The Offside Law

[Ted Hughes]

I've had some spare time this morning & found something which some of you probably knew already but were too polite to mention; that the bit about 'distracting an opponent' which I have been quoting, has been amended out of the 'offside' law.

Therefore, as Neville, Poll, Gallagher etc have stated, the player would have to be preventing an opponent from playing (or being able to) play the ball by clearly obstructing his view, or challenging for the ball, (which Valencia did for Utd's 'goal').

Otherwise: you can't be offside; 'distraction of an opponent' has been taken out.

As far as 'gaining an advantage' is concerned, the bloke has to play the ball or it doesn't count.

So you can do basically ANYTHING if it isn't close enough to an opponent to impede him.

Where is Fat Sam ? He should be all over this on the training ground, as should Pulis.

But here is a question: why do linos frequently flag when a player in an offside position turns & runs toward the ball ? They don't always wait for him to touch it, only sometimes. He can stand next to the ball until an opponent or team mate arrives & he is not offside. He hasn't challenged for it.

There is no rule to cover this.

Similarly, when Yaya Toure lines up to take a free kick, a City player can stand on or in front of the goal line provided he fucks off before the keeper gets close enough to be impeded. Another one can stand in front of the keeper provided he is not close enough to impede him & he can see the ball.

There is no rule to cover this.

If I was a manager, the next few games would be fucking interesting.

[Burt]

I've had some spare time this morning & found something which some of you probably knew already but were too polite to mention; that the bit about 'distracting an opponent' which I have been quoting, has been amended out of the 'offside' law.

Therefore, as Neville, Poll, Gallagher etc have stated, the player would have to be preventing an opponent from playing (or being able to) play the ball by clearly obstructing his view, or challenging for the ball, (which Valencia did for Utd's 'goal').

Otherwise: you can't be offside; 'distraction of an opponent' has been taken out.

As far as 'gaining an advantage' is concerned, the bloke has to play the ball or it doesn't count.

So you can do basically ANYTHING if it isn't close enough to an opponent to impede him.

Where is Fat Sam ? He should be all over this on the training ground, as should Pulis.

But here is a question: why do linos frequently flag when a player in an offside position turns & runs toward the ball ? They don't always wait for him to touch it, only sometimes. He can stand next to the ball until an opponent or team mate arrives & he is not offside. He hasn't challenged for it.

There is no rule to cover this.

Similarly, when Yaya Toure lines up to take a free kick, a City player can stand on or in front of the goal line provided he fucks off before the keeper gets close enough to be impeded. Another one can stand in front of the keeper provided he is not close enough to impede him & he can see the ball.

There is no rule to cover this.

If I was a manager, the next few games would be fucking interesting.

Fat Bastard Sam actually deployed this tactic with Nolan lots of times last season didn't he Ted?

[Wonderwall]

I think we will see a review of the wording to try and make it clearer.

I would certainly use it to our advantage until that is done, you are quite right ted. I would even send someone to go and stand IN the goal and talk to the keeper. That would distract him as he would have a clue whats going on LOL

[Sister of fu]

I think to make it clearer it should be, if you are offside you are offside, no shady grey bits that can be interpreted differently by different people. It should be black and white. If you are stood in an offside position, like three were on Sunday then its offside. What is wrong with this??

[Goaters 103]

I think to make it clearer it should be, if you are offside you are offside, no shady grey bits that can be interpreted differently by different people. It should be black and white. If you are stood in an offside position, like three were on Sunday then its offside. What is wrong with this??

Too simple, and too clear that's the problem with it.

Any player on the field of play is interfering with play in a direct or indirect way.

[BlueinBosnia]

I think to make it clearer it should be, if you are offside you are offside, no shady grey bits that can be interpreted differently by different people. It should be black and white. If you are stood in an offside position, like three were on Sunday then its offside. What is wrong with this??

I think there should be a caveat for 'not interfering with play'. In my opinion, if you are in the six-yard box, you are interfering with play through distraction. Although this has been removed from the rules, it shouldn't be, in my opinion.

Incidentally, who is responsible for drawing up the actual rules (i.e. NOT interpretation of the rules) with regard to offside for the Premier League; the PL, FA, UEFA or FIFA?

[Alex Sapphire]

I would certainly use it to our advantage until that is done

isn't that excatly what Pardew (or at least Gouffran) was doing and that didn't go well did it?

[Beefymcfc]

Anybody got the actual policy wording/quote?

[Ted Hughes]

I've had some spare time this morning & found something which some of you probably knew already but were too polite to mention; that the bit about 'distracting an opponent' which I have been quoting, has been amended out of the 'offside' law.

Therefore, as Neville, Poll, Gallagher etc have stated, the player would have to be preventing an opponent from playing (or being able to) play the ball by clearly obstructing his view, or challenging for the ball, (which Valencia did for Utd's 'goal').

Otherwise: you can't be offside; 'distraction of an opponent' has been taken out.

As far as 'gaining an advantage' is concerned, the bloke has to play the ball or it doesn't count.

So you can do basically ANYTHING if it isn't close enough to an opponent to impede him.

Where is Fat Sam ? He should be all over this on the training ground, as should Pulis.

But here is a question: why do linos frequently flag when a player in an offside position turns & runs toward the ball ? They don't always wait for him to touch it, only sometimes. He can stand next to the ball until an opponent or team mate arrives & he is not offside. He hasn't challenged for it.

There is no rule to cover this.

Similarly, when Yaya Toure lines up to take a free kick, a City player can stand on or in front of the goal line provided he fucks off before the keeper gets close enough to be impeded. Another one can stand in front of the keeper provided he is not close enough to impede him & he can see the ball.

There is no rule to cover this.

If I was a manager, the next few games would be fucking interesting.

Fat Bastard Sam actually deployed this tactic with Nolan lots of times last season didn't he Ted?

Did he ?

He has done it in the past, but then the player would leg it onside before the ball was kicked. Now, he could stand in front of the keeper then just step forward a few yards as the free kick taker runs to the ball & stay 'offside'.

There is nothing in these rules to prevent it.

[Ted Hughes]

I would certainly use it to our advantage until that is done

isn't that excatly what Pardew (or at least Gouffran) was doing and that didn't go well did it?

Now it has been highlighted, & said to be a mistake, it's open season on offside.

[Slim]

Why not just have someone stand in the goal and scream in the keeper's ear as the kick is taken.

[Ted Hughes]

Why not just have someone stand in the goal and scream in the keeper's ear as the kick is taken.

Because, laughably, if you distract the keeper from inside the goal, the old rule still applies!

[nottsblue]

Just a thought. Probably a dumb one. Do away entirely with the rule. At least then there is consistency

[I Just Blue Myself]

Anybody got the actual policy wording/quote?

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder ... eutral.pdf

[zabbadabbado]

simple, active or passive.

3 opposition players stood in an offside position in our penalty area. Our keeper says they restricted his view, and prevented him making a save. End of debate, no need to over analyze any further player is active.

It was the only thing the referee got right.

[DoomMerchant]

simple, active or passive.

3 opposition players stood in an offside position in our penalty area. Our keeper says they restricted his view, and prevented him making a save. End of debate, no need to over analyze any further player is active.

It was the only thing the referee got right.

how can a player who is 2 yards from the keeper and in the direct path of the ball not be changing the course of play as it relates to his offside/onside-ability? A keeper can't be arsed to judge his spatial situation in regards to the CBs in a nanosecond and afford to ignore that player, can he? A: No.

Also, do women know these rules? Times is hard.

cheers

[Bridge'srightfoot]

I think to make it clearer it should be, if you are offside you are offside, no shady grey bits that can be interpreted differently by different people. It should be black and white. If you are stood in an offside position, like three were on Sunday then its offside. What is wrong with this??

Because it's too simplistic imo. Also as I mentioned in a previous thread, if a player gets to the byline and pulls it back for a player to shoot first time, then he will almost always be offside as it's impossible to change direction that quickly. Think about our last two goals against West Ham, should Dzeko's goals have been disallowed?
I wouldn't want them to be. Nor would I want a 30 yarder to be disallowed because a player was standing by the corner flag.

That's where the whole 'interfering with play' came in.

[Ted Hughes]

simple, active or passive.

3 opposition players stood in an offside position in our penalty area. Our keeper says they restricted his view, and prevented him making a save. End of debate, no need to over analyze any further player is active.

It was the only thing the referee got right.

how can a player who is 2 yards from the keeper and in the direct path of the ball not be changing the course of play as it relates to his offside/onside-ability? A keeper can't be arsed to judge his spatial situation in regards to the CBs in a nanosecond and afford to ignore that player, can he? A: No.

Also, do women know these rules? Times is hard.

cheers

Of course the Newcastle player is distacting Joe Hart & previous to June last year, he was offside, as in the rules I quoted on the related thread, but now, he isn't offside unless he either touches he ball, is actually stopping Joe Hart from getting to the ball, or stops him from seeing the ball.

However fucking stupid that seems to us; them's the rules.

I can't believe teams haven't started milking this. The possible loopholes are huge. You could just do it once in a game; stick 3 players on the 6 yard line, jumping up & down. The ref would probably call it offside, then you could have his balls afterwards by proving it's not. If he sticks to the rules however, you could totally fuck up the opposition. If you get a ref who plays by the book, you could do all manner of shit.

We should do it at the Emirates when we go there. Those cunts would fall to pieces, we'd score & they'd go fucking ballistic.

It would be hilarious.

[zabbadabbado]

simple, active or passive.

3 opposition players stood in an offside position in our penalty area. Our keeper says they restricted his view, and prevented him making a save. End of debate, no need to over analyze any further player is active.

It was the only thing the referee got right.

how can a player who is 2 yards from the keeper and in the direct path of the ball not be changing the course of play as it relates to his offside/onside-ability? A keeper can't be arsed to judge his spatial situation in regards to the CBs in a nanosecond and afford to ignore that player, can he? A: No.

Also, do women know these rules? Times is hard.

cheers

Not sure what your are getting at tbh.

If you want to give it as a goal based on the fact our keeper didn't dive and set a precedence .Then in future we should pack our players in to strategic positions in opponents penalty area and invite Kolorov or Ya Ya to shoot from outside the box through the gaps in our own players to score and blame their keeper for not diving anyway.It sounds ridiculous,how can a player not be active in a 6 yard box under any circumstances ?.

[Ted Hughes]

The Count recons my potential offside tricks have already been tried, & refs give it offside, so that makes the whole furore even more ridiculous:


Manchester City boss Manuel Pellegrini is surprised by the controversy still surrounding his side's win at Newcastle on Sunday.

City won the Premier League encounter 2-0 but much of the talk after the game was about a Cheick Tiote goal that was not allowed to stand.

Tiote thought he had made the score 1-1 with a long-range strike, but Yoan Gouffran, who had been stood in an offside position, was adjudged to be interfering with play.

"I am surprised that someone can say that was not an offside, that's incredible," Pellegrini said.
[highlight]"At the beginning of the season the rules on offside changed and a lot of teams put players in front of the goalkeeper, allowing him to see the ball but always be standing there. The referees said that was offside.[/highlight]

"If you have three players and one moves and steps aside so the ball doesn't hit him, I don't understand how one person can say that's not offside.

"If that is the rule of offside we will never have a player offside because other teams can make a wall for every free-kick inside the six-yard box, allow the goalkeeper to see the ball and when the kick is taken they move, they jump, they duck, they step aside."
Nasri

Of far more concern to Pellegrini, whose team face Blackburn in an FA Cup third-round replay on Wednesday, was the serious knee injury suffered by playmaker Samir Nasri in the same game.

Nasri expects to be out for around eight weeks after damaging ligaments following a bad tackle from Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa.

In a second controversial decision of the afternoon, Jones only showed Yanga-Mbiwa a yellow card.

Pellegrini said: "I said after the game it was an unfair kick and he didn't need to do it.

"He just tried to make a foul to stop the counter-attack and that is normal but the second kick was unfair and too high also.

"He didn't need to do it.

"Of course he (Nasri) is very upset because he has to stop at this moment for six weeks with a serious injury, but these things happen in football.

"It's important that you can complain because we are not ice men, so of course we have to complain about some decisions but not every decision.

"The referee made a mistake and nothing happened. It was a pity for Samir."

Jones will not be refereeing in the Premier League over the coming weekend. In the latest list of referee appointments issued by the Premier League, Jones is named as the fourth official at Saturday's game between Sunderland and Southampton.

Pellegrini said: "I don't know the reasons why he was stood down."

Nasri had been in fine form this season, enjoying a new lease of life under Pellegrini and helping to sustain City's challenge for four trophies.

Pellegrini is hopeful the France international might be able to return sooner than initially predicted but concedes the 27-year-old will be missed.

The City manager said: "He's a very important player but I hope he can come back in five or six weeks.

"It's important for the rest of the squad but it's the same thing that happened when (Vincent) Kompany, (Sergio) Aguero or (David) Silva were injured.

"We always had another player that replaced him and we will try to do that with Samir, but he was in a very good moment."