During
the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Annual General
Meeting in Edinburgh on March 2, 2013, IFAB considered a number of
proposals to amend the Laws of the Game. Among the proposals
considered were changes to Law 11 – Offside that were submitted for
IFAB’s consideration by FIFA. In particular, FIFA wanted to
discuss how to clarify and eliminate confusion “regarding what is meant
by rebound, deflection and when the ball has been deliberately
saved.” In the opinion of FIFA, the wording of Law 11 was not
precise enough and left “too much room for interpretation.”
Ultimately,
in its Circular No. 1362, IFAB announced that it approved the various
instructions, directives and amendments to the Laws of the Game,
including those related to Law 11 – Offside. These
changes became effective July 1, 2013.
Importantly,
however, the new directives did not actually change the wording of Law
11 – Offside. Under the old and the new Law 11, “a player in an
offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or
is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
- interfering with play or
- interfering with an opponent or
- gaining an advantage by being in that position”
Rather,
IFAB effected changes to Law 11 by re-defining two crucial terms:
“interfering with an opponent” and “gaining an advantage by being in
that position.” For comparison, the old and the new Law 11 definitions
of the two terms are shown below:

During
the press conference with the media that was held after the new
amendments to the Laws of the Game were approved, IFAB stated that Law
11 was particularly technical and difficult for referees and agreed to
provide additional training material such as video clips in order to
provide for greater consistency and clarity as to how Law 11 should be
applied. We were able to obtain these instructional videos and
will refer to them below as we discuss the new amendments to Law 11.
I. INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT
Under
a new definition, “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. A quick comparison with the old definition reveals that IFAB decided to remove movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent from
this definition. While IFAB did not provide any additional
guidance why it decided to remove these phrases from the definition of
“interfering with an opponent”, we take this decision for what it
is; that is, as an instruction to referees to no longer call offside
when players make movements or gestures that deceive or distract their
opponents.
Consequently,
as an example, if a player in an offside position looks to receive the
ball but then deliberately makes a dummy by letting it pass between his
legs in order to fool his opponent, and his teammate - who was not in an
offside position when the ball was kicked - receives it, no offside
offense was committed under current definitions and/or interpretations
of Law 11. Provided, however, that he is not clearly obstructing the
opponent’s line of vision nor challenging the opponent for the ball.
Under
IFAB’s current definition of “interfering with an opponent”, there are
two ways by which a player can be found to interfere with an
opponent. First, a player can interfere with an opponent by
clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision and thereby preventing
him/her from playing or being able to play the ball. Second, a
player can interfere with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the
ball and thereby preventing him/her from playing or being able to play
the ball.
Our
discussion will focus on the challenging of an opponent term. In
this regard, particularly instructive here is the Video No. 3
(below). Blue 16 is in an offside position and clearly is trying
to get to the ball. However, White 2 gets to the ball first by
sliding and unfortunately kicking it to his own goal. IFAB’s
explanation to the Video No. 3 states that because Blue 16 “does not
prevent the opponent (White 2) from playing or being able to play the
ball … he is not challenging an opponent (White 2) for the ball.”
Therefore, no offside offense was committed. In other words, even
though Blue 16 was in an offside position and he was actively pursuing
the ball, which incidentally might have compelled White 2 to go after
the ball, because Blue 16 was well behind White 2, he was not preventing
White 2 from playing or being able to play the ball. In short, he
was not challenging White 2 for the ball and therefore no offside
offense was committed.

Under the old definitions of Law 11, Blue 16 could have been reasonably considered by the referee as making “movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent”
and be penalized for being in an offside position. After all,
what caused White No. 2 to make the difficult sliding tackle were the
movements (i.e. running) of Blue 16 that “distracted” him from making a
safer play. In other words, the old Law 11 left open to referee’s
interpretation whether an offside offense was committed. Under the new
definition of “interfering with an opponent,” and based on the example
in Video No. 3, such movements or gestures, without more, can no longer
result in a player being penalized for being in an offside position.
We believe that Law 11 requires either physical interference or
very close proximity to the player being challenged.
By
contrast, IFAB explained that in the Videos no 1. and 2 (see below),
because players in offside positions were running toward the ball
preventing their opponents from playing or being able to play the ball,
they had to be penalized for being in offside positions. As you
watch the two videos, please note that the two attacking players appear
either to actually make contact with their opponent (Video 2, White 7)
or nearly doing so (Video 1, GK). Under IFAB’s interpretations of
“interfering with an opponent”, the conduct of the two players
constituted “challenging an opponent for the ball.” Accordingly,
the two players in the Videos No. 1 and 2 were properly penalized for
being in offside positions.


II. GAINING AN ADVANTAGE
The
definition of “gaining an advantage” has seen the most of the
changes. The “gaining advantage” clause was divided into two
sections. Under both sections, a player in an offside
position is considered as “gaining an advantage” when the ball
“rebounds” and/or “deflects” to him. In the context of Law 11, we
believe that the terms “rebound” and “deflection” mean that the either a
player’s contact with the ball is accidental, instinctive or the ball
and its trajectory, is not controlled by the player. Thus, any
miskicked or uncontrollably misdirected ball should also be considered
as deflected. Particularly instructive here is the Video No. 7
(below).

As
explained by FIFA, “the shot by a teammate (blue 18) is deflected by an
opponent (red/white 35) to attacker (blue 7) who is penalized for
touching or playing the ball having previously been in an offside
position.” The video shows that even though Red/White 35 is
attempting to clear the ball, he horribly miskicks/misdirects it to an
opponent Blue 7 behind him. In other words, Red/White 35’s contact
with the ball was not controlled. Under Law 11, such
miskicked/misdirected or uncontrolled contact with the ball is to
be considered a deflection and any player in an offside position
receiving the ball under such circumstances must be penalized for being
in an offside position.
Contrast the situation in the Video No. 7 (above) to the one presented in the Video No. 8 (below).

FIFA’s
explanation for the Video No. 8 states that “White 20 in an offside
position receiving the ball from an opponent (blue/red 21), who
deliberately plays the ball, is not considered to have gained an
advantage” and therefore no offside offense was committed. The
difference between the Video No. 7 and the Video No. 8 is that Blue/Red
21 in the Video No. 8 deliberately plays the ball. He does not
miskick or uncontrollably misdirects it. Rather, he deliberately
and, in a controlled manner, directs the ball into the penalty area
where White 20 receives it. Under Law 11, when a player in an
offside position receives the ball from an opponent, who deliberately
plays the ball, he is not considered to have gained an advantage.
Therefore, White 20 was not penalized for being in an offside position.
Under the new definitions of Law 11, “gaining an advantage” by being in that position also means playing a ball that “is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.”
The
term “deliberate save” is a brand new term. We believe that it
implies that the played ball must have been goal-bound. Under most
common and acceptable statistical definitions, a “save” occurs only
when a goalkeeper -- or a player -- prevents the ball from going into
the goal. For example, NCAA awards a save to a goalkeeper:
“only
if shot otherwise would have gone into the goal. A goalkeeper can be
credited with a save without catching the ball. If the goalkeeper
blocks the ball or punches it wide or over the goal, that goalkeeper can
be credited with a save, provided the ball would have otherwise gone
into the goal. To receive a save, the play must be a shot on
goal.”
In fact, the Video No. 5 appears to confirm this understanding of the term “save.” (see video below).

In
that video, yellow 4 is in an offside position. As explained by
FIFA, “he is penalized for playing or touching the ball that is played
to him from a deliberate save by the goalkeeper having been in an
offside position when the ball was last touched or is played by a
teammate.” The goalkeeper’s save came after he parried away a shot
that would have otherwise gone into the goal. Therefore, if the
ball is not goal-bound, it cannot be saved. Any deliberate play of
the ball to an opponent in a “non-save” situation will not result in an
offside offense.
Remember,
however, that in non-save situations you must determine whether the
ball was “deflected” or “rebounded.” If it was, an offside offense
was committed.
Given
these new directives, we are flabbergasted by a recent guidance issued
by U.S. Soccer. In their instructional video commentary on the new
Laws of the Game, U.S. Soccer advised referees to continue
“implementing Law 11 not any differently than in the past” (see video
below).
While
it may be true that in most game situations, application of Law 11 will
not be any different than in the past, there will be scenarios where
referees, according to IFAB’s new directives, will be required to make
decisions different than those in the past (see the Video No. 3 and the
“dummy” example above).
For a related discussion on this topic, visit our Referee Forum