The Offside Law Revisited

[Senior Supporter]

I apologise in advance for returning to this subject as I know it causes stress to many on here, and almost drives one poster to  :wine: (is it Mr Lighthouse?), but there was another puzzle last night.

When the ball was passed forward for Saha's goal he was so clearly offside that the assistant ref. must have registered the fact. However, an Arsenal player got a touch on the ball whilst trying to cut out the pass so the first question is "did this action automatically play Saha onside?" Strangely neither the commentators or pundit seemed to know the answer. Curbishley, in the studio, confused me even more by claiming the flag should have been raised as soon as Coleman played the forward pass. That, of course, completely contradicts the explanation that was given for allowing Huddlestone's free kick goal against us.

The final twist is that a virtually identical incident occured in one of the other matches (ManU?), when a defender could only head-on a through pass to an offside striker ..... and the flag went up straight away!

:dead horse: 

[ImperialWhite]

The offside rule, explained by Keith Hackett:

To be clear, the definition, in the laws, is this: in deciding whether to flag, assistants must watch out for three things, any one of which would make an offside player active.

First, is the offside player interfering with play? As advised by the IFAB since 2005, that means playing or touching the ball. Attempting to play the ball does not count - he must actually play or touch it.

Second, is the player interfering with an opponent's ability to play the ball, by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements, or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent?

And third, is the player 'gaining an advantage'? This last point is specific, and is not what Match of the Day seem to think it is. It applies only to an offside player playing a ball that rebounds to him from an opponent, the post or the crossbar. If he does not play the ball from the rebound, then he is not penalised for being in that offside position. Nothing else counts as 'gaining'.

And that's it. If a player ticks any one of those three boxes, he is offside. The three-part definition is remembered as 'PIG' - if a player doesn't Play, Interfere or Gain, he is fine.

Simples.

[jarv]

99 out of 100 times, offside is the call these days. The only difference with Huddlestone's effort was it was blasted but it was still offside. The last time goals like Saha's were given was probably about 1963. Have to say, Saha looks good these days.

[ImperialWhite]

However, an Arsenal player got a touch on the ball whilst trying to cut out the pass so the first question is "did this action automatically play Saha onside?"

No, this action didn't play him onside - see "G" of the "PIG" mnemonic.

Did Saha gain from being in an offside position?
Yes - he played "a ball that rebounds to him from an opponent".

[Lighthouse]

Welcome to my World and my Medication has to be raised again. If a player is only offside if he touches the ball why does the flags go up and the whistles blow when a forward is running towards the pass to him but before he touches it. One can look at the law and quote it to theirs hearts content. But referees still interpret the rules differently. Makes me cross that this confusion has been allowed to carry on.

Must lie down. Or is it lay down. Oh am so confused.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I am going against the grain here, but I really feel that the liberalisation of the offside law has been a good thing for football.

It has made playing the offside trap incredibly difficult and meant that teams cannot squeeze the life out of a game by playing a really high line.

In this case however, it does seem mad. The pass was too Saha, he was offside, whether the player got a touch or not should be irrelevant as Saha was the intended target in the first place. Or am i wrong?

[FC Silver Fox]

Can we have a somewhat crazy 'what if'?    What if we got rid of the offside rule completely. Think it through rather than saying that a team would just leave a striker on the penalty spot and hoof it up to him. The defending team would have to leave players back as cover and so it would be a far more open game instead of seeing all 20 players in the centre 30 yards of the pitch. I think it would be more exciting with lots more goals. It would certainly change the complete dynamics of the game. I don't think the 'hoof' game would last long. Players would look for open spaces all over the pitch, even in wider positions that were once offside. Some forward players would still have to carry out defensive duties.
I'd like to see a demonstration match between 2 good teams without any offside rule. Could be interesting, but maybe I'm being whacko. 

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Can we have a somewhat crazy 'what if'?    What if we got rid of the offside rule completely. Think it through rather than saying that a team would just leave a striker on the penalty spot and hoof it up to him. The defending team would have to leave players back as cover and so it would be a far more open game instead of seeing all 20 players in the centre 30 yards of the pitch. I think it would be more exciting with lots more goals. It would certainly change the complete dynamics of the game. I don't think the 'hoof' game would last long. Players would look for open spaces all over the pitch, even in wider positions that were once offside. Some forward players would still have to carry out defensive duties.
I'd like to see a demonstration match between 2 good teams without any offside rule. Could be interesting, but maybe I'm being whacko. 

The problem with this is that there would be no structure to the game. It would look horrible and it would be chaos. Formations would go out of the window and it would be much more every man for himself.

There is a reason that in most ball sports their is offside, it helps the structure of the game and the flow.

[LBNo11]

...I wish somebody had explained it to the idiot lino this evening...

[ron]

The bottom line about this is that a player is offside if the ref says he is. All the rest of the pseudo-explanations are so much waffle.

Re SS's post about "being played onside", I remember Spurs scoring such a goal in our 4-3 defeat at WHL (was it 1966?) when George Cohen "played a Spurs player (ironically it might have been Terry Dyson) onside ", who went on to score against us.

So being wound up about unconvincing explanations isn't new...that particular one has p****d me off for nearly half a century !!

[Me-ate-Live, innit??]

Ya bunch of old girls !!!
Not knowing the offside rule (s) .......................





...................and admitting to not knowing is sooooooooooooooooooo like a girl  :dft012:

[duffbeer]

My brain hurts.  I'll try reading this again in the morning, after I've done the hoovering