Offside rule change

[Vegas Claret]

After Man City scored from a blatant offside position the PL has decided to continue their make it up as we go along approach to the game

new rule:

Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials shall prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offence of 'interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball' shall be penalised.

[Tall Paul]

Surely it's a good thing that they make changes after identifying a problem with the original guidance.

[Juan Tanamera]

The original guidance should never have got past the 'making it up as we go along' stage.

[ClaretTony]

There hasn't actually been any change to the offside law but some guidance given. See below, from Premier League.



The offside situation in the recent match between Manchester City and Aston Villa has generated significant debate and discussion within the game. The general consensus was that Rodri gained an unfair advantage in being able to challenge Tyrone Mings in starting from an offside position, immediately after Mings had chested the ball.

Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) have subsequently discussed this incident with both the International Football Association Board (IFAB) and UEFA to consider how to act in the best interests of the game in future situations of this type, ensuring that the spirit and intention of the Law is best reflected in decision-making going forwards.

Following these positive discussions, IFAB have provided the following clarification, emphasising what should be prioritised when interpreting similar situations in the future. The guidance for match officials in interpreting Law 11 will now include the following advice:

Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of 'interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent’s ability to play the ball' should be penalised.

Accordingly, if a similar situation to the one involving Rodri’s impact on Mings occurred in a future match, then the impact would be penalised for offside.

However, it is important to remember that where a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (e.g. a misplaced pass or miskick), including by deliberate handball, the player is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

Accordingly, Aston Villa’s first goal against Newcastle United on Saturday 23 January 2021 was correctly not penalised for offside as Ollie Watkins received the ball following a deliberate play by Fabian Schar and did not impact Schar’s ability to play the ball.

[quoonbeatz]

Exactly as I said at the time, moss and co got it badly wrong. The law was already pretty clear but at least there shouldn't be a repeat of that farce in future.

The usual rush to defend the officials has, not unexpectedly, proved misguided.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Clear as mud then.
Why did Schar try to play the ball, in order to stop Watkins playing the ball. From the above statement, Watkins must have been offside and had Schar not played the ball he would have been given offside on the VAR review. However, Schar was not to know that Watkins would have been given offside and made a genuine attempt to play the ball, as almost every defender would have done.

The Mings incident, which they are saying should have been offside because Rodri was interfering, is not strictly true because Rodri did not interfere with Mings when he was trying to play the ball, it was a simple case of Mings mis-controlling the ball and Rodri then took advantage. However, Mings did not need to attempt to play the ball because it could have run on behind him and had Rodri then tried to play it he would have been deemed offside.

Both incidents should have been given as offside and the clarification is anything but clear!
Both incidents just show that the interpretation of the Offside Law still has more questions than answers.

[quoonbeatz]

Mings was controlling the ball when Rodri tackled him and Schar played the ball deliberately so that Watkins could 'receive' it. Thats the clear difference. You can receive the ball but you can't challenge for it.

That said, the law should simply be that if you're offside when your teammate plays the ball forward, you're offside.

[Stevie Morgan]

Clear as mud then.
Why did Schar try to play the ball, in order to stop Watkins playing the ball. From the above statement, Watkins must have been offside and had Schar not played the ball he would have been given offside on the VAR review. However, Schar was not to know that Watkins would have been given offside and made a genuine attempt to play the ball, as almost every defender would have done.

The Mings incident, which they are saying should have been offside because Rodri was interfering, is not strictly true because Rodri did not interfere with Mings when he was trying to play the ball, it was a simple case of Mings mis-controlling the ball and Rodri then took advantage. However, Mings did not need to attempt to play the ball because it could have run on behind him and had Rodri then tried to play it he would have been deemed offside.

Both incidents should have been given as offside and the clarification is anything but clear!
Both incidents just show that the interpretation of the Offside Law still has more questions than answers.

This has always been my issue with the issue of "interfering with play". It means defendwrs are always having to make the judgement of whether the attacker is interfering or not when deciding what to do. Unless its absolutely obvious (injured near the corner flag perhaps) it should be assumed they are and called offside.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

This has always been my issue with the issue of "interfering with play". It means defendwrs are always having to make the judgement of whether the attacker is interfering or not when deciding what to do. Unless its absolutely obvious (injured near the corner flag perhaps) it should be assumed they are and called offside.

Stevie --it has been a mess since they changed it prior to 1994 to try to make the World Cup more attractive to the Americans!
They have tried to tweak it so many times since, with some moderate success it has to be said, however, the advent of VAR has clouded the issues even more.
How did the game survive so long with the two player rule introduced in 1925 right through to 1990 when they also introduced level being onside?

[Vegas Claret]

the only way you should be offside if if there is daylight, give the attacker the benefit of the doubt

[Tall Paul]

That said, the law should simply be that if you're offside when your teammate plays the ball forward, you're offside.

You are. But being offside isn't an offence until you become involved in play.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

This problem first surfaced two years ago after a Harry Kane goal at Anfield. It should have been sorted then.
At least this outcome seems acceptable to the fans.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

You are. But being offside isn't an offence until you become involved in play.

I think quoonbeatz would like to go back to the original interpretation.
As Danny Blanchflower said if you are not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch. I remember us having a goal disallowed at West Ham, early 60s, because Johnny Price was flagged offside when stood out on the left wing and nowhere near the action, that wasn’t right.
I’ll take the modern way but am happy this anomaly has been changed.

[MT03ALG]

What a farce ! And Dean Smith has been charged for allegedly making a joke out of the situation. His charge should be rescinded by the FA.

[Tall Paul]

This problem first surfaced two years ago after a Harry Kane goal at Anfield. It should have been sorted then.
At least this outcome seems acceptable to the fans.

I think that Kane goal would've stood, even under the new interpretation.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

I think that Kane goal would've stood, even under the new interpretation.

Not sure. He was stood offside and at the time they said the L’pool CB had played him on by playing the ball.

[Tall Paul]

Not sure. He was stood offside and at the time they said the L’pool CB had played him on by playing the ball.

I'm going from memory, but I don't think Kane was making any impact on the defender (Lovren?) playing the ball so it would still have stood.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

I'm going from memory, but I don't think Kane was making any impact on the defender (Lovren?) playing the ball so it would still have stood.

If that is the new interpretation you are correct. He wasn’t harrassing him at all.
Still shouldn’t have counted for me as he was stood offside and the forward pass was intended for him. The CB can’t just let a ball go and the fact he gets a poor touch shouldn’t make the attacker onside.
Funny old game of opinions isn’t it?

[k90bfc]

Andy Payton and Phil Bird were spot on with Matchday Commentary ,stupid rule,and waste of energy as a player,farcicle!

[dougcollins]

'The Mings incident, which they are saying should have been offside because Rodri was interfering, is not strictly true because Rodri did not interfere with Mings when he was trying to play the ball, it was a simple case of Mings mis-controlling the ball and Rodri then took advantage. However, Mings did not need to attempt to play the ball because it could have run on behind him and had Rodri then tried to play it he would have been deemed offside.' -
Ashingtonclaret46


Mainly in agreement apart from this. I doubt Mings would have mis-controlled without Rodri's influence.

[quoonbeatz]

You are. But being offside isn't an offence until you become involved in play.

Yep and that's exactly the point. Rodri was involved in play.

[Rileybobs]

'The Mings incident, which they are saying should have been offside because Rodri was interfering, is not strictly true because Rodri did not interfere with Mings when he was trying to play the ball, it was a simple case of Mings mis-controlling the ball and Rodri then took advantage. However, Mings did not need to attempt to play the ball because it could have run on behind him and had Rodri then tried to play it he would have been deemed offside.' -
Ashingtonclaret46


Mainly in agreement apart from this. I doubt Mings would have mis-controlled without Rodri's influence.

More to the point Mings can’t afford to leave the ball on the off-chance that Rodri is onside.

[Vegas Claret]

'The Mings incident, which they are saying should have been offside because Rodri was interfering, is not strictly true because Rodri did not interfere with Mings when he was trying to play the ball, it was a simple case of Mings mis-controlling the ball and Rodri then took advantage. However, Mings did not need to attempt to play the ball because it could have run on behind him and had Rodri then tried to play it he would have been deemed offside.' -
Ashingtonclaret46


Mainly in agreement apart from this. I doubt Mings would have mis-controlled without Rodri's influence.

or Mings brought the ball down on his chest knowing the guy behind him was miles offside

[Hipper]

Most of the problems in the past seemed to be because some laws, like the offside one, used the phrase 'in the referee's opinion'. This obviously led to inconsistency and controversy as referee's opinions seemed to differ from other referee's, fans and of course pundits. Consistency was demanded (along with professional full time referees).

As a result, the referee doesn't seemed to be allowed to have an opinion at all these days. Everything has to be exact, every contingency considered and written down in The Laws. It's still not working at the top level and when you consider most games are played on parks etc.. it can't be helping anything at lower levels either.

[dsr]

I think quoonbeatz would like to go back to the original interpretation.
As Danny Blanchflower said if you are not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch. I remember us having a goal disallowed at West Ham, early 60s, because Johnny Price was flagged offside when stood out on the left wing and nowhere near the action, that wasn’t right.
I’ll take the modern way but am happy this anomaly has been changed.

That was never how the rule was interpreted. Stanley Matthews was famous for getting to the goalline and crossing it back for the centre forward to score. If the "what is he doing on the pitch" interpretation had been in, virtually all of those goals would have been disallowed for Matthews offside.

[dsr]

That said, the law should simply be that if you're offside when your teammate plays the ball forward, you're offside.

It's irrelevant which way the ball is kicked. It's where the player is in relation to the ball that matters, not which way the ball is travelling.

[Zlatan]

Right, who's looking forward to Villa scoring a goal tonight in a similar way to Man City did with a player coming back from offside to steal the ball off Ben Mee (anyone really) only for it to be ruled out as offside...

[claretyke]

What is staggering about this is, every game now has some sort of incident with offside and it seems the officials don't know the rules.

[Foulthrow]

That was never how the rule was interpreted. Stanley Matthews was famous for getting to the goalline and crossing it back for the centre forward to score. If the "what is he doing on the pitch" interpretation had been in, virtually all of those goals would have been disallowed for Matthews offside.

How could he be offside if he crossed it from the goal line?

[dsr]

How could he be offside if he crossed it from the goal line?

Bacause after Matthews crossed the ball from the goalline, Matthews was still on the goalline when Mortensen scored. Hence Matthews was offside when Mortensen kicked the ball under the "what is he doing on the pitch" interpretation.

[dpinsussex]

It's irrelevant which way the ball is kicked. It's where the player is in relation to the ball that matters, not which way the ball is travelling.

Sorry DSR, that's not correct. Well partially correct


Law states

"Any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent"

If the ball is kicked sideways or backwards you can not be offside as you will NOT be nearer the opponents goal than the ball.

[LoveCurryPies]

I just can’t see the point of the offside rule. Without it there would be far more goals. Too often the wrong decision is made. Scrap it.

Has there ever been a game played without it? If so, what happened?

[RammyClaret61]

I just can’t see the point of the offside rule. Without it there would be far more goals. Too often the wrong decision is made. Scrap it.

Has there ever been a game played without it? If so, what happened?

Then you will end up with hoof ball and goal-hanging. The art of a classy midfielder unlocking a defence would be ended. It would become like watching basketball, also think less goals. Teams would keep a few defenders permanently in their own penalty area. When you think about it, offside is the rule that creates magical plays to create great goals.

The offside rule isn’t the problem. It’s the added technology that’s created minuscule, fractions into it, all to suit VAR, and done sweet fa to improve the decision making or spectacle of the game. VAR needs to go, it’s killing the beautiful game.

[dsr]

Sorry DSR, that's not correct. Well partially correct


Law states

"Any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent"

If the ball is kicked sideways or backwards you can not be offside as you will NOT be nearer the opponents goal than the ball.

I think perhaps you're not thinking of players moving. If Chris Wood is standing on the goalline when McNeil crosses the ball from three yards this side of the goalline, and the ball is crossed backwards so Wood has to run back to the edge of the six yard box and place one of his spectacular neck-twisting headers just inside the post, then Wood would be offside.

But you probably knew it was offside as soon as I mentioned Chris Wood. (Who incidentally has been given offside less often than Ashley Barnes this season, so they tell me.)

[dpinsussex]

I think perhaps you're not thinking of players moving. If Chris Wood is standing on the goalline when McNeil crosses the ball from three yards this side of the goalline, and the ball is crossed backwards so Wood has to run back to the edge of the six yard box and place one of his spectacular neck-twisting headers just inside the post, then Wood would be offside.

But you probably knew it was offside as soon as I mentioned Chris Wood. (Who incidentally has been given offside less often than Ashley Barnes this season, so they tell me.)

If a player is on the goal line when the ball is played he is more than likely offside unless two defenders / keeper also on goal line

Key words are "nearer goal than the ball AND the defender"

[dsr]

If a player is on the goal line when the ball is played he is more than likely offside unless two defenders / keeper also on goal line

Key words are "nearer goal than the ball AND the defender"

My point was that you can be offside even if the ball is kicked backwards.

[dpinsussex]

My point was that you can be offside even if the ball is kicked backwards.

Apologies if I have misinterpreted what you typed.
At least we have black and white clarity so our fellow clarets won't get mixed up

[dougcollins]

My understanding is exactly the opposite - if Matthews runs with the ball to the goal line and plays a cross into the penalty area where the ball travels away from the goal, he's just played his entire team onside?

It's not like he's received a pass in that position, he's run from deeper on the pitch to reach the goal line having initially received the ball in an onside position.

[dsr]

My understanding is exactly the opposite - if Matthews runs with the ball to the goal line and plays a cross into the penalty area where the ball travels away from the goal, he's just played his entire team onside?

It's not like he's received a pass in that position, he's run from deeper on the pitch to reach the goal line having initially received the ball in an onside position.

Offside has to be judged every time the ball is played. If Matthews crosses from the goal line, then none of his team is offside because they are all behind the ball. So far so good.

But when Mortensen slams the ball into the net, Matthews is still on the goalline, so when they assess who is offside when Mortensen kicks it, there are those who say that Matthews should be given offside and the goal disallowed. This has never been the rule, but some (quoting Blanchflower or whoever) suggest that it should be.