The Offside Rule Strikes Again ... this time at UEFA Euro 2008

9 July 2006, Berlin - that was the stage for the finals of the 18th World Cup hosted by Germany. As Fabio Grosso slotted home the winning penalty, Italian fans around the world cheered, Lippi basked in the glory of leading his nation to the ultimate prize (while at the same time contemplating how he was going to deliver his parting words to the Italian FA - he announced his resignation 3 days after the victory) and Zidane hung his head in shame as he retired from football in the least expected manner. That moment also signalled the beginning of a 4-year wait before international football's largest spectacle will be staged again (this time in South Africa 2010).

Fortunately for us (and by that, I mean the 'football nuts'), we don't have to wait that long as there is the European Championships in June 2008, co-hosted by Austria and Switzerland - affectionately coined as UEFA Euro 2008. Admittedly, there is always the Barclays Premier League, Primera Liga, Serie A and Champions League football to whet the appetite every year. However, those matches are only played during the months of August to May (i.e. a maximum of 10 months of club football) - that leaves June and July barren. And that is a long time to go cold turkey. Being based in Singapore, local football standards aren't exectly there yet (the team that plays arguably the most attractive brand of football in the S-League is a Korean club which was invited to particpate - so you get the idea). To satisfy one's needs to watch football during the barren months would require sitting down, tuning in to channel 27 on Starhub and watching re-runs of Spurs v Bolton. The word 'depressing' wouldn't even be close to describing the situation.

The Offside Controversy

So anyway, UEFA Euro 2008 is a welcome relief. And what was more of a relief was that ever since the kick-off in Basel (Switzerland), apart from the snooze-fest match between France and Romania, the rest of the matches have been played at a good tempo and offered reasonably decent football. In fact, it has even sparked its first 'refereeing controversy' (if you can even call it that) in the Netherlands v Italy match - and it happened at the 26th minute:

- Buffon (the goalkeeper) punches the ball away but upends his own player (Panucci) in the process
- Panucci stays on the ground injured (he is lying outside the field of play) but the game continues
- Dutch player (van Bronckhorst) shoots the ball towards goal and another Dutch player (van Nistelrooy), who was standing between the last 2 Italian defenders (apart from Panucci) and the goalline, stabs the ball into the net
- Appears to many as a plain vanilla offside, but referee deems it to be a legitimate goal

This is a graphical illustration:

Was Van Nistelrooy Offside?

Now, Donadoni has gone on record to say that the Swedish referee, Peter Frojdfeldt, made a mistake. Commentators have instinctively called it a clear offside. However, there have been a sort of uneasy hesitation to vilify the referee. If the aggrieved team was England, you can be sure the reaction would be mass hysteria. Why was there such a muted response?

Well, the simple answer to that is that van Nistelrooy is apparently NOT offside - accordingly to an Austrian official. And that has plunged doubt into the minds of football experts, pundits and/or analysts all around the world - that they could possibly not have been aware of such an obscure rule sounds ridiculous. Or does it really?

The Mysterious 'Refereeing Code'

The chairman of Austria's refereeing commission, Gerhard Kapl, has explained that it is, in fact, NOT an offside because Panucci was behind the goalline as the ball was stabbed home. He referred to article 11.4.1 of the refereeing code and stated that "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play".

You'll not be the only one to think you've learnt something new today. In any case, you're also probably wondering what this 'refereeing code' is. Is it the Laws of the Game published by FIFA? Or the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees published together with the Laws of the Game? The answer is neither, at least it appears to be neither one of them.

So far, a search on the web is unsuccessful and one can only venture a guess that the so-called 'refereeing code' is probably locked away in hardcopy in one of Kapl's secret chambers. If you take what Kapl said at face value, then it is true, van Nistelrooy was not offside. However, without any sort of corroboration in terms of sighting the actual document, it really is difficult to verify.

We can only analyse those regulations which are available at hand.

1. Laws of the Game (FIFA)

The official written rules of the beautiful game - all 17 of them. The one in question is Rule 11 (Offside Rule). It has been the most controversial one and it has dumbfounded many over the decades - not just your wives and girlfriends, but as of yesterday, also so-called football experts.

Unfortunately, it is not entirely helpful in this instance. Here is what it says:

Offside Position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the fi eld of play or
• he is level with the second last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

No Offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick or
• a throw-in or
• a corner kick

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1:
In the definition of offside position, “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition.

Decision 2:
The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:
• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

2. Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees

This gives additional guidance for referees in interpreting the Laws of the Game. The guidance note on Rule 11 is more instructive. It says that :

If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of play.

In this instance, Panucci was behind the goal line. However, this rule requires (i) Panucci to have 'actively' stepped behind the goal line and (ii) possess the intention of catching van Nistelrooy offside. There is an uncomfortable emphasis on 'intention' which is never a conducive element for the interpretation of a rule during the euphoria of a football match. And this will always spark off unnecessary debates. If Panucci had actively run off the pitch, perhaps there will be less contention once we apply this rule. However, he was knocked out of the pitch and was appeared to be injured. In this case, there appears to be a lack of clear intention on his part and it would certainly have been a real gamble to have staged this just to catch the Real Madrid forward offside.

All in, I doubt this rule can be the basis for justifying the Swedish referee's decision. And I highly doubt this can be the refereeing code Kapl was refering to.

3. US Soccer Federation's Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game

This is probably the closest we can get to a corroborative interpretation of Kapl's comments. Under Law11.11:

A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.

This unequivocally takes out the "intention" element, which created some interpretation difficulties in FIFA's Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees. As such, if this rule is applied, Panucci would have played the Dutch striker onside, even though he had not (i) actively left the field of play and (ii) intended to catch van Nistelrooy offside.

That being said, it must be clarified that this is the US Soccer Federation's (USSF) interpretation of the Laws of the Game. The question is whether this is FIFA's position as well? Assuming for a moment that it is, then Kapl's comments were certainly justified. In fact, it will be a refreshing education in football rules for football commentators and pundits alike - and I would definitely expect Barclays Premier League referees to be applying the same interpretation (Big Sam's brain is probably working overtime trying to device a method of exploiting this now - if he can appointed as Blackburn's new chief).

However, there is nothing so far to indicate that this is the widely accepted interpretation of the Laws of the Game, much less FIFA's. Perhaps Kapl's mysterious refereeing code is similar to USSF's advice to its referees. Nevertheless, until we can sight this elusive refereeing code, all we have is this document from the USSF - the most persuasive piece of evidence supporting Frojdfeldt's decision.

4. Other materials

Over the years, there are many Q&As on the Laws of the Game - some issued by FIFA, others by their respective football associations. It is possible that there could be some directive or interpretation documented which supports Frojdfeldt's decision and Kapl's comments. And I would certainly appreciate anyone pointing this out to me. However, at the time of this post, I have been unable to find any.

What can we conclude with this?

The Laws of the Game simply sets out the framework of the offside rule. So, there is a heavy reliance on how such laws are interpreted - for e.g. in the form of the FIFA's Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees. Again, this document is unhelpful in the interpretation of the situation at hand (for the reasons mentioned above). That leaves us with the USSF's Advice to its referees - the most instructive document. Its interpretation of the offside rule in this situation is relatively clear. The question really is whether this is FIFA's position, or even the widely held interpretation of the offside rule. Most commentators, pundits and journalists are extremely cautious in taking a stand so far - and FIFA and UEFA has been silent on this. Until an official position is taken, this looks to be another unresolved issue for a while more.

Regardless of the controversy, the decision of the goal will stand, the final score is 3-0 and Netherlands are now in the driving seat of the Group of Death. Their strikeforce certainly looks to be the most lethal at this stage of the tournament and if their defence (together with Engelaar) can hold up, they will be firm favourites to lift their first trophy since '88.