Major Change To The Offside Rule

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

[bobadji]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

Ideally with a link

[iwasthere2012]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

Ideally with a link

From the two I recall, the only thing I can think of is that any scoring part of the body beyond the last defender is offside.
was this the case up until now?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

Ideally with a link

From the two I recall, the only thing I can think of is that any scoring part of the body beyond the last defender is offside.
was this the case up until now?

Yep.

The rule change is whether players in an offside position are interfering or not.

The only example I can think of so far was from Liverpool's game against Bournemouth. Coutinho who was in an offside position attempted to play the ball but missed, Benteke who wasn't in an offside position scored but according to the new interpretation the goal should not have stood because Coutinho was interfering.

[iwasthere2012]

I just read on the MCFC official site that Mike (The Blind Man) Jones, will be the ref for the Crystal Palace vs City match, this Saturday. Let's hope that even the shambolic reffing of Mike Jones, won't be able to stop City.

After 4 matches, this new interpretation of the offside law has worked in City's favour, so far.
All the offside goals that would have previously counted against City, have now been disallowed, this season. This rule change has been very helpful for City and I will be very happy, to see that trend continue...

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

Ideally with a link

From the two I recall, the only thing I can think of is that any scoring part of the body beyond the last defender is offside.
was this the case up until now?

Yep.

The rule change is whether players in an offside position are interfering or not.

The only example I can think of so far was from Liverpool's game against Bournemouth. Coutinho who was in an offside position attempted to play the ball but missed, Benteke who wasn't in an offside position scored but according to the new interpretation the goal should not have stood because Coutinho was interfering.

Yes, but he's talking specifically about the offside goals in the City games, isn't he?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

He is, that's why I've asked him to explain how the new rule has had any impact on us.

The goals that have been ruled out against us were just straightforward offside decisions against scorers, no one else involved.

[Wonderwall]

He is, that's why I've asked him to explain how the new rule has had any impact on us.

The goals that have been ruled out against us were just straightforward offside decisions against scorers, no one else involved.

I do remember thinking about one we got away with but can't remember the details.

I know that's no use.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

The most important change this new offside interpretation has brought, is that it has put every offside goal under glaring spotlighted scrutiny, so far!
The linesmen & refs clearly took more care to deliberate correctly.
Forwards are no longer constantly blocking the keeper and parking themselves in front of defenders, hoping to beat the offside trap.
This law change has shackled some strikers, who will have to time their runs much more carefully.

1) West Brom had 2 offside calls
2) Chelsea had 3 offsides, including the Ramires goal, which was disallowed for fouls and being offside during the build up.
3) Everton had 3 offsides, including Barkley's through ball, for a disallowed Lukaku goal.
4) Watford had 1 offside call.

So, this might just help to eradicate the offside goals that United scored at Old Ratford, last season. The real test will be the Palace match, since Pardew used to love playing offside traps.

[PrezIke]

Can you explain why the offside goals that have been ruled out would have stood under the old interpretation of the rule?

The most important change this new offside interpretation has brought, is that it has put every offside goal under glaring spotlighted scrutiny, so far!
The linesmen & refs clearly took more care to deliberate correctly.
Forwards are no longer constantly blocking the keeper and parking themselves in front of defenders, hoping to beat the offside trap.
This law change has shackled some strikers, who will have to time their runs much more carefully.

1) West Brom had 2 offside calls
2) Chelsea had 3 offsides, including the Ramires goal, which was disallowed for fouls and being offside during the build up.
3) Everton had 3 offsides, including Barkley's through ball, for a disallowed Lukaku goal.
4) Watford had 1 offside call.

So, this might just help to eradicate the offside goals that United scored at Old Ratford, last season. The real test will be the Palace match, since Pardew used to love playing offside traps.

Some pundits somehow felt Lukaku's should have counted. Maybe that's what WW is referring to? But how did those refer to the new rule change?

What is at least occurring more or at least utilised better is the offside trap. We have been very strong thus far as a back line in this regard. I believe Pellegrini has worked on his own with the defence on this.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

This revision to the interpretation of the law, has actually forced City's opposition to change their previous tactics & formations. In the past, Pulis & Pardew used to place multiple forwards in offside positions, ahead of the City defenders. This season, those same offside forwards are having less success, with cheating the linesmen. All the extra focus on offside calls, has even resulted in the PGMOL being contacted in the middle of a match, to verify the ref calls.

Yes, the Lukaku goal was correctly disallowed and was definitely offside.

[Wonderwall]

This revision to the interpretation of the law, has actually forced City's opposition to change their previous tactics & formations. In the past, Pulis & Pardew used to place multiple forwards in offside positions, ahead of the City defenders. This season, those same offside forwards are having less success, with cheating the linesmen. All the extra focus on offside calls, has even resulted in the PGMOL being contacted in the middle of a match, to verify the ref calls.

Yes, the Lukaku goal was correctly disallowed and was definitely offside.

Spot on. The days of standing in front of the keeper and being onside because you don't touch the ball are now gone. We never used that anyway as we only had dzeko and negredo who were big enough to cause a problem with that tactic.

It took them long enough to get it sorted though.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Spot on. The days of standing in front of the keeper and being onside because you don't touch the ball are now gone. We never used that anyway as we only had dzeko and negredo who were big enough to cause a problem with that tactic.

It took them long enough to get it sorted though.

Your comment sums up the situation perfectly.
It really won't matter whether it's a new or original interpretation of the offside law... However, it will make a huge difference, if City no longer suffers match losses, solely because of offside goals being awarded to the opposition. I don't expect it will stop such mistakes entirely... But, I have seen a positive change, so far.

[nottsblue]

We will still get fucked over by match officials. Penalties not being awarded is a prime example as I'm sure OD will testify

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

We will still get fucked over by match officials. Penalties not being awarded is a prime example as I'm sure OD will testify

Yes, I fully agree that there will still be plenty of ref mistakes... Nevertheless, I'm simply amazed that the PGMOL finally admitted that the offside law needed clarification and revision.

The linesmen that are watching the City goal, have been responsible for changing the final outcome of many City matches. We can only hope that the closer scrutiny and deliberation of offside calls, will ultimately benefit City, in the long run.

Less penalty kicks are now awarded, both in the PL & worldwide, ever since players like Luis Suarez, Arjen Robben, Ashley Young, Diego Costa, and others, admitted to occasionally diving or overreacting, to help their teams.

[nottsblue]

We will still get fucked over by match officials. Penalties not being awarded is a prime example as I'm sure OD will testify

Yes, I fully agree that there will still be plenty of ref mistakes... Nevertheless, I'm simply amazed that the PGMOL finally admitted that the offside law needed clarification and revision.

The linesmen that are watching the City goal, have been responsible for changing the final outcome of many City matches. We can only hope that the closer scrutiny and deliberation of offside calls, will ultimately benefit City, in the long run.

Less penalty kicks are now awarded, both in the PL & worldwide, ever since players like Luis Suarez, Arjen Robben, Ashley Young, Diego Costa, and others, admitted to occasionally diving or overreacting, to help their teams.

Re the penalties being awarded less frequently. This will hinder us i reckon. Twenty plus stonewallers not given last year, with Aguero's at Southampton possibly the worst decision last year in the whole league. This will only get worse for us, not better

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Re the penalties being awarded less frequently. This will hinder us i reckon. Twenty plus stonewallers not given last year, with Aguero's at Southampton possibly the worst decision last year in the whole league. This will only get worse for us, not better

I completely agree with you and this lack of penalty kicks awarded, seems even more arbitrary and inconsistent, than the offside goals.

You also picked the most appropriate example of ref failure, last season!
Unfortunately, it is the same incompetent ref, from last season's Southampton match, Mike Jones, who will be reffing City again, this Saturday... Is there a special incantation or voodoo doll, that could make Mike Jones call in sick, instead?!

[nottsblue]

Re the penalties being awarded less frequently. This will hinder us i reckon. Twenty plus stonewallers not given last year, with Aguero's at Southampton possibly the worst decision last year in the whole league. This will only get worse for us, not better

I completely agree with you and this lack of penalty kicks awarded, seems even more arbitrary and inconsistent, than the offside goals.

You also picked the most appropriate example of ref failure, last season!
Unfortunately, it is the same incompetent ref, from last season's Southampton match, Mike Jones, who will be reffing City again, this Saturday... Is there a special incantation or voodoo doll, that could make Mike Jones call in sick, instead?!

Fingers crossed we get a bit of payback then. Referees are only human and if he gives shockers against us again questions will be asked and he may not get the high profile games much.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Fingers crossed we get a bit of payback then. Referees are only human and if he gives shockers against us again questions will be asked and he may not get the high profile games much.

Mike Jones was reviewed and demoted, by the PGMOL, after that Southampton match, last year. Jones was also completely trashed by the worldwide press. Sadly, that wasn't enough to get Jackass Jones permanently demoted. Let's hope that the Crystal Palace eagle will smell the rat, Mike Jones and fly away with him!

[nottsblue]

Fingers crossed we get a bit of payback then. Referees are only human and if he gives shockers against us again questions will be asked and he may not get the high profile games much.

Mike Jones was reviewed and demoted, by the PGMOL, after that Southampton match, last year. Jones was also completely trashed by the worldwide press. Sadly, that wasn't enough to get Jackass Jones permanently demoted. Let's hope that the Crystal Palace eagle will smell the rat, Mike Jones and fly away with him!

We are due a bit of luck from him then. Another bad game and a second demotion would spell curtains for a top flight refereeing career I shouldn't wonder.

However, we have the quality to make such pontifications irrelevant. Go a couple of goals up and he can't influence as much from there.