Offside rule

[Southover Street Seagull]

Firstly the Football League or Premier League cannot alter the current offside law it is down to the International Football Association Board. Secondly there are no rules governing Association Football they are called laws as in the Laws of the Game!

An explanation of all of Law 11 is here:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

Look at page 22 for an explanation into the points being raised in this thread.

 

[Triggaaar]

I fully realize that

Ok. It didn't sound like it as you said 'It is very simple and worked for many any years if the ball was last played by a defender it put the player onside and my view is to change that to played by the keeper.' as if there was a difference between the rules for defender and keeper. Anyway...

and am saying amend the rule to revert back to the goalkeeper or a defender if you wish plays it or even touches it last the player is then put onside.

Fair enough, but I think that would be a bad idea. Get one forward to stand by the keeper and have your team take pot shots from 30 yards, so if the keeper saves but can't hold on to it, you score = unattractive football.

 

[StillHateBellotti]

Simple rule.

1/Offside if ball passed to you whilst in an offside position or
2/Obstructing play i.e standing in front of keeper when shot made or
3/Gains an advantage, i.e in an offside position when shot taken, rebounds to player in offside position, he scores or has a shot.

That's why lino's flag late to see if any of the above have happened.

 

[drew]

To be honest, we should eliminate the offside rule completely. It will make the game far more dynamic, and if somebody is an offside position, then mark them properly. The game is too 'safe' at the moment.

Why do you bother?

 

[The Optimist]

I fully realize that and am saying amend the rule to revert back to the goalkeeper or a defender if you wish plays it or even touches it last the player is then put onside.

When you say revert back are you saying this has been the case in the past or are you saying an offside player reverts back to being onside?

 

[BensGrandad]

The rule was that if an opposing player touched the ball the attacker immediately becomes onside. I am saying not touching but making a definite move like a keeper pushing the ball out the attacker should be classed as onside. Just drop the condition of seeking to gain an advantage from the present law.

 

[drew]

So you are saying it would be ok to have a striker in an offside position and for a team mate to deliberately smash the ball against a defender so that the striker can simply pick the ball up ans score!?
MADNESS!

Like it use to be then! Not sure it was madness then. Being played onside would give the advantage to the attacking team. And in the past, you never got strikers standing in offside positions hoping for a lucky deflection!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

the rules are a mess and too complicated. i think Bensgrand's point is that under the current rules the linesman retrospectivly decides a player is offside, because they've become "active" and involved in play, as a result of the opposition. one moment the offside isnt called, when the ball is played, but a second or two later that previously overlooked offside is now flagged. its daft.

 

[BensGrandad]

the rules are a mess and too complicated. i think Bensgrand's point is that under the current rules the linesman retrospectivly decides a player is offside, because they've become "active" and involved in play, as a result of the opposition. one moment the offside isnt called, when the ball is played, but a second or two later that previously overlooked offside is now flagged. its daft.

Glad somebody understands my point and a change would certainly clarify the position.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I read this earlier today , it was an article in the Gulf Times but I couldn't get it to link so did a Copy & Paste

Offside rule changed to reduce confusion

Edinburgh, Scotland: Football’s rule-makers have sought to clarify one of the game’s most misinterpreted laws - offside - in a bid to reduce widespread uncertainty for referees, players and fans.
In a change to take effect from July 1, the International Football Association Board decided on Saturday to clear up when exactly attackers are influencing play.
The change states that an attacker should be considered offside when “gaining an advantage by being in that position” in situations that will now include receiving the ball from a rebound or deflection from the goal frame or a player in the defending team attempting a tackle, block or save.
Ifab, which comprises officials from Fifa and the four British football associations, also attempted to safeguard its future by opening up its decision-making process.
With the organisation of world football undergoing an overhaul under the wake of a series of corruption scandals, there were calls for the British to cede their influence on Ifab, which has been meeting since 1886.
But at the annual Ifab meeting in Edinburgh, Fifa President Sepp Blatter said “this institution will go on.”
“I am sure it will not be a victim of the reform of Fifa,” Blatter added.
Fifa is looking to take greater control of Ifab by establishing a new unit to run the body while stressing that the “composition will remain unchanged.”
Ifab has agreed, however, to consult more by establishing a technical panel featuring refereeing experts and a football panel containing around 20 former players and coaches as well as current coaches.
“The Ifab has agreed that greater levels of consultation are required to provide greater transparency and opportunities for other associations and stakeholders to contribute with ideas and initiatives to benefit the game,” Scottish Football Association chief executive Stewart Regan said. “This will need to be approved by Fifa Congress in May.”
Ifab meetings had previously been bitterly divided by the issue of goal-line technology, but the issue has been settled in the last year after Fifa President Sepp Blatter ended his opposition to high-tech aids being given to referees.
Fifa announced on Friday that a fourth system had been licensed. GoalControl-4D, which uses seven high-speed cameras aimed at each goalmouth, joins another camera-based system, Hawk-Eye, and two other projects - GoalRef and Cairos - which use magnetic field technology to judge if the ball crossed the line.
Fifa is yet to disclose the costs of the technology, but General Secretary Jerome Valcke said the cheapest costs around $100,000 (Dh367,000) to install in a stadium and maintain.
Valcke was speaking after Ifab approved the use of the goal-line technology decision sent to referees’ watches also being seen by television viewers and in stadiums on big screens.
IFAB also decided that competition organisers can allow the technology to be used in competitions, such as World Cup qualifiers, even if not all countries have systems in place.
The Ifab delegates deferred two decisions.
Instead of approving trials of electronic chips in players’ shirts which could potentially warn of medical problems, a group of experts will examine the benefits of such devices in the next year. Electronic communication between players and staff is currently banned.
Ifab also wants further consultation before deciding whether to close a loophole on goals following uncontested dropped balls.
The rule change being considered would stop a goal being allowed if one team expecting to receive the ball after an uncontested drop has not touched it before their opponents scored.

 

[beorhthelm]

Offside rule changed to reduce confusion

they could just remove the confusion by reverting to the older rule, if you're offside at the point the ball is played, you're offside. end.

 

[Acker79]

they could just remove the confusion by reverting to the older rule, if you're offside at the point the ball is played, you're offside. end.

So, when the guy who slipped taking a corner and doesn't get up in time for the initially cleared ball to get blasted back to goal in means the goal is disallowed for offside? The quick break up the left wing is stopped because the teammate on the right wing was fractionally offside while not reacting to the attack quick enough to impact on anything?

The older rule was simpler, but, it also means some attacks and goals will be cancelled out for reasons that "common sense" would dictate they shouldn't be.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

they could just remove the confusion by reverting to the older rule, if you're offside at the point the ball is played, you're offside. end.

You do realise that reverting to the old rule would mean women understanding the offside rule within 10 minutes of being told its complexity.

 

[beorhthelm]

So, when the guy who slipped taking a corner and doesn't get up in time for the initially cleared ball to get blasted back to goal in means the goal is disallowed for offside? The quick break up the left wing is stopped because the teammate on the right wing was fractionally offside while not reacting to the attack quick enough to impact on anything?

The older rule was simpler, but, it also means some attacks and goals will be cancelled out for reasons that "common sense" would dictate they shouldn't be.

how often does the first example occur? for that matter the second. in that case, a defender might be drawn to the right wing to cover, only to leave a gap for someone who was onside to come through. the idea that a player is or isnt "active" is slightly preposterous. i do take you point, but i can only see the current rules produces more anomolies against common sence than the old.

and the problem with make it more complex for girls, is that its more complex than most boys seem to understand either.

 

[keaton]

I fully realize that and am saying amend the rule to revert back to the goalkeeper or a defender if you wish plays it or even touches it last the player is then put onside.

When was this the rule?

 

[BensGrandad]

When was this the rule?

Not sure of exactly when it was changed but I would hazard a guess at either 80s or 90s as it was in my younger days always if an opposition player touched it last the player was played onside. I passed my refs exam in 1957 and was made class I in 1961 and it was most certainly in place then. It was changed during the time Brian Clough was a manager as I remember them saying about being active and his comment was that if a man was on the field of play he would be active and if not he shouldn't be on the field.