The Offside Law In Football

This really needs to be sorted out once and for all. I was watching Manchester City and Blackburn last night and the late Blackburn equaliser was an absolute joke in my opinion. Bentley had the ball on the right wing and whipped in a curling cross to the near post area. David Dunn, who was standing a yard or two offisde, jumped up and made an effort to get a flick on the ball but it marginally cleared his head before Santa Cruz arrived from an onside position to head home the leveller.

Fifa’s Law 11 states that a player is active, and therefore offside, if he:

plays or touches the ball, passed or touched by a team-mate;

prevents an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent;

gains an advantage by being in a position that allows him to play a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position, or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

In this case, the linesman initially flagged for offside but then consulted with the referree and between them they decided that Dunn was not interfering with play, and the goal was awarded as Dunn hadn’t connected with the ball.

It seems absolutely clear to me that this goal was offside under the 2nd ruling above. Dunn, in making an attempt to deflect the ball from its course, clearly made a movement that impacted on the defence. He was standing right in front of the 'keeper’s view of the approaching cross and he was blatantly a distraction to both him and the defence, who had to concern themselves with Dunn, before they could turn their attentions to Santa Cruz. His position also affected things like the goalkeeper’s starting position and so I can’t at all fathom how he could have been deemed onside. It just seemed completely ridiculous to me.

I love these debates. As I said here before I don’t know what needs to be clarified because I think the rule is clear enough. You hear plenty of people complaining about it and claiming they don’t understand all these interpretations but they’re explained in that FIFA snippet above and there are even video examples to highlight this.

In the above case (and I haven’t seen the goal) it seems to me that the referee was in error. Once Dunn tries to play the ball then that’s offside. He’s in an area where any attempt to play the ball causes a clear distraction for the goalkeeper so I can’t see how any referee who knows the rules could decide otherwise. I don’t really agree that his affect on the keeper’s starting position is an issue though. If he stands there and does nothing at all then he’s perfectly entitled to do that. If defenders choose to retreat and mark him then that’s their loss but only by making a play for the ball does he become offside.

The only amendment I might make is a clarification of who decides on interference. It’s probably best for the referee to decide on that because the assistant is at an odd angle to be judging whether the attacker made a deliberate play for the ball or not. There’ll be uproar though if linesmen continually flag for offside, only to be ruled out later by referees.

We seem to have relatively similar viewpoints on this but I disagree with you regarding the 'keeper’s starting position and maybe that’s due to the fact I’m a world class 'keeper myself. Last night Joe Hart was forced across his goal in anticipation of a Dunn flick and when that didn’t materialise it meant he’d more ground to make up to try to prevent the Santa Cruz header. I think Blackburn therefore gained an advantage by virtue of Dunn standing offside in that his position had an impact on where the City 'keeper was standing also.

I’ll also give you another more direct example. Say a player is standing offside in the middle of goal and preventing the 'keeper from getting a clear view of proceedings. The 'keeper then takes two steps to his right to enable him to see the play in front of him, however he’s then beaten by a shot knocked into the far corner. Again, I’d award offside here as the player standing in an offside position has obstructed the 'keeper’s line of vision and thus forced him to move away from his ideal position with the effect that he was beaten as a result.

The premise holds true for both situations though. A player standing offside naturally impacts and attracts a 'keeper’s attention and affects where he stands and if the offside player’s movement, like last night, is within the 'keeper’s eyeline then I think a freekick(.com) for offside should be given in every single case.

In the second example you’re talking about a striker clearly impeding the keeper’s line of vision by deliberately standing in front of him. That’s an obstruction and should be offside. However the mere (static) presence of someone standing in an offside position is not reason enough to deem them interfering with play. Defenders are loathe to leave a guy unmarked even if he is offside and that’s why strikers stand offside in the first place. If defenders were brave enough to leave them there, then there’d be no problem.

There’s a difference between being in a keeper’s eyeline and attracting his attention as opposed to completely and deliberately blocking his view. As I said earlier, once Dunn tried to flick the ball on then he should have been flagged offside straight away. Personally, I think if he stands still then he’s fine.

I disagree with that interpretation. If a player is standing still but in the 'keeper’s eyeline and in such a position that he’s attracting the 'keeper’s attention and thus having an effect on his position in goal then I’d flag the fook every time.

Obviously, I’m not advocating a return to the old system and there’d still be a number of instances where players would be deemed not to be interfering with play. An example of this would be when a player gets to the byline and cuts the ball back for a team-mate to strike a shot on goal. He might end up down in the corner of the box, standing in an offside position but he’s not in the 'keeper’s eyeline and therefore not interfering with play.

But if someone’s hovering around the 6-yard box, even standing still in there, then I’d be in faovur of offside being awarded every time.

I don’t have any huge commitment to my belief on this one. What does annoy me is when commentators and managers talk about the law like it’s some sort of mystery. In fairness to RT when RVN scored for the Dutch agaisnt the Czechs in Euro 2004 they explained at half time why it wasn’t offside as per the new regulations. The laws (or their interpretation) haven’t changed since then so people should shut the fuck up saying that there are different interpretations. There aren’t.

Having said all that I don’t care what the law is but in fairness to FIFA they were moving from a situation where guys were being ridiculously flagged offside just because the linesman could see them - I seem to recall Roy Keane scoring for Man United in a game against Arsenal or Liverpool I think and it was disallowed for someone standing offside nowhere near the ball.

The rule could be improved by saying - if you’re offside in the box then you’re interfering but you could still have someone out of the play completely who could be flagged offside. I think the solution is to have something like rugby. You are offside if you’re standing in an offside position in the box unless you are making a clear effort to retreat to an onside position.

Fairly obvious that Dunn was offside lads. Serious fook up by the ref

The lack of understanding of the offside rule is seriously pissing me off.

The ridiculous decision to allow Arteta’s goal yesterday was comically inept given how obviously offside he was, but I’ve just watched a little of Goals on Sunday and sat through Kamara explaining to the viewers that Arteta was offside at one stage but that you can’t be offside when the ball comes back off the bar or the post. That’s the second time someone on Sky has said that this season and it seems to be just something they made up. It’s not as though it’s in any way debatable because it’s explicitly mentioned in the FIFA directive from the last change to the law when they stated that the ball rebounding to an offside player from a defender or the post or crossbar does not make him onside.

Now Arteta was offside when he first touched the ball, and would have been offside from Giroud’s header even if an Arsenal player was not judged to play the ball in the tackle. The ball coming off the crossbar after his initial shot is irrelevant but it certainly doesn’t “play people onside” as Kamara has just explained.

I’m annoyed.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in what that utter clown says.

Really poor decision in that Swansea-Hull game earlier and no surprise to see the gimps on Match of the Day all call it wrong.

Gomis was in an offside position (by 5 yards or more) when the ball was played towards him. Two Hull players attempted a header, Brady and someone else, but that wasn’t enough to deem Gomis was onside. Hull needed to have control of possession before the offside was reset - clearly didn’t happen. I’m seething at the continued failure of people to understand this rule.

Match of the day said it was a good decision because:

-The initial ball had him in an offside position but he was not interfering with play.

-The hull defenders then headed the ball into his path, therefore putting him back in an onside position and allowing him to score with a super finish.

Any chance Remy was offside for the winner earlier? Only saw it the once and thought keeper was ahead of him

[QUOTE=“ProjectX, post: 1118187, member: 1742”]Match of the day said it was a good decision because:

-The initial ball had him in an offside position but he was not interfering with play.

-The hull defenders then headed the ball into his path, therefore putting him back in an onside position and allowing him to score with a super finish.[/QUOTE]
They’re wrong on the second bit. They need to have controlled possession, which translates as playing the ball where they intend to. If the ball came back off the keeper would they be making the same argument? Obviously not.

Why don’t they get rid of the offside rule, what’s the point of it would the game not be more exciting without it?

Eh, no.

The offside rule allows defences to push up. Get rid of the offside rule and you would have pretty much every team parking the bus.

Don’t the park the bus anyway

No.

Lot’s of team play with very high defensive lines and actively look to utilise the offside trap.

Go back to the old rule. If you are offside, well, you are offside. Get rid of all this hipster stuff of not being active etc.

Everyone knew clearly under the previous rule. Tough luck if the retreating striker was lazy in getting back on side, for example.

Same poor call in Stoke game today and same brutal “analysis” on Match of the Day. Seething once again.

You’re hardly expecting “analysis” from Rrobbie Savage, are you? Phil Nev not a ton better either.