The offside rule. One of the least understood rules in the game, so they say.When I was a kid, I was told that it was to prevent "goal-hanging". Mind you, there was no linesman in my school playground! But on reflection, in a sport which is frequently decided by the odd goal there are problems with the offside rule. Firstly, the linesmen don't always get it right, and frankly I am not surprised as they have to be looking in two places at once at a fast moving scene. There has been discussion on another thread about whether it might be good or bad to use new technology, so I won't dwell on that, other than to say that if the calls could be made instantly and accurately every time, then that would help. The other issue is that the rule applied to a passage of play which happens in the penalty area only, and leads to a disallowed goal, seems a bit odd to me. We benefited from just such a call recently, and I admit to feeling very relieved when the flag goes up in our favour and frustrated when a promising attack is halted by the same thing. If the rule where to be modified such that passes within the penalty area were exempt, then might this not lead to a few more goals, and would that not be a bad thing? (Obviously, we don't need the help at the moment! ) What do you think?
I remember when we played ManU at Old Trafford, a few years back, and were doing well. I think it was 2-2, courtesy of a Kevin Phillips whack into the bottom left corner, from all of 35 yards. A cracking goal, and no mistake. And the other one was a similar effort, but it came off Brett Ormerod's bum, who was in a more forward position. Anyway, I'm typing my thoughts here - back to the offside incident. As I said, we were doing well, when ManU got a free-kick and Van Nistelrooy stood in a clear offside position. The action went from phase 1 to phase 2 and then Van Horse scored. Cue Saints, and especially WGS screaming for offside, to which the Referee waved everyone away and pointed to the centre circle. Everyone, but everyone was astonished, none more so than WGS, who admitted he knew nothing of a recent change in the offside law. The news had gone out from the ruling bodies, to the referee's association and the individual football clubs. But the Sport media had not commented on it previously, nor had they identified that Van Horse was actually onside, by the new rules. Of course, they quickly adjusted their stance, making out that they'd known all along and that ManU had just been clever, and that WGS was a twerp for not knowing. But the real revelation was that within a week, nearly all football clubs had devised a new formation on attacking free-kicks, which the Sport media then went on to examine. Basically, everyone, the media, the fans, the clubs, the staff [most certainly WGS] were clearly caught with their pants down, but the Sports media tried desperately to hide it. Since then, there have been other subtle changes, which in all honesty, I haven't kept up with, and tend to find out when the next incidence informs me. I don't know why the offside law has to be so complicated, but I wouldn't want to go back to someone being offside even if they were standing far forward, but way out by the corner flag. However, the idea of interfering with play or not, is a judgement that has to be made by the referee, and his linos, and with the speed of the game, mistakes are made up and down the leagues, every week. As to passes inside the penalty area..? Perhaps..? But it would certainly see the relegation of Arsenal, who already want to pass the ball into the net. Don't give them too much temptation. Didn't they try to pass a penalty a few years back..? We don't need changes to the rules, unless they are simplified. What we need is for those very rules to be ably and reliably administered.
Having run the line many times for my sons youth team i can tell you even run of the mill offside calls can be tight and contentious as i have found out with 'touchline experts' stood behind me telling me how i got this wrong and got that wrong and at times they may have been right but add all this first phase second phase stuff to the pot and the plot thickens and it can be very hard to make right decisions on a consistant basis particularly in a fast flowing and close game. Lets face it we can all call the easy ones but the tight ones never please all.Wether its better for the game as a spectacle or not i dont no but from my point of view if running the line any one in an offside position should be flagged offside interfering or not the onus then is on the player to remain in an onside position and not for officals to start trying to to interpitate rules on the spot in the heat of action then crowd or angry parents can shout at the player for straying offside instead of the poor old lino . The rules should be devised so that everyone has at least some understanding of whats going on. By the way i am no official pedantic type but having carried the dreaded flag on many occasion there is no game with out an official and more tolerance should be shown to them i cant tell you how many dads develop bad backs all of a sudden when offered the flag and then stand for ninety minuets criticising the guy whose had the balls to do it
I resemble this remark - or did some years ago when my lads were young. Totally agree, we all need to recognise that officials make mistakes and that what looks an easy judgement isn't. We notice the howlers, of course. But the TV pundits are the up market version of those dads you describe. I'd like to see these pundits giving referees and officials credit more often. Meanwhile, back at the question .. I was at OT for that game, and you may recall we'd been 2-0 down and dead until KP popped up with a couple of goodies. The momentum was then with us until that goal. For me it was an absurd change in the law. As Shanks said if a player isn't interfering he shouldn't be on the pitch. The player out by the touchline may not be in a position to score, but could distract a defender long enough to let someone else do so. Let's go back to when it was relatively simple - although "played on" was one we all had trouble with - and get rid of this phase 1 and phase 2 nonsense.
I believe the 1st and 2nd phase ruling was brought in with good intentions, ie to promote attacking football and keep the game flowing. But it's made it very difficult at times to get the correct decision and in some situations gives an unfair advantage to someone in an offside position at phase 1. Offside is a simple rule but quite difficult to administer because of the reasons mentioned above and the 1st and 2nd phase ruling has made things even more difficult. The so called experts in the studio with their technology can't always be sure, and even then are reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to the officials. On a slight tangent to the original post but concerning the offside rule. I was watching the Spain V Czech Rep game the other night and there was an offside decision given that had me confused. Spain took a short corner and the guy who recieved the ball played it behind himself ie away from the goal line and towards the sideline. The player who took the corner ran up the field to collect the ball. He was running from an offside position in the corner but as the ball was played backwards, was the offside decision a correct one?
To be honest we can all say that we don't understand it, how about we start by reading what the Laws of the Game 2011/2012 say. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image So, we all know the bit about being ahead of the second last defender. It says that there are three occasions when the player in an offside position should actually be penalised. - Interfering with play: To do this you have to physically kick, head or touch the ball. Not try to touch it and miss, not put pressure on a defender who is clearing it, not run towards it. This is obviously different from the good old days when anyone in the same post code would be penalised. - Gaining an advantage by being in that position: Only refers to the very specific situation when the ball bounces of the post, crossbar, goalkeeper, opposition defender. Again, physically touching the ball is required. - Interfering with an opponent: This is the bit that probably causes most confusion. The explanation seems simple enough, but the best way to explain it is with the images that come on the next page, that show when players should and should not be penalised for this: please log in to view this image So, this is getting incredibly long now, but that's a five minute introduction to offside.
I decided to download the laws of the game, from TheFA.com site. It's a PDF, so if you have Windows, you may need a PDF reader, like Adobe. Linux users should be fine. Here's the link: http://www.thefa.com/thefa/rulesandregulations/lawsofthegame Of the 4 options, it's The FIFA Laws of the Game handbook. I've looked through the basic offside rule [page 33], and it is the simple ruling that we all know. In fact, one wonders where all the debate can occur. A little patience will reveal the detailed definitions of the law of offside [starting at page 102], where everything is explained. I'm bound to say that that the explanations look fine, and then you think of the real world examples, and the definitions can turn into referee interpretations very quickly. It shouldn't be that way, IMO. Also, no mentioning of phase 1 or 2. By the way, I remember the Bill Shankly quote. Brilliant quote, from a brilliant manager. EDIT: Ha!, I see I've been gazumped by Qwerty. We've obviously been thinking down the same lines.
I read the rules that Qwerty posted. And I was honestly confused after the first line. And I never knew you couldn't be offside from a goal kick or corner. Although I'm sure I've seen it happen before. So I am more confused now than I was before. Just go back to if your offside your offside. Simples
when it says "second-last" opponent that presumably means the "last defender" as the GK would be the "last opponent"..? ps Saints are very impressive.. do you have decent cover if you have injuries?
Phase 1 and 2 aren't in there, because they are basically a pundit invention. They basically are a way of describing when a previously inactive player becomes active. To be honest we could have exactly the same debate on handball, fouls or whatever.
Maybe we should just abolish offside all together to make the game easier for women to understand [typing with one hand, whilst removing coat from peg with the other!]
Were you just off for a pint with Andy Gray?! Not being offside from a goal kick, throw in or corner was always in there. Channon always pushed up when our goalie took a goal kick as he understood the rule - as do lots of top class strikers. The centre backs then have to gamble that someone will get a touch before it reaches him, making him offside, or fall back with him making them defend deeper than they would want. It all sounds simple, but even this caused confusion. The rules on offside have never been easy, but the current interpretation is making them harder for everyone to understand, including for the people who have to implement them.
Im presuming thats what it means yeah! And yeah we have a fair amount of cover in every position, we could play two seperate teams with both still being fairly effective!
It doesn't have to be the GK+1? My interpretation is that if the opposing GK is off somewhere upfield, there need to be two outfield players playing you onside... is that right?!
I remember way back in the 1960's, seeing Jack Charlton playing for England. He used an old Leeds tactic of standing, either in front of the goalkeeper [JC being 6'4"] and/or standing right on the goal line. It was very effective because, it unsighted the keeper, so he was very much interfering with play, and he couldn't be offside, so he was a menace to defenders who had to be around him. Plus, where can the keeper effectively stand to maximise his position..? Leeds and England got several goals with that tactic until someone found a way to defend against it. Teams still use it occasionally though.
In curious to know one thing in Football For it to be a Goal / Corner / Throw-In / Free-Kick the ball has to completely cross the line (to help make the officials job easier. So.... Why dont change the offside rule to state that the whole of the player has to either be in line with the Defender or the whole of the player has to be beyond the Defender. That way you'd get a lot less controversy of was he marginally offside, was he on etc..
Yes, that is strange, now you come to point it out. Wasn't there an alteration, or advise to Refs to consider that there should be daylight between the offside player and the player playing him offside, before he is to be considered offside..? I'm sure I'm not imagining it. It was widely reported, IIRC.
I suspect that if they changed the rule there would still be many very close calls, and the replays would focus on whether all of the player was behind the line or in front of it. There would still be incorrect calls.
