[OTE=SalisburyKev;7199059]I think the rule states that any part of the 'body you can score with' in an offside position, so think he was just about offside but you can see why it wasn't given. They do say the benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side. One of those you're pleased you get for you, annoyed when goes against... But some of the comments being 'yards' offside were just silly...
Ighalo wasn't when that ball was played through as he didn't touch it in that 'phase of play', and he wasn't for the cross either![/QUOTE]
That is precisely what the law states (no rules in football, only laws) but for my money the defenders chest is level with Vydra's leading leg so that is clearly on-side. In any case the benefit of the doubt in off-side must go to the attacking team, unlike every other technical offence (ball in or out of play etc.).
Ighalo was clearly 2yards offside an made it tell. The law, as interpreted, is a complete arse. How was he not in active play or in an advantageous position? Five years ago the goal would not have stood and, frankly, absolutely right too imho.
The laws are written by and the game is officiated by those who, generally speaking, haven't played competitive football since they were 14 (Atwell and Atkinson have told me personally that they stopped playing at that age) and that cannot be right. (That said, FFS keep Platini away from the law makin process... puhleez) and given what's at stake in the modern game that is just ridiculous.
No I do not in any way endorse the idea that ex pro's should referee, but I do think they need to have played the game at a reasonable level. Far too many custodians of the the game have played barely any. That has to be wrong?