Offside or not

Attacking player one on the right side of the field takes a shot that forces the keeper to dive and tips the ball to attacking player two on the left side of the field who was clearly offside before the play begins. Attacking player 2 gets control of the ball shoots and scores. The goal was allowed but should it have been offside?

I've heard many say(mostly parents) once a defender touches the ball offside is waved but have also heard that an attacking player cannot play of ball off a defender intentional or not to another attacking player who is in an offside position. The keeper in this case never controlled the ball, just simply blocked the first shot.

any thoughts(Refs)

no ref here, but based upon our discussion in the other thread ( Arlington ref offsides...) I say "no goal". Don't believe a diving save counts as a "parry" or controlled play by a defender...

GOALKEEPER POSSESSION YET AGAIN
December 12, 2006

Question:
This issue came up during recertification when talking about gaining an advantage by being in an offside position.How is parry defined as it applies to goalkeeper possession?

From Decision 2 in Law 12, it seems apparent that a parried ball by a goalkeeper constitutes possession. So if the ball was parried by a goalkeeper and next touched by a player who had been in an offside position when the shot was taken, it would seem that the player would not be offside.

The discussion then turned to what was a parry. Some thought a parry required that the ball be knocked to the ground while others thought that any deliberate (and controlled) touch of the ball by the keeper was a parry (as in fisting or punching a ball away from the goal).

Laws, ATR and Q&A were checked but no reference seems to exist. Can you provide guidance?

USSF answer (December 12, 2006):
See the definition of “possession” in Law 12, IFAB Decision 2:

“The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms. Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball, but does not include the circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper, for example after he has made a save.”

To “parry” the ball is to handle the ball deliberately, pushing it to a place where the goalkeeper may play it to more advantage. By parrying the ball, the goalkeeper has done two things: (1) established possession and (2) given up possession. The ball is now free for all to play. The six-second rule has no further application in this situation.

So, in answer to your question, no, if the goalkeeper has clearly established possession by parrying the ball, rather than simply deflecting it in a “save,” then the opposing player cannot be declared offside.

Offside!

If the second player was in an offside position with the ball was played they gained an advantage and "should" be considered offside.

I would have to be even with the AR at the time of the play to determine if that player was a step or two in front or behind the player with the ball.

Questions: was player #2 involved in the play before the shot so as to be called offside and negate the goal, had it gone in?

Was the keeper and deflected ball in front of player #2 (as would most often be the case)?

If player 2 was not involved in the play until after the deflection of the ball which was played in front of her, then I would say no offside. If she was not involved in the play and did not gain advantage before the shot was taken by player 1, being in the offside position does not warrant a call. After the ball was played in front of her, player 2 is no longer offside because she is behind the ball.

My opinion based on some assumptions so feel free to add info to clarify.

fhjmom wrote:Questions: was player #2 involved in the play before the shot so as to be called offside and negate the goal, had it gone in?

Was the keeper and deflected ball in front of player #2 (as would most often be the case)?

If player 2 was not involved in the play until after the deflection of the ball which was played in front of her, then I would say no offside. If she was not involved in the play and did not gain advantage before the shot was taken by player 1, being in the offside position does not warrant a call. After the ball was played in front of her, player 2 is no longer offside because she is behind the ball.

My opinion based on some assumptions so feel free to add info to clarify.

ItsMe has it right. The only real question is was player #2 in an offside position when the original shot was taken (i.e. ahead of ball and behind 2nd to last defender). If they were, they committed an offside infringement once they became involved in play after the keeper's deflection. Based on what OP described, the goal should've been disallowed. This is sometimes a tough call for the AR because the movement happens so quickly in front of goal, and they need to instantly recall their mental snapshot of where everyone was when the original shot occurred.

My DD's team had a goal scored on them in a close LH game last fall where AR missed this exact scenario.

If 2nd attacking player was in an offside position when the strike was made from the 1st attacker, the goal should be disallowed as they are deemed offside. If not, the ball in the onion bag counts as a cheeky goal!

yes both attacking players only had the keeper in front of them. attacker 2 was ahead of attacker 1 when A1 took the shot. To me it seemed like attacker 2 knew they were off and just hung around and didn't attacked until after the deflection.

keep22 wrote:yes both attacking players only had the keeper in front of them. attacker 2 was ahead of attacker 1 when A1 took the shot. To me it seemed like attacker 2 knew they were off and just hung around and didn't attacked until after the deflection.

Well, there you go.. They were both onside, it doesn't matter if attacker 2 sped past attacker 1 or not.. As long as there wasn't an offside called in the buildup of attacker 1's play. Goal is good, end of story.

Busby Babes wrote:

keep22 wrote:yes both attacking players only had the keeper in front of them. attacker 2 was ahead of attacker 1 when A1 took the shot. To me it seemed like attacker 2 knew they were off and just hung around and didn't attacked until after the deflection.

Well, there you go.. They were both onside, it doesn't matter if attacker 2 sped past attacker 1 or not.. As long as there wasn't an offside called in the buildup of attacker 1's play. Goal is good, end of story.

Confused. Clearly stated above A2 was ahead of A1 and in an offside position when A1 shot, so with the save not being a true play on the ball when A2 enters the play and shoots she is offside. Goal is no good, end of story.

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:.....they became involved in play after the keeper's deflection. Based on what OP described, the goal should've been disallowed........ 

Should + have = should've? That doesn't look right.

Blank77 wrote:Confused. Clearly stated above A2 was ahead of A1 and in an offside position when A1 shot, so with the save not being a true play on the ball when A2 enters the play and shoots she is offside. Goal is no good, end of story.

this

Blank77 wrote:

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:.....they became involved in play after the keeper's deflection. Based on what OP described, the goal should've been disallowed........ 

Should + have = should've? That doesn't look right.

Maybe you mean it doesn't sound right? I hope you've been sending your high school english teacher flowers every year. If you haven't, you should've celebrated her impact on your life. She has given you lots of confidence, even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

It sounds right, "should have" sounds very much like "shouldof" or "shouldve". I just stating it looked odd to me, haven't seen it contracted like that before. Would've not known if it was correct or not.

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:.....they became involved in play after the keeper's deflection. Based on what OP described, the goal should've been disallowed........ 

Should + have = should've? That doesn't look right.

Maybe you mean it doesn't sound right? I hope you've been sending your high school english teacher flowers every year. If you haven't, you should've celebrated her impact on your life. She has given you lots of confidence, even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Alway' a 'rick that corrects 'hit

Blank77 wrote:

Busby Babes wrote:

keep22 wrote:yes both attacking players only had the keeper in front of them. attacker 2 was ahead of attacker 1 when A1 took the shot. To me it seemed like attacker 2 knew they were off and just hung around and didn't attacked until after the deflection.

Well, there you go.. They were both onside, it doesn't matter if attacker 2 sped past attacker 1 or not.. As long as there wasn't an offside called in the buildup of attacker 1's play. Goal is good, end of story.

Confused. Clearly stated above A2 was ahead of A1 and in an offside position when A1 shot, so with the save not being a true play on the ball when A2 enters the play and shoots she is offside. Goal is no good, end of story.

Blank on the money as always -

In case you want the full picture: PDF with every situation you could want (even if the keeper does not touch the ball but if it comes back from the post!) Of course, this does not mean they will make the correct call- refs are human, some what !

http://www.heatunited.com/pdfs/Offside_ParentsGuideTo.pdf