• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rationale for the off sides rule in soccer

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The recent change to the offside rule is massively under-appreciated IMO.

It helps attacking play massively because defences can no longer just play an offside trap to catch a player offside. This forces defenders to actually do some defending, like actually make an effort to intercept passes instead of just pushing out all the time.
Agree with this, and no wonder Brumbers wants it changed back to the old way, as that's the only time they won anything :p

It was excruciating,in the lower leagues there were countless teams just trying to do an Arse, including notably Brumbers "other" team.

Comes to something when most of the training is taking up with the practice of this exceedingly negative ploy. Which allegedly it was for many teams.

I just wish they'd take it further, they already have "attackers should get the benefit of the doubt", and it would be good if they really stressed this. Winds me up seeing pundits say how good a linos decision is, when the attackers about 6 inches offside.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Agree with this, and no wonder Brumbers wants it changed back to the old way, as that's the only time they won anything :p

It was excruciating,in the lower leagues there were countless teams just trying to do an Arse, including notably Brumbers "other" team.

Comes to something when most of the training is taking up with the practice of this exceedingly negative ploy. Which allegedly it was for many teams.

I just wish they'd take it further, they already have "attackers should get the benefit of the doubt", and it would be good if they really stressed this. Winds me up seeing pundits say how good a linos decision is, when the attackers about 6 inches offside.
Still have a stiff neck on cold days from watching The Mighty U's under Beck.

Was pretty horrific to watch, but undeniably effective.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Uppercut not doing a good job of explaining it but he is right that direction of the ball played has nothing to do with the law. Of course, mostly it will involve a ball being played backwards but the law states a player cannot be offside if he is behind the ball.

In real life that will mostly mean a cut back or the like but there are times when a forward ball is legitimately played a player in an otherwise offside position.

The law talks about the position of the ball in relation to the receiver rather than the direction it is played.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I kinda skimread after a bit because it was a bit like a CC debate. So correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what's happened here:

Brumby has said 'interfering with play' never used to be a consideration
UC took it literally by thinking he meant straying offside used to be an offence

Just to check I'm on the right page here.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Brumby has said 'interfering with play' never used to be a consideration.
Well he goes back further than me as in 1920 the offside law was ammended to be an offence only when "when a player who is in an offside position interferes with an opponent or with the play. " :)

Its pretty much always been there. Just what constitutes it has changed. Anyway, I dont want to get bogged down in the law.

I just wanted to mention the direction of the ball thing as it is common and often not properly understood by a lot of fans and players alike.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Have to say I don't know if the actual law changed, but sometime around 94 the interpretation seemed to. Before then when the ball was played if a player was offside he was (almost) invariably flagged.

I remember Romario in that year's world cup seemed to be forever wandering back from offisde positions, which was the first time I can recall the distinction between active and passive being a factor.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, I remember the change in 94 as well, had everyone confused at first

The old man spent plenty of times talking to me about the things that were different in his day as well and your interpretation of offisde is the same as his (he's slightly older than you of coruse :ph34r:).
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Have to say I don't know if the actual law changed, but sometime around 94 the interpretation seemed to. Before then when the ball was played if a player was offside he was (almost) invariably flagged.

I remember Romario in that year's world cup seemed to be forever wandering back from offisde positions, which was the first time I can recall the distinction between active and passive being a factor.
The big difference in interpretation was the change from "seeking to gain an advantage" to "gaining an advantage"

Small but mighty change.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Two questions regarding off-sides:

-Is off-sides called when the pass is made or when its received?
-I was watching the USA-Slovenia match and I had a question about the last USA goal that was waived off. In this situation, I noticed the US striker received the pass in the penalty box while ahead of all the defenders. Could that have been called off-sides?

Apologies if the questions seem silly. :)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's when the ball's passed.

I'm 99% sure the third US "goal" was (incorrectly, IMHO) ruled out for a striker impeding a defender rather than offside.

&, FYI, we generally call it "offside" rather than "off-sides". :ph34r:
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Two questions regarding off-sides:

-Is off-sides called when the pass is made or when its received?
-I was watching the USA-Slovenia match and I had a question about the last USA goal that was waived off. In this situation, I noticed the US striker received the pass in the penalty box while ahead of all the defenders. Could that have been called off-sides?

Apologies if the questions seem silly. :)
For simplicity, the answer is a. :)

Once the pass has been made players can go wherever they want.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Drogba's consolation goal just now being a case in point - a yard behind the back line when the ball was played... three yards in front when received. Perfect through ball.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Ah cheers. Seems a perfectly reasonable rule.

I'm 99% sure the third US "goal" was (incorrectly, IMHO) ruled out for a striker impeding a defender rather than offside.
My question was a hypothetical, could it have been ruled offside (:D) in that situation?

Also, is the rule subject to change during a free kick/corner kick/in the penalty box etc or is there pretty much no room for leniency?
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Ah cheers. Seems a perfectly reasonable rule.



My question was a hypothetical, could it have been ruled offside (:D) in that situation?

Also, is the rule subject to change during a free kick/corner kick/in the penalty box etc or is there pretty much no room for leniency?
You can't be offside from a corner (as everyone is behind the ball to begin with), and you can't be offside from a throw in (source of much anger during youth football coaching).
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
You can't be offside from a corner (as everyone is behind the ball to begin with), and you can't be offside from a throw in (source of much anger during youth football coaching).
:laugh: yeah. Im guessing from the parents. Ive lost count of the number of times Ive had to explain to those on the sideline. Its amazing that so many dont know a simple rule like that.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
:laugh: yeah. Im guessing from the parents. Ive lost count of the number of times Ive had to explain to those on the sideline. Its amazing that so many dont know a simple rule like that.
That, and the total lack of movement that so many wide players offer when the ball's out of play.

You're a winger! Get down the wing!
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
In my experience, other than the timing issue, the two things people find most confusing about the offside rule are that it's the second-last defender, not the last, and that you also can't be offside if you're behind the ball. Essentially meaning that if the goalkeeper moves out, one defender being ahead of the offending player doesn't prevent it being offside, and that any pass going backwards won't lead to an offside call.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, I remember the change in 94 as well, had everyone confused at first

The old man spent plenty of times talking to me about the things that were different in his day as well and your interpretation of offisde is the same as his (he's slightly older than you of coruse :ph34r:).
Indeed, in fact a ref defending his lino said after the match, about a Fulham goal, that the clearly offside Gordon Davies "wasn't interfering with play". Only slight problem with the brilliant statement was the ball went directly through to Davies who scored, 'twas the only goal in the game too.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
You can't be offside from a corner (as everyone is behind the ball to begin with), and you can't be offside from a throw in (source of much anger during youth football coaching).
You can't be offside from a goal kick, I'm fairly sure in theory you can be offside from a corner although in practice it's exceptionally unlikely to ever happen.
 

Top