Off-side help!

[I am a Banana 0]

Totally unrelated to Norwich, its all about the offside rule. In picture A below Navas is clearly in an offside position but it doesn''t go to him so play goes on...

A

[IMG]http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/x445/im_a_banana1/IMAG0601.jpg[/IMG]

Due to being offside he then gets ahead of the defence for an easy tap in for his goal. Anyone have any ideas?

[IMG]http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/x445/im_a_banana1/IMAG0602.jpg[/IMG]

He gained an advantage by being in an offside position. Therefore he should be flagged offside?!

[TIL 1010 4,737]

I am not going to make a habit of this Banana but....i agree with you on this one. He clearly gains an advantage on the defence by being in an offside position when the ball is initially played through.

[BroadstairsR 2,161]

I suppose it was because originally he wasn''t interferring with play, but that is debateable as usual in all these cases.

 

I dislike that rule as it is open to massive inconsistencies and makes the job harder for the officials. A blanket rule ie. two defenders etc. is easier to administer and might make some players actually learn it better, as it would be easier for the dumbos to understand. 

 

 Players in that sort of position have to always  be interferring with play as they are a distraction to the defenders, particularly the ''keeper at the very least.

 

As Brian Clough said "If he''s not interferring with play then what the f**k is he doing on the pitch?" 

 

Correct IMO.

[Shack Attack 0]

Has he really gained an advantage by being half a yard offside when the ball is passed to Fabregas? I''m not so sure. My understanding is that he is nor interfereing with play (or active or whatever they call it these days) when the first ball is played and when Iniesta squares the ball to him it is a different phase and therefore he is onside. It''s quite simple really and it gives the advantage to the attacker which is what most people want.Is someone a little upset because a certain team who play in orange are out [:P][;)]

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]Has he really gained an advantage by being half a yard offside when the ball is passed to Fabregas?[/quote] IMO yes. He is running towards the goal. If he was positioned like the defenders (body facing the ball) he would have to turn and ''leg it'' but he is already running and facing towards the goal...therefore gaining an advantage.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]
Is someone a little upset because a certain team who play in orange are out [:P][;)]
[/quote]

I may indeed by upset! What makes it worse is it was Ronaldo  than knocked us out! Such an Arrogant ..... [:@]

[AndyCanary 0]

It''s my understanding that the offside rule was brought in to put simply reduce goal hangers.. So with your example Banana teams could employ a strategy where someone goal hangs whilst another forward hangs just in line with the last man receives the ball and runs ahead of the last man and plays the ball through to the goal hanger?Or am I missing something?It''s not right IMO.

[Aggy 754]

The current "understanding"/"interpretation" of whether someone is interfering with play basically comes down to that player having to a) touch the ball or b) stop an opponent from being able to play the ball under no pressure.

So, if a player in an offside position goes up for a header with a defender, he is ''offside'', regardless of whether he touches the ball or not, because the defender can''t play the ball under no pressure, purely because of the physical presence challenging for the ball.

In this instance, Navas neither touches the first pass through, nor does he stop an opponent from being able to play the first ball under no pressure. And clearly the second pass he is behind the ball. Therefore not offside.

For me, a lot of these pundits really overdo this. It might be because I''m only in my early twenties and have pretty much grown up with this ruling, whereas people ten years older than me may have grown up with a different understanding. But personally, I don''t think it''s very hard at all.

The main thing to get your head around is that you''ve got to focus on the ball under the current understanding. It''s all about the player who touches the ball, or stops a defender from touching the ball without pressure. It''s fairly simple when you look at it that way really. Whether you think that is fair or not is a different matter.

[Aggy 754]

Andy - yes you are missing something. The player who makes the eventual assist would still have to be onside. In reality, this first phase/second phase doesn''t make much difference - it mostly only comes into play after the defence has already made a mistake.

In the Spain example above - the Croats try to play the offside trap with the first ball over the top and don''t succeed. Had they done that properly, Navas being on or offside in that first phase doesn''t come into play. Alternatively, if they don''t step up and check the run from the initial pass, they deal with it before the cross to Navas.

In your hypothetical suggestion, it''s exactly the same - the first player has to receive the ball in an onside position. So the defence either steps up properly and catches that player offside, or they don''t step up, and then put a challenge in before he crosses to the "goalhanger". Either way - the only chance the "goalhanger" has got of receiving the ball and being onside is if the defence has made a balls up somewhere along the lines to allow the assist to him to be a legal one.

[flecky76 0]

Its simple. Picture a is phase 1. As the ball is not played to navas at that point, he is deemed not to be interfering.

By the time the ball in the passed to him as per picture b, this is deemed to be a completely separate phase, ie phase 2. As he is behind the ball when it is played, he onside.

All legitamate.

[Hoolahans Ped 0]

Effectively, no he is not offside and the goal should rightly count because we are talking about 2 separate phases of play. The first being the through ball over the top and the second being the square ball for the goal.

As referee''s we''re told to remember the acronym P.I.G. P - does the player ''P''lay the ball?, I - does the player ''I''nterfere with an opponent?, G - does the player ''G''ain an advantage. If the answer to P & I are no then the player can''t be gaining an advantage in that phase of play, therefore cannot be offside.

As we see in the first phase of play, the ball is played through and Navas is clearly in an offside position but is not guilty of an offside offense according to PIG.

In the second phase of play, he is not in an offside position, therefore cannot be penalised for an offside offence and puts the spanish ahead.

Must say well played to the lino, it would have been very easy to put the flag up and have everyone say fair enough, but he has got the decision bang on.

Hope this has helped :)

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Hoolahans Ped"]Effectively, no he is not offside and the goal should rightly count because we are talking about 2 separate phases of play. The first being the through ball over the top and the second being the square ball for the goal. As referee''s we''re told to remember the acronym P.I.G. P - does the player ''P''lay the ball?, I - does the player ''I''nterfere with an opponent?, G - does the player ''G''ain an advantage. If the answer to P & I are no then the player can''t be gaining an advantage in that phase of play, therefore cannot be offside. As we see in the first phase of play, the ball is played through and Navas is clearly in an offside position but is not guilty of an offside offense according to PIG. In the second phase of play, he is not in an offside position, therefore cannot be penalised for an offside offence and puts the spanish ahead. Must say well played to the lino, it would have been very easy to put the flag up and have everyone say fair enough, but he has got the decision bang on. Hope this has helped :)[/quote]

 

There is no doubt that is a correct explanation of the way the law is nowadays interpreted. But that interpretation rests on a false view of football, which is that it can be split up into separate phases, like American Football, or some other sport I don''t know much about, when it is not like that at all. And this goal is a perfect example. The defence holds a line, does at least a reasonable job, catches a player offside (to whom the pass might well have gone) and yet a second or two later, with no interruption in play, the offside player scores. That is a nonsense.

 

As Banana said, if Navas had been forced to stay onside he probably wouldn''t have been able to get in position to take the pass from Iniesta, who then would have had to try to beat the goalie by himself, which he might or might not have done. If he scores, fine, because he and whoever played the pass have beaten the offside trap. But it is ludicrous that Navas can be caught offside and still score a moment later, as part of the same move.

[paul moy 235]

Whilst I accept the interpretations, my view is that the official did not deem the guy offside... ie. he made an error. With the speed of play it would have been difficult for him to judge. If you look at the photo, the ''offside'' player has an onside leg. Very marginal and difficult to judge IMO.  

[Indy_Bones 441]

The laughable thing here is that whilst it''s a perfectly legitimate goal by the current laws of the game, it''s really not the sort of thing the laws should actually allow IMHO.There is a clear advantage to Navas being where he is - maybe not as much when the initial ball is played to Iniesta, but as soon as that pass was received and Iniesta was free, at that point Navas''s position offers a highly unfair advantage over the defence/keeper.Sure we could argue that they should have marked him better, but he''s yards behind the line and the players likely assumed he was miles offside so it''s not an issue - until this sort of thing happens.The rules need a bit of a shake up in places, as I still don''t see how calling the ref a ****** or removing your shirt can give you an automatic yellow or even red, but hacking someone down from behind can be got away with scot free! Either the interpretation is wrong or the rules are, and either way we need a change.

[BroadstairsR 2,161]

All the above verbal girations and even contradiction, however correct, suggest one thing to me and that is that the law as it stands is far too complicated. This means that is is open to mis-interpretation, mistaken decisions and abuse. This, in turn, leads to dispute. The game is riddled enough with disputed decisions as it is.

 

When incidents, like the one above, are repeated time and time again in slow-motion and from all angles later on TV, without a consensus of decision from the various pundits and armchair referees being arrived at as is so often the case, then the rule needs simplifying.

 

I am unable to get over-involved with this phases thing either and, as somebody suggested, it is Association and not American football.

 

The original rule was easier, blanket and less easy to challenge.

 

The only reason that I can think of for the evolved changes may be connected to the fact that, in the past, some teams became reknown for their use of the off-side tactic in extremis. Games were spoilt as well-drilled visiting defenders moved forward as if joined by telepaphy and with all the co-ordinated precision of syncronised swimmers in order to leave attacking players stranded in no-man''s land with  frustrated looks on their faces, whilst the home crowd booed in derision. This still happens of course, but it is no longer the game-destroyer it once was.

 

I seem to remember that Terry Vegetables was once a foremost exponent of this tactic, I could be off the mark here. 

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]Whilst I accept the interpretations, my view is that the official did not deem the guy offside... ie. he made an error. With the speed of play it would have been difficult for him to judge. If you look at the photo, the ''offside'' player has an onside leg. Very marginal and difficult to judge IMO.  [/quote]..........the offside rule states that a player is offside if any part of his body that can score a legitimate goal is in an offside position it is then offside. also, in this example, he is interfering with play in that he is affecting the goalies positioning by being where he is.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

Leaving aside this question of interpretation, the change in the rule that should be made is from two defenders to one outfielder, to reflect the way goalkeepers now often act as outfielders. The rule was laid down when goalies stayed in their six-yard box and weren''t regarded as relevant to offside. The assumption was that the last outfielder was the defining player.

But if a goalie goes upfield, possibly for a corner, and the ball is played through it is offside unless there are two outfielders back, which unfairly works to the advantage of the goalie''s team. That was never the intention of the framers of the rule. This happened in a game at Carrow Road against Palace, when Nigel Martyn went up for a corner in added time, with us leading 1-0. We broke away and seemed to score, but the linesman had realised that with only one Palace outfielder back defending it was offside. So Martyn, who was still panting back over the half-way line, got away with his mad dash upfield. As it happened we held on to win 1-0.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Leaving aside this question of interpretation, the change in the rule that should be made is from two defenders to one outfielder, to reflect the way goalkeepers now often act as outfielders. The rule was laid down when goalies stayed in their six-yard box and weren''t regarded as relevant to offside. The assumption was that the last outfielder was the defining player.

But if a goalie goes upfield, possibly for a corner, and the ball is played through it is offside unless there are two outfielders back, which unfairly works to the advantage of the goalie''s team. That was never the intention of the framers of the rule. This happened in a game at Carrow Road against Palace, when Nigel Martyn went up for a corner in added time, with us leading 1-0. We broke away and seemed to score, but the linesman had realised that with only one Palace outfielder back defending it was offside. So Martyn, who was still panting back over the half-way line, got away with his mad dash upfield. As it happened we held on to win 1-0.[/quote]

 

To show a more recent example, in which the "expert"  summariser plainly doesn''t know the law:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2itUiCbcfFc

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

I suppose it was because originally he wasn''t interferring with play, but that is debateable as usual in all these cases.

 

I dislike that rule as it is open to massive inconsistencies and makes the job harder for the officials. A blanket rule ie. two defenders etc. is easier to administer and might make some players actually learn it better, as it would be easier for the dumbos to understand. 

 

 Players in that sort of position have to always  be interferring with play as they are a distraction to the defenders, particularly the ''keeper at the very least.

 

As Brian Clough said "If he''s not interferring with play then what the f**k is he doing on the pitch?" 

 

Correct IMO.

[/quote]

You''ve totally nailed it Broadstairs.

The decision making is inconsistant because everyone sees it differently. Virtually every example of offside is different, and it is therefore difficult to ensure that the Refs and Linos all sing from the same hymn sheet.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="star_manic"][quote user="paul moy"]Whilst I accept the interpretations, my view is that the official did not deem the guy offside... ie. he made an error. With the speed of play it would have been difficult for him to judge. If you look at the photo, the ''offside'' player has an onside leg. Very marginal and difficult to judge IMO.  [/quote]..........the offside rule states that a player is offside if any part of his body that can score a legitimate goal is in an offside position it is then offside. also, in this example, he is interfering with play in that he is affecting the goalies positioning by being where he is.[/quote]

Indeed, but you''re missing my point which is that the assistant referee thought his whole body was onside due to the speed of play. I only mentioned the ''onside'' leg to emphasise how difficult it is for the assistant to know for sure.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I also think the lino made a mistake, although it was such a close call that it''s only clear from the replay.

 

Also did anyone notice the incident in one of the England games when their player sat on the ball and the ref gave obstruction ?  Unlike our game last season when play continued and the other side scored ?  Can''t remember which game it was now.

[Mick Dennis 0]

Well this makes a change from all the tosh by ''Wiz''! It is not an offence to be in an offside position. You have to be interfering with play, interfering with an opponent (oo er) or go on to gain an advantage, as you clearly understand. But sine 2005 "gaining an advantage from being in offside position" has only applied to a player arriving from offside to collect a rebound from the goal (posts or crossbar) or from an opponent. The law is absolutely clear and specific. So he doesn''t commit an offence when the ball is played forward and is not offside when the ball is passed to him.

[Mick Dennis 0]

.... And now having read the other replies.... Since 2005 "interfering with play" means touching the ball. "interfering with an opponent means preventing him from getting to the ball or, in the case of the goalkeeper, preventing him from seeing the ball."

Aggy and Hoolahans Ped (what?) are right. Guidance was sent out to all clubs in 2005 and it is all straightforward and clear. The problem arises because lazy dinosaurs like Hansen just say: "Nobody understands the law now" instead of doing the job of a tv pundit -- learning and explaining.

[Mick Dennis 0]

just to be a complete anorak...

This, from the Laws:

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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent

• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

[lake district canary 0]

Its a load of old bollox really.  The linesman has an impossible job as he has to be looking at too many things at once.   Every decision he makes is based on a split second.   It is well known that visually you can''t take in several things at the same time.    The law is an ass.

 

 

 

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Waz AKA Dr Vinyl"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]

I suppose it was because originally he wasn''t interferring with play, but that is debateable as usual in all these cases.

 

I dislike that rule as it is open to massive inconsistencies and makes the job harder for the officials. A blanket rule ie. two defenders etc. is easier to administer and might make some players actually learn it better, as it would be easier for the dumbos to understand. 

 

 Players in that sort of position have to always  be interferring with play as they are a distraction to the defenders, particularly the ''keeper at the very least.

 

As Brian Clough said "If he''s not interferring with play then what the f**k is he doing on the pitch?" 

 

Correct IMO.

[/quote]

You''ve totally nailed it Broadstairs.

The decision making is inconsistant because everyone sees it differently. Virtually every example of offside is different, and it is therefore difficult to ensure that the Refs and Linos all sing from the same hymn sheet.

[/quote]

Bang on. In old money this would have been offside.

In new money he was inactive in phase 1 - when the initial ball was knocked over the top to his team mate. In phase 2 he is onside because he is behind the ball when it is played forward.

[Aggy 754]

LDC - surely it''s quite the opposite? Rather than worrying about the positions of numerous players, the linesman only has to focus on the player receiving the ball under the current regulations? (Or the player who is interfering directly with a defender receiving the ball.)

In ''old money'', he is having to look at numerous players and judge whether they are interfering or not.

Under these interpretations, it''s quite simple really whether someone is interfering or not; if they receive the ball, they''re offside. If they stop an opponent from directly receiving the ball under no pressure, then they are offside. Otherwise, they''re not interfering.

The only reason it doesn''t seem that clear is because too many people in the media and the stands don''t know the law properly - obviously they''ve grown up with slightly different laws and simply haven''t bothered/been able to adapt to the new ones.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]I am not going to make a habit of this Banana but....i agree with you on this one. He clearly gains an advantage on the defence by being in an offside position when the ball is initially played through.[/quote]

Definitely. As a defence you must wonder what the point is. You work hard getting yourself organised. You catch someone offside who then receives a pass and taps it into an empty net. Nobody wants to see some 30 yard screamer disallowed because someone is an offside position and nowhere near being involved with play. But the current rules have taken it much to far.

[Lavanche 0]

[quote user="star_manic"][quote user="paul moy"]Whilst I accept the interpretations, my view is that the official did not deem the guy offside... ie. he made an error. With the speed of play it would have been difficult for him to judge. If you look at the photo, the ''offside'' player has an onside leg. Very marginal and difficult to judge IMO.  [/quote]..........the offside rule states that a player is offside if any part of his body that can score a legitimate goal is in an offside position it is then offside. also, in this example, he is interfering with play in that he is affecting the goalies positioning by being where he is.[/quote]

First I want to say that the rule is bad. I''m referee in finnish 3rd tier football (So not even close professional, but have had quite share of lectures)

In current rule Goalkeepers position isnt counted at all with most of the referees and referees are adviced to not keep attention to that.

For example how many times you have seen in last year that player has been offside and blocked the view of goalkeeper when shot comes? I bet more than 20 times and no offside has been given.

With current rule it is totally up to referee to decide what is enough for interfering the game and that leaves too much debate.

Goal Navas did was ruled right. No doubt about it. For example if player has stood at the opponents half and counter attack comes. At the point ball is between him and goalkeeper, he is onside and can be passed again

Same thing with Navas there and same thing with many other cases. If ball is shooted when one player is offside and onside player gets rebound, he can play again for the "offside" player.

Hopefuly you understood what I tried to monger with my broken english :D

[Phyxius 0]

I always figured the easiest way to solve the issue is that an offside player wether interfering or not. Should have to return to an onside position before touching the ball. Thereby losing his advantage.

So in theory a player who was offside when a cross is played in, but is onside when he makes contact with the ball would be legal.

But I imagine even this is open to exploitation.

[shefcanary 2,393]

I could just about accept that Navas was onside if he was out on the right wing, but he was running down the centre of the pitch.  In my mind he was therefore interfering with play because the goalkeeper could not be anything but aware of his presence and thus would have focussed on both Navas and Iniesta.  This would have meant the goalie could not commit completely to either diving at the feet of Iniesta to save, or to position himself solely to saving a shot from Iniesta, as Navas was a likely recpient of the ball. 

 

I am grateful for the comment, which is news to me and as others have commented on should be what £1 million a year pundits like Hanson should be communicating to us, that referee''s are told to ignore the goalkeeper in such circumstances which obviously undermines my argument.  However to my mind that''s a cop-out to try and remove the synchronised off-side tactics of the Arse in their heyday.  Hmmm, on second thoughts.......

 

Which all seem to suggest that you can actually have a traditional "kids game" goalhanger as a legitimate tactic.  Play a forward in such a position that he never drifts away from the "D", avoid ever pllaying the ball directly to him or instruct him to only ever go for the ball if it is played back to him from a more advanced position, and the defence has to drop back giving more room to our midfield.  Would certainly improve passing accuracy.

 

Now Sepp old chap about this GLT, now England have actually benefitted from it I see you have decide to rush through its introduction.  Strange that....