Can someone explain the offside rule please?

[steve26272]

Can't hac

Can't have little old Sheffield United winning games at this stage of the season.

14 minutes added time will show em.

I fuckin despise this league and the cunts that run it.

Fuck me seriously?

It’s offside mate, I think at 4-1 we hang on, but it was offside, harsh I know

If your suggesting that the goal should have stood then you are also implying the VAR should have cheated to let it count

Some go you way some don’t, but can we all drop the victim routine, bit embarrassing

 

[Working Class Hero]

He was definitely offside.

It's an annoying one because he's gained no advantage from being in that position (in fact he's at a disadvantage), no Fulham players appealed for it and the Fulham fans or media wouldn't really have kicked up much of a fuss if it had stood, as it wasn't a glaring error. Worst of all we'd have won the game.

In my opinion VAR wasn't brought in for things like that, and the game would be better if it wasn't getting involved, but here we are.

None of that changes the fact that it's the correct decision and would always have been the correct decision as long as I've been watching football.

 

[Silent Blade]

“if he’s not interfering with play, he shouldn’t be on the pitch” - Brian Clough.

He knew a thing or two did old Cloughie.

It was Shankly's who said that

 

[Bl4desutd]

Doesn’t matter which way the ball goes if the guy who receives it was offside when it was played

It has to be a forward motion pass for any offside

 

[PotterLog]

It has to be a forward motion pass for any offside

Bleedin hell. It doesn’t. It’s not rugby, the “motion” of the ball doesn’t come into it. It’s the position of the receiving player at the time the pass is made and nowt else

 

[metalblade]

From what I saw, Souza was in an offside position, not interfering with play, then got back onside as the ball was played backwards. Then the ball goes forward with Souza on side and comes back to McB to score.
What have I missed here please?

Exactly as I saw it pal, different rules for promoted teams it would seem to the rules that apply to mega rich clubs. Corrupt as fuck this league the on field officials saw nothing wrong so VAR has to get involved to direct them to give the decision that those running the Premier league and FA require. Linesmen and now ball boys are redundant may as well go the whole hog and ref the games from Stockley Park just have a ref to relay the decision and blow the whistle now and then. I couldn't care less if never attend another Premier league fixture/pantomime.

 

[Eddiecolquhounsleg]

It has to be a forward motion pass for any offside

No it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

 

[metalblade]

As an aside I'm not sure Souza actually touches the ball maybe it was the Fulham defender not sure how anyone can tell from stills or video so how can it be an obvious error from the Ref who is a few yards away and saw nothing wrong. Fulham had a few chances to clear it and didn't by the time McBurnie put it in the net Souza wasn't offside it should be that simple.

 

[ISZA ⚔️]

He doesn’t look offside in that photo. He’s level.

Of all the people trying to convince themselves he was onside, this one takes 1st place.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

From what I could see he, when the ball was played backwards, he was in an offside position and had to withdraw back onside to collect the pass. Apparently it's where he was standing at the time and not the direction of the pass that is key.

If you look online, there's a thing where Kane had one disallowed for the same thing - which kind of takes the wind out of it being a pop at Lil' 'Ol' United and that it never happens to the Big Six.

 

[PotterLog]

From what I could see he, when the ball was played backwards, he was in an offside position and had to withdraw back onside to collect the pass. Apparently it's where he was standing at the time and not the direction of the pass that is key.

If you look online, there's a thing where Kane had one disallowed for the same thing - which kind of takes the wind out of it being a pop at Lil' 'Ol' United and that it never happens to the Big Six.

I think the pic at the top of p2 shows the whole “backwards pass” thing is academic anyway doesn’t it? It was the touch off McBurnie he was offside from.

 

[andy m]

The ball bounces off McBurnie here. Souza comes back from an offside position and is also the one who touches it back to McBurnie. Unlucky.

View attachment 181391

So does the ricochet off McBurnie count as a touch even though it wasn't deliberate?

 

[Blade-on-Tyne]

It was Shankly's who said that

Seems to depend on which source you want to quote.
I’m pretty sure I heard Cloughie say it -but it was a long time ago.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Seems to depend on which source you want to quote.
I’m pretty sure I heard Cloughie say it -but it was a long time ago.

Bill Nicholson is the source I heard for the "if he isn't interfering ... " quote. Shankly was the "more important than life or death" quote.

Both quotes of course are stupid if taken literally. Perhaps Nicholson had suffered once too often from Matthews taking the ball to the goalline and crossing it in for the goal. If you can say that Matthews is automatically offfside when the ball is put in, it may be bad for the game but good for Tottenham!

 

[dsr-burnley]

So does the ricochet off McBurnie count as a touch even though it wasn't deliberate?

Yes. Any touch off your own side counts whetehr deliberate or not.

A touch off a defender only resets the clock, so to speak, if it is a deliberate play of the ball under control. Wild clearances and deflections wouldn't count for that.

 

[PotterLog]

Bill Nicholson is the source I heard for the "if he isn't interfering ... " quote. Shankly was the "more important than life or death" quote.

Both quotes of course are stupid if taken literally. Perhaps Nicholson had suffered once too often from Matthews taking the ball to the goalline and crossing it in for the goal. If you can say that Matthews is automatically offfside when the ball is put in, it may be bad for the game but good for Tottenham!

I don't think the concept of interfering with play even existed in Shankly's time did it? Before about the 90s (?) if you were offside you were offside, no matter what you were doing

 

[Silent Blade]

I don't think the concept of interfering with play even existed in Shankly's time did it? Before about the 90s (?) if you were offside you were offside, no matter what you were doing

Yes it did, that is why ref Ray Tinkler allowed Tony Brown to carry on his run over ruling the linesman who flagged Colin Suggett offside in that infamous Leeds v WBA match in April 1971.

 

[Tickhill Blade]

I don't think the concept of interfering with play even existed in Shankly's time did it? Before about the 90s (?) if you were offside you were offside, no matter what you were doing

Been in the rules since 1903:

"In 1903, the notion of interfering with play was introduced: "It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected." Four years later it was decided a player could only be offside in the opposition's half, and in 1921 that it was impossible to be offside from a throw-in."

 

[PotterLog]

Been in the rules since 1903:

"In 1903, the notion of interfering with play was introduced: "It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected." Four years later it was decided a player could only be offside in the opposition's half, and in 1921 that it was impossible to be offside from a throw-in."

Blimey, surprised by that. Something changed in recent times though didn’t it, I can remember players routinely getting penalised when they were nowhere near the play

 

[Blade-on-Tyne]

Bleedin hell. It doesn’t. It’s not rugby, the “motion” of the ball doesn’t come into it. It’s the position of the receiving player at the time the pass is made and nowt else

It's not as simple as that. The offside offence is comitted when the pass is made not when its received. Neither the ref nor the linesman knows who is going to receive the ball at the time the pass is made. The player making the pass may not even know either. If there are two players - one of whom is onside and the other in an offside position - when the pass is made, surely the ref should blow for offside even though the onside player receives the ball.

 

[PotterLog]

It's not as simple as that. The offside offence is comitted when the pass is made not when its received. Neither the ref nor the linesman knows who is going to receive the ball at the time the pass is made. The player making the pass may not even know either. If there are two players - one of whom is onside and the other in an offside position - when the pass is made, surely the ref should blow for offside even though the onside player receives the ball.

That’s pretty much the exact opposite of how it is

It’s not an offence to be in an offside position. It’s only an offence when you become involved in active play (which is why the resulting free kick is taken from the position of the receiving player, not the passer).

In your example nobody has committed an offence.

 

[Champagneblade]

Yet they seemingly couldn't be arsed to check the actual hands round the neck on Hamer.

Yep because these two incidents, one of which was a red card bare no resemblance to each other at all…

 

[Blade-on-Tyne]

That’s pretty much the exact opposite of how it is

It’s not an offence to be in an offside position. It’s only an offence when you become involved in active play (which is why the resulting free kick is taken from the position of the receiving player, not the passer).

In your example nobody has committed an offence.

If you’re right there’s nothing to stop a forward lurking around the penalty area - far away from “active play” - waiting for a random clearance to come his way.
That was the reason the offside law was introduced a hundred years ago.

The timing of the offence is crucial. Every week you can see examples of passes being made to a player who is onside when the ball is played and then runs into an offside position by the time he receives the pass. He’s not offside.

 

[Grey Blade]

Yes it did, that is why ref Ray Tinkler allowed Tony Brown to carry on his run over ruling the linesman who flagged Colin Suggett offside in that infamous Leeds v WBA match in April 1971.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it.

I was there and I don't there was any doubt in anyone' s mind - players of both teams and any fans that Suggett wasn't off side. Suggett obviously thought he was because he stopped playing. Astle ran through and looking at the video he was possibly off side as he actually scored!
If Tony Brown had actually scored, under today's rules it would have been given, but in the 60s/70s I doubt anyone thought that goal should have stood.

 

[Silent Blade]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it.

I was there and I don't there was any doubt in anyone' s mind - players of both teams and any fans that Suggett wasn't off side. Suggett obviously thought he was because he stopped playing. Astle ran through and looking at the video he was possibly off side as he actually scored!
If Tony Brown had actually scored, under today's rules it would have been given, but in the 60s/70s I doubt anyone thought that goal should have stood.

Regarding Jeff Astle, the linesman was too far away to see the line because he had stopped to flag Suggett offside, when Tony Brown carried on running, the protests by the Leeds players were distracting the ref and the linesman.

 

[Grey Blade]

Regarding Jeff Astle, the linesman was too far away to see the line because he had stopped to flag Suggett offside, when Tony Brown, the protests by the Leeds players were distracting the ref and the linesman.

It was bit of a shambles. I'd be interested to know what age the fan was who was pictured being taken off the pitch. If I'd been near the pitch yesterday I would have been tempted to go and kick a ball off it's cone onto the pitch.

 

[PotterLog]

If you’re right there’s nothing to stop a forward lurking around the penalty area - far away from “active play” - waiting for a random clearance to come his way.
That was the reason the offside law was introduced a hundred years ago.

The timing of the offence is crucial. Every week you can see examples of passes being made to a player who is onside when the ball is played and then runs into an offside position by the time he receives the pass. He’s not offside.

What does a random clearance have to do with it? That goal-hanging forward commits an offence as soon as he gets involved in active play (i.e. goes for the ball) having been in an offside position, that's the point.

The point at which the ball is played is the defining moment in terms of determining a player's offside position, but an offence is only committed when that player gets involved in the play. This is even more evident nowadays with liners delaying their flag right to the last minute even when a player is clearly coming from an offside position.

 

[Booker4]

I can't stand VAR as much as the next guy. The majority of it's use seems to be related to offside goals, most of which are marginal because if it's clear then the line linesman call it correctly as a rule.

Out of interest does the PL have any say on how it chooses to use VAR such as whether it even chooses to have VAR, and how often that it is relied upon?

We've had it ho both ways but I do feel that whether it goes against us or not VAR has definitely taken away more than what it has added.

Finally, the injury time were now subjected to be of plus ten minutes on a regular basis, is that a PL thing or across all of the top leagues?

 

[dsr-burnley]

I don't think the concept of interfering with play even existed in Shankly's time did it? Before about the 90s (?) if you were offside you were offside, no matter what you were doing

The rule used to be that you were given off side if you were interfering with play OR seeking to gain an advantage. Whether you were in an offside position is judged when the ball is played by a team-mate, but whether you are interfering or seeking to gain an advantage was dependent more on how the play developed.

Check out the 1953 Cup Final. Matthews got the ball, dribbled it ot the goal line, crossed it for Mortensen, who scored. Matthews was in an offside position when Mortensen scored, but wasn't offside because he wasn't interfering with Mortensen's shot.

The idea that a winger should always be given offside if he crosses from the goalline, is complete myth. It has never been the case, not even in the wildest excesses of the VAR imbeciles.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I can't stand VAR as much as the next guy. The majority of it's use seems to be related to offside goals, most of which are marginal because if it's clear then the line linesman call it correctly as a rule.

Out of interest does the PL have any say on how it chooses to use VAR such as whether it even chooses to have VAR, and how often that it is relied upon?

We've had it ho both ways but I do feel that whether it goes against us or not VAR has definitely taken away more than what it has added.

Finally, the injury time were now subjected to be of plus ten minutes on a regular basis, is that a PL thing or across all of the top leagues?

How they interpret "level" is surely a matter for the PL. It's 100% clear from when they changed the law in 1990 from level=offside to level=onside, specifically saying it was to give the forward an edge and to encourage more goals. It is certain that they were no ttalking about giving the forward an extra quarter inch. The guidance for referees, in Lancashire at least, had a line confirming that offside was not to be judged by inches or by the position of knees, and said (I remember this as a quote) "If the player appears to be level to the naked eye, then he is level".

The VAR people had two choices. They could leave the law as it was, and use VAR with the naked eye to judge the offside from a picture without lines. No change to the game but it would correct clear mistakes.

Or they could do what they have done. Someone perhaps went to the powers that be and said they are thinking of a new system. It will disallow lots of goals that were legal under the old rules (and still are legal in the lower divisions); it will cause lengthy hold-ups to the game, as much a 5 minutes; it will mean the linesman cannot hope to judge offside so we will let play run on when it's all irrelevant; and it will mean that the excitement of celebrating a goal will be lost. And the powers that be said what are the advantages, and the VAR people said it will end controversy and will make everyone happy.

Have the powers that be not noticed that it hasn't ended controversy, everyone is not happy, and only the bad things have come to pass? Who are these powers that be, and why are they involved in football when they clearly haven't a clue? They came out with a survey recently (no details, just their result) that claimed that the majority of fans were in favour of VAR. If that is the case, then they are so far out of touch with the game that they should be dismissed, lock stock and barrel.

But after that rant, the timekeeping issue applies further down as well. Less of the 14 minutes because there is no VAR, of course, but 7,8,9 miuntes is common, largely I reckon because a goal usually takes over a minute to celebrate, none of which was being added last season.