[Football] The disallowed goal

[Pogue Mahone]

Now, I know Moder was in an offside position...

BUT, Webster's touch went backwards, didn't it? Surely the ball has to be passed forwards for it to be offside?

I may be going mad, but I feel sure that this is the rule. Yet nobody commented on it.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Now, I know Moder was in an offside position...

BUT, Webster's touch went backwards, didn't it? Surely the ball has to be passed forwards for it to be offside?

I may be going mad, but I feel sure that this is the rule. Yet nobody commented on it.

Moder in offside position when ball goes to Webster and then runs into onside position. Correct decision.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

https://behindthefootball.com/can-you-be-offside-from-a-backwards-pass/

 

[AZ Gull]

Now, I know Moder was in an offside position...

BUT, Webster's touch went backwards, didn't it? Surely the ball has to be passed forwards for it to be offside?

I may be going mad, but I feel sure that this is the rule. Yet nobody commented on it.

Why would you think that?

 

[Eeyore]

I did think he was offside and had fingers crossed that nothing would happen. Thought we had got away with something until the inevitable.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Moder in offside position when ball goes to Webster and then runs into onside position. Correct decision.

That ignores the point I was making. I know that Moder was in an offside position when Webster touched it. But if the ball is passed backwards, surely that negates that?

 

[Acker79]

That ignores the point I was making. I know that Moder was in an offside position when Webster touched it. But if the ball is passed backwards, surely that negates that?

No. It has been many years since the direction the ball is played was relevant when whether someone was offside or not.

If you are in an offside position when your team mate plays the ball and you interfere with play or an opponent, you are offside. The direction the ball is played is irrelevant.

 

[warmleyseagull]

That ignores the point I was making. I know that Moder was in an offside position when Webster touched it. But if the ball is passed backwards, surely that negates that?

More correctly he was offside when the ball was played to Webster. That is what doesn't negate it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Why would you think that?

I don't know why I would think that. I just thought that was a rule. It seems that I am wrong.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No. It has been many years since the direction the ball is played was relevant when whether someone was offside or not.

If you are in an offside position when your team mate plays the ball and you interfere with play or an opponent, you are offside. The direction the ball is played is irrelevant.

Nicely explained, and I am glad to know that it was once a rule. So I am not completely mad.

 

[Acker79]

Nicely explained, and I am glad to know that it was once a rule. So I am not completely mad.

You're not alone. there are a number of people on the match thread who were similarly confused.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

No. It has been many years since the direction the ball is played was relevant when whether someone was offside or not.

If you are in an offside position when your team mate plays the ball and you interfere with play or an opponent, you are offside. The direction the ball is played is irrelevant.

If I wasn’t scrapping the offside rule, it might be an update I’d consider; that the ball has to travel forwards in order for it to be offside. Moder is offside not because of a pass to him, but because of a rebound. Whether against us or against us, Webster’s header going backward then getting a deflection should negate offside.

 

[blockhseagull]

Confusion is probably that if you are behind the ball when it’s played you can’t be offside

If you are ahead of the ball when it’s played you are offside

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Must say the rule is news to me. I never realised that the rule had changed. No wonder the game is in the state it’s in with all the tinkering over the years. The rules used to be so simple - and then they started paying bean counters to make things as complicated as possible.

 

[Bodian]

If I wasn’t scrapping the offside rule, it might be an update I’d consider; that the ball has to travel forwards in order for it to be offside. Moder is offside not because of a pass to him, but because of a rebound. Whether against us or against us, Webster’s header going backward then getting a deflection should negate offside.

Don't think it got a deflection though. If it had, then Moder would have been onside by that point anyway.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Don't think it got a deflection though. If it had, then Moder would have been onside by that point anyway.

You’re probably right, but point still stands, player coming back form an offside position to a ball that went backwards off a team mate shouldn’t be offside. It’s just a thought.

 

[madinthehead]

I did think he was offside and had fingers crossed that nothing would happen. Thought we had got away with something until the inevitable.

Me too..

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I had the same thought (backwards pass not being offside). Very likely through desperation.

 

[vagabond]

Rightly or wrongly, it’s a shame it was disallowed. Genuinely think that would have opened the game up and we’d get all 3 points if it stood.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That has never been the rule. The direction the ball travels is not relevant and never has been.