[Football] The disallowed goal

[BadFish]

You're not alone. there are a number of people on the match thread who were similarly confused.

I must admit that before it was explained on Optus Sport I was similarly misinformed about the direction of the ball.

 

[Wardy's twin]

What advantage was gained by him being in an offside position? None as far as i could see as he had to go backwards to get the ball.

 

[Garage_Doors]

That has never been the rule. The direction the ball travels is not relevant and never has been.

That's not true, previously (probably longer than i think) if the ball was kicked backwards you were not offside.
Hence why in seasons gone by wingers made a point of getting as close to the (by) line before crossing.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Nicely explained, and I am glad to know that it was once a rule. So I am not completely mad.

I thought the same a you, seems to be a pretty common misconception as a few on the BBC text are saying the same.

 

[SAC]

VAR getting it right shocker!

 

[albionalbino]

I'm another who thought that you couldn't be offside from a back pass. I'm sure it was a rule once.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Must admit that I thought the backwards rule had and did still apply. That was why I understood that you couldn't be offside if you scored direct from a corner.

 

[drew]

Have to say that in the 50 odd years that I've been following football I've never been aware of a rule that stated you're not offside if the ball is going backwards. This set of circumstances is extremely rare on the football field which has probably led to the confusion.

As soon as they showed the first replay I knew it would be disallowed for offside.

 

[drew]

Must admit that I thought the backwards rule had and did still apply. That was why I understood that you couldn't be offside if you scored direct from a corner.

Not being offside at a corner is just one of the three exceptions, the others being throw in and goal kick, nothing to do with the direction of the ball.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Not being offside at a corner is just one of the three exceptions, the others being throw in and goal kick, nothing to do with the direction of the ball.

Thanks Drew, really didn’t know that -


sorry quoted the wrong post - meant the ball going backwards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That's not true, previously (probably longer than i think) if the ball was kicked backwards you were not offside.
Hence why in seasons gone by wingers made a point of getting as close to the (by) line before crossing.

But getting close to the byline means it’s unlikely any team mate will be ahead of the ball, and therefore offside, as opposed to anything to do with the direction of the ball.

I’m not convinced the law has ever included direction of the ball, I believe it was just a widely held misunderstanding but this should be easy to find out by looking at early laws. For the record it was a misunderstanding I once held as well.

 

[cobbyseagull]

More to the point, is that looking back at it think both players actually kick the ball, think Moder and defender touch it. The slightest touch first from defender would of meant not offside.

 

[Garage_Doors]

But getting close to the byline means it’s unlikely any team mate will be ahead of the ball, and therefore offside, as opposed to anything to do with the direction of the ball.

I’m not convinced the law has ever included direction of the ball, I believe it was just a widely held misunderstanding but this should be easy to find out by looking at early laws. For the record it was a misunderstanding I once held as well.

i found this on a site albeit not an official so can't be taken as truth:
"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. In interpreting this on the field of play match officials, players, clubs, spectators and the media have to remember:

If the player is behind the ball he cannot be offside - so players are usually safe when ball is cut back from the goal line"

I assume i'm getting confused by what people are saying when quoting the direction of the ball, i thought it was to mean it been hit backwards in the direction of your own goal.
Similar as in rugby where the ball can only be thrown backwards to be a legal pass.

 

[drew]

More to the point, is that looking back at it think both players actually kick the ball, think Moder and defender touch it. The slightest touch first from defender would of meant not offside.

Sorry, wrong again. The offside is when the ball comes off Webster. At that point Moder is clearly in an offside position and he benefits because he is shortly in a position to score. It's irrelevant whether the defender touches the ball at the same time as Moder.

 

[cobbyseagull]

Sorry, wrong again. The offside is when the ball comes off Webster. At that point Moder is clearly in an offside position and he benefits because he is shortly in a position to score. It's irrelevant whether the defender touches the ball at the same time as Moder.

Agreed that was my point as I then said if the Sheffield United player had touched the before/ahead of Moder

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Agreed that was my point as I then said if the Sheffield United player had touched the before/ahead of Moder ��

Wouldn’t matter if the defender had touched the ball or when he touches it, the very fact that Moder is making a challenge with the defender for the ball is enough for the offside to stand as Moder is considered to be active and interfering with play. The only way it would have been onside is if Moder had been stood away from the defender and not challenged for the ball as the defender had played it.

 

[nsclurker]

I'm another who thought that you couldn't be offside from a back pass. I'm sure it was a rule once.

You can't, and it's still a law. You're not offside, if the ball is deliberately played in your direction by the opposition - excluding a rebound from a save.

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."

 

[dennis]

I notice that the 4th Burnley goal today, Wood left the ball to Rodriguez because Wood was in an offside position, Rodriguez then played the ball to Wood who was now in an onside position who then passed to Westwood who scored.

The pundits then said Wood wasn’t deemed to be offside because he didn’t touch the ball until he was onside!

I’m really confused because Molder was onside when he scored

 

[dsr-burnley]

I notice that the 4th Burnley goal today, Wood left the ball to Rodriguez because Wood was in an offside position, Rodriguez then played the ball to Wood who was now in an onside position who then passed to Westwood who scored.

The pundits then said Wood wasn’t deemed to be offside because he didn’t touch the ball until he was onside!

I’m really confused because Molder was onside when he scored

When Webster played the ball, Moder was in an offside position. So when he interfered with play based on Webster's play, he was offside.

When Rodriguez played the ball, Wood was in an offside position, so he stood aside and let Rodriguez carry on. When Rodriguez played the ball again, Wood had got himself back onside, so he was allowed to interfere with play on the later play.

 

[dennis]

When Webster played the ball, Moder was in an offside position. So when he interfered with play based on Webster's play, he was offside.

When Rodriguez played the ball, Wood was in an offside position, so he stood aside and let Rodriguez carry on. When Rodriguez played the ball again, Wood had got himself back onside, so he was allowed to interfere with play on the later play.

Thanks

I’m not disagreeing with you and appreciate your answer but it’s a bit picky isn’t it

Cheers