Arbitrator with new and specific instructions on offside arbitration

The interpretation of the offside law is new. While the International Board (IFAB), which regulates the rules of football, is not issuing the new book of the Laws of the Game, which will come into force in the 2021/22 season, the national associations and UEFA have instructed the referees to grant a patent end injustice in current law 11.

In response to the PUBLIC, the Arbitration Council (CA) of the Portuguese Football Association has made clear in writing what current indications are in Portugal and UEFA to attack players who benefit from the offside position in order to steal the ball from a defender who played it on purpose Has. A situation that in certain cases now consists in punishing the offside position with an indirect free kick.

What does Law 11 say?

Currently, one of its exceptions to the Offside Act provides that “a player does not take advantage of the offside position if he receives the ball from an opponent who intentionally played it”.

“Exchanged for children” means that the move is legal if a defender touches the ball and is then “stolen” by an attacker. Basically, according to the legal letter, the deliberate touch of the defender makes any offside position of an attacker invalid. But the spirit of the rule isn’t exactly that.

What is the problem?

In January, a Manchester City-Aston mansion sparked discussion of this rule. Rodri, a citizen player, was in an offside position and shortly after Tyrone Mings took the ball, the Spaniard stole it. The move continued and resulted in a goal by Bernardo Silva.

Aston Villa’s Mings said he didn’t even know it was possible the move wasn’t offside, but in light of Law 11, referee Jonathan Moss correctly confirmed the Portuguese midfielder’s goal.

See the move from the second 43.

What was asked of the referees?

In England, referees were instructed to penalize this type of offside move and should take into account that the offending player in an irregular position violated one of the assumptions of Law 11: “Clearly try to play the ball that is in the Proximity is when this action affects an opponent or performs an obvious action that clearly affects the opponent’s ability to play the ball. “

In Portugal, the CA first explains to the PUBLIC that in these cases “we need to analyze the time and distance between players”.

“If the attacker is close at the moment the defender plays the ball (distance at which he can contest the ball) or runs and contests the ball in a split second, this action must be punished bounds. -game “, adds the arbitration body.

According to the CA, of course, this procedure does not apply in cases where the defender “has time to play the ball without pressure (e.g. two touches of the ball) or the defender is unhappy in the approach and thus has the ball at the attacker’s disposal without the attacker doing anything for it ”.

Why this ad?

With this advice, the CA wants to prevent the attacking team “from developing unfair tactics in which the players alienate themselves from the ball before the defender plays it in order to put pressure on it immediately”.

Basically, it should be prevented that the attackers gain an unfair advantage from the offside position and can exert pressure on a defender, who in these cases would have to solve a dilemma in a split second: himself from the ball to be alienated and “force” the assistant referee signals the offside position offside or dominates the ball and runs the risk of being pressurized shortly thereafter.

The instruction is intended to prevent the defender from experiencing this dilemma and ultimately having to analyze an offside situation himself – and that’s not what he is there for.

How was the decision seen?

Abroad, the decision was accepted worldwide as logical and positive for football. Liverpool coach Jurgen Klopp even said he had already asked how it was possible “that no one has thought about this kind of rule”.

“All football – from whoever scores the goal – agrees. I’m very glad they finally changed this because it didn’t make any sense. “

On the other hand, the Portuguese José Mourinho has mixed feelings. He believes the rule is right now, but he is not happy with the way the process was carried out. “I am not happy. I don’t think it’s fair to change the rule during the season, ”he explained.

It is certain that this kind of movement is like that in Man. City-Aston Villa has taken place, for the time being will be fined for offside. At least until the IFAB brings the laws for 2021/22 in motion.

Back to top button