Rationale for the off sides rule in soccer

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Brumby's been talking about balls over the top, which quite obviously have to be played forward due to the nature of the direction the ball is kicked in correlation to the target into which the ball is hoped to be passed into for a player to run onto from an ideally onside position which can be combatted with a step up and an arm raised and an offside flag.

He was talking about what the laws of the game used to be though, and getting them wrong. As in:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Before this interpretation was used the linesman would flag for any player in an offside position, which at least had the merit of consistency.

Which is just blatantly untrue, because being offside in itself has never been an offence. He later amended it to:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

What are you talking about? The offside law used to be when a player was level or ahead of the last defender when the ball was played forward he was offside. Where have I suggested differently?

Which is again untrue, firstly because the direction of the ball is irrelevant to the law, and secondly because the ball still had to go in the general vicinity of the offside player. A full-back dribbling the ball up the line while a player lies on the turf in an offside position at the other end of the field would result in a free kick under this law, and in reality this never happened. The "interfering with play, the opposition of gaining an advantage by being where they are" part of the law has indeed always been there, and that's a fact you can look up for yourself. The only change is that the interpretation of it has tightened.

[ripper868]

Think uppercut has a crush on the offside rule...

[Matteh]

Think he's being a moron and very Dicko-esque.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Think he's being a moron and very Dicko-esque.

Quite. He's using a jesuitical literal reading of my words rather than my actual (and fairly obvious I thought) meaning.

In my first post I wasn't suggesting just being in an offside position itself was an offence, I presumed (wrongly it turns out) anyone with the vaguest interest in the sport would automatically assume I meant when the ball is played by a teammate, but it appears not.

[benchmark00]

Whilst we're on the topic of off side, would someone like to take this opportunity to outline the off-side rules in relation to the calling of 'shotgun'?

Thank you.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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

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]

Originally Posted by grecian

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

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]

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.

[GIMH]

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.

[BoyBrumby]

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]

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 ).

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

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]

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]

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".