Jump to content

The offside rule


Dave
 Share

This phase 1/2/3, interfering with play bollocks...  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. This phase 1/2/3, interfering with play bollocks...

    • Keep it as it is at present
    • Go back to the old way - offside is offside
    • Other (explain)


Recommended Posts

I didn't think that Bellamy situation was particularly complex to be honest. I think 'if you're offside, you're offside' causes more problems than it solves, would you want a goal ruled out because an attacker is lying injured on the goalline as used to happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think that Bellamy situation was particularly complex to be honest. I think 'if you're offside, you're offside' causes more problems than it solves, would you want a goal ruled out because an attacker is lying injured on the goalline as used to happen?

 

How often does that situation happen though? How often were goals actually ruled out for that in the past?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should stay the way it is.

 

Why? I mean, how do you think it benefits the game?

 

I think we see more goals with it as it is, and that's what I want to see when I watch a game of football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think that Bellamy situation was particularly complex to be honest. I think 'if you're offside, you're offside' causes more problems than it solves, would you want a goal ruled out because an attacker is lying injured on the goalline as used to happen?

 

How often does that situation happen though? How often were goals actually ruled out for that in the past?

 

I could link you to a famous example but I'm not allowed to post YouTube vids. :p Leeds v West Brom 1971, goal was incorrectly allowed, but would have been offside back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to hate when goals were ruled out because a winger on the far side no where near anything was standing offside.

 

So im glad its changed.

Plus the controversy about whether different players are intefering atall makes things more interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think that Bellamy situation was particularly complex to be honest. I think 'if you're offside, you're offside' causes more problems than it solves, would you want a goal ruled out because an attacker is lying injured on the goalline as used to happen?

 

How often does that situation happen though? How often were goals actually ruled out for that in the past?

 

Before the "interfering with play" qualifier was added, it was quite common for a play between the CM and LW be ruled out because the RW was offside, even though the ball was 50 yards away and not played anywhere near them. I didn't see the Belamy play, but I don;t see the problem with the offside rule(s) as they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with Man. City's second goal today, I mean the ball didnt reach or touch Bellamy, fair enough he was offside, but it was interupted by a Wolves player, Bellamy goes back onside and the move continues.

 

Keep it the way it is, but do something to make sure less refreeing mistakes happen that make the rule fragile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure there was a goal not too long ago which exploited the new rule; a player from team 1 chased down a backpass, the keeper from team from 2 cleared the ball downfield, and it ran through to the keeper from team 1 via a backpass, he cleared it up the midfield where a defender from team 2 got a flick on, and it ran through to the original attacker from team 1, who wasn't offside due to the new ruling (despite being 20 yards behind the last defender) and prompty put it away.

 

The forward initially stopped, maybe anticipating a whistle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i dont think should be offside is the Ameobi situation the other day.

 

When a foward comes back from an offside position but recieves the ball infront of the defence. Once hes back infront of the defence he has gained no advantage, if the defence doesnt know hes behind them thats their issue. Dont think those should be called offside atall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i dont think should be offside is the Ameobi situation the other day.

 

When a foward comes back from an offside position but recieves the ball infront of the defence. Once hes back infront of the defence he has gained no advantage

 

That's mental. Obviously he did gain advantage as he scored... plus we would also still have maintained possession. Of course that should be offside.

 

I think we are as close as ever of having it right. It does benefit the game as it allows for the game to go on and goals to be scored without positional offsides that could be considered only technicalities rather than in the spirit of a move forward.

 

It really isn't that complicated at all either, just needs a little logic to be applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the goal? He didnt gain much advantage atall, he just came in from offside did a bit of skill and sent it back the other way. He was infront of the defender long enough to be tackled.

 

If you're back infront of the defence you've not gained an advantage beyond them not paying attention to where you're coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the goal? He didnt gain much advantage atall, he just came in from offside did a bit of skill and sent it back the other way. He was infront of the defender long enough to be tackled.

 

But we still kept possession of the ball right in their box, that in itself is gaining advantage.

 

Anyway all that is moot, it doesn't even matter if he "gains advantage" or not... if he's off when the ball is played to him, then it's offside simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the goal? He didnt gain much advantage atall, he just came in from offside did a bit of skill and sent it back the other way. He was infront of the defender long enough to be tackled.

 

But we still kept possession of the ball right in their box, that in itself is gaining advantage.

 

Anyway all that is moot, it doesn't even matter if he "gains advantage" or not... if he's off when the ball is played to him, then it's offside simple as that.

 

??

 

Im not stating the rules. Im giving my opinion on what I think should or should not be offside. I do not believe it should be offside when a player recieves the ball infront of the defence, regardless of where he was when it was played. He hasnt recieved an advantage from the situation by the time he gets it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does any player know theres another behind him when theyre coming towards him.

 

Communication from teamates & just generally being aware of your surroundings. He should be looking to meet the ball before anything behind him anyway, he has the advantage of being infront & closer to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to clear the rule up it should be either an offside call given everytime a player is in an offside poition regardless wether interfeering with play or not.......or a player is only deemed offside if he touches the ball when in an offside position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to clear the rule up it should be either an offside call given everytime a player is in an offside poition regardless wether interfeering with play or not.......or a player is only deemed offside if he touches the ball when in an offside position.

 

Only trouble with the second one is if a player is offside and unfairly blocking the view of the goalkeeper, but not actually touching the ball, hence the interference rule that's used.

 

Without bringing in video playback there's no accurate way to judge offside due to the human element of mistakes... but I don't mind it on the whole. It's ridiculous when these decisions go against you, but then again you have some going for you. I'd hate football to become too stop-start, with replays and timeouts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to clear the rule up it should be either an offside call given everytime a player is in an offside poition regardless wether interfeering with play or not.......or a player is only deemed offside if he touches the ball when in an offside position.

 

Only trouble with the second one is if a player is offside and unfairly blocking the view of the goalkeeper, but not actually touching the ball, hence the interference rule that's used.

 

Without bringing in video playback there's no accurate way to judge offside due to the human element of mistakes... but I don't mind it on the whole. It's ridiculous when these decisions go against you, but then again you have some going for you. I'd hate football to become too stop-start, with replays and timeouts.

but everyone knows where they stand with it as it is a hard and fast rule with no room for subjective interpretations.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Brummiemag

The offside law needs changing - too many dull games with no space to play football and the players all packed into the middle third of the pitch. A bigger percentage of games should be better to watch and that applies to all levels,  the Championship, the Premier League and the World Cup

 

Not quite sure what the solution is but something needs to be done - maybe a line between the half way line and the goal line where you cant be offside (in other words you can only be offside in the last quarter of the pitch) - this would help space the game out a bit more

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...