“Collina’s heirs” explain
Bochum benefits from a new interpretation for offside
By Alex Feuerherdt
11/10/2022 1:59 p.m
Mönchengladbach’s equalizer in the game at VfL Bochum doesn’t count because the interpretation of the rules for offside has changed. However, the Gladbachers do not agree with the referee’s interpretation.
In the 82nd minute of the match between VfL Bochum and Borussia Mönchengladbach (2:1), Gladbach’s Jonas Hofmann kicked the ball up into the hosts’ penalty area from a corner kick. His teammate Marvin Friedrich headed the ball into the goal area, where Bochum’s Vasilios Lampropoulos kicked it out again, back to Hofmann. He hit the ball in front of the home side’s goal again, and Ramy Bensebaini headed it into the goal. The compensation to 2:2? Referee Daniel Schlager initially gave the goal, but was then ordered by his video assistant Johann Pfeifer to the review area on the sidelines.
After looking at the pictures, the referee annulled the goal – because Hofmann was offside at the moment of Friedrich’s header. That surprised many, after all the ball had come from Lampropoulos, i.e. a Bochum player, to the Gladbach corner kicker and cross giver. Wasn’t that a classic example of a “deliberate play”, i.e. a conscious, intentional, voluntary playing of the ball by the defender, which canceled the original offside position?
The answer is quite complex. This goal would have counted last season, because there was already a “deliberate play” if the defender actively brought his foot or another part of his body to the ball that had already been played and played or even touched it, i.e. not just his foot in the trajectory stopped. Whether he did it in a controlled manner or not was immaterial.
This regulation led to highly controversial goals being declared valid, for example in the DFB Cup round of 16 of the 2020/21 season between Borussia Dortmund and SC Paderborn 07. A goal by Erling Haaland was allowed despite the goal scorer being offside during the pass recognized him because a Paderborn player had deflected the ball minimally in the meantime. That was enough for a “deliberate play” to take place.
Changed rule interpretation for “deliberate play”
Before this season, it was not the rule itself that was changed, but its interpretation. That means: The text of the rules remained the same, but not its interpretation. Because hardly anyone could understand why a goal like Haaland’s or Kylian Mbappé’s winning goal in the 2021 Nations League final between France and Spain should be in accordance with the rules, just because the ball was touched or played uncontrollably by a defender before he came to a striker offside. So it was UEFA and, shortly before the start of the Bundesliga season, the rulers of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) together with FIFA that issued new guidelines on “deliberate play”.
Although these two guidelines do not differ fundamentally from one another, they do differ in some formulations. Both agree that “deliberate” now also includes the aspect of the defender’s control over the ball and body, which previously played no role. The July issue of the official, bi-monthly referee newspaper of the DFB explains the central aspect of the UEFA interpretation as follows: “Controlled means the defender is unconstrained, not in a duel and also not playing the ball in a defensive action ‘ in dire need.” According to the guidelines of the IFAB and FIFA, control is given when the defender has the opportunity “to pass the ball to a team-mate or to gain possession of the ball or [sich] free (e.g. with the foot or the head)”.
What does control and therefore intention mean?
Whether a player could control the ball and therefore “play it intentionally” should be assessed using the following criteria:
- “The ball traveled a certain distance and the player had a clear view of the ball.
- The ball moved slowly.
- The ball went in an expected direction.
- The player had time to coordinate his body movements (ie no instinctive stretching, jumping or other movements with limited touch/control of the ball).
- A ball on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air.”
The aspects of distress, involvement in a duel and distress are not mentioned in the IFAB/FIFA guideline – which appeared later, but is authoritative for the associations in terms of rules. Nevertheless, they can be used as clues, in particular for answering the question of whether a player had time to coordinate his body movements, or whether the movement to the ball and the subsequent playing of the ball can only be rated as controlled to a limited extent or not at all because he for example, was harassed by an opponent. However, it is also important that if there is an opportunity for a controlled action but the player then plays the ball poorly as a result of a technical error, it is still a matter of “deliberate play” which nullifies the offside.
How referees and DFB explain the decision
Referee Daniel Schlager explained after the game in Bochum that Lampropoulos tried to clear the ball but did not do so in a controlled manner. “If he does that in a controlled manner, he plays it towards the center circle. If he’s under pressure, he doesn’t have the time and control of the situation, so it’s uncontrolled and no new offside assessment is required.” That’s how he noticed it on the field. However, his assistant on the sidelines did not perceive Hofmann’s offside position as such, as Peter Sippel, the sporting director of the Bundesliga referees, explained in a statement on the DFB website. This led to the intervention of the VAR.
For Sippel, the cancellation of the Gladbach goal was correct. Because Lampropoulous was able to play the ball “only by means of a lunge or a stretching movement”. The decisive factor is that he was “still in a duel with Gladbach player Nico Elvedi before, during and even after the header from Gladbach player Marvin Friedrich”. Therefore, the fourth point in particular in the IFAB/FIFA guidelines is not given. It is therefore not about controlled play, which ultimately failed due to a technical error, “but a defensive action in need”.
Christoph Kramer disagrees
The Gladbacher saw it completely differently. Christoph Kramer, for example, said: “In the situation it wasn’t uncontrolled, it was inability because he can play the ball clearly and just doesn’t hit it properly.” In doing so, he addressed exactly the point that is decisive for the assessment of this situation: Was Lampropoulos really under so much pressure that one had to assume a lack of control over the ball and body? Or did he have enough time for a coordinated defensive action, which then did not lead to a successful clarification?
You can argue about that, there are good arguments for both positions. Technically, the assessment of the situation by the referee and sporting director Peter Sippel is at least understandable on the basis of the television pictures shown, and Kramer’s football-wise certainly too. One thing is certain: Even with the new guideline on “deliberate play”, there are cases in which a technically correct or at least acceptable decision causes resentment. But no longer because a very delicate deflection of the ball can cancel an offside position, but because even playing the ball clearly does not do it sometimes.