[Albion] Fati Goal. Offside?

[Easy 10]

Yes, it was played backwards, but the rule just says when the ball is played, not when the ball is played forward, I used to think the ball had to be played forward too.

Something else to enable a goal to be disallowed for then. Well done everyone.

 

[Napper]

Did it used to be that the ball had to be played forward to be offside

I must of missed the rule change or have had it wrong all these years

 

[Bodian]

Did it used to be that the ball had to be played forward to be offside

I must of missed the rule change or have had it wrong all these years

I think it's always been that way. The thing is, it's relatively rare because you'd only be offside if you were also in front of the ball when it was passed back.

 

[albionalex]

Did it used to be that the ball had to be played forward to be offside

I must of missed the rule change or have had it wrong all these years

You can't be offside if you're behind the ball.

But if the ball is played backwards, it's offside if the player who receives the ball is in front of it when it is initially passed.

 

[GT49er]

No.



Next question?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Attwell had to triple check every possible reason to disallow the goal for us.

It's what he does.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I believe, because I read it elsewhere, that a defender off the pitch is counted as being on the goalline for offside purposes

I never knew this. Every day is a school day.

 

[Justice]

Some pundits are adamant we should have gone in 1-0 down at half time. We then quickly equalise and it’s a different game.

 

[Swimboy64]

I believe, because I read it elsewhere, that a defender off the pitch is counted as being on the goalline for offside purposes

So if a player if off the pitch being treated for an injury he can still be considered one of the two defenders required between the attacking player and the goal so playing the attacker onside?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

So if a player if off the pitch being treated for an injury he can still be considered one of the two defenders required between the attacking player and the goal so playing the attacker onside?

No, if he’s left the field of play with the referees permission (an injury and being treated) he’s considered off the pitch and not a defender in this scenario.

 

[Del of Albion]

I believe, because I read it elsewhere, that a defender off the pitch is counted as being on the goalline for offside purposes

THIS

 

[pasty]

Yes, it was played backwards, but the rule just says when the ball is played, not when the ball is played forward, I used to think the ball had to be played forward too.

Well that’s new to me. Watching it live yesterday I was so confused why it took an age to check offside as I too thought the ball had to be moving forwards to be offside. When did that change?

 

[Baldseagull]

Well that’s new to me. Watching it live yesterday I was so confused why it took an age to check offside as I too thought the ball had to be moving forwards to be offside. When did that change?

I don't think it has changed, it's just a common misconception. There was a rule change to offside, the free kick is always awarded where the offence is committed now, whereas it could be awarded from where the player was in an offside position before. So a player who is offside, can jog back into his own half and collect the ball, and a free kick will be awarded in the players own half, where he touched the ball, even though it is not possible to be offside in your own half. Previously the kick could have been given in the offside position he was in when the ball was kicked, or where he touched the ball, the rule change just made it consistent.

The ball used to always have to be played forwards at Kick off, and used to have to have travelled it's own circumference to be deemed in play after a dead ball situation, but is now deemed in play if it is kicked and clearly moved, not sure when that changed.

 

[Swimboy64]

Well that’s new to me. Watching it live yesterday I was so confused why it took an age to check offside as I too thought the ball had to be moving forwards to be offside. When did that change?

Me too,how can that be?Surely the science behind behind the law would suggest the ball has to be moving directly forward or diagonally forward. I think the backward pass thing is someone’s opinion because I can’t

Well that’s new to me. Watching it live yesterday I was so confused why it took an age to check offside as I too thought the ball had to be moving forwards to be offside. When did that change?

Me too,so from what’s being said if we get the scenario where Mitoma breaks quickly from half way, Pedro breaks in support both with no defenders close to them, Mitoma draws the keeper goes round him but to wide to shoot so plays a backwards diagonal pass across the six yard box for Pedro to tap in unmarked,Pedro is offside from what’s been said on here which we all know is absolute tosh

 

[Baldseagull]

Me too,how can that be?Surely the science behind behind the law would suggest the ball has to be moving directly forward or diagonally forward. I think the backward pass thing is someone’s opinion because I can’t

Me too,so from what’s being said if we get the scenario where Mitoma breaks quickly from half way, Pedro breaks in support both with no defenders close to them, Mitoma draws the keeper goes round him but to wide to shoot so plays a backwards diagonal pass across the six yard box for Pedro to tap in unmarked,Pedro is offside from what’s been said on here which we all know is absolute tosh

Not if he is behind the ball, you are not offside if you are behind the ball.

 

[Swimboy64]

Not if he is behind the ball, you are not offside if you are behind the ball.

Yes that’s how it’s always been

 

[Swimboy64]

Yes that’s how it’s always been

Yes that’s how it’s always been

Not if he is behind the ball, you are not offside if you are behind the ball.

You have to be behind the ball to recieve a backward pass.Is it that you come back from an offside position to get possession of the ball from a backward pass that’s in question if so then yes but it’s also been like that for a while
Not sure how I’ve got involved with this nonsense

 

[Farehamseagull]

Some pundits are adamant we should have gone in 1-0 down at half time. We then quickly equalise and it’s a different game.

That’s incredibly wishful thinking. Even if the second and third goals they scored had been disallowed, they’d have scored others as we were absolutely all over the place after they scored their first.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think it's always been that way. The thing is, it's relatively rare because you'd only be offside if you were also in front of the ball when it was passed back.

Indeed. A very common misconception- that I shared until Jakob Moder had a crucial goal chalked off in this exact scenario, at Bramall Lane.

 

[beardy gull]

Indeed. A very common misconception- that I shared until Jakob Moder had a crucial goal chalked off in this exact scenario, at Bramall Lane.

That’s when I found out about it too.