The Stupid Soccer Offsides Rule In Plain English
by tgirschJune 22nd, 2006
Those few of you who are quasi-following the World Cup, as I have been, may be confused as to the “offsides” rule, that seems not to make any sense at all if you’re not familiar with it, and seems to be called anything that resembles “exciting” starts to happen, thus stopping the action. Well, I’ve finally figured it out, and I’m going to try to explain it to you in plain English.
Basically, the rule is this: no attacking player is ever allowed to get between the deepest defender and the goal while anyone else is controlling the ball.
What does that mean? It means that it’s virtually always illegal to get “behind the defense.” You are only allowed to do this if you yourself are controlling the ball, or if the ball is already on its way to you via a pass.
Let’s put this in (American) football terms. In Super Bowl XXXI, in the first quarter, Brett Favre recognized that wide receiver Andre Rison was single-covered, and called an audible out of a running play, sending Rison on a “go” route. Rison juked and faked out the New England corner, and would up running down the field, where Favre hit him in stride for a 54-yard touchdown. It was an exciting play (especially for a Packers fan like me), and part of what NFL fans love about the game.
In soccer, a play such as this would have been illegal. Why? Because Rison got behind the defender before Favre threw the ball. The whole play would be called back as “offsides.”Now I can see what motivates the soccer rule: you don’t want an attacker just “camping out” around the goal, waiting to take a pass and knock it in; but the way the soccer rule is, you could be eighty feet from the goal and still be offsides. Something akin to hockey’s blue line and its offsides rule would solve soccer’s problem, without killing the action, as soccer’s current rule does. And in any case, it’s physiologically impossible to correctly call offsides:
The ability of the eye to change focus on a far object to one located less than 6 yards (meters) away is called eye accommodation. For most people, it takes around 600 milliseconds. Since the players and ball are spread all over the field, a referee almost always performs eye accommodation when making an offside call.
But according to Maruenda, the average running player can move roughly 5 feet (1.5 meters) in the time it takes for the ref’s eyes to refocus, so 600 milliseconds is just too slow.
To make an accurate call, “it is necessary to stop time and to locate all the players who take part in that game in zero milliseconds,” Maruenda told LiveScience. To watch the player making the pass, the player receiving the pass, the defender and the ball at the same time is just too much for our visual systems to handle, especially from the close-up view of the referee.
Now that I’ve finished my rant, here’s someone who explains it better.
UPDATE: Commenter Kevin Newman points out an aspect I neglected to mention: You can’t be offsides if the ball is in front of you. So, for example, if your teammate is charging toward the net and has control of the ball, and you are also charging toward the net, you can get behind the deepest defender without being offsides, as long as the guy with the ball is ahead of you. He can even pass the ball to you, as long as the pass is laterally or backward. But if you get ahead him and he passes to you, you’re offsides.
Interstingly, soccer already has a good “blue line”, the outer goalie box. What if the rule were changed to be that you can’t be in the outer goalie box unless the ball is as well? It would be more akin to the lane in basketball, as I understand that rule. It would also prevent camping right next to the goal.
The old NASL used to have a 35 yard line which was used for offsides calls, very similar to the blue line in the NHL. Games back then were higher scoring affairs, but FIFA finally declared it didn’t like that (they weren’t asked for permission?) and said the NASL would be declared an outlaw league. The league folded anyway.
I’d like the soccer games to be higher scoring myself, but I’m not sure what can be done. Bigger goals? No offsides? What about higher goals instead of wider goals?
Guys, it’s obvious to me that you don’t watch a lot of original football (what you keep calling soccer, an american word so that it isn’t confused with american football, which is a younger sport, but I digress.)
So the guy can be offsides 80 yards from the goal… yeah, and you had the right answer about camping out. If there is only a goalie and an attacker, distance isn’t that big a deal. You guys need to watch FIFA highlight reels, where they show goal after goal after goal. When you see something like a guy making a goal from 55 yards out, and you know the guy is good enough to fake the goalie out 9 out of 10 times, then the “soccer” offsides rule starts to make a lot more sense.
But hey, you guys only “quasi” follow the sport anyway, so who would expect you to understand that, or even care?
My day is shattered. I just heard that the US lost and is out of the World Cup.
Jake;
I’ll confess, I don’t follow any professional sports. My rule is, I only watch games in which I have a blood relationship with at least one of the players, or my wife orders me to watch it.
On the other hand, game design is one of my hobbies so I find such discussions interesting in the abstract.
You aren’t quite right. You can be closer to the goal than the deepest defender if you aren’t controlling the ball if the ball is closer to the goal than you. This is why no one can be offisides during a corner kick. The ball begins at the end of the field, so no player is closer to the goal line than the ball.
You also act as if there aren’t addition officials on the sidelines whose primary contribution is calling offsides. The officials are very very accurate at calling the offsides penalties when compared with the TV replays. It might be difficult, but it isn’t as difficult as you describe, and there aren’t many missed offsides calls.
Heck, compared to the balk rule in baseball, soccer offsides is a piece of cake.
Ted,
You pretty much summed it up. I have yet to hear an explanation of the balk rule, in something not classified as gibberish.
Jake, “soccer” is not an American word. The word originated in England in the 19th Century.
When I was a kid in South Africa, the game was always called soccer, never football — which was frequently used to refer to rugby.
wkmaier,
Here it is, the balk rule, straight from the official rules. Worth nothing that this is only about 25% of the rule verbiage that applies to baseball. I think the Federal tax code is more succinct than the official baseball rules. But I do love baseball.
8.05
If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when –
(a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery;
Rule 8.05(a) Comment: If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off-play. (b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw;
(c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base;
Rule 8.05(c) Comment: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk.
A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.
(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;
(e) The pitcher makes an illegal pitch;
Rule 8.05(e) Comment: A quick pitch is an illegal pitch. Umpires will judge a quick pitch as one delivered before the batter is reasonably set in the batter’s box. With runners on base the penalty is a balk; with no runners on base, it is a ball. The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted.
(f) The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter;
(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate;
(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game;
Rule 8.05(h) Comment: Rule 8.05(h) shall not apply when a warning is given pursuant to Rule 8.02(c) (which prohibits intentional delay of a game by throwing to fielders not in an attempt to put a runner out). If a pitcher is ejected pursuant to Rule 8.02(c) for continuing to delay the game, the penalty in Rule 8.05(h) shall also apply. Rule 8.04 (which sets a time limit for a pitcher to deliver the ball when the bases are unoccupied) applies only when there are no runners on base.
(i) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher’s plate or while off the plate, he feints a pitch;
(j) The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base;
(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball;
(l) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box;
(m)The pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop.
PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.
APPROVED RULING: In cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild, either to a base or to home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk.
APPROVED RULING: A runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is called out on appeal shall be considered as having advanced one base for the purpose of this rule. Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.
(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.
Thanks Ted. My eyes are rolled up in the back of my skull.
I remember about 30 years ago, an older uncle from Germany was visiting us. He spoke not a word of English. But he was here at the start of NFL season (September), and my father trying to explain what was happening on TV, all in German. I mean, obviously, there is some lingo that don’t make the translation. But he was truly mystified, as he sat trying to absorb what he was seeing.
Jake:
When you see something like a guy making a goal from 55 yards out, and you know the guy is good enough to fake the goalie out 9 out of 10 times, then the “soccer” offsides rule starts to make a lot more sense.
When I see that, it tells me I need to put a defender on him. If he’s too fast for my defender, why should I punish him for that speed?
Kevin Newman:
You are, of course, correct about the ball being in front of you. In fact, the Italians just scored a nice goal in exactly that manner, with two attackers having beaten the defense. It’s the first time I’ve seen anything like it in about five matches viewed.
But I disagree on the accuracy of calling offsides, and fans the world over — as well as the science — would disagree with you, too. I’ve seen several blown calls and non-calls already, and I haven’t even been paying close attention. (At least one of Costa Rica’s goals against Germany was offside, for example.)
Ted:
Yeah, I hate the balk rule, too. It’s just way too complicated, and as such, is horribly inconsistently called. I think it boils down to “you can’t try and fake anyone out as long as you’re on the pitching rubber.”
OK, so I tried to watch some soccer this weekend. I was reminded of two other reasons why I dislike the game as it is now played. I hate the way the players take dives when there is the slightest contact (and yes, I hate it when NBA players try to draw a charge doing the same thing, but the NBA officials seem to be better at sorting out acting from real contact.)
And I also hate how every time there is a tackle, the tackled player acts like he has be mortally wounded for about five seconds, then gets over it and plays on showing no ill effect. Maybe these guys should wear dresses when they play…
Ted, your description fits the Latin game to a tee. Except for Brazil, almost every other team fitting that description — Argentina, Mexico, Italy for example — are known floppers. National and club teams from northern Europe, The US and further afield (Asia), don’t normally go in for those histrionics. My nephew played in Italy a few years ago as part of a school exchange program (he was around 14) and he said the kids there learn to dive from that young an age. He almost got in a brawl with one kid over just such an issue.
Although I must say, watching Mexico almost knock off Argentina was a surprise at how little diving there was. My theory is that since both nations are known for that style, they would get no advantage in trying to play to the ref.
The officials are very very accurate at calling the offsides penalties when compared with the TV replays. It might be difficult, but it isn’t as difficult as you describe, and there aren’t many missed offsides calls.
Why is anyone supporting the offsides rule the way it is now. The most boring play in futbol (to heck with both english words for the sport: the Brazilians play better than anyone) is the offsides trap. Have you ever heard soccer fans say “wow, wasn’t that cool they way they drew that magnificent goal scorer off sides by stepping forward!” Of course not. If a guy can score from 35 feet out with a great shot, I say let him, even if he is cherry picking. The old NASL “blue line” rule makes a ton of sense. Let the stars of the sport play. The way it is now if you score first, 75% of the time you win the game. Why? You can sit back and crowd the defensive zone and there is little the other team can do because of the offsides rule. Get rid of it.
You say: no attacking player is ever allowed to get between the deepest defender and the goal while anyone else is controlling the ball
Almost, but it’s really the second deepest defender, as the goal keeper is a defender too. If he comes out of the box and another defensiveman is closer to the end line, he’s the second deepest defender. They’ll do that to draw a striker offside. Ghana did that in the third goal Brazil scored on them in the World Cup, but the lame linesmen didn’t catch it.
It seems prety obvious to me why this sport will never take hold in the U.S. In three words: boring, boring, boring! The offsides rule has got to be one of the worst rules in any sport. Why is the advantage given to the defense? In any other sport, defenders are required to mark their respective offensive players, if the defender gets burned it usually results in a score for the offensive team-hence requiring defenders to always keep their opposing offenders at least in view. Ultimately, this spreads the field, court, etc out creating more chances for the offense to score, translating to more excitment. Secondly, a sport that tries to create chances by always “taking a dive” is really no sport at all. The acting and whining are overwhelming for Americans. We appreciate hard work and determination, not a bunch of pansies acting their way through a competition.
The sport will not take hold in the US until the offsides rule is modified. Right or wrong, good or bad, that is the way it is. I find the flopping to be as bad or worse than the NBA flops and as annoying as the NFL players dancing and such after they just made a good play — something that they are paid to do and expected to be good at. Sure, a touchdown is great, but a choreographed celebration each time you do your job well? I am amused when I think about what the world would be like if we all were to be carrying on this way each time we sucessfully accomplish the task for which we are paid.
But, I digress. As I was saying, the flops and psuedo-drama and the histrionics are all too much for the American sports fans’ appetite. As I watch I think to myself, “Geeze, golly, wow, soocer, futbol, football, whatever you call it, it is for sissies, plain and simple” If I went down and cried that easily in ANY of lifes situations, I would be embarrassed. I would not be able to look at my kids in the eye. I would feel dirty. One of the appeals of american football for me is that there are NO SISSIES!!!
I just this moment saw Henri’s flop which resulrted in a penalty shot……… what a crock. They were playing a game that was fun to watch, right up to the flop and the resulting Sissies rules action: a penalty kick and a score. I think I will turn it off now. Enough of that . When does REAL non-sissy football start?
Wow! Thanks for this dandy thread.
I’m an American trying to appreciate soccer and just finished watching the Championship World Cup match. When the Italy’s second goal was called back for off-sides, I had no idea what was wrong. This thread was just my ticket (including a great NFL comparison for another Packer fan).
Too many of the soccer matches I’ve watched have been decided by penalty kicks. That’s not sport; that’s a drill.
The off-sides rule needs to change and the diving needs to stop.
Another “thanks” for this thread. I believe I understand the excitement killing offside rule now. What I would like to understand, however, is why anyone would watch this boring game at any point other than the World Cup, which is interesting only because players are playing for their respective countries. I know I will be flamed by “futbol, soccer, ‘er footbal, fans, but truly I would just as soon watch paint dry as watch 2 hours of this game be finally decided by a playground outcome of penalty kicks. I mean, c’mon, there has to be a way to open up the scoring some without ruining the core of the game.
On another note, how can Zindane head butt an Italian player and risk serious injury to that player and his own team and still be looked upon as anything but an idiot and a punk. With that action, he shows more about himself than all the great plays he had previously done in his playing history. What a punk!
Just my opinion. Your’s may vary.
Have to agree that the offside rule is unbalanced towards the defence, but the one I really can’t get my head around is why the heck is the ball spotted so close to the goalie during the shoot out? Here we have a shoot out, deciding the whole friggin’ World Cup, and neither goalie is even remotely CLOSE to stopping the ball. So the whole thing gets decided by a single kick that deflects off the cross bar. Well whoop-de-doo.
I know that shoot outs in the NHL are not very popular with the players, but at least there it something closer to a 50/50 proposition. Why wouldn’t the ball be spotted farther away in soccer so that the goalie would have more chance than a random electron to stop it???
Leave it to Americans to quibble about the low scoring output of soccer. look at the NBA(National Boring Association) They opened up the scoring and now the game is a menagerie of trying to get one man free to score. Yuck. Soccer is a team sport and should be played that way. Some of the best players in the world are not prolific scorers. The fact that you can put the ball in the back of the net at 35 yards out does not make you great. It just means you can score.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Period. While the offsides rule seems silly to you, so it seems that the offsides rule in American football is silly to me. There are querks in every sport, but it does not make it bad or less of a sport. No whining in football you say. Are you serious? A sport where the average player actually plays 3 minutes the entire game versus the soccer player that actually plays 90 minutes on a longer, wider field and the football player needs oxygen masks? What the….? Understand the game before you criticise it. Watch some English premier league games or german league games, or Italian league gammes and then ask why anyone would watch this sport besides during the world cup.
i am even sure i know how i got here but it is interesting reading the critiques of soccer. What i find interesting is that while the NFL has a ton of viewers i would be willing to bet most people do not actually play football after high school or after their teenage years, while any large patch of grass in California is packed with people playing soccer. LA municipal soccer league has over 10 divisions and their are probably a dozen other local leagues. Same for NYC, Atlanta, and most big cities with any sort of 20th century immigrant population. Can the same be said for football? My point is that I bet most soccer fans also play soccer and there for it is easier to understand the nuances of the game when watching. I would love to know the percentage of NFL viewers that have touched the pigskin in the last 4 years. Plus american football is boring as hell, unless you like commercials. And the flopping is part of what makes the soccer so great, that is, regional and cultural differences in game play.
Peter213:
I suspect that soccer is like baseball, in that it’s much more popular with people who have actually played it than with those who have not. Whereas most of the NFL’s viewership has never played the game, certainly not in any sort of organized fashion.
The reason for the offsides rule in soccer is not to stop forwards from camping out. The reasoning, I believe, is to create midfield play. If forwards are allowed to camp out, then it becomes too appealing to leave one or two forwards up front, then have the defenders boot long balls way up the field, hoping the forwards can turn those into goals. that’s why the NASL’s 35-yard line for offsides didn’t work. It destroyed midfield ball-possession play by making boot ball more appealing. I would like instead to see offsides changed by having it only apply on kicks from a team’s own half of the field. So the 50-yard clearance to a forward behind the defense — that would be offsides. But once a team works the ball into the other half of the field, I think offsides should at that point be eliminated. It would result in more goals. I’m a soccer fan, and I believe the game needs more scoring. Looking back at soccer from 100 years ago, scores like 6-3 were the norm. Now the typical scores, at least at the top levels, are 1-0, 2-0, 2-1. Rarely, rarely do you see a team come from behind to win. This is not what the designers of the game had in mind.
OK, I have a quick question about the offsides rule: In youth soccer where very few players have the ability to kick a goal from 50 yards out why even have defenders? If a team placed all their players except the goalie on the opps side of the field the opps could never launch a drive toward that team’s goal with out becoming offsides. Why not have everyone on offense?
Brian
I agree with that idea. But soon, everyone would do it and it wouldn’t be soccer, it’d be outsmart your opponent with retarded FIFA rules.
My daughter’s U10 coach tried the no-defenders strategy for one game this year, and it was a colossal flop, because whenever a striker with the ball did break through the line of defenders at midfield, it became a one-on-one with the goalie, which ended up in a goal on about 1/3 of the drives. If your goalie is incredible it might work, but basically it’s a novelty play.
By the way, I came to this forum looking for the answer to this question: If one offensive player is in an offside position (past the 2nd-to-last defender), and his teammate kicks the ball toward him, but it is lightly deflected by the defender between them … would offsides still be called, or is it not offsides because the defender touched the ball?
Dave:
I’m not 100% sure, but I’d suspect he’d be offside, because he was offside at the time the ball left the attacking player’s foot. What I’m less sure of, is if the player had been on-side when the other attacker kicked the ball, but was offside at the time of the deflection.
Mr. girsch, I stumbled upon your blog because, I, too, think the soccer offsides rule is in all likelihood the most idiotic and “offensive” rule in all of sports. Soccer or Futbol fans don’t have the “distance” from the game to see how insane and easily corruptible it can be. It’s like in American football with the opening kickoff: The receiver catches the ball in the endzone, drops to one knee, and they go to 5 min. of commercials. Huh??? But if you’re close to the game, you don’t question it.
Recently, Team Canada was robbed of the tying goal in “injury time” against the US in the Copa d’Oro. Perhaps this should be called “Adding insult to injury time”
The Canadian players were livid, and rightly so. Oh, and the fact that the ref was Mexican had nothing to do with it, I’m sure…Anyway, the ball was forwarded by Canada and then deflected back (towards the US end)) by the US defender. At that point, offsides cannot be called…but, in fact, was.
The solution for this idiocy would be SO SIMPLE: Create a line at the 1/4 point of the field (or thereabouts) and use the centre field line as an offsides line as well. Basically, just like ice hockey. You take the judgement or “discretion” out of the hands of officials. Very black and white. Of course, you still need the linesman to actually make the call. However, I’m not holding my breath that this simple common sense idea could or would be implemented into the game in my lifetime. And just to be clear, I think soccer is a beautiful game crippled by this Achilles heel. I just don’t care to watch lame games.
I played soccer for 12 years growing up. I think the offside rule as it stands is horrible. I also think flopping is the lamest part of the game. Real players put 100% into the game, not 100% into acting. I also find watching the pro leagues completely boring, so hope that gets rid of some of the stereotypes about players.
Hmmm — So what is really wrong with the offside rule? If a player is 55-60 yards away a field is 100-120 yards long), then he/she is likely in their own half of the field and cannot be in an offside position. Further, unlike American football, a player can be in an offside position and yet not be “offside” (ie., no 5 yard penalty) as long as they are not in the play (”gained an advantage” is the wording). More referees — even with all the zebra stripes on a football field they miss calls or disagree (and now we can have reviews) — might not make any difference.
Not enough scoring? A 100 years ago people were not as skilled as they are now. Players were not “professional” in the same way we think of them now — often they had to hold real jobs in order to be able to live.
Flopping/Diving — yes, it is absolutely ridiculous and on one side you have coaches complaining that a team is diving and on the other that the players are being mauled. Smewhere in between lies the truth. (Oh, and have you ever really watched the line play in football? — there is holding on virtually every play but seldom does it get called. And what’s this thing about bumping here but not there and only once…?) And as long as I am down on football, when I played we were taught to watch the center and as soon as the ball was lifted or even moved to deck him. On any given Sunday, the center may lift the ball and move it as much as a foot and nothing happens.
Back to soccer — I did not see the Canada/US game that roger referred to but, IF the Canadian player was in an offside position as the play occurred THEN he gained an advantage by being in that position, and it really did not make any difference that a US player deflected the ball.
Basically, more scoring might be nice from a fan’s perspective, but the ultimate thing is that soccer players are highly skilled both offensively and defensively, and teams are often well-matched at the higher levels — more like a pitchers’ duel in baseball. Further, good soccer players know where they are and what is happening every second. Players try to be right at the edge and some complaining is as much acting as any flop — they got caught. I get bored by high scoring basketball or football games because it is obvious that people are not really doing their jobs when that happens.
Winning a game on penalty kicks is truly the most stupid thing that soccer does — offside calls pale by comparison!
Russ:
Scoring in the NBA is WAY, WAY down from what it was 15-20 years ago; the average team scored ~110 points/game, now the average team scores ~95/game; teams scoring in the 60s and 70s was nearly unthinkable; now it is commonplace.
And the false start/offside rule in American football is silly? Are you insane? Defensive players would bum-rush the quarterback before he even receives the snap! Wide receivers would immediately sprint 50 yards down the field! Without offside, football isn’t a game, it is anarchy.
And there’s a reason football players need oxygen masks on the sidelines: in that 10 minutes or so of actual play, they’re not just jogging and kicking a ball; football is not a contact sport–basketball, assoc, etc. are contact sports; football is a *collision* sport. These players expend monumental amounts of energy and their bodies take a crapload of punishment; sure, ruggers do so nonstop, but carrying around close to 30 pounds of padding while doing so is no joke.
I would have to agree that hockey’s offside rule is much simpler than soccer’s. I would think it creates more offence and more drama where holding the puck/ball in the offensive zone is important.
But nothing is as silly as soccer shootouts. That rule has to go. I think it was brilliant for the North American leagues to try to change these futbol rules, and a shame that they caved to the FIFA standard.
Here in Canada we know a think or two about clinging to our own rules with the CFL being different from NFL. You get ridiculed for being different, but if your product is better you come to love it.