Offside

[SweatyMexican]

Don't blame the offside rule. Basic defending error by Dunk again. The player is running into an off side position just let him go.

And how exactly is he supposed to know he is offside? He has to get something on it because otherwise he knows the striker get's an easy tap in.

 

[TonyW]

Well, if you read your post, then watch the video, you'll see it was clearly offside.

But thanks for confirming it.

 

[TonyW]

That's not how FIFA's laws of the game define offside.

Offside position

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the fi eld of play or
• he is level with the second-last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents

Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

No offence

There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick
• a throw-in
• a corner kick

Infringements and sanctions
In the event of an offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick
to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement
occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means 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
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is defl ected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is defl ected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.
​

Four stages to deciding if a player is off side
1) Are they in an offside position? If no, NOT offside, if Yes:
2) Are they interfering with play, i.e. did they touch the ball? If Yes, offside, if no:
3) Are they interfering with an opponent, i.e. in a player's sight line, or challenging a player for the ball? If yes, offside, if no:
4) Are they gaining an advantage by being in the offside position, i.e. has the ball deflected back to them off the post or from a keeper save? if yes, offside, if not, not offside.

Was Hull's player in an offside position? Yes
Did he interfere with play? No.
Did he intefere with an opponent? Yes. He was offside.

Was Ulloa in an offside position? No. Not offside.

Was Calderon in an offside position? Yes
Did Calderon play the ball? No
Was Calderon in a player's eye line? No. Did he challenge an opponent for the ball? Not that I recall
Did he collect a rebound or parried shot? No.

Not offside. But like I say, the only player I remember him challenging was his team mate, not an opponent. Would need to watch again to know for sure.

Well, if you read your post, then watch the video, you'll see it was clearly offside.

But thanks for confirming it.

 

[TonyW]

I suppose you don't class the goalkeeper as a player then.

Certainly in his eyeline!!

 

[keaton]

Our goal was offside.

Calderon was offside but he wasn't really interfering

 

[Brighton Mod]

Not only was he offside, but Dave in second half was not offside having been flagged as he was through. Had it been a prem team we would not have heard the last of it by now. Some poor decisions by the officials last night.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Their Goal: Offside
Our Goal: Offside
David Lopez through on Goal: Not Offside

They did really well last night didn't they the officials.

 

[TonyW]

Not only was he offside, but Dave in second half was not offside having been flagged as he was through. Had it been a prem team we would not have heard the last of it by now. Some poor decisions by the officials last night.

Even though we didn't perform the way we can, the officials changed the match completely.

 

[The Large One]

Well, if you read your post, then watch the video, you'll see it was clearly offside.

But thanks for confirming it.

If you've read those rules, which aspect of our goal should have been called for offside?

Calderon's non-interference, or Ulloa not being closer to the goal-line?

 

[Acker79]

Well, if you read your post, then watch the video, you'll see it was clearly offside.

But thanks for confirming it.

I've read my post. I've read that rule quite a lot with the regular recurrence of offside debates on here.

I have now watched the video highlights of the game



Ulloa is in an onside position, so is not offside. The only option is for Calderon. And having rewatched it (and the replays) I can say with certainty, Calderon was not offside. He did not touch the ball, he did not interfere with an opponent, he did not get a rebound.

It was not offside.

 

[Machiavelli]

If a Hull player is between the Brighton players and the ball going into the net, how exactly is he not offside?

If he's not interfering with play, such as standing by the touchline. if, as I think you are, you're referring to Hull's second goal, the linesman got it wrong. Such things happen. Especially to us, this season: Nathan OUT. Barber OUT. Oscar OUT.

 

[Sheebo]

He was just as offside as Fryatt. He tried to flick the ball on and also failed!

Wrong! See below!

It was offside.

Wrong!

Was Hull's player in an offside position? Yes
Did he interfere with play? No.
Did he intefere with an opponent? Yes. He was offside.

Was Ulloa in an offside position? No. Not offside.

Was Calderon in an offside position? Yes
Did Calderon play the ball? No
Was Calderon in a player's eye line? No. Did he challenge an opponent for the ball? Not that I recall
Did he collect a rebound or parried shot? No.

Not offside. But like I say, the only player I remember him challenging was his team mate, not an opponent. Would need to watch again to know for sure.

Correct!

Did anyone else think JFC was fouled on the line for their first too? As the ball comes off the bar Fryatt links arms with him and holds him! Hull deserved the win though don't get me wrong!

 

[Da Man Clay]

Wrong! See below!



Wrong!



Correct!

Did anyone else think JFC was fouled on the line for their first too? As the ball comes off the bar Fryatt links arms with him and holds him! Hull deserved the win though don't get me wrong!

Taking Ackers own post so helpfully detailing what the law actually is - he doesn't have to touch the ball for it to be off side. He has made a move to the ball and made an attempt to flick it. It's without any shadow of doubt 'playing' the ball. Playing and touching do not mean the same thing.

"In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate"

 

[Sheebo]

I don't think he interfered - if anything made it harder for Ulloa. There's no doubt there one did as he forced ward to divert it in - huge difference between the two. Either way we deservedly lost and who's to say Hull wouldn't have scored a legit 2nd if that one had been ruled out - goals change games as we all know. One thing for sure - Lopez was well onside and that Lino was shit!

 

[Acker79]

Taking Ackers own post so helpfully detailing what the law actually is - he doesn't have to touch the ball for it to be off side. He has made a move to the ball and made an attempt to flick it. It's without any shadow of doubt 'playing' the ball. Playing and touching do not mean the same thing.

"In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate"

You're wrong, and the portion of the law you cite proves it. It actually says there has to be contact with the ball: "Playing or touching the ball". He did not play or touch the ball. He may have tried to, but he didn't, ergo, not interfering with play.

The full Definition of the law has lots of pretty diagrams, and goes into more detail, but the only time you can be deemed to be interfering with play without actually touching the ball is if there are no other onside players around who could also receive the ball. Since ulloa was beside him in an onside position (and was the player who actually touched the ball), this doesn't apply.

 

[Machiavelli]

Agreed, but it was still off, so we can hardly have any complaints.

It wasn't. Ulloa was not offside. Another player was (Dunk?), but they were not interfering.
I've just noticed that this has been indicated to you on several occasions on this thread, but you've failed to accept it, because your understanding is somehow better than the rules. It might be the case that you've finally relented by the time I get to the next page of this thread, but it doesn't bode well.

 

[Machiavelli]

It wasn't. Ulloa was not offside. Another player was (Dunk?), but they were not interfering.
I've just noticed that this has been indicated to you on several occasions on this thread, but you've failed to accept it, because your understanding is somehow better than the rules. It might be the case that you've finally relented by the time I get to the next page of this thread, but it doesn't bode well.

Thought as much. What was that phrase about holes and digging?