing”. They would have to be in line with the ball, its flight, and the goalkeeper to give an accurate decision. The AR is, more often than not, at 90 degrees to the flight, and the referee is rarely behind the ball to judge. The AR would not be wrong in flagging to indicate a player in an offside position. If an OSP is close to and in front of the goalkeeper, then the referee might consider the interference. ‘Close to’ is a major consideration in his judgement: the further away the OSP is, the wider becomes the angle for the goalkeeper to see the ball. A referee who penalises the OSP in this instance will be thanked by the goalkeeper. The referee is only being honest and feels that the player has distracted (i.e. interfered with) the goalkeeper. Once again, officials should not be too negative in their interpretation as highlighted in the clip in question in my presentation BURY v CHESTER CITY when the attacker appears to be in the goalkeepers line of vision, the goal is allowed to stand and there is absolutely no reaction from the players including the keeper himself. So why then should we disallow a goal that everyone has accepted when FIFA are promoting goals and attacking play with the emphasis being on the benefit of the doubt to the attack. Be positive.

Then there’s gaining. This is clear cut. An OSP can only be penalised for gaining an advantage if he plays or touches the ball that has rebounded to him from a goal post, a crossbar, or an opponent (often the goalkeeper). So this means, an OSP can only be penalised for ‘gaining’ if he plays the ball from a rebound. Nothing else can be categorised as ‘gaining’.

The IFAB have now made it easier for the officials to operate and interpret offside. The AR will always be looking to see if there is a player in an offside position. If yes, then he will first of all ‘Wait And See’ if the player has played or touched the ball. If he has not, then consider: has the player interfered? Has the defender been put off by his attempt to play the ball by “potential for physical contact”? If a defender has played the ball without any ‘near contact’ from an OSP that might have put him off a clearance, then don’t flag. Interfering with line of vision is a minor consideration. It is very difficult to ask the officials to judge “clearly obstructing”. Then finally, did he gain an advantage from a rebound? If the three answers to PIG are all ‘no’, then don’t flag. If the answer to one of the three is ‘yes’, then flag. If the AR does flag, then the referee will decide whether to blow or not. He should read the game. He should not totally rely on his AR and immediately blow his whistle. Sometimes an AR will have inadvertently flagged and if the referee can keep the game flowing, then ‘play on’.

With ‘gaining’, the AR should take a ‘freeze frame’ in his mind when there is, for example, a long shot for goal, so that when an attacker plays the ball from a rebound, the AR can refer to the ‘freeze frame’ and decide whether to flag or not.

Offside has always been in the Laws. It was intended to cut out the goal-hangers. It was called ‘sneaking’. An attacker is not sneaking when the defence moves out, maybe rapidly, to catch him in an offside position. The defence is hoping the AR will defend for them and flag. But being in an offside position is not an offence, and the elements of PIG now favour the attacking team. The ‘advancing defence’ is a dangerous tactic to use. The AR will no longer defend for the defence.

Think about it. Fans, media, everyone would like to see more goals being scored. The R/ARs have been asked not to be negative in their decisions, especially with offside. The IFAB have offered sound advice on when offside should be penalised and so, in turn, when to keep the game flowing

The IFAB have laid down its advice on when a player is considered to be involved in active play. It’s common sense, really. Don’t flag unnecessarily. Keep the game moving.

Here’s an example on how far the officials on the Premier League progressed last season. On Sunday, 16^th April, 2006, BLACKBURN ROVERS v LIVERPOOL refereed by Alan Wiley, the only goal was scored by Robbie Fowler in the 29^th minute.

Djibril Cisse was in an offside position, but being in an offside position is not an offence. Robbie Fowler skilfully chested the ball down from a long throw in into the path of Fernando Morientes. The ball went past Cisse who had raised a leg to play the ball but realised that, if he had played the ball he would have been penalised for being involved in active play. Defenders were beaten by the Liverpool attack. They immediately put their hands up, appealing to the AR Barry Sygmuta. It was a “Please help us out”, but Barry did not flag. If he had, Alan would have possibly played on as he was in a good position to see that Cisse had not actually played the ball. The ball was crossed by Morientes back to Fowler to score.

Now how did the media deal with the ‘no flag’ from Barry Sygmuta and the supported decision from referee Alan Wiley? They considered, amongst other irrelevant factors, the raising of Cisse’s leg to be active – wrong, by definition. Look at the three elements of PIG, namely, did Cisse play the ball (no), interfere with an opponent (no), or gain an advantage (certainly not)? Cisse’s offside position was ignored by the officials. They did not defend for the defence. The ‘no flag’ produced a goal. That’s what the IFAB want to see.

After showing this incident at conference and providing everyone with the definitive answer I am surprised given that two incidents in my presentation are similar and meet exactly the same criteria are being questioned. The two incidents being HARTLEPOOL UNITED v SWINDON TOWN where Christian Roberts is on the goal line and “ducks” to allow the ball to go over him and STOKE CITY v BIRMINGHAM CITY where the player in the O/S position attempts to play the ball. If you think PIG, did the player play the ball ? NO, did he interfere with an opponent ? If you take a look at the clips there is no evidence of this so NO, does he (personally) gain an advantage ? NO then they are NOT offside. THINK PIG !

Prior to showing offside decisions if I feel they are likely to be questioned I always clarify them with FIFA or UEFA so it is not mine or the PGMO’s interpretation it is fact it is law !

Please do not get stuck in a time warp, gone are the days where we would “prefer to see a dodgy offside than a dodgy goal” Why do you want goals disallowed ? THINK POSITIVE and reject the NEGATIVE.

Sorry to go on so long but it’s very important that you get the message.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me I am happy to take your calls. If you are still not fully clear on Law 11 it is vital you seek clarification.

Enjoy the rest of the Season

Kind Regards

Paul Rejer

PGMOL Select Group Assistant Referees’ Coach

Monday 18^th September 2006