Offside!

[Dirk Gently]

Keith Hackett explains how the offside rule actually works, and how Hanson, Lawrenson and so many others completely fail to understand it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/st ... 01,00.html

[Chuckle Brother]

Keith Hackett explains how the offside rule actually works, and how Hanson, Lawrenson and so many others completely fail to understand it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/st ... 01,00.html

That clears that up then. Kind of.

Given the confusion, I have to say I didn't feel particularly comfortable with us playing the offisde trap on Saturday a couple of times.

I'd certainly sooner be a ref than a linesman.

[Jerry St Clair]

I totally concur with the gripe about "late flags". Every game at the Madejski will see at least one occassion where the crowd hurls abuse at a linesman for, supposedly, raising his flag too late. As Hackett rightly says, he is now obliged to wait to see if PIG applies.

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.

[The Surgeon of Crowthorne]

Interesting article. Shame that Keith Hackett et al haven't taken the time to fully explain the new interpretation to players, managers & coaches.

[Row Z Royal]

I feel that "interference" is still a vague word.

[Silver Fox]

So it's OK to stand in an offside position allowing you to gain a yeard on the man who will be marking you when the ball is eventually crossed in by your team mate, but if when you're stood there Julio Arca (as an example) woefully underhits a back pass to the goalie it's not OK?

[TFF]

I'd love to see an ex official (Mr Poll wouldn't be too shy) on the MOTD panel to counter some of the ridiculous statements made by the usual pundits.

[Row Z Royal]

I'd love to see an ex official (Mr Poll wouldn't be too shy) on the MOTD panel to counter some of the ridiculous statements made by the usual pundits.

'greed.

When under no pressure, Mr Poll is actually reasonably intelligent. Also, because he's not in a cliquey TV punditry group, there's a good chance he'll call Lawro a plank and be done with.

[Vision]

I'd love to see an ex official (Mr Poll wouldn't be too shy) on the MOTD panel to counter some of the ridiculous statements made by the usual pundits.

'greed.

When under no pressure, Mr Poll is actually reasonably intelligent. Also, because he's not in a cliquey TV punditry group, there's a good chance he'll call Lawro a plank and be done with.

Which is why they only ever let him on MOTD 2 with Gavin "Mr Reasonable" Peacock, Lee "send him away from goal" Dixon and good old Graeme "Mumbler" Murty.

[weybridgewanderer]

So it's OK to stand in an offside position allowing you to gain a yeard on the man who will be marking you when the ball is eventually crossed in by your team mate, but if when you're stood there Julio Arca (as an example) woefully underhits a back pass to the goalie it's not OK?

no, if an opponent underhits a back pass you cannot be offside

you can only be offisde from a pass from your own team

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[sheshnu]

But what if he was already offside before the back-pass?

He can't be offside if the defending team is in possession, can he?

Anyway what about the situation where a midfielder slides a ball through for the forward who is in an offside position - he's offside, right? Well what if the ball takes a slight deflection from a defender's studs? He was still offside when the ball is played, thus committing the offside 'offense', but as soon as it rebounds off a defender he's not offside. Doesn't this count in the 'gaining an advantage' bit? I always thought it did but I am, apparently, in the minority...

[weybridgewanderer]

So it's OK to stand in an offside position allowing you to gain a yeard on the man who will be marking you when the ball is eventually crossed in by your team mate, but if when you're stood there Julio Arca (as an example) woefully underhits a back pass to the goalie it's not OK?

no, if an opponent underhits a back pass you cannot be offside

you can only be offisde from a pass from your own team

But what if he was already offside before the back-pass?

Thinking about this, it's a bit like Jimmy Quinn's goal against Derby in 1994, I guess.

The back pass would be considered a different phase of play from when he was standing in an offside position. It is not an offence to be in an offside postion. If an attacker makes a forward pass which is intercepted by the defender then any attacker ahead of the defenders is not offisde. If the defender then plays a back pass you are still not offside.

[weybridgewanderer]

But what if he was already offside before the back-pass?

He can't be offside if the defending team is in possession, can he?

Anyway what about the situation where a midfielder slides a ball through for the forward who is in an offside position - he's offside, right? Well what if the ball takes a slight deflection from a defender's studs? He was still offside when the ball is played, thus committing the offside 'offense', but as soon as it rebounds off a defender he's not offside. Doesn't this count in the 'gaining an advantage' bit? I always thought it did but I am, apparently, in the minority...

This would be regarded as the same phase of play and would in theory be offisde, the defender was never really "in possesion" of the ball if it just deflected off him

[Kitsondinho]

I still think the great Brian Clough had it right....."If my player isn't interfering with play, what the bloody hell is he doing on the damn pitch?"

[sheshnu]

This would be regarded as the same phase of play and would in theory be offisde, the defender was never really "in possesion" of the ball if it just deflected off him

That's what I thought. Somebody should tell TV land.

[weybridgewanderer]

I'd love to see an ex official (Mr Poll wouldn't be too shy) on the MOTD panel to counter some of the ridiculous statements made by the usual pundits.

he's on "5live" most saturday mornings between 9 and 11.

[Deadlock]

Anyway what about the situation where a midfielder slides a ball through for the forward who is in an offside position - he's offside, right? Well what if the ball takes a slight deflection from a defender's studs? He was still offside when the ball is played, thus committing the offside 'offense', but as soon as it rebounds off a defender he's not offside. Doesn't this count in the 'gaining an advantage' bit? I always thought it did but I am, apparently, in the minority...

Certainly should be given offside, and Hackett agrees.

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'.

[From Despair To Where?]

What I don't get are these two bits

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.

and

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?

Surely a player in an offside position taking a swing at the ball but missing is clearly making a gesture or movement which can deceive or distract an opponent. Seems contradictory to me. Well, maybe not contradictory but it is purely down to the opinion of the referee so there is no way of guaranteeing consistancy.