Is number 9 onside or offside?

[Closed Account]

995http://i26.tinypic.com/nn8cw6.jpg
Number 3 has just cleared the ball but is now off the pitch, is he still playing number 9 onside?

[stojkovic]

He is offside and the Number 3 gets a yellow card for leaving the pitch without permission.

[TheBoss]

Yep, He is offside.

The rule as far as I know is that if the attacking player is between or beyond the last 2 defenders when the ball is played forward, the player is offside.


No. 3 is not involved in the play as he is not on the pitch.

[OwlsFan]

Otherwise a guy being treated behind a goal for an injury would be playing forwards on. If a player is off the field, he doesn't count in the offside equation.

[noby]

What about the third West Brom goal yesterday? Surely he was offside from the original ball forward.

[osarusan]

On a tangent, but related to the "not involved with play when off the field" rule.

If a striker stands just behind the touchline, just six inches outside the field of play (for example, in the same position as blue team's no.3 in the above picture), and the ball is played to him, at which point he runs onto the field of play, and receives the ball........what's the rule?

If he was just inside the field of play, he'd be 30/40 yards offside................is he still offside?

[noby]

You can't return to the field without the ref's permission, and it has to be at the halfway line. So he's either 'officially' off the pitch, and can't just run back on, or is still considered to be on the field of play, and therefore offside.

[osarusan]

You can't return to the field without the ref's permission, and it has to be at the halfway line. So he's either 'officially' off the pitch, and can't just run back on, or is still considered to be on the field of play, and therefore offside.

Is that the actual rule? He would be considered on the field of play? Players run off the field of play all the time, and just run straight back on.

Imagine this situation........a corner is played into the box, and headed clear by a defender. An attacking player, in an attempt to get a head to the corner, has raced into the area, and his run takes him 5 yards beyond the touchline, up to the advertising hoardings. He turns around to re-enter the field of play. As he turns, the ball is lobbed back into the box, over the heads of everybody, as the defense is rushing out in an attempt to catch the attackers offside. When the ball is played, the player in question was off the field of play, but just about to run back on. The ball fortuitously goes in his direction, and he's in lots of space due to every player rushing out due to the offside trap. He gets it and puts in the net.

I'm sure it shouldn't be a goal, but what rule stops it from being a goal? The rule noby mentioned?

[noby]

I'm sure our resident referee will clear it up, but I would say that it would be disallowed for offside.

[Closed Account]

In the situation I described, I think that number 3 intends to come back on the pitch, therefore should be included in the field of play, therefore playing number 9 onside. If he claims the offside, I think he is cheating, yellow card, can't come back on pitch without the referees consent. So, to summize, its either onside or the full back gets a yellow card(free in?)

[TheBoss]

What about the third West Brom goal yesterday? Surely he was offside from the original ball forward.

The ball was played to Phillips in phase 1, phase 2 begun when the Bristol player headed it to Miller, he is onside.

[Marked Man]

Not sure about that. One of the conditions for being officially offside when you are in an offside position is if you are "gaining an advantage" by being in that position. So, if you're in the offside position at phase one, have you not gained an advantage (in phase 2) in virtue of being in the offside position originally?

[noby]

That was my thinking. A view that the panel of MOTD2 seemed to share.

[Armando]

The gist of this is that you cannot leave the field of play without the refs permission.

So, if a forward or defender goes beyond the byline during active play, for whatever reason, they are viewed as being bang on the byline and therefore in play.

In the OPs scenario the striker is definitely onside:)

[pineapple stu]

Is that the actual rule? He would be considered on the field of play? Players run off the field of play all the time, and just run straight back on.
Not sure about the actual wording of the rule, but as far as I know, if a player's momentum genuinely takes him off the pitch, then (a) he's not offside and (b) he can return immediately. There was a goal years back like this when Dion Dublin was off the pitch, came back on, snuck up behind Shay Given who had rolled the ball out to kick it, robbed the ball and scored. If he'd deliberately waited for Given to do that, then he would have been booked and a free out given.

It should be fairly easy to work out when a player is deliberately trying to gain an advantage by leaving the field of play.

A humorous aside - I remember a game in my Superleague reffing days when one team broke through with two players who were clearly offside, except that one opopsing player was wandering off to the goalline to be sick. Of course, he was still on the field of play, so I had to let play go on! In any event, the two managed to miss.

[TheBoss]

I remember Crespo's goal for Chelsea v Arsenal, I think he left the pitch and came back on and scored almost immediately.

[Réiteoir]

number 9 is offside

[Armando]

number 9 is offside

:confused: Explain please.

Just because you're username means referee in Irish does not give you the final word on this;)

p.s. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

[pineapple stu]

You noted that you can't leave the field of play without the ref's permission. This is wrong; you just can't come back on without permission. So Réiteóir's right.

The obvious corollary from this is that a player can play someone offside by stepping off the pitch, but as this involves a player staying well behind the rest of the defence and thereby causing the problem in the first place, it's not something which is ever likely to be taken up as a tactic. I'd imagine it'd be a bookable offence to deliberately try catch someone offside like that too.

[Closed Account]

Here's the answer I got from Asktheref.com


Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Treat any defender as on the field (http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Search/Law/Field/) where he left it and allow play to continue. If the player is off through the normal course of play allow play to continue. If the player is off to upset the offside equation allow play to continue and at the next stoppage book him for unsporting behaviour.

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

The defender still keeps the line where his body is relative to the goalline. The act of leaving the field (http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Search/Law/Field/) does not act to "remove" that individual from consideration in the offside equation.

Regards,My understanding of this is that the player is onside.

[Réiteoir]

You noted that you can't leave the field of play without the ref's permission. This is wrong; you just can't come back on without permission. So Réiteóir's right.

The obvious corollary from this is that a player can play someone offside by stepping off the pitch, but as this involves a player staying well behind the rest of the defence and thereby causing the problem in the first place, it's not something which is ever likely to be taken up as a tactic. I'd imagine it'd be a bookable offence to deliberately try catch someone offside like that too.

it's classed as unsporting behaviour - and would be a caution.

I've just asked this question to an English FA National Referees Instructor - his answer should seal the deal once and for all (nothing against the two American lads who have offered their advice in the earlier posting - but their grades are equal to refereeing on the DDSL)

[stojkovic]

He is offside and the Number 3 gets a yellow card for leaving the pitch without permission.

Lads I said this from the start. No debate needed.

OFFSIDE AND A YELLOW CARD FOR NUMBER 3.

How can you listen to a Septic Ref called Chuck.

[pineapple stu]

The original post never said whether the player left the pitch voluntarily or merely, say, fell over the line while clearing the ball off balance.

[Closed Account]

The original post never said whether the player left the pitch voluntarily or merely, say, fell over the line while clearing the ball off balance.
To clarify, I am strictly speaking of a scenario where momentum took the defender off the pitch and his intention is to rejoin the field of play as soon as he is able.

[Closed Account]

How can you listen to a Septic Ref called Chuck.
I'm assuming you've done more research than was needed, but I'd like to know where you got the Septic bit from?

[Réiteoir]

I'm assuming you've done more research than was needed, but I'd like to know where you got the Septic bit from?

Rhyming slang

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank

[Réiteoir]

I have had an answer back from the English FA Referees Instructor I referenced earlier.

His answer to the question is short, and to the point:


The Red 9 is most definitely offside.

[girlinblack]

Reitoir, i don't think you're quoting the full answer...

Here it is:

"The Red 9 is most definitely offside.

If we started allowing defenders to step beyond the goal line to make attacking players offside, it would open the floodgates for players to do this all of the time!



Regards, Julian"

I think he meant to say Red 9 is onside, judging by his next sentence. Would you not agree, given this passage from LOTG 07/08: Additional instructions & guidelines to referees, Law 11 Offside (page 102):
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place

an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to
continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the fi eld
of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of
play."
Also from Law 3, the number of players:
"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the fi eld

of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going
off the fi eld of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement."
In other words, if momentum takes a player off the FOP, we are to treat him (or her) as though they are still on the field (no cautions etc.)?

Interesting discussion on it anyway!

[Réiteoir]

yeah - i didn't want to post the second bit due to it being a bit confusing.

Anyway - it's all been cleared up now - interesting discussion all the same

[Closed Account]

http://i25.tinypic.com/2rc1pno.jpg
Alright boys, Bendtner was flagged offside on this one? Any thoughts? I think play should of been allowed continue.

[DmanDmythDledge]

If you want to be very technical he is onside because Carragher's hand is on the pitch.

[TheBoss]

He has to be onside, as Dman states, Carragher is on the field of play.

[Closed Account]

He has to be onside, as Dman states, Carragher is on the field of play.

If you want to be very technical he is onside because Carragher's hand is on the pitch.
Correct

[noby]

I'm trying to remember, but didn't Carragher tackle someone, Adebayor possibly, and he also ended up off the pitch, just out of shot, so technically he was offside.

Not that it matters, as Bentdner still managed to screw it up anyway.

[inexile]

noby your spot on, carragher went off the field of play trying to block a cross therefore he is not deemed involved in the action, to be fair i thought it was an excellant piece of work by the linesman, when you factor into account everything.

what about george hamilton commentating, only for liam brady correcting him george would have been giving out saying bendtner was onside.

[Closed Account]

Van Nistelrooy was onside tonight? I think that proves me correct?
Definately onside

[Réiteoir]

Van Nistelrooy - definitely onside tonight:

A player leaving the field of play because of momentum during play, is not deemed to have left without the Referee's permission and can therefore re-enter without the Referee's permission. In this instance, although the defender is off the field of play, (and until he returns to the field of play), he should be deemed to be standing on the goal-line (in the field of play) when considering offside. The Assistant Referee should stand in line with the last opponent on the field of play (which in this case will probably be the defending goalkeeper). When deciding offside in this scenario, the two last defending opponents are the defender who has travelled off the field of play, and the defending player who is nearest to the goal line on the field of play (which in all probability will be the goalkeeper).

If an uninjured defender purposefully remains off the field in an attempt to place an attacker in an offside position, then that defender should also be deemed to be standing on the goal-line (on the field of play) when considering offside. Trickery of this nature circumvents the spirit of the offside Law

[crc]

Van Nistelrooy 100% onside. otherwise any defender could just step off the pitch whenever he wanted to.

[sullanefc]

Van Nistelrooy 100% onside. otherwise any defender could just step off the pitch whenever he wanted to.

Agreed, and I don't think there was much wrong with Panucci either. Good goal.

For the record, I don't think Bendtner should have been flagged offside in the pic above either.

[stojkovic]

Van Nistelrooy 100% onside. otherwise any defender could just step off the pitch whenever he wanted to.
Panucci didnt 'step off the pitch', he was INVOLUNTARILY bundled off the pitch by his own keeper. The ball did not fall to van Nistelrooy straight away, it went out and came back in, which gave van Nistelrooy plenty of time to get back on-side. It was OFFSIDE.

The off-side rule now is so vague and confusing that it allows referees interpret it however they like and to twist it around to suit any situation to prove they made a correct decision.

Ive asked numerous referees to explain THEIR interpretation of the off-side rule and every single one of them gives a different answer.

[pineapple stu]

The ball did not fall to van Nistelrooy straight away, it went out and came back in, which gave van Nistelrooy plenty of time to get back on-side.
By that logic, Panucci had plenty of time to get back on the pitch too.

[stojkovic]

By that logic, Panucci had plenty of time to get back on the pitch too.

He was lying on the ground after getting a smack from Buffon. Van Nistelrooy was on his feet.

OFFSIDE laws are a joke thats why we are all arguing over it.

It used to be straight forward.

As Giles once said "If you're not interferring with play, you shouldnt be on the pitch".

[pete]

Cannot believe the goal was allowed tonight. Its not as if Panucci deliberately look to gain an advantage by walking off the pitch. If it was given against Ireland everyone would be screaming at the TVs.

RTE tried to make a point by getting an anonymous LOI ref to agree with the match officials. :rolleyes:

Any one know if any of the TV stations showed archives of similar goals?

FIFA rules used to be very clear because there are so few few rules in football. Since they started to interpret the rules in different ways it has started to destroy football. :(

[Réiteoir]

Cannot believe the goal was allowed tonight. Its not as if Panucci deliberately look to gain an advantage by walking off the pitch. If it was given against Ireland everyone would be screaming at the TVs.

RTE tried to make a point by getting an anonymous LOI ref to agree with the match officials. :rolleyes:

Any one know if any of the TV stations showed archives of similar goals?

FIFA rules used to be very clear because there are so few few rules in football. Since they started to interpret the rules in different ways it has started to destroy football. :(

Pete - it's pretty clear in Law what can and cannot be allowed with regards to this - in fact it's the most clearest part of Law 11.

The USSF directives to their referees - taken from FIFA make it perfectly clear that the goal stands.


11.11 DEFENDER LEGALLY OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY
# A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (in the examples of correcting equipment or seeking treatment for a blood injury - and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.

or was that post just a veiled attempt for yet another dig at LoI Referees?

[pete]

Pete - it's pretty clear in Law what can and cannot be allowed with regards to this - in fact it's the most clearest part of Law 11.

The USSF directives to their referees - taken from FIFA make it perfectly clear that the goal stands.


I will bow to your superior knowledge but when was that brought in?



or was that post just a veiled attempt for yet another dig at LoI Referees?

You will find I rarely mention referees in my posts so I don't have many digs at them. Just suggesting that because RTE contacted a "former FIFA referee" does not how the person up as an expert. Sure even Buttimer is a FIFA referee & he sees jersey clashes everywhere.

[tetsujin1979]

So basically, unless a player is ordered off the pitch by a ref to receive attention for an injury, no matter where he is on the pitch, he is still deemed in play, thus playing Van Nistelrooy onside?

[theworm2345]

Andy Gray thinks offsides (and I don't think horseys should be allowed to play football anyway)
http://www.shareonall.com/Seattle_Slew_ogmq_avi.htm

[Réiteoir]

Tuesday 10 June 2008

UEFA supports Dutch goal decision

by Mark Chaplin from Basel

UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.

Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation.

The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."

Still involved
The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents.

As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "

Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable.

The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."

[noby]

Can someone forward that press release on to Clive Tyldsley and David Pleat?

[razor]

"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued."Their secret is out. :rolleyes: