Interpretation of offside law

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Der Alte

Der Alte

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2011
1,657
1,291
113
East Yorkshire
I was a bit surprised by the Reading manager's comments on the Football League show last night. The ref's view that Mclean was not penalised because he didn't actually go for the ball is one that has now been with us for several years and I was amazed that it came as such a surprise to an experienced pro.
When the law first changed I remember Manchester United developed a tactic where Ruud Van Nistleroy would take up a position well offside for set pieces and then would not make any attempt to go for the ball - he clearly distracted the opposing defenders by doing this.
I must say though, that this interpretation does cause a lot of confusion and variability amongst officials - some linesmen still flag as soon as the ball passes the back line and an attacking player is caught offside whether he moves for the ball or not. Personally I would prefer a return to the situation where anyone caught offside was penalised regardless of whether they make an attempt to get the ball or not - a bit harsh maybe but at least not open to such variable interpretation.
 
It is open to interpretation as it is not just going for the ball, but also interfering with play such as distracting a keeper. From what I saw Mclean did neither and Brady did brilliantly telling him to leave it as he wasnt (brady) offside.
 
the rules and the rules and we did nothing wrong..
i do sympathise with defenders now tho, makes playing the offiside trap very hard, when you play it perfectly against somebody, and some little whippet springs from nowhere..
 
originallambrettaman said:
It is a stupid rule, it would be far simpler if any player beyond the last man was ruled offside.
Click to expand...

Far simpler and far worse. Imagine playing your striker in through the middle, 1 on 1, he finishes it, 1-0.. oh no wait, the right winger 20 yards away from the ball was offside, no goal.
 
J-D said:
Far simpler and far worse. Imagine playing your striker in through the middle, 1 on 1, he finishes it, 1-0.. oh no wait, the right winger 20 yards away from the ball was offside, no goal.
Click to expand...

I had it worse than that in a Sunday League game, I was in the middle and onside as our left winger took on the opposing winger, their defence stepped up as the full back went to challenge him so I was stood offside but going back with their defence. Our winger knocked the ball past the full back and got to it just before it went out for a throw, and the ref gave offside against me in line with the back post.

I don't see how McLean wasn't involved in play yesterday though. We tried to pass the ball to him and he went after it, it was only when Brady told him to stop that he did, and that might just have been because he thinks Brady is better at one on ones.

As I said on the other thread though, this should be adopted as a tactic from now on. All we need is a striker who's permanently offside, shame we let Folan go now I think about it.
 
J-D said:
Far simpler and far worse. Imagine playing your striker in through the middle, 1 on 1, he finishes it, 1-0.. oh no wait, the right winger 20 yards away from the ball was offside, no goal.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The idea that any player straying offside being an offence would mean that basically you can't stand there at all

originallambrettaman said:
We've still got Cullen.
Click to expand...

And Fryatt.

This 'modern' offside thing has got everyone fooled. Most people think that is has been changed relatively recently to allow more goals and complicate the rule. In actuality it has been changed to allow less goals and be more complicated. It used to just be if you pass to someone offside its offside. Now they're saying if you are in the view of the keeper you're offside or if you were offside 3 passes before you recieved the ball that's an offence. Nonsense.

All they need to do is go back to calling people offside if they actually do something, like in McLean's case yesterday; get the ball.

If you think about it all rules in football are designed to stop cheating or gaining an advantage in a way they originally decided was wrong and was not meant to be how the game was played. Offside is there to prevent the idea of 'goal-scrounging' which makes sense. However I don't see any need for a complex rule stopping the game every few minutes because someone is standing offside; if they aren't cheating or gaining an advantage from it in a way deemed unfair, why does the game need to be stopped? It doesn't.

I apply the same argument to obsessive yellow cards; if there is no cheating or danger involved, why give a card?
 
so could a player hang around the corner flag run from an offside position to receive the ball in an onside position ?

would that player be allowed to tackle a defender if they got to the ball first ?

the blue line rule in ice hockey is quite a simple offside rule but i would dread the football played if a static offside line was adopted
 
It's not difficult to interpret or understand. It is however difficult at match speed, the Brady/McClean goal looked an easy one as both players were in the same vicinity, more difficult if the players in question are at opposite ends of the pitch. But, it is what the match officials are paid well, for interpreting these rules and regulations fairly. <ok>
 
glennonslastpint said:
It's not difficult to interpret or understand. It is however difficult at match speed, the Brady/McClean goal looked an easy one as both players were in the same vicinity, more difficult if the players in question are at opposite ends of the pitch. But, it is what the match officials are paid well, for interpreting these rules and regulations fairly. <ok>
Click to expand...

And in fairness, they did.
 
I think it was offside though. Not complaining but McLean did run towards the ball and he then distracted the keeper by positioning himself for the tap in. The only argument is whether by the time it gets towards the keeper if has changed phase. I still think him running towards the ball and being as close to it was he was makes him offside.
 
Also, I remember away at Villa in the PL. I believe Villa had a free kick, and Agbonlahor planted himself on the penalty sport - miles offside. They hit the long free kick in to a different play, who headered it down to Agbonlahor. He'd clearly gained an advantage by being in that offside position to start with, but it wasn't given, most likely because it was classed as a different phase of play despite it taking 5 seconds overall from the free kick been taken.
 
James said:
Also, I remember away at Villa in the PL. I believe Villa had a free kick, and Agbonlahor planted himself on the penalty sport - miles offside. They hit the long free kick in to a different play, who headered it down to Agbonlahor. He'd clearly gained an advantage by being in that offside position to start with, but it wasn't given, most likely because it was classed as a different phase of play despite it taking 5 seconds overall from the free kick been taken.
Click to expand...

It's really simple, when the ball was passed to him, he wasn't offside. The interpretation you're suggesting is the very problem that has made it so complicated. If it was still just offside when you recieve the ball it'd be fine. Now people are desperately trying to disallow goals all over the place for being offside 3 or 4 passes before you recieve it.
 
A simple example is as follows:

If a midfield has a shot on goal while a forward is standing in an offside position but not obstructing the goalies view, there is no offence. If the ball goes in, the goal stands.

If the ball were to hit the post and rebound to that offside player, offside would be called and a freekick given to the defending team. He gained an advantage from his offside po/sition. This is generally referred to as the secondary phase of offside.
 
TONY_NORMAN'S_ACE said:
A simple example is as follows:

If a midfield has a shot on goal while a forward is standing in an offside position but not obstructing the goalies view, there is no offence. If the ball goes in, the goal stands.

If the ball were to hit the post and rebound to that offside player, offside would be called and a freekick given to the defending team. He gained an advantage from his offside po/sition. This is generally referred to as the secondary phase of offside.
Click to expand...

Haha,i just mistook you for Twf,but then when i saw the post was sensible i did a double take. Tony Normans ace ! I see,yes very good ! <doh>
 
Obviously it worked in our favour this time so there is no reason to complain but the majority of the time if a player is moving towards the ball from an offside position the linesman will raise his flag. I assume it was a mistake and then they tried to explain it away with their reasoning which may technically be correct but is never the way the rule is normally applied when the player is so close to the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back