The offside rule

[philliggi]

Been a discussion on the referees thread about the offside rule and thought I'd open it up to wider debate.

 

Personally I think it's a joke. Ok in theory but far too difficult to implement effectively and consistently. It's too open to interpretation wether a player is interfering in play or not and what one linesman will give another wouldn't. 

 

In my book Its too much of an idealism, great in a perfect world but results differ wildly in practice. 

 

So what would you prefer. The current system as it is, or a return to the old system where if your offside your offside. Simple as.

 

The old way, although not perfect, was easily understood by all involved. If your offside 30 yard away from play and your team score it's ruled out for offside. It's tough luck but you know the rules and should play to the letter of the law.  

 

This is purely for discussion purposes it won't be changing any time soon.

[disjointed]

Scrap it. Who didn't enjoy goalhanging when they were young. 

[L1onheartNew]

Only ever applies to Latics forwards anyhoo. Just have to work around it

[doctor evil]

I don't see the point in going back to that. Yeah, occasionally an official might make a decision you disagree with but that always happens. I don't think it would be easier for the officials either. You'd probably get more suspect calls than now.

[philliggi]

I don't see how you would get more suspect calls. It's the same system as now except the linesman doesn't have to consider if a player is 'in play's or not.

 

He would effectively be making 1 split second decision instead of 2.

[doctor evil]

11 minutes ago, philliggi said:

I don't see how you would get more suspect calls. It's the same system as now except the linesman doesn't have to consider if a player is 'in play's or not.

 

He would effectively be making 1 split second decision instead of 2.

I'm not sure, because everyone is then in play. There could be situations where more than 1 player is on the back line. You'd then be making multiple offside calls.

[Bobledgersheart]

What narks me is when a forward in the middle is retreating several yards offside and the ball is played to an onside winger. The centre forward then turns to face goal a few yards in front of his marker and proceeds to bury the winger's cross having been deemed "not interfering with phase one play."  I'm not advocating flagging someone out on the wing offside when the ball flies in the net but some decisions to let goals stand when players are in the goalie's eye-line seem ludicrous. 

[rudemedic]

3 hours ago, Bobledgersheart said:

What narks me is when a forward in the middle is retreating several yards offside and the ball is played to an onside winger. The centre forward then turns to face goal a few yards in front of his marker and proceeds to bury the winger's cross having been deemed "not interfering with phase one play."  I'm not advocating flagging someone out on the wing offside when the ball flies in the net but some decisions to let goals stand when players are in the goalie's eye-line seem ludicrous. 

This was the point I raised in the other thread. It’s not just retreating players either. 

[leeslover]

3 hours ago, Bobledgersheart said:

What narks me is when a forward in the middle is retreating several yards offside and the ball is played to an onside winger. The centre forward then turns to face goal a few yards in front of his marker and proceeds to bury the winger's cross having been deemed "not interfering with phase one play."  I'm not advocating flagging someone out on the wing offside when the ball flies in the net but some decisions to let goals stand when players are in the goalie's eye-line seem ludicrous. 

Agree. It's never seemed fair to me that the defence can play someone offside but he then joins in the move anyway. The defenders literally need eyes in the back of their heads to know whether someone is back in play.

[philliggi]

Precisely. These players ain't rocket scientists. Maybe at the top level there are intelligent players but the quality down the league's dwindles. That goes for both players and referees

[Bobledgersheart]

47 minutes ago, philliggi said:

Precisely. These players ain't rocket scientists. Maybe at the top level there are intelligent players but the quality down the league's dwindles. That goes for both players and referees

A lot of problems are caused by players not knowing the rules which in itself is laughable. You only have to listen to co-comentators on Sky and BT to realise that even they haven't a clue as to the rules of a game they are supposed to pass comment and "insider knowledge" on. The handball rule being a prime example. "Yes well he gets control of the ball so it's obviously handball" one said recently, which isn't in the games rules to my knowledge.

On a side note it's an interesting point to wonder whether the "handled" goal scored by Wolves against City last week would have been disallowed had the officials spotted it, as it surely could not have been construed as deliberate.

[TheBigDog]

30 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said:

A lot of problems are caused by players not knowing the rules which in itself is laughable. 

 

The one that I am convinced many players simply do not realise is that you cannot be offside from a throw in...

[rudemedic]

1 hour ago, TheBigDog said:

 

The one that I am convinced many players simply do not realise is that you cannot be offside from a throw in...

Or a goal kick, judging by Aguero’s goal against Huddersfield last week.

[mikeroyboy]

Every decision made by the officials is split second, rack of the eye judgment.

 

I don't want to see a return to the days a perfectly good goal is disallowed because someone clearly not involved with or near the action is in an offside position. 

 

Most offside decisions are clear-cut, with players running through and beyond a defencive back line.

 

Leave well alone. Personally I can't recall an incident where I've thought there was an issue with a none interfering player. The frequency of such incidents doesn't warrant changing the law in my view. Neither will the 'powers that be'.

[philliggi]

Is it not a case though that the reason you don't recall an incident is because they haven't been allowed to develop?  No one recalls something that didn't happen.

 

Obviously the old way needed work. That's why it was changed in the first place. I don't advocate flagging a player down injured offside, but the scenarios being suggested in this thread against my argument are purely theoretical and would very rarely happen in real time play. How often is it someone is ever in an offside position on the opposite wing to the play? It doesn't happen in practice. 

 

I've seen it happen where a player makes a run forward, possibly 30 or 40 yards away from the ball in an attempt to receive a long ball. The defence has played that player offside correctly but The ball has been intercepted or deflected and the play has gone elsewhere. 

Now to me, he is offside. He may be 30 or 40 yards away but he is still involved with play. He has actively altered how that defensive line is operating, regardless of weather he received the ball or not. 

It's the same if a player is 20 or 30 yards forward of a keeper but in his line of sight. How is it possible for a referee to judge if that player is involved with play or not?

 

Too many scenarios are open to interpretation and imo it should be simpler than that. It is just my opinion though and I don't doubt for a minute that things will remain the same. 

 

[Monty Burns]

8 hours ago, rudemedic said:

Or a goal kick, judging by Aguero’s goal against Huddersfield last week.

You can’t.

[Monty Burns]

<insert brian clough quote>

[lookersstandandy]

10 hours ago, rudemedic said:

Or a goal kick, judging by Aguero’s goal against Huddersfield last week.

 

I recall watching Dean Saunders persistently stand in an off side position when’s Nigel Spink was taking goal kicks..... and half the Lookers Stand demonstrated they didn’t understand the offside rule properly.

Edited September 3, 2018 by lookersstandandy

[philliggi]

Quite surprised 2 thirds of the vote-although not many have voted - agree with me. Would be interesting to see a large scale result

[simplythemostimportantkick]

1 minute ago, philliggi said:

Quite surprised 2 thirds of the vote-although not many have voted - agree with me. Would be interesting to see a large scale result

That’ll be all you old fuddy duddys at a guess

[philliggi]

Hardly. I'm 34

[simplythemostimportantkick]

27 minutes ago, philliggi said:

Hardly. I'm 34

So younger than me haha. Fair enough then. 

[Bristolatic]

2 hours ago, philliggi said:

Hardly. I'm 34

Thanks, pal. You've just made me remember how old I'll be in a couple of weeks. 

[rosa]

On 9/2/2018 at 8:22 PM, Bobledgersheart said:

A lot of problems are caused by players not knowing the rules which in itself is laughable. You only have to listen to co-comentators on Sky and BT to realise that even they haven't a clue as to the rules of a game they are supposed to pass comment and "insider knowledge" on. The handball rule being a prime example. "Yes well he gets control of the ball so it's obviously handball" one said recently, which isn't in the games rules to my knowledge.

On a side note it's an interesting point to wonder whether the "handled" goal scored by Wolves against City last week would have been disallowed had the officials spotted it, as it surely could not have been construed as deliberate.

See also: 'it's reckless so it's a red card'.

[philliggi]

7 hours ago, Bristolatic said:

 

Thanks, pal. You've just made me remember how old I'll be in a couple of weeks. 

If it's any conciliation I feel about 90