What’s the difference?

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:50 pm

Spurs play the ball TO Kane who is in an offside position. It gets clipped by a Liverpool player before getting through to Kane who is then deemed to be onside.

What is the difference then, between that and the one that Barnes was given offside when the ball was played through to a different player, ricochets off two players to Barnes who, after a discussion with the Lino , is given offside!!

How can the officials be praised, on both occasions, for getting the decisions right?

Utter bo11ocks!!

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:55 pm

And Dermot Gallagher has backed the refs with both of them - that one today is clearly offside

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:02 pm

Precisely CT, it’s bloody infuriating, how can both decisions be correct? The ref and the lino conferred in both and came up with different decisions!!

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:04 pm

Is it possible to be in an offside position but "passive" and yet be fouled?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:04 pm

This offside rule seems to change weekly.

I thought when the pass leaves a player, a call is made. When it hits somebody else, it's another call. I didn't see it, but if Kane is offside when the initial pass is made, but onside when it clips the defender, that may be classed as two calls - with the second call being the one that takes Kane's position into account.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:06 pm

This is where VAR is useless if a referee has a different opinion than someone looking at a monitor.

Walnutwillie · Post by **Walnutwillie** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:06 pm

Big boys little boys
Decisions are made like this
Utter boldxs
They just make rules to fit
And Gallagher is a buck wit

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:11 pm

FactualFrank wrote:This offside rule seems to change weekly.

I thought when the pass leaves a player, a call is made. When it hits somebody else, it's another call. I didn't see it, but if Kane is offside when the initial pass is made, but onside when it clips the defender, that may be classed as two calls - with the second call being the one that takes Kane's position into account.

That’s fine FF, it just needs to be consistent. In this case there were two identical situations where two different decisions were made!

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:16 pm

Ah ok, fair enough. Referees seem to often have irreconcilable views.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:06 pm

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... ---offside" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My understanding is that, for example, Salah was not offside when he scored Liverpool's first goal because Dier deliberately played the ball back.

Kane WAS offside because:

1. He was in an offside position when his team mate tried to play the ball forward.

and again 2. Because as it deflected off two Liverpool defenders he was also in an offside position and 'gaining an advantage by playing the ball [or interfering with an opponent] when it has [rebounded or] been deflected off [the goalpost, crossbar or] an opponent.

Or maybe this is where the opinions differ:

'•a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
•an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge'

In other words, perhaps the officials thought Kane hadn't yet played the ball so was not yet offside, but was then fouled, so the first paragraph applies.

It seems to me the offside rule is getting more complicated with every simplification of it!

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:32 pm

FactualFrank wrote:This offside rule seems to change weekly.

I thought when the pass leaves a player, a call is made. When it hits somebody else, it's another call. I didn't see it, but if Kane is offside when the initial pass is made, but onside when it clips the defender, that may be classed as two calls - with the second call being the one that takes Kane's position into account.

It depends if it deflects/ricochets off the defender (offside) or the defender makes deliberate contact with the ball (onside).

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:35 pm

The situations are far from identical. Lovren was deliberately playing the ball whereas the Watford defenders weren't.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:38 pm

What about the goal Andre Gray scored at the Turf last season (Cricketfield end) which came off the head of a defender when he was in an offside position? That didn't seem controversial at the time.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:06 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The situations are far from identical. Lovren was deliberately playing the ball whereas the Watford defenders weren't.

I can’t remember who we were playing but are you really suggesting that their defenders weren’t actually trying to play the ball??

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:13 pm

My understanding has always been that the player is offside when the ball is played forward to him. As it was a team mate who played the ball to him, surely he was offside at that moment? No way did Lovren deliberately play the ball to Kane, so I don't see what difference he made to the situation.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:19 pm

They need to make it more simple. When Alli played the ball kane was offside, that’s it.

When the Burnley player played the ball barnes was offside, that’s it.

Both came to different decisions which was wrong.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:45 am

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:I can’t remember who we were playing but are you really suggesting that their defenders weren’t actually trying to play the ball??

Not exactly. They might have been trying to play the ball but they didn't actually play the ball, it just rebounded off them.

Lovren clearly swung his foot at the ball and made contact with it.

You might not like the rule, but it was correctly applied in both situations.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:11 am

There was an incident yday when we won a corner because the City player headed it out because Barnes was behind him but in an offside position. Corner was given i imagine because Barnes wasn't active- but he was as again I imagine the defender knew where Barnes was but not that Barnes was offside. Had he (the defender) missed the ball, Barnes would have received the ball and potentially had he not been offside- scored.
If you follow that then...........
But although not "active" Barnes presence in an offside position led to a defender conceding a corner. Barnes should have been flagged offside.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:37 am

I think the reason why the deflection/rebound law is there is for when a player has a shot rebound off a post, goalkeeper or defender straight into the path of a player who was in an offside position when he shot. When a rebound/deflection happens outside the box it can get a bit confusing as to whether it was an attempt to play the ball by the defender.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:42 am

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... ---offside" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the wording gets more complicated then refereeing interpretation gets more subjective and we end up with a complete mess.

Let's simplify the laws.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:12 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42940682" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jermaine Jenas

Kane is offside at the moment that Alli plays the pass to him, so for me it is irrelevant that it ricochets off Dejan Lovren on its way through to him because Lovren does not play a deliberate pass.

It is completely different to a situation like Liverpool's opening goal where Mohamed Salah can be offside but it does not matter because Spurs midfielder Eric Dier passes it to him.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:00 am

Kane clearly on side due to the rule.

Other wise you would often get defenders deliberately playing the ball to forwards ahead of them, to get them offside.
Lovren clearly tried to clear it, and make a complete hash of it.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:15 am

If lovren hadn’t tried to play the ball kane would have been offside as he was in an offside position when the ball was played. If kane wasn’t there lovren could have let it run through to the keeper therefore kane was interfering with play and should have been given offside. Defenders are always going to try to clear the ball instinctively.

The law needs to be simplified.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:17 am

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:If lovren hadn’t tried to play the ball kane would have been offside as he was in an offside position when the ball was played.

Correct

If kane wasn’t there lovren could have let it run through to the keeper therefore kane was interfering with play and should have been given offside.

Incorrect. The law defines what interfering with play is:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Kane didn't do any of those things.

The law needs to be simplified.

I don't think it does, it's quite clear. Again, you might not agree with it, but it has definitely been applied correctly.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:03 am

When I learnt to referee in the 1980s the offside law simply said a player was offside when he was in an offside position and IN THE REFEREE'S OPINION was interfering with play. That seems pretty understandable. The problem was it was all about referee's interpretation. In some situations it is obvious what to do: a player injured on the far side is not interfering with play on the nearside. In other's it is more complicated, such as the Barnes incidents described in post 18 - he would be called offside in the old days. In any case there was little film to look at to check the referee's views.

These days there is so much film of games, and the usual demand for consistency, that, whilst the principle of offside is still the same, the law has tried to advise on many of the minutiae that can occur with offside. In other words, it is now telling referees in many cases how they should apply the law and that is leading to it becoming increasingly complicated. So complicated in fact that we, the average football fans, are finding it harder to understand.

It is surely at this point that we should think again and go back to some basics: something like 'a player is offside when he is in an offside position, unless, in the opinion of the referee, he is NOT interfering with play. A player not interfering in play is one that is injured and incapable of participating in the action'. In other words, even if a winger on the far side was in an offside position, he would be called offside.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:22 am

Tall Pall seems to have it right here - but one thing for sure its far from being "quite clear" as we would not have so many inconsistent decisions and fans, pundits, players, managers and referees debating it all the time.

I`m with Hipper here in the need to go back to the previous much simpler rules. Not sure I agree on the example quoted of a winger nowhere near the incident still resulting in offside but I understand the principle of trying to make it easier for officials and clearer for fans and players.

Personally I would go along similar lines as Hipper but list the very obvious couple of scenarios where a player can be deemed as not interfering with play - for example if it was a player who was more than a certain distance away from the ball ; or off the field of play injured etc.

As soon as you bring in things like was he impeding the line of sight of the goalkeeper you are into a whole new area of subjectivity, inconsistencies and mistakes. If the player is offside and say in the penalty box or within 10 yards of the ball then it`s offside.

Anything that is changed will never be 100% but it`s got to be better than the confusion now.

As for Jermaine Jenas I quite like him but he totally made up his own version of the rules last night on MoTD !!

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:24 am

It would seem that what we need is to go back to the old days when it was simply if you are behind the last man when the ball is played the ref blows and you are offside, regardless of whether you are 'active' or 'interfering with play' or any other 'ifs'. Back then there was only one decision to be made and that's it. The present system allows too much for subjective decisions made by refs and linesmen. If the ref had blown at the time of the offside for Kane then whether it clipped a defender or not would be irrelevant, he would have been in an offside position. When you think about it the ref was ignoring an offence in allowing for Kane to be somehow played onside.
I have to say I haven't seen the incident but from what has been said on here and from talking to a colleague here who is a Liverpool fan I have gleaned enough to see that the referee has been allowed to 'interpret' a law. The laws of the game should, as far as is possible, not allow for interpretation. Re-instating the old offside rule would, I believe, stop a lot of these weird decisions.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:44 am

houseboy wrote:It would seem that what we need is to go back to the old days when it was simply if you are behind the last man when the ball is played the ref blows and you are offside, regardless of whether you are 'active' or 'interfering with play' or any other 'ifs'. Back then there was only one decision to be made and that's it. The present system allows too much for subjective decisions made by refs and linesmen. If the ref had blown at the time of the offside for Kane then whether it clipped a defender or not would be irrelevant, he would have been in an offside position. When you think about it the ref was ignoring an offence in allowing for Kane to be somehow played onside.
I have to say I haven't seen the incident but from what has been said on here and from talking to a colleague here who is a Liverpool fan I have gleaned enough to see that the referee has been allowed to 'interpret' a law. The laws of the game should, as far as is possible, not allow for interpretation. Re-instating the old offside rule would, I believe, stop a lot of these weird decisions.

The law as it stands does not allow for as much interpretation as it used to.

Perhaps your Liverpool supporting colleague might not be entirely unbiased in this case.

The referee and linesman got it spot on.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:47 am

'When you think about it the ref was ignoring an offence in allowing for Kane to be somehow played onside.'

That's the problem though as the ref wasn't ignoring an offence as by the current rules Kane was not committing one. He was in an offside position but not actually offside, until that is he attempts to play the ball. The argument is that he didn't attempt to play the ball until he was fouled by the keeper - no offside but a penalty.

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:57 am

I feel like i`ve been tasered!

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:41 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The law as it stands does not allow for as much interpretation as it used to.

Perhaps your Liverpool supporting colleague might not be entirely unbiased in this case.

The referee and linesman got it spot on.

I think this is the whole problem. According to the CURRENT law Kane wasn't offside. In the past he would have been simply by being behind the last man when the ball was played, there would have been no need to take into account any touch by a defender or whether he was 'active'. Any law, pretty much, is more effective when it is simple, the current offside law isn't. There used to be an old joke many moons ago that went, 'If you want to know if your new girlfriend really likes football ask her about the offside law'. Today I think most fans, male and female, don't really know what the heck is going on. If it's not subjective then what EXACTLY is 'interfering with play' or 'active'? Different people would have different views on that I believe. Very confusing. How many times for instance have we seen penalties awarded to players who are clearly not in a goal scoring position, but penalties are still given? Should we stop giving penalties in those situations by leaving it to refereeing interpretation?

I don't pretend to have any answers but surely this law could be massively simplified.

Incidentally my colleague is normally fairly objective in his analysis but we'll discount his summary for the sake of fairness.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:51 pm

houseboy wrote:If it's not subjective then what EXACTLY is 'interfering with play' or 'active'? Different people would have different views on that I believe. Very confusing.

It's clearly (IMO) defined in the Law, I reproduced it in post #24. It's only confusing if you don't know what the Law says.

How many times for instance have we seen penalties awarded to players who are clearly not in a goal scoring position, but penalties are still given? Should we stop giving penalties in those situations by leaving it to refereeing interpretation?

Penalties are given for fouls in the penalty area, what does being in a goal scoring position have to do with it?

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:13 pm

Tall Paul wrote:It's clearly (IMO) defined in the Law, I reproduced it in post #24. It's only confusing if you don't know what the Law says.

Penalties are given for fouls in the penalty area, what does being in a goal scoring position have to do with it?

That's my point entirely. The situation with regard to penalties is clear and unequivocal, it's an easy law to interpret (although made slightly difficult these days due to cheating). The law may be clearly laid out with regard to offside but we have seen all kinds of odd decisions from referees who seem to interpret those laws differently, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, surely.
When is a penalty a penalty? When a foul is committed in the penalty area. Simple.
When is a player offside? Whenever the referee decides if he is interfering with play or is in an 'active' position. Not quite so simple.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:22 pm

houseboy wrote:That's my point entirely. The situation with regard to penalties is clear and unequivocal, it's an easy law to interpret (although made slightly difficult these days due to cheating). The law may be clearly laid out with regard to offside but we have seen all kinds of odd decisions from referees who seem to interpret those laws differently, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, surely.
When is a penalty a penalty? When a foul is committed in the penalty area. Simple.
When is a player offside? Whenever the referee decides if he is interfering with play or is in an 'active' position. Not quite so simple.

Do you have any examples of these odd decisions where the Law has been interpreted differently? I can't really think of any off the top of my head.

When the Law didn't define what "intefering with play" meant, it was far more subjective than it is now.

I can have it that it isn't that simple, but I think it is clearly defined and simple isn't necessarily better.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:25 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Do you have any examples of these odd decisions where the Law has been interpreted differently? I can't really think of any off the top of my head.

When the Law didn't define what "intefering with play" meant, it was far more subjective than it is now.

I can have it that it isn't that simple, but I think it is clearly defined and simple isn't necessarily better.

Without coming up with exact examples (other than the one starting this thread re: Ashley Barnes, which has started the whole debate) no I can't, other than the numerous times in recent years when I, along with others, have been left scratching collective heads as to certain refereeing decisions vis a vis offside. Using the penalty analogy again, a referee in that instance has one call to make, was the player fouled inside the penalty area, it's black and white (leaving aside the diving issue - I refuse to use that awful term 'simulation'). It seems to me that with offside as it stands a referee has a number of things to take into consideration before he makes a decision and that decision has to be made with the game far faster now than ever before. When does he make the call? Example: a player is goal-side of the last man when the ball is played and he is in the six yard box but nevertheless has 3-4 defenders all within reach of him. That must constitute offside. The same player is on the far edge of the penalty area causing no immediate threat but has a clear run on goal due to him being behind the last man. Is that then offside? I'm asking because I am not sure, not because I know the answer. If the player in the second example is deemed to be offside also then when is a player considered to be 'not interfering with play'.
It's an interesting debate and I would like to make it clear that I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I simply don't know and can't really be bothered with looking at all the sections and subsections of the law appertaining to offside.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:41 pm

houseboy wrote:Without coming up with exact examples (other than the one starting this thread re: Ashley Barnes, which has started the whole debate) no I can't, other than the numerous times in recent years when I, along with others, have been left scratching collective heads as to certain refereeing decisions vis a vis offside. Using the penalty analogy again, a referee in that instance has one call to make, was the player fouled inside the penalty area, it's black and white (leaving aside the diving issue - I refuse to use that awful term 'simulation'). It seems to me that with offside as it stands a referee has a number of things to take into consideration before he makes a decision and that decision has to be made with the game far faster now than ever before. When does he make the call? Example: a player is goal-side of the last man when the ball is played and he is in the six yard box but nevertheless has 3-4 defenders all within reach of him. That must constitute offside. The same player is on the far edge of the penalty area causing no immediate threat but has a clear run on goal due to him being behind the last man. Is that then offside? I'm asking because I am not sure, not because I know the answer. If the player in the second example is deemed to be offside also then when is a player considered to be 'not interfering with play'.
It's an interesting debate and I would like to make it clear that I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I simply don't know and can't really be bothered with looking at all the sections and subsections of the law appertaining to offside.

In the Ashley Barnes example, the officials' interpretation of the Law was entirely consistent with this one. You and others are scratching your heads because you don't know or understand the new Law. Ironic that you mentioned the joke about women not understanding it.

It's all in the Laws, which have been revised for this season. If you can't be bothered to look at them, you're not really in a position to say that the officials are getting it right or wrong.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:50 pm

One rule for Spurs, another rule for Burnley.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:01 pm

Tall Paul wrote:In the Ashley Barnes example, the officials' interpretation of the Law was entirely consistent with this one. You and others are scratching your heads because you don't know or understand the new Law. Ironic that you mentioned the joke about women not understanding it.

It's all in the Laws, which have been revised for this season. If you can't be bothered to look at them, you're not really in a position to say that the officials are getting it right or wrong.

I don't think I ever said that officials are right or wrong and you're right about me not bothering to check that the law had been yet again revised, suggesting the revision needed doing because there was deemed to be some fault with the last revision. Does this mean they will be revised again in some way?

The irony about the analogy with 'the new girlfriend' was completely intentional.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:30 pm

houseboy wrote:I don't think I ever said that officials are right or wrong and you're right about me not bothering to check that the law had been yet again revised, suggesting the revision needed doing because there was deemed to be some fault with the last revision. Does this mean they will be revised again in some way?

The irony about the analogy with 'the new girlfriend' was completely intentional.

Alright, I'll rephrase.

If you can't be bothered to look at the Law, you're not really in a position to say that it's confusing or subjective.

The Law may well be revised again in the future, is that a problem?

I doubt you intended the subject of the irony to be yourself.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:41 pm

Surely offside is determined from the moment the ball is passed towards a player and he makes a positive movement to get it. the fact that it detours on the way does not make him onside...or it shouldn't.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:37 pm

The Law says a player is in an offside position, but only when he attempts to play the ball (or otherwise affects play) - becoming active as the law says - can he be penalised for being offside.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... ---offside" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:59 pm

We got a corner in the FH on saturday when Kompany nodded it out with Barnes behing him in an offside position

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:21 am

Tall Paul wrote:Alright, I'll rephrase.

If you can't be bothered to look at the Law, you're not really in a position to say that it's confusing or subjective.

The Law may well be revised again in the future, is that a problem?

I doubt you intended the subject of the irony to be yourself.

Actually I have an amazing ability to laugh at myself (and others) that transcends ego and yes, the girlfriend irony WAS intentional. I try not to take myself too seriously and I apply that to others also.

As for the possible future revision, in light of what's been said, why would I have a problem with it when I have been saying all along that that is what it needs?

I love football but have to say that I think I have things more important in my life than to scan the fine print of the offside rule, but if anyone wants to do that then that's okay as well. I bow to your superior knowledge on this, really.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:30 am

Dyched wrote:We got a corner in the FH on saturday when Kompany nodded it out with Barnes behing him in an offside position

I re-watched MOTD last night out of boredom and that incident, in light of this discussion, stood out like a sore thumb. Barnes was clearly offside and in a dangerous position. Kompany did the right thing and headed it out but should the ref not have awarded a free kick for the offside?
I go back to an incident last season at West Ham when we conceded a penalty. It was indeed a clear penalty but the issue at the time was that a West Ham player was in a clear and dangerous offside position just a second or two before. The penalty, though admittedly a foul, should not have been awarded as the game should have been stopped for a free kick seconds before.
Confusion.

Mondsley · Post by **Mondsley** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:34 am

Just had time to watch these incidents (Liverpool v Spurs). Amidst all of the debate and confusion the only nailed on certainty is we wouldn't have been given either of those penalties!

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:35 am

houseboy wrote:Actually I have an amazing ability to laugh at myself (and others) that transcends ego and yes, the girlfriend irony WAS intentional. I try not to take myself too seriously and I apply that to others also.

As for the possible future revision, in light of what's been said, why would I have a problem with it when I have been saying all along that that is what it needs?

I love football but have to say that I think I have things more important in my life than to scan the fine print of the offside rule, but if anyone wants to do that then that's okay as well. I bow to your superior knowledge on this, really.

Fair enough.