This is a bit of a tongue in cheek post. But it harps back to the misconceptions that people have. These last couple of weeks I have been doing a bunch of tournaments. A lot of games for sure (in cold and ugly weather as well). But taking it all in stride. I don't think that I have ever had such a busy end of February and start of March. In it, there were 2 things of the many that seemed to stick.
The first one was that a pass that does not go forward means that the receiving end of the pass cannot be offside. So in essence if player A and B are on the same team and A is in front of B, with B controlling the ball and A is in an offside position, if the pass from B to A does not go "forward" then A is not offside even if he comes from an offside position.
So I got that in a high level U17 match. Player passes the ball in what some of us call negative (that is the ball is played sideways, but slightly backward, almost like a lateral in the NFL. Player A comes from a clear offside position and collects the ball. My AR raises his flag and I blow my whistle. The team that was called for the offside insists that since the pass did not go forward but rather slightly backward, that is it not offside. Sorry I said, I would check it later but as far as I knew at the moment, it is offside.
Perhaps I am wrong and the ball indeed has to go forward but I find that hard on the AR since many times, they don't see exactly how the ball gets to the attacker in an offside position, they just see that they were in an offside position, a pass was made and the offside player is the first to make contact with the pass. So I will have to look it up, but I think I am right on that one.
The second was also related to offside but pertained to a deflection by the offense. This one happened to me as an AR in a high school match. The defense had the ball and was going to clear it. I am AR on that side and as the defense clears the ball, an attacker steps in front of the clearance. The ball deflects off of the attacker to another attacker who was making his way back and was in an offside position. He makes contact with the ball and turns to the goal for a one-on-one. I raise my flag and the coach on my side goes ballistic.
"He is on because it was a deflection."
I explained that the defense gets to use that argument (deflection vs intentionally played) but the offense does not get that same treatment (or should it?). It was evident that the player that was hit by the ball was not intentionally trying to play it to the attacker, it just happened. But the attacker, at the time his teammate was hit with the ball, was in an offside position. Therefore, my understanding, is that he is offside. Again, if I am wrong, I want to hear about it in the comments.
Finally, a really funny one. Team Red is down 2-1 and attacking. Coach of the losing team is on my side, I am AR1. They are attacking towards me and the attacker gets by a clumsy challenge by the white defender. In the process of defending, the white player loses his shinguard. He gets up and steals the ball from the attacker (while his shinguard is on the ground).
Coach immediately loses it and states that a defender cannot play the ball because he lost his shinguard. That he is not allowed to touch the ball at all and that it should be a free kick for red. I told him that there was no such rule but he kept going on and on about him not being allowed to play the ball until the shinguard was back in its place. I would agree that if the play had stopped because the ball went out of bounds, I would probably hold up the restart if I saw the white defender with the shinguard in his hands, but during the run of play, play on.
All I am going to say is that you learn something new every day. Or at least, you are challenged to the point where you have to think about it. Let me know what you think with you comments and hopefully we start getting some warmer weather.
