I am prepared to accept that there are a number who see only one view on this.
I myself am a subscriber, after much consideration, to the loitering law trumps all provision. I have changed my tone. Some have been less able to accept an alternative point of view and one has even placed me on an ignore list for enquiring too deeply on another thread when trying to clarify a contentious point.
I justify for myself and this is what is important for me and how I have come to the conclusion.
- He is offside at some point. "In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball." There is an offside line for him because of the kick.
- Because he is offside an not making any obvious moves to retreat (perhaps one step only) he may be reasonably considered to be loitering
- He remains offside for at least the period he is not made onside by his own team. As such(11.9) "A player who remains in an offside position is loitering."
Even If you see him as being made onside by the opposition you are then ignoring the really important provision of 11.9, in bold " [A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised].
The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action." That this statement is complemented with its own specified sanction means it must be important enough to have to consider in the first place.He clearly benefitted from being played onside by his opponents, if you saw the onside that way, and so within the provision set out there is clearly sufficient reasoning
for me to penalise in this instance. Curiously, I am now also noting it is a straight penalty kick and does not include the additional scrum option at the place the ball was last played by one of his team mates.
And then:
Separately, as regards the loitering provisions for offside, this is not England v Italy where a number quite reasonably supported the determination that without an offside line the loitering rules cannot be applied. Here there is an offside line in the first place which makes it different. I am happy with that and certainly this case helps cement that understanding as well.