The offside law

[beorhthelm]

I'm not saying the offside law isn't complex, just that it's not as complex as it is made out to be by some supposed 'experts' on tv.

it wasnt complex when the old rules, the change to having palyers "active" or interfering with play made it so. when you just had to keep a line and anyone past the last man was offside, it was terribly simple and everyone understood. only contention then was how much body counts for level/not level and favouring defenders/attackers interpretations.

 

[Acker79]

question from the rules though, doesnt mention a backward pass which im sure that isnt considered offside, is this not the case?

The direction of the pass is irrelevant to the law. I suppose that is because it would be quite an unusual set of circumstances for a player in an offside position (i.e. closer to the goal than the ball) to benefit from having the ball played behind him.

 

[Acker79]

it wasnt complex when the old rules, the change to having palyers "active" or interfering with play made it so. when you just had to keep a line and anyone past the last man was offside, it was terribly simple and everyone understood. only contention then was how much body counts for level/not level and favouring defenders/attackers interpretations.

That is true. But the change wasn't made for the sake of change, or on a whim. People complained with the old law because a player making his way back up field on the left wing would lead to an attack down the right wing being stopped, a thunderbolt of a shot from a half cleared corner would be ruled out because the corner taker had slipped and not managed to get back onside, and other examples of goals being ruled out because a player who was not interfering with play*, not affect the attack or the defence, was in an offside position.

The law evolved and it was changed so that if you were within 20yards of the ball, you were deemed interfering with play, but that didn't solve the problem because that's almost half the pitch. Someone stood on the sideline can lead to an attack down the middle being cut short. So it was changed and you had to touch the ball, then you get incidents like in I think a Torquay match where a player walked the ball into the net from an offside position, but didn't touch it. So it was scaled back and the interfering with play/an opponent/gaining an advantage thing came into it.

The problem is that it is very difficult to perfect the offside rule. Every version of it will have flaws. That is unless you continue to complicate it. to the point half the law book is taken up with the offside law.


*We've already seen the quote in this thread about 'if you're not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch' which is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Goalkeepers - when their team is taking a corner (with the always fun exception of last minute must score moments) goalkeepers are not interfering with play. Nor is the defender or opposition attacker waiting on the halfway line until any possible clearance/counter attack. When the right back is playing triangles with the centre back and defensive midfielder just outside their area, most of the opposing team are not interfering. Even the left back and goalkeeper of their team in close proximity are not interfering. Often times, the extent of defending is keeping an eye on a free player, just in case, not actually interfering with the ball. There are plenty of moments in a game when a player is not interfering with play, and it's totally a part of a regular performance.

 

[Diablo]

The offside law....Should be scrapped in my opinion.....No offside rule = more goals...

 

[beorhthelm]

The direction of the pass is irrelevant to the law. I suppose that is because it would be quite an unusual set of circumstances for a player in an offside position (i.e. closer to the goal than the ball) to benefit from having the ball played behind him.

not really, winger down the line and crosses into the 18 yard to on rushing forwards who've skinned their defenders. not an every game occurance, but certainly common, i thought if the ball is played behind you no one is offside.

 

[Acker79]

not really, winger down the line and crosses into the 18 yard to on rushing forwards who've skinned their defenders. not an every game occurance, but certainly common, i thought if the ball is played behind you no one is offside.

I am probably misunderstanding your hypothetical situation, because, that doesn't sound offside to me. An 'on rushing forward' suggests someone running toward the ball from behind it. If you are behind the ball, you are onside irrespective of the position of the defenders.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

The offside law....Should be scrapped in my opinion.....No offside rule = more goals...

It wouldn't necessarily. All it would result in is a lower standard of football and a more stretched game as teams would be able to be less compact. You'd probably also see a return to the 1800s football where dribbling was key rather than passing and movement as many of the 1v1 battles would take centre stage rather than overloads.

 

[Pondicherry]

I must admit I thought I knew the rules and I thought it was offside but this FIFA example says otherwise.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you are behind the ball, you are onside irrespective of the position of the defenders.

thanks that cleared it up for me. i overlooked this obvious way of putting it, so it wouldnt be in the offside rules

 

[trueblue]

I'm not sure what it is your 'I don't think so' refers to. I'm just quoting the laws of the game.

That bit you've highlighted simply means if a defender plays the ball deliberately (i.e. a miss-placed pass) and the attacker intercepts, the attacker is not offside. If it deflects off the defender from an attacking player's pass, the attacker is offside. If a keeper makes a save, but parries it, the attacker is offside. If the keeper catches it, puts the ball on the ground to kick it out to a defender, but under-hits it allowing the attacking to nick the ball, the attacker is not offside.

I mostly listened to the radio, so didn't see their goal yesterday, so I'm not sure how this general interpretation applies to the Boro goal.

I was using your copy of the laws to reply to KZN seagull who said they showed the goal was 'offside' when in fact they don't. Or rather the guidance to referees doesn't as 'gaining an advantage' does not mean what everyone quite reasonably assumes it would. Not disagreeing with you.

 

[easynow]

We have quantum super computers and we still rely on people running up and down the field to call offside lol

 

[BensGrandad]

What I dont understand is when the kick was taken there were 2 or 3 players in an offside position. The ref nor his assistant knew who the ball was meant for it could have been either of those 2 or 3 so why didnt the assistant flag then., they were all active in the game.had the ball dropped short., so were there just in case.