rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,217 
Member is Online
|
Post by rjdgull on Apr 12, 2012 14:53:45 GMT
I'm not a referee but my understanding is that Eunan would have had to be in front of the ball when it was played to have been in an off side position. Obviously, if Rene had made a parallel pass, would have been easier for the lino to judge that he was actually on side.  |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Apr 13, 2012 13:16:50 GMT
This is one of my bugbears: the Laws of the game are clearly explained and easy to obtain, yet it seems there are still far too many people who are paid to know about football who do not understand the offside law. Presumably they are too lazy to do their jobs properly. That dig is aimed at the number of BBC/ITV/Sky/ESPN commentators and (supposedly expert) pundits who continue to get the offside law wrong. If I were in charge I'd have a pre-season open-book exam for all players, managers/coaches and journalists on the Laws. Anyone who gets less than 80% would not be allowed to work in the game that season until they re-took the exam and passed. Harrumph!  You are right, rjd, in that Eunan was onside as he was level with the ball when it was kicked: the direction the ball was played is irrelevant. Offside position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. A player is in an offside position if: • he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent A player is not in an offside position if: • he is in his own half of the field of play or • he is level with the second-last opponent or • he is level with the last two opponents OffenceA player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: • interfering with play or • interfering with an opponent or • gaining an advantage by being in that position Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: • “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition • “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate • “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Apr 13, 2012 14:32:39 GMT
Well, there's one that had two different interpretations in the Championship last week.
One was allowed, one wasnt, both deflected off a defender to a player in an "offside" position.
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Apr 13, 2012 14:41:12 GMT
Last touch by opposition player means onside, I thought. However, if you flag before it hits them as forward player active, you can see why two outcomes can occur. Bloody daft if you ask me and can't understand why the old rule didn't stay.
Eunan was certainly onside on any reading bar the official at the game. Big shame as we would've gone on to win.
|
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Apr 13, 2012 14:52:43 GMT
Well, there's one that had two different interpretations in the Championship last week. One was allowed, one wasnt, both deflected off a defender to a player in an "offside" position. Without knowing which games they were, I can't comment on the interpretation. But ex-player Joe Pundit (and the Manager of the "wronged" team) always thinks the lino gives the decision, which is not the case. An Assistant Referee will flag if (s)he believes he is in an offside position. But it is then down to the ref to judge who had the last touch and if he didn't see the touch (for whatever reason) he could give it (wrongly) as offside. Or if the ref did see the defender's touch he could over-rule the lino. Compare Victor Moses disallowed goal because Caldwell was shoved into de Gea by JEvans with Oxford's allowed goal despite Scott Rendell moving Booby O across the line. Or Ivanovic's allowed goal v Wigan and the Ashley Young penalty v QPR: both players clearly offside and the Asst Ref in precise line with them yet still not flagging. Couldn't see the wood for the trees, or unable to turn his head quickly enough from the last pass to the line of last defence? The law is straightforward, the application of it is not. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Apr 13, 2012 15:03:52 GMT
Last touch by opposition player means onside, I thought. However, if you flag before it hits them as forward player active, you can see why two outcomes can occur. Bloody daft if you ask me and can't understand why the old rule didn't stay. Maybe my go-to tactical guru, Jonathan Wilson can help: " So to be offside, a player has either to touch the ball or be in a position potentially to make physical contact with an opponent.
Crucially, if a defender steps up because he senses by so doing he would force a forward into an offside position, that is no longer sufficient to render him active. Which means that against savvy opponents, who contrive to keep the ball away from those who have wandered offside, the offside trap has been rendered ineffective.
The figures bear this out. Opta stats show that in 1997-98 there were 7.8 offsides per game in the Premier League, after which there was a fairly steady decline to 6.3 in 2005-06. Since the new legislation came into force, there has been a further decline, to 4.8 so far this season. [2009/10]
There are still pundits – and managers and players and fans – who ask what a defender is supposed to do in situations in which he would previously have stepped out and tried to play offside, or if a player is behind him in the box when a ball is played in. He is, of course, actually supposed to challenge for the ball. Why should defenders be allowed simply to step up? Just because they've done that for 80 years
The modern law stops [goal-hanging], but brilliantly it does it without the side-effect of legitimising the offside trap. And that must, even at its most basic level, be a good thing. Surely nobody, not even George Graham, goes to a game thinking: "Hmm, I hope they play some good offsides today?" Making defenders defend, forcing them to mark or block or intercept or tackle, has to be a good thing.
Stop sides playing the offside trap and they defend deeper, that central band, the effective playing area, expands (hence the widespread shift from three-band formations to four-band formations), and the result is that the size of players matters less and skill is one again prospering. Barcelona's victory in the Champions League and Spain's success in Euro 2008 were both brought about by the sort of small, skilful midfielder who was supposed to have died out two or three decades ago.
The modern offside law remains unappreciated, but it has generated a climate in which some of the most beautiful football ever played has been produced." www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-geniusMaybe the change of offside law hasn't had the effect at League 2 level that it has at Champions League level, but it still means that the game is back under control of the forwards and not the defenders. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Apr 13, 2012 15:14:57 GMT
I suppose it gives pundits more to talk about, but when the same set of facts result in 2 judgements/interpretations that can be viewed as acceptable outcomes, it's a load of sh*te. It's more difficult for both the players and officials to get right, as well. Fodder for the football talkers. Bit like the law in general, but I suppose livings are made out of it. The build up to games on Sky is excrutiating. Wish we could hear more of the brilliance, not the controversy and pseudo-academic side. Simple beautiful game, complicated by idiots. All that bloke in his article has said is that there is one more offside every 30 minutes. So bleddy what. It's all the flannel padding thereafter that grates. Add Jo Pundit and ....Grrr .. Gary Neville is quite good, mind. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Apr 13, 2012 16:01:35 GMT
I suppose it gives pundits more to talk about, but when the same set of facts result in 2 judgements/interpretations that can be viewed as acceptable outcomes, it's a load of sh*te. But do they? I don't know what facts they were - the two goals could be significantly different. Until we know what goals/games they were how can we compare them accurately? All that bloke in his article has said is that there is one more offside every 30 minutes. So bleddy what. It's all the flannel padding thereafter that grates. No he hasn't. That's a tiny statistical feature to make a point. What he actually says in the article is about how the new (c 2005) offside law has changed the flow of the game and how teams set themselves out tactically. Did you bother to open it up and read it fully? Because if you did and you can't see what the article is about that then there's no point in carrying on any discussion. You can lead a horse to water... |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Apr 13, 2012 16:44:58 GMT
Last touch by opposition player means onside, I thought. However, if you flag before it hits them as forward player active, you can see why two outcomes can occur. Bloody daft if you ask me and can't understand why the old rule didn't stay. Would it actually matter if the ball glances off a defender though? If a player is offside when the ball is played towards him, then a touch from a defender shouldnt have any effect on the decision. He is still offside when the ball is played? I think the big problem is that officials have to decide if a player is "active" at the time the ball is played. Different officials will interpret it with different outcomes and the only way to stop that would be to make it as simple as possible and revert to the old system as you say. After all that has to be the most open to interpretation rule ive ever seen. From the defenders point of view, if he moves away from an attacker who is onside to be nearer an offside attacker, that would have distracted him? Total cans of worms to be honest  |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Apr 13, 2012 21:06:07 GMT
Would it actually matter if the ball glances off a defender though?
If a player is offside when the ball is played towards him, then a touch from a defender shouldn't have any effect on the decision.
He is still offside when the ball is played? Only if he is seeking to gain an advantage from that position: Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position These two examples from the Laws illustrate the difference - when a player receives the ball from a deflection, he is offside if he was originally, but not if he doesn't actually touch the ball; but if a defender controls it and passes it back then he won't be offside because it would not a rebound.  After all
that has to be the most open to interpretation rule ive ever seen. From the defenders point of view, if he moves away from an attacker who is onside to be nearer an offside attacker, that would have distracted him? Here are just two of nine diagrams clarifying when a player is interfering or not:  I think the big problem is that officials have to decide if a player is "active" at the time the ball is played. Different officials will interpret it with different outcomes and the only way to stop that would be to make it as simple as possible and revert to the old system as you say. I don't think they do have to decide if he is active or not. Is he touching the ball; is he preventing an opponent from playing the ball or obstructing the line of vision, or gesturing; or is he hoping that the ball rebounds to him off the metalwork or an opponent. If yes, then he's offside, if not then he isn't. Refs aren't making these decisions in isolation; as well as the diagrams in the Official Laws of the Game, they have film examples showing what situations constitute offside, as well as "briefing"/workshops from FIFA/FA/Refs associations to explain what scenarios constitute what decision. There is no confusion on what is offside or not from the refs perspective, they are often unsighted or simply make stupid mistakes because they are human. As I said before, the offside law is straightforward, the application of it is not. Partly because the officials need eyes in the side or back of their heads as well as in front to that they can see in two directions at the same time. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Apr 14, 2012 9:07:30 GMT
There is no confusion on what is offside or not from the refs perspective I've witnessed several occasions at Plainmoor this season when the ball has been knocked forward long and gone nowhere near a striker in an offside position, but the lino has flagged and the ref has stopped the game to give a free kick. No confusion over who was in an offside position, not offside by the rules Rags has set out, but given anyway. It seems as if not all League 2 refs are playing to the same rules as they do in the Premiership. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Apr 14, 2012 9:27:13 GMT
The pertinent point is in Rags last paragraph and is the crux of my point. Forget yer diagrams and academic studies. Agree with Ditmar - it becomes a can of worms in the context of a game, not a training video or written piece - and nice example from Jon, of how difficult it is for both players and officials. And those watching their bleddy interpretations. Gain an advantage this, active that. Change the rule back, not least so these pundits can get out of their own a*ses on the issue, but mostly to add clarity and simplicity to the game for players, officials and the paying(or not) public watching the game. Students no doubt already penning dissertations on this cack. A*se.  |
|
|
|
Post by martyfeldmanseyes on Apr 14, 2012 9:49:49 GMT
And to think, Andy Grey got fired because of this!
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 14, 2012 11:00:42 GMT
Wasn't it Brian Clough who said if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be in the bl**dy side?  |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Apr 14, 2012 11:22:31 GMT
Partly because the officials need eyes in the side or back of their heads as well as in front to that they can see in two directions at the same time. Here-in lies the problem - the lino needs one pair of eyes on the attackers, one pair on the player who's likely to pass the ball and one pair on when the ball is played. No wonder they get it wrong! Back to the old system for me. |
|
