The Offside Law

[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

Not sure what your are getting at tbh.

what i am getting at? The fucking player was offside. And still is.

[Socrates]

what i am getting at? The fucking player was offside. And still is.

Yep. He was stood where Hart would have had to have dived in order to save it so by any definition is impacting on play.

[Wonderwall]

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.

You cannot be offside if a ball is played backwards as that player is behind the play.

[Ted Hughes]

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.

You cannot be offside if a ball is played backwards as that player is behind the play.

I think he means that the player crossing the ball would technically be ahead of the ball when the shot was taken, therefore, if offside was unlimited, people putting crosses back int the box would be called offside.

Personally, I don't see what was wrong with the rule about 'distracting an opponent'. If someone stands a couple of yards in front of the keeper, or steps over the ball, they are a distraction & thus should be offside. No need to change that at all.

Now, as Pellegrini has apparently spotted, it has led to referees ignoring the new rule & using the old one.

[mr_nool]

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.

You cannot be offside if a ball is played backwards as that player is behind the play.

I think he meant the following scenario:

Player A gets to the byline and passes the ball back to player B. Player B shoots and scores, but player A will of course not have had time to move away from or over the byline and is thus in an offside position (as long as there aren't at least two opponents between him and the goal).

[Bridge'srightfoot]

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.

You cannot be offside if a ball is played backwards as that player is behind the play.

I think he meant the following scenario:

Player A gets to the byline and passes the ball back to player B. Player B shoots and scores, but player A will of course not have had time to move away from or over the byline and is thus in an offside position (as long as there aren't at least two opponents between him and the goal).

thanks

[Wonderwall]

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.

You cannot be offside if a ball is played backwards as that player is behind the play.

I think he meant the following scenario:

Player A gets to the byline and passes the ball back to player B. Player B shoots and scores, but player A will of course not have had time to move away from or over the byline and is thus in an offside position (as long as there aren't at least two opponents between him and the goal).

thanks

Aha, Gotcha, now I understand, sorry, its early :-)

[nottsblue]

Thats where the law is shit. Blackburns player just crossed it into the box and the forward was offside. Nastastic cant take a chance and clears it for a corner. If he leaves it and the forward touches it he's offside. Yet Blackburn have a corner which they may get another chance to score from.

[mr_nool]

Thats where the law is shit. Blackburns player just crossed it into the box and the forward was offside. Nastastic cant take a chance and clears it for a corner. If he leaves it and the forward touches it he's offside. Yet Blackburn have a corner which they may get another chance to score from.

I think the linesman just missed it, to be honest.

[nottsblue]

I think the linesman just missed it, to be honest.

But it was at least a yard off. Shocking if it was just a bad call