Date:Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:24:13 -0400
Reply-To:Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees <[log in to unmask]>
From:William Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Organization:the Smith Family in Amesbury MA
Subject:Re: Deliberate handling and offside
Ken Loomis wrote:
> Tom S. points out an potential contradiction in the offside law when he
> describes a deliberate handling to prevent an OGSO that subsequently goes
> to an offside player.
> There is no contradiction. Generally, if a defender controls a ball passed
> to an offside player there is no offside. The defender's control of the
> ball initiates a new phase of play in which the offside position needs to
> be recalibrated.
> In the case where a field player deliberately handles the ball which
> subsequently goes to an offside player, it is correct to assume that,
> although the defender played the ball deliberately, he did not control it.
> No defender would catch the ball and toss it over to an opponent nearer to
> the goal than himself. If he does, signal advantage and let the attacker
> get the ball.
> However, when a field player deliberately handles the ball to prevent a
> goal scoring opportunity, he has controlled the ball because preventing the
> goal is more advantageous to him than passing to an offside
> player. Therefore the prevention of an OGSO trumps the deflection to an
> offside player. You might give advantage if the offside attacker knocks
> the ball in the net, but you would otherwise give a PK and an ejection.
> The decision to award a PK and an ejection is intuitively correct. The
> above explains why.
> Ken Loomis
> The problem is that "gaining an advantage" is achieved "at the moment the
> ball is touched or played by a teammate", not a few moments later, in spite
> of our being instructed to wait to see if an advantage materializes. That
> is why the offside is called rather than the handling. I like to think of
> it as sort of an Einstein-ion Theory of Relatively thing. Something
> happens before it actually does.
> The laws recognize that a deflection off of the keeper presents a
> difficulty to the basic idea and provide an interpretation. This was then
> expanded to include a deflection off a field player. This artificial
> tearing apart of "the moment" from "the gaining advantage" to accommodate a
> special circumstance should not be carried so far as to
Bill smith here:
In my opinion, the decision to award a PK and an ejection is intuitively
correct, emotionally satisfying, and wrong. Although we are advised to
wait a few seconds to be sure that the call is correct, the offense
happens at the time that the proverbial teammate touches or plays the
ball. Since that is before the defender handled the ball, the offside
call takes precedence. The handling occurs when the ball is "logically
dead" even though before the whistle. No OGSO; possible caution to
handler; IFK going out.
Historically, until the mid-70s the offside infraction was deemed to
occur when the ball got to an offside player, and would be canceled if
the ball deflected off a defender before it got there. This was known as
the defender "playing him onside." They changed the rules; when I took
the entry-level USSF ref class in 1990, we were told to whistle
immediately if someone passed toward an offside teammate. Several
changes have been made since then.