Millwalls goal - offside?

[Tricky Trevor]

It’s never been changed to my knowledge and would have been the same in your playing days. I guess there just aren’t many occasions when a ball is passed backwards to someone in an offside position.

Strange. That was why you couldn't be offside from a corner. If you could all the defenders could just go up to the halfway line as the taker can’t pass to himself.

[Rileybobs]

Strange. That was why you couldn't be offside from a corner. If you could all the defenders could just go up to the halfway line as the taker can’t pass to himself.

You can’t be offside from a corner in the same way you can’t be offside from a goal kick.

[Tricky Trevor]

You can’t be offside from a corner in the same way you can’t be offside from a goal kick.

Found this on wiki. This is how I’ve always known it. As a winger we were told if you beat the FB on the outside and crossed from the goal line nobody could be offside.
It’s no wonder it causes so much controversy.

IMG_4866.jpeg (609.19 KiB) Viewed 1110 times

[quoonbeatz]

Strange. That was why you couldn't be offside from a corner. If you could all the defenders could just go up to the halfway line as the taker can’t pass to himself.

That isn’t why. Corners, goal kicks and thrown ins are all called out in the laws as times you can’t be offside.

It’s just very rare that a player would receive a pass that went backwards, in an offside position. For example if they were offside when a crossfield pass was made but it went backwards and they had to come backwards to receive it.

There was a big do a few years ago when the ball was headed backwards by a spurs player and was deflected to Kane who was offside and scored. It was disallowed.

[dougcollins]

Serious question. When did this law get changed?
All my playing years you couldn't be offside if the ball was played backwards now I can’t get it in my head.

As far as I'm aware that's still the case - it's not possible to be offside if you're behind the ball when it is played?

[ClaretTony]

It’s never been changed to my knowledge and would have been the same in your playing days. I guess there just aren’t many occasions when a ball is passed backwards to someone in an offside position.

Surely a ball cannot be played backwards to someone in an offside position. That would mean the player receiving the ball is behind it so cannot be in an offside position.

[dsr]

Surely a ball cannot be played backwards to someone in an offside position. That would mean the player receiving the ball is behind it so cannot be in an offside position.

The player can move. If Edwards has the ball three yards out, fires it across the goal to Barnes who is only two yards out, and Barnes comes back a couple of yards to tap it in, then Barnes is offside - it is irrelevant which way the ball was going.

(Perhaps more likely is that if Edwards plays the ball backwards and it bounces off a defender to Barnes who is offside. Same principle, the direction of the ball is irrelevant.)

[dsr]

Found this on wiki. This is how I’ve always known it. As a winger we were told if you beat the FB on the outside and crossed from the goal line nobody could be offside.
It’s no wonder it causes so much controversy.
IMG_4866.jpeg

The Laws of the Game are probably a better source than Wikipedia, in questions about the Laws of the Game.

It's actually a lot simpler than it appears, if only we can forget all that bilge about which way the ball is travelling. It is not relevant which way the ball is travelling, it has never been relevant which way the ball is travelling, it is not and never has been part of the laws. Forget it.

Simple answer - if you are behind the ball when it is played, then you aren't offside. If you're in front of it, then you might be.

(Except for corners, throw ins, and goal kicks which are specifically exempted. Corners have to be exempted because it is rare they are taken from the goal line - they're usually taken from a yard off the goal line.)

[nonayclaret]

Meanwhile...was Millwall's goal offside...From the extended highlights it looks to me as if Pires is just playing him onside, but hard to be sure. Linesman probably had the best view.

[chekhov]

Corners have to be exempted because it is rare they are taken from the goal line - they're usually taken from a yard off the goal line.)

As we’re being pedantic it’s worth saying corners are never taken as far away as 1 yard from the goal line. Maybe a foot plus the width of the ball at most. Otherwise I enjoyed your post!

[dsr]

As we’re being pedantic it’s worth saying corners are never taken as far away as 1 yard from the goal line. Maybe a foot plus the width of the ball at most. Otherwise I enjoyed your post!

The corner quadrant has a yard radius and the ball only needs to overhang the line, so it can be over a yard. Sorry!

[chekhov]

The corner quadrant has a yard radius and the ball only needs to overhang the line, so it can be over a yard. Sorry!

Having researched the subject it seems you are right.

[claretspice]

The player can move. If Edwards has the ball three yards out, fires it across the goal to Barnes who is only two yards out, and Barnes comes back a couple of yards to tap it in, then Barnes is offside - it is irrelevant which way the ball was going.

(Perhaps more likely is that if Edwards plays the ball backwards and it bounces off a defender to Barnes who is offside. Same principle, the direction of the ball is irrelevant.)

Precisely that scenario occurred in a Spurs Champions League tie a couple of years ago, to them confusion of Ferdinand and the other ex player pundits, who had to have the rule explained to them. Spurs' goal.wss correctly disallowed as a result.

[dougcollins]

Precisely that scenario occurred in a Spurs Champions League tie a couple of years ago, to them confusion of Ferdinand and the other ex player pundits, who had to have the rule explained to them. Spurs' goal.wss correctly disallowed as a result.

That seems obvious to me, the player was ahead of the ball when it was played, in an offside position.

[Colburn_Claret]

Fair chance it would have been in the prem, but then also a fair chance Ashley's tackle in the build up to our first would have been a foul, not sure he got any of the ball.

He didn't need to get any of the ball, the defender went over the top of him. Ash isn't obliged to get out of the way.
Their goal offside, I don't know and not bothered it was close enough to stand. I'm more upset that the foul on Hannibal wasn't given, because they scored directly from the following move. I've only seen it the once but it looks clear the defender throws his arm across Hannibal to stop him.

[Ric_C]

This is an even better angle of Barnes' challenge. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and is basically just blocking the resulting clearance. Quite why some clarets are seemingly obsessed with castigating him for just doing his job is a bit baffling tbh.

https://x.com/BurnleyOfficial/status/19 ... iGDdA&s=19

[northeastclaret]

This is an even better angle of Barnes' challenge. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and is basically just blocking the resulting clearance. Quite why some clarets are seemingly obsessed with castigating him for just doing his job is a bit baffling tbh.

https://x.com/BurnleyOfficial/status/19 ... iGDdA&s=19

The thing is not all clarets have played football, can only think that’s the reason, as you say it’s baffling, unless they are not clarets but imposters

[boatshed bill]

The thing is not all clarets have played football, can only think that’s the reason, as you say it’s baffling, unless they are not clarets but imposters

i'm not sure that all those who have played are totally clued up on the rules either.

[martin_p]

Meanwhile...was Millwall's goal offside...From the extended highlights it looks to me as if Pires is just playing him onside, but hard to be sure. Linesman probably had the best view.

I don’t think there’s an angle that gives a definitive answer. Watching it from the North Stand Upper, probably about level with the receiving player, I didn’t see an offside, although that may be because I was still raging over the foul on Hannibal.

[willsclarets]

This is an even better angle of Barnes' challenge. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and is basically just blocking the resulting clearance. Quite why some clarets are seemingly obsessed with castigating him for just doing his job is a bit baffling tbh.

https://x.com/BurnleyOfficial/status/19 ... iGDdA&s=19

No one is castigating Barnes, let alone obsessed with it. It's merely a difference of opinion on an incident with objectivity. If it's your opinion that there's nothing wrong with it, fine. I can think there's a chance it gets overturned in the prem, and still praise Barnes for his tenacity.

The last two angles I've seen have changed my mind a bit though, and especially that one. But there doesn't need to be this perception of a personal attack or that it's somehow undermining my support to discuss a refereeing decision.

[Ric_C]

No one is castigating Barnes, let alone obsessed with it. It's merely a difference of opinion on an incident with objectivity. If it's your opinion that there's nothing wrong with it, fine. I can think there's a chance it gets overturned in the prem, and still praise Barnes for his tenacity.

The last two angles I've seen have changed my mind a bit though, and especially that one. But there doesn't need to be this perception of a personal attack or that it's somehow undermining my support to discuss a refereeing decision.

No worries mate, I haven't really read the entire thread through, but just saw the clip on Twitter and thought it was a good angle