October 5, 2014

Video Training: Offside 1 - Solution

The following match situation is taken from Dinamo Minsk - ACF Fiorentina and belongs to the category Offside. You are warmly encouraged to participate in discussion by answering the poll or placing a comment.

Posts which you might find helpful:

Challenging an opponent for the ball
Interfering with play 

Our solution:

A white-dressed attacking player is in an offside position in the centre of the penalty area. A pass is played to, but not touched by him. Another attacking player, #72, who has not been in an offside position at the moment of the pass, receives the ball and scores a goal.
Even though the attacking player does not touch the ball, he tries to reach it by sliding towards the ball. Therefore, he is guilty of offside offence by challenging the goalkeeper for the ball. Based on UEFA's instructions, he should be deemed to have an impact on the goalkeeper's ability to save the ball being in playing distance and very close to the ball.

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that UEFA has reminded their referees on the following:

Referees and assistant referees should be aware that interfering with play means not only playing or touching the ball but also can include attempting to play the ball. An attacker, who clearly attempts to play the ball, must be deemed to be interfering with play.
For all our readers, who do not belong to national associations in UEFA's area, we rather recommend not to raise the flag for offside in such a case as UEFA's guidelines are partly contradicting or even violating FIFA's Law 11. Our solution depends on UEFA's guidelines.

In our poll, 57 % (249 out of 439 voters) agreed with OFFSIDE OFFENCE.


  1. Anonymous5/10/14 17:43

    Player in the offside position attempted to play the ball,therefore impacted the GK to play the ball.Playing distance is less important in the situation.

    1. Anonymous9/10/14 11:20

      no challenge. no offside

  2. Anonymous5/10/14 17:59

    Offside, goalkeeper was influenced

  3. Anonymous5/10/14 19:34

    This is offside. Me is told that fifa has add a new line into the offside text: "when a player in offside position makes an action that influence the play of the opponent then the referee must give offside". So in this case the action of the attacker in offside position (sliding to the ball) influence the reaction of the goal keeper: offside.

  4. By attempting to play the ball, the attacker (who was at distance of play) interfered with play. Therefore, he should be ruled offside.

    @Anonymous (all 3)
    The influence on the goalkeeper is irrelevant. In 2012, it would have been the decisive factor. The current text stipulates that a player "interferes with an opponent" when:
    1) He challenges an opponent for the ball (not the case here)
    2) He prevents an opponent from playing the ball (not the case here)
    3) He blocks the opponent's line of sight (which is not the case here).
    The only applicable situation for consideration here is whether the forward "interferes with play", for which the position and actions of opponents are not considered at all.

  5. Gianluca Rocchi had an extremely challenging match in Juventus-Roma this evening. Here six remarkable situations:


    1) 09:55 Penalty appeal by Juventus (replay a few secs later)
    2) 25:00 Free kick for Juventus, Rocchi then whistles a deliberate handball by Maicon in the wall. At first, his decision is free kick. Then, he changes his mind after a suggestion (very likely by AR1 Faverani). Correct decision to evaluate the touch as punishable? Just as remark, later it was proved by Italian TV that the touch happened outside arera for a few centimetres, so the correct decision in case of deliberate action was free kick. Anyway, one can't question about that, too difficult.
    3) 30:00 Penalty whistled in favor of Roma, for a holding by Lichtsteiner on Totti. Correct decision? The holding seems mutual but at the end the referee punishes the defender because he sees Totti falling down, IMHO.
    4) 45'+1:10 (added time of first half): Penalty whistled in favor of Juventus. Here, no doubts on the foul, the contact seems to happen exactly on the line, so a very good decision.
    5) 85:15 Bonucci scored the 3-2. Correct decision to convalidate the goal by Stefani? There was a player in offside, in front of keeper. You can watch the replay. Anyway, the keeper seemed not obstructed in his view because he tried to make a save and he did not protest. I would back the assistant here.
    6) 87:20 riot after a reaction, two straight red cards are issued (Morata and Manolas).

    Overall, I never saw a so challenging match for the difficulty of the game and the behavior of the players. The referee was most of the time in trouble but not for his faults, in my opinion. One can discuss about the situations, there were also other minor controversies, like complaints for YCs but overall I think that the job was extremely difficult.

  6. Anonymous6/10/14 11:47

    Emil, you are right with the three points like challenging, preventing and blocking. If it would have been one of these three then it's clear offside. But you also say that "by attempting to play the ball (who was at distance of play) interfered with play" makes him offside - and this is wrong. Attempting to play is not written anymore in rule 11. Only that the player must play or touch the ball. So according to the rule 11 it's no offside because he didn't play or touch the ball. And interfering in play is only when he attacks his opponent for the ball within close distance (approximately 1.5 meter). So therefore this goal should be allowed. At the start of this season fifa put a new explanation to the offside rule: "making an action that influence the opponent should be penalised for offside". So with this explanation now you can give offside because the goal keeper was slightly distracted by the sliding of the attacker.

    1. If you follow the link provided in the post to this blog's other pages on the subject, as well as the explanations provided by law-11.com, you will see that "attempting to play the ball" (within playing distance) is deemed equivalent to interfering with play and/or with an opponent. UEFA's latest RAP supports this interpretation.

    2. The problem is that UEFA actually violates the Laws of the Game by this interpretation. But yes, CLEARLY attempting to play the ball should be deemed as interfering with play according to the R.A.P. and practical information for match officials.

    3. The problem is that UEFA justifies it as "challenging an opponent for the ball." Given that "playing the ball" is not defined, they should extend the definition of "playing" the ball to encompass "attempting to play the ball", not under interfering with an opponent.

    4. Anonymous9/10/14 11:45

      "Challengeing an opponent": in this case the gk doesn't challenge anybody. No offside for this reason. IMHO

  7. Good no offside call:

  8. At first I was thinking "How can that be a goal?", and then I saw the player behind the goalline. Brilliant!

  9. Sorry guys, where can we find UEFA's guidelines? Thank you...

    1. They are written down in UEFA's practical information for match officials. Please...:

      Furthermore, if you followed the blog over the last weeks, you probably know that law-11.com as well as the posts accessible via the AR Education menu in this blog have made UEFA's guidelines public.

    2. Thank you so much Niclas. Now I found them! Greetings!


    "UEFA has reminded their referees on the following:

    Referees and assistant referees should be aware that interfering with play means not only playing or touching the ball but also can include attempting to play the ball. An attacker, who clearly attempts to play the ball, must be deemed to be interfering with play."

    1. Do you seriously think that I can upload an internal UEFA document without infringing copyright? Check the screenshot above....
      Capital letters are not necessary by the way.

    2. I never said that you have to upload any document.

      My question was, if you had a link for that statement?

      Maybe the capitol letters got you confused...


Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger