Offside!

[Ian Royal]

There would also be the arguement that any player standing in an offside position must automatically be offside if the defenders stop and appeal for offside because he is there. He as clearly distracted them in that situation.

[Skyline]

As for what KH had to say, I've thought for a long time (and said it on more than one occasion) that commentators and 'pundits' should be made to take a refereeing course before being allowed to commentate on any game. Dick Sawdon-Smith has a good pop at Shearer in Thursday's EP for exactly the same thing as well.

One thing about the offside law that always bugs me is that it is so lop-sided in favour of the attacking side - specifically, an attacker is only flagged for offside if one of the situations in KH's article arises, but a defender can play someone onside even if they are nowhere near the ball and could not really be said to be interfering with play or gaining an advantage (if you used the same definitions as used for an attacker). For instance, imagine a winger running down the right touchline who crosses the ball forwards to a striker near the centre of the pitch, who in turn is only being played onside by a defender over on the left touchline. Using the definitions as applied to the attacking side, the defender would not be considered to be 'active', but because he is a defender he is enough to play the (otherwise off-side) striker on-side.

I've not really explained that tremendously well, but I think you get the gist of what I'm trying to say. I know (hope?) there must be good reasons for it, but I'd love to know what the official reason is.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

One thing about the offside law that always bugs me is that it is so lop-sided in favour of the attacking side - specifically, an attacker is only flagged for offside if one of the situations in KH's article arises, but a defender can play someone onside even if they are nowhere near the ball and could not really be said to be interfering with play or gaining an advantage (if you used the same definitions as used for an attacker).

I know (hope?) there must be good reasons for it, but I'd love to know what the official reason is.

it's because it used to be really annoying in the past to see what looked like perfectly good goals ruled out because some player on the attacking team, nowhere near the goal, just happened to be ahead of a defender when a shot went in.

the only point of the offside law is to try and stop players gaining an advantage from being offside. I can't for the life of me think why you think the goal you used in your example should be disallowed.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Having said that, I'd like to see Hackett's reasoning for linesman repeatedly flagging the ball out of play as soon as it touches the white line. There's absolutely no excuse for that.

...or even before it gets to the line, as was the case last Saturday for one throw in.

That one does annoy me hugely. I can accept mistakes, but the fact is they always flag for a throw when the ball is half-out.

[Skyline]

One thing about the offside law that always bugs me is that it is so lop-sided in favour of the attacking side - specifically, an attacker is only flagged for offside if one of the situations in KH's article arises, but a defender can play someone onside even if they are nowhere near the ball and could not really be said to be interfering with play or gaining an advantage (if you used the same definitions as used for an attacker).

I know (hope?) there must be good reasons for it, but I'd love to know what the official reason is.

it's because it used to be really annoying in the past to see what looked like perfectly good goals ruled out because some player on the attacking team, nowhere near the goal, just happened to be ahead of a defender when a shot went in.

the only point of the offside law is to try and stop players gaining an advantage from being offside. I can't for the life of me think why you think the goal you used in your example should be disallowed.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective (or more likely, as I said originally, I didn't explain it properly). It's got nothing to do with goals being ruled out because a member of the attacking team who is not 'active' in any sense happens to be ahead of the last defender, it is to do with a defender who, using the same interpretations as applied to the attacking team, would not be considered 'active', but is still playing onside an otherwise offside attacker. In the example I gave, if the defender hadn't been there, the striker who was passed to would have been in an offside position. It's the lopsidedness of the thing that gets me - an attacker who isn't 'active' isn't taken into account, but a defender who isn't 'active' is.

If you see what I mean.

[Ian Royal]

One thing about the offside law that always bugs me is that it is so lop-sided in favour of the attacking side - specifically, an attacker is only flagged for offside if one of the situations in KH's article arises, but a defender can play someone onside even if they are nowhere near the ball and could not really be said to be interfering with play or gaining an advantage (if you used the same definitions as used for an attacker).

I know (hope?) there must be good reasons for it, but I'd love to know what the official reason is.

it's because it used to be really annoying in the past to see what looked like perfectly good goals ruled out because some player on the attacking team, nowhere near the goal, just happened to be ahead of a defender when a shot went in.

the only point of the offside law is to try and stop players gaining an advantage from being offside. I can't for the life of me think why you think the goal you used in your example should be disallowed.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective (or more likely, as I said originally, I didn't explain it properly). It's got nothing to do with goals being ruled out because a member of the attacking team who is not 'active' in any sense happens to be ahead of the last defender, it is to do with a defender who, using the same interpretations as applied to the attacking team, would not be considered 'active', but is still playing onside an otherwise offside attacker. In the example I gave, if the defender hadn't been there, the striker who was passed to would have been in an offside position. It's the lopsidedness of the thing that gets me - an attacker who isn't 'active' isn't taken into account, but a defender who isn't 'active' is.

If you see what I mean.

Ifollow your logic easliy Skyline and it makes a lot of sense, the only problem being judging how close a defender has to be to be "active". That for me is much harder than judging the attacker, which is why it'll never be implemented. There is enough hoohar now over possible mistakes without that.

Interesting to see so many people saying that Blackburn had 5 players caught offside but no flag the other day. Under those rules surely only 1 possibly 2 of them could really have been offside as defined by the rules. Just because they were in an offside position doesn't mean they were causing an offence.

[From Despair To Where?]

Interesting to see so many people saying that Blackburn had 5 players caught offside but no flag the other day. Under those rules surely only 1 possibly 2 of them could really have been offside as defined by the rules. Just because they were in an offside position doesn't mean they were causing an offence.

Doesn't matter whether 4 were not active, Kizanishvilli was active and offside by a good yard or two and the linesman failed to flag. I'd like to know his reasoning for not doing so. What would have happened if Hahnemann had parried the header to the feet of another one of the Blackburn players and what if he then squares it to a third? Doesn't make the original failure to flag any less wrong. Regardless of the issues of being active or not, it was an atrocious decision which thanks to Hahnemann, didn't cost us the game.