The offside law

[trueblue]

What a nonsense this is nowadays. I get the argument that it was the 'second phase' when they scored yesterday. Not sure I believe it but can see how technically the goal can be given. But if the ball had come back off a Brighton player or the post, he WOULD have been offside because that's automatically 'gaining an advantage'. He's gained an advantage regardless by getting a head start on all the defenders - they've made the law absolutely pointless.

Anyway, marginal decision. Even if it were wrong, these things happen. Unlike the red card, which was unforgivable.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

What a nonsense this is nowadays. I get the argument that it was the 'second phase' when they scored yesterday. Not sure I believe it but can see how technically the goal can be given. But if the ball had come back off a Brighton player or the post, he WOULD have been offside because that's automatically 'gaining an advantage'. He's gained an advantage regardless by getting a head start on all the defenders - they've made the law absolutely pointless.

Anyway, marginal decision. Even if it were wrong, these things happen. Unlike the red card, which was unforgivable.

Yes, offside is a dog's dinner now.

As Brian Clough used to say, "what's a player doing on the pitch if he's not interfering with play?"

Although errors were made, it was far clearer in the old days.......

 

[KZNSeagull]

Based upon the same logic of this second phase nonsense, 6 of their players could surround the goalkeeper all standing offside, the team plays the same free kick (cross to the far post and headed backwards) and one of them scores. As long as they do not impede the goalkeeper, they are onside.

A somewhat extreme example but the same logic applies.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

There was no second phase of play yesterday for their goal, otherwise every single pass is a different phase of play and that just doesn't add up. Their goal is one whole move, and hence the different phases of play element shouldn't even come into it.

What does (or should have) come into it, are the two key elements about 1) interfering with an opponent and 2) gaining an advantage from being in an offside position.

1) if you're in the middle of the 18 yard box, in an offside position when the ball is played, then you're gaining an advantage as you're ahead of the defenders and you're going to be distracting the goalkeeper. So yes, he's interfering with play, particularly as there is no second phase of play argument.

2) is he gaining an advantage? Almost undoubtedly. He's ahead of the defenders initially meaning he's able to get in a better position than them whilst also distracting the goalkeeper. Plus, you know, he scored, which is a pretty big advantage.

As the rule stands, I don't see how it can be anything other than offside. I think what happened, unfortunately for us, is that the linesman was out of position and didn't see it.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Based upon the same logic of this second phase nonsense, 6 of their players could surround the goalkeeper all standing offside, the team plays the same free kick (cross to the far post and headed backwards) and one of them scores. As long as they do not impede the goalkeeper, they are onside.

A somewhat extreme example but the same logic applies.

That's not true, as you're interfering with an opponent and gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. They SHOULD be offside.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Based upon the same logic of this second phase nonsense, 6 of their players could surround the goalkeeper all standing offside, the team plays the same free kick (cross to the far post and headed backwards) and one of them scores. As long as they do not impede the goalkeeper, they are onside.

A somewhat extreme example but the same logic applies.

Pretty much how I understand the rule.

Yesterday he wasn't off side, under the laws.

It doesn't stop the law being wrong

 

[trueblue]

There was no second phase of play yesterday for their goal, otherwise every single pass is a different phase of play and that just doesn't add up. Their goal is one whole move, and hence the different phases of play element shouldn't even come into it.

What does (or should have) come into it, are the two key elements about 1) interfering with an opponent and 2) gaining an advantage from being in an offside position.

1) if you're in the middle of the 18 yard box, in an offside position when the ball is played, then you're gaining an advantage as you're ahead of the defenders and you're going to be distracting the goalkeeper. So yes, he's interfering with play, particularly as there is no second phase of play argument.

2) is he gaining an advantage? Almost undoubtedly. He's ahead of the defenders initially meaning he's able to get in a better position than them whilst also distracting the goalkeeper. Plus, you know, he scored, which is a pretty big advantage.

As the rule stands, I don't see how it can be anything other than offside. I think what happened, unfortunately for us, is that the linesman was out of position and didn't see it.

I don't think the 'second phase' thing stacks up either but that was the tosh the co-commentator was coming out with to justify it.

My reading of the 'gaining an advantage' element from the guidance given to referees is that it only applies when the ball comes off a defending player or the post. It's this element that has continually caused the most confusion as, although the player clearly has 'gained an advantage', that's not how it's interpreted in the laws. It's a very bad use of language. As for interfering with an opponent, I think they'd only have given that if he was hindering Stockdale to such an extent that there'd be no way it could be ignored.

So - technically - I think he was okay, which makes the law an ass.

 

[beorhthelm]

if you watch MotD theres a dodgy offside like this every other week. how are we expecting a linesman, who can struggle to keep an eye on the moment of the pass and be in line with the most forward attacker to judge on/offside, to then evaluate 1-2 seconds later whether or note a player in an offside position has now become "active" and is/was now offside? its ridiculous. get back to a simple invisable line, cross it offside regardless if the pass is to them or not.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That's not true, as you're interfering with an opponent and gaining an advantage by being in an offside position. They SHOULD be offside.

Is "second phase" actually in the law or is it a load of commentators guff to justify the officials decision?

The more I think about it, the more I believe it was just incompetence from the linesman. It was the same one that gave a free-kick instead of a throw in earlier on and probably the one that told the Ref to send off Stephens. Shit happens.

 

[Icy Gull]

We conceded due to bad defending, not even worth griping about possible offside. Now the red card.....

 

[sparkie]

Offside decisions are given wrongly all the time. At least 1 or 2 per week. Not worth worrying about, part of football.

 

[trueblue]

We conceded due to bad defending, not even worth griping about possible offside. Now the red card.....

Nobody is griping about offside. We're griping about the impenetrable mess the offside law has become.

 

[GT49er]

To say that no-one understands the offside rule maybe an exaggeration, but the number of arguments - often between people who have a reasonable knowledge of the rules - about whether a particular off-side decision was right or wrong demonstrates clearly that the rules, as they stand, lack clarity and need reforming.

 

[trueblue]

Offside decisions are given wrongly all the time. At least 1 or 2 per week. Not worth worrying about, part of football.

See above. Nobody is even blaming the officials. The law has become a joke.

 

[Acker79]

Is "second phase" actually in the law or is it a load of commentators guff to justify the officials decision?

The more I think about it, the more I believe it was just incompetence from the linesman. It was the same one that gave a free-kick instead of a throw in earlier on and probably the one that told the Ref to send off Stephens. Shit happens.

Neither 'second phase' nor 'phase' appears in the current laws of the game (at least searching for those words brings up no results in the PDF).

This is the offside law:

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 field 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).​

The second section of the laws of the game includes advice to officials and explanations of the laws. For offsides, there are several pages of examples of when someone is onside, when they are not, etc.

It says this, before those graphic examples:

Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions 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 definition
• “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 deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected 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.

Infringements
When an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick to be
taken from the position of the offending player when the ball was last played
to him by one of his team-mates.

Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the
referee’s permission shall be considered to be on his own goal line or touch line
for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play. If the player leaves
the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of
play.

It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to step
off the field of play to show the referee that he is not involved in active play.

However, if the referee considers that he has left the field of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the field of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play.

If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the
goal net as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded. However, if the
attacking player distracts an opponent, the goal must be disallowed, the player
cautioned for unsporting behaviour and play restarted with a dropped ball
from the position of the ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped
inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area
line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located
when play was stopped.​

(The examples can be found in the pdf at the bottom of this page)

 

[KZNSeagull]

Neither 'second phase' nor 'phase' appears in the current laws of the game (at least searching for those words brings up no results in the PDF).

This is the offside law:

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 field 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).​

The second section of the laws of the game includes advice to officials and explanations of the laws. For offsides, there are several pages of examples of when someone is onside, when they are not, etc.

It says this, before those graphic examples:

Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions 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 definition
• “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 deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected 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.

Infringements
When an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick to be
taken from the position of the offending player when the ball was last played
to him by one of his team-mates.

Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the
referee’s permission shall be considered to be on his own goal line or touch line
for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play. If the player leaves
the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of
play.

It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to step
off the field of play to show the referee that he is not involved in active play.

However, if the referee considers that he has left the field of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the field of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play.

If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the
goal net as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded. However, if the
attacking player distracts an opponent, the goal must be disallowed, the player
cautioned for unsporting behaviour and play restarted with a dropped ball
from the position of the ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped
inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area
line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located
when play was stopped.​

(The examples can be found in the pdf at the bottom of this page)

Thanks!

Which just confirms my thinking that the linesman got it wrong. Stuani was clearly trying to gain an advantage by running into the penalty area otherwise why would he be there? Second phase is clearly just commentators guff.

 

[trueblue]

User Name

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.

I don't think so. This is the bit that referees cite to say he was onside. 'Gaining an advantage' only applies if the ball comes to him from an opponent or the woodwork, which is why everyone gets confused when clearly the common usage of 'gaining an advantage' would rule out yesterday's goal.

Technically, he WAS onside which is why I'm not complaining about that - just the law being so open to misinterpretation these days.

 

[Acker79]

I don't think so. This is the bit that referees cite to say he was onside. 'Gaining an advantage' only applies if the ball comes to him from an opponent or the woodwork, which is why everyone gets confused when clearly the common usage of 'gaining an advantage' would rule out yesterday's goal.

Technically, he WAS onside which is why I'm not complaining about that - just the law being so open to misinterpretation these days.

I'm not sure what it is your 'I don't think so' refers to. I'm just quoting the laws of the game.

That bit you've highlighted simply means if a defender plays the ball deliberately (i.e. a miss-placed pass) and the attacker intercepts, the attacker is not offside. If it deflects off the defender from an attacking player's pass, the attacker is offside. If a keeper makes a save, but parries it, the attacker is offside. If the keeper catches it, puts the ball on the ground to kick it out to a defender, but under-hits it allowing the attacking to nick the ball, the attacker is not offside.

I mostly listened to the radio, so didn't see their goal yesterday, so I'm not sure how this general interpretation applies to the Boro goal.

 

[Acker79]

I've also noticed the offside rule seems to be the only one that commentators usually assume is right, when not obviously wrong. There are obvious offsides decisions, such as when trying to play the ball behind a high line. But there are complex ones where there are half-cleared attacks, and masses of bodies, some in a position to get the ball or interfere, others not.

There are incidences where a similar challenge is made in two games. In one it is punished, in another it is not, or is punished less severely. In these instances commentators/analysts will bemoan the lack of consistency and will have an opinion on which decision was right, which was wrong.

With these complex offside decisions, they don't. They don't bemoan the inconsistency of the officials, they tend to throw their hands up and criticise the law claiming it is so complex, and that they can't understand why two similar looking incidents received different decisions. How can one be onside and one off? The law is a mystery!

In truth, most of the time this occurs it's because one set of officials got it wrong, not because the law is complex. And I think this has led to people (too many of whom get their understanding of the laws of the game from commentators and analysts who themselves show an astounding lack of knowledge of the laws of the game) believing it is more complex than it actually is. I'm not saying the offside law isn't complex, just that it's not as complex as it is made out to be by some supposed 'experts' on tv.

 

[beorhthelm]

Thanks!

Which just confirms my thinking that the linesman got it wrong. Stuani was clearly trying to gain an advantage by running into the penalty area otherwise why would he be there? Second phase is clearly just commentators guff.

i dont think the phases is completely guff, its their way of explaining the interfering/not interfering when the ball is played. i also dont think there was any question Stuani was offside, just that these decisions get missed because when the ball is played to the far post, he's deemed not interfering, therefore not immediately offside.

question from the rules though, doesnt mention a backward pass which im sure that isnt considered offside, is this not the case?