Skip to main content
Glama

Sports Rules

Work an offside call through IFAB Law 11 or NHL Rule 83

offside
Read-only

Work an offside call through the published decision procedure — association football under IFAB Law 11, or ice hockey under NHL Rule 83 — and return every step, not just the verdict.

Use this for any "was that offside" question in either sport. The two rules are structurally OPPOSITE and are routinely conflated, and there are four specific things that get answered wrong:

SOCCER:

  1. HANDS AND ARMS DO NOT COUNT, for anyone including goalkeepers. Only parts that could legally score are measured, and the boundary is the bottom of the armpit. This tool REFUSES to compute from an arm position rather than guessing where the shoulder was.

  2. AN OFFSIDE POSITION IS NOT AN OFFENCE. It becomes one only with involvement in active play. Do not report "he was offside" when the answer is that he was in an offside position and uninvolved. involvement is REQUIRED once the geometry makes it decisive — the tool errors rather than assuming, so ask the user what the player actually did, and pass "none" if the answer is nothing.

  3. No offside offence direct from a throw-in, goal kick, or corner. Absolute.

  4. A DELIBERATE play by an opponent resets it; a deflection or a save does NOT. This is the distinction most arguments turn on.

HOCKEY: 5. SKATES decide it. Not the stick, not the body. 6. Since 2021 a skate in the AIR above the blue line is still onside — the line is a plane, and ice contact is irrelevant. BUT this does not apply to tagging up on a delayed offside, where the skate must contact the line. Do not generalise the 2021 change to tag-ups.

Input for soccer: positions along the attacking axis in metres, larger being nearer the opponents’ goal line — attacker, ball, secondLastDefender. Any consistent scale works; only the order matters. Optionally restart, foremostPart, inOwnHalf, involvement, lastTouch.

Input for hockey: rearSkate in centimetres relative to the LEADING EDGE of the blue line, negative being the neutral-zone side. Optionally skateOnIce, situation (zone-entry or tag-up), and stick.

Returns: a verdict of offside, onside, or no-offside-offence — three outcomes, not two, because "in an offside position but no offence" is a real and common answer — plus every step with the decisive one flagged, warnings, and a disclaimer.

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULING. Relay the steps, not just the verdict: in a real call the procedure is the easy half and the inputs are the argument. Do not quote IFAB or NHL rule text; it is copyrighted and this tool does not reproduce it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ballNoSOCCER. Position of the ball, same scale.
sportYesWhich rule book. The two are structurally opposite — do not mix them up.
stickNoHOCKEY. Ignored, and reported as ignored. Skates decide it.
restartNoSOCCER. There is NO offside offence direct from a throw-in, goal kick, or corner. Always ask which restart it was before answering.
attackerNoSOCCER. Position of the attacker along the attacking axis, larger being nearer the opponents’ goal line. Any consistent scale; only the order matters.
inOwnHalfNoSOCCER. A player in their own half cannot be in an offside position.
lastTouchNoSOCCER. A DELIBERATE play by an opponent resets offside. A deflection, a save, or a rebound off the frame does NOT.
rearSkateNoHOCKEY. The trailing skate in centimetres relative to the LEADING EDGE of the blue line — the edge nearer the attacking zone. Negative is the neutral-zone side; positive means it has broken the plane.
situationNoHOCKEY. zone-entry (default), or tag-up for clearing a delayed offside. The same skate position can give opposite answers.
skateOnIceNoHOCKEY. Since 2021 this does NOT affect a zone entry — a skate above the plane is onside. It is decisive when tagging up, where the skate must contact the line.
involvementNoSOCCER. REQUIRED once the player is in an offside position — the call errors without it rather than assuming. An offside POSITION is not an offence; this is what turns it into one, and "none" is a common and correct answer meaning play continues.
foremostPartNoSOCCER. Which part the attacker position describes. Passing an arm or hand is REFUSED with an explanation: only parts that could legally score count, and the boundary is the bottom of the armpit.
secondLastDefenderNoSOCCER. Position of the SECOND-last opponent, same scale. Usually the last outfield defender, since the goalkeeper is normally the last.
deliberatePlayCriteriaMetNoSOCCER. Which of IFAB’s five deliberate-play criteria are met. Reported, not scored — there is no pass mark.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that the tool refuses arm/hand inputs, errors if involvement is missing, reports the hockey stick as ignored, returns three possible outcomes, and does not reproduce copyrighted rule text. It also explains that it is not an official ruling and flags the decisive step, all without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but appropriately structured for a two-sport, 14-parameter tool: a front-loaded purpose statement, sport-specific numbered warnings, and clearly separated input conventions. Each substantial block addresses a distinct failure mode or clarification, and there is little filler relative to the complexity being handled.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description properly specifies the return shape: a verdict of offside, onside, or no-offside-offence, every decision step, the flagged decisive step, warnings, and a disclaimer. It also covers required vs optional inputs, error behavior, and the copyright limitation on quoting rule text, making it complete enough to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: any consistent scale works and only order matters for soccer positions, rearSkate is measured relative to the leading edge of the blue line with negative on the neutral-zone side, and involvement is required once geometry becomes decisive. It also clarifies that passing an arm/hand is refused, which is meaningful beyond the enum and field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool works an offside call through IFAB Law 11 or NHL Rule 83 and returns every step, not just the verdict. It also says to use it for any 'was that offside' question in either sport. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool offside_rule_contrast, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this for any 'was that offside' question in either sport" is an explicit when-to-use statement, and the warnings about asking for involvement and restart give clear operational guidance. However, it provides no when-not-to-use condition or mention of the sibling offside_rule_contrast as an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The offside tool computes a call for a specific scenario, while offside_rule_contrast returns a static comparison table. Their purposes are completely distinct and clearly labeled; no agent could confuse which to invoke.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use lowercase snake_case and share the 'offside' domain prefix. While not verb_noun, the pattern is perfectly consistent given the server's narrow scope.

Tool Count3/5

At two tools, the server is minimal but tailored to a hyper-specific purpose (offside in soccer and hockey). It feels slightly thin—an 'explain offside rule' per sport might round it out—but the two tools cover the core use cases.

Completeness4/5

For the inferred domain of offside decisions across two sports, the tools cover the decision procedure, key edge cases, and cross-sport differences. A minor gap is the lack of a standalone rule explainer, and the server name 'Sports Rules' suggests a broader scope that isn't implemented.

Resources