[Archived] The Offside Law Explained

[philipl]

Please Mr Colin sir, please can we ask Mr Rackett's talking PIG why nice Mr Samba got a red card and Mr James got nothing?

[S15]

Because it was a friendly; end of.

[JAL]

Please Mr Colin sir, please can we ask Mr Rackett's talking PIG why nice Mr Samba got a red card and Mr James got nothing?

I think you need to ask the referee that one not Colin

[OscarRaven]

So where did the first phase, second phase stuff come from then?

The offside law is a joke, MOTD don't understand it, players don't understand it, managers don't understand it, fans don't understand it - but Keith and his band do so its fine.

Confusion to facilitate bias in my opinion. Keith throw your telly out the window becuase we don't want your stupid PIG interpretation/complication of what is essentially a very simple rule.

[USRoverME]

umm, its not his interpretatin, its FIFA, so tell Sepp to through his TV out instead.

[AggyBlue]

Confusion to facilitate bias in my opinion.

Too true and we all know the clubs that benefit the most.

Blatters tampering with the rules were supposed to take away any grey areas, thus taking away referee's opinions on incidents. Sadly the Offside Laws are a farce.

[colin]

The offside law is a joke, MOTD don't understand it, players don't understand it, managers don't understand it, fans don't understand it - but Keith and his band do so its fine.

Oscar, I suggest that the fault is with MOTD; players; managers & fans. The offiside law is there for all to comprehend. If anyone wants to claim ignorance & have a bleat then it's up to them to admit that they are too stupid to understand the law.

The law is there, live with it. Play with it.

[AggyBlue]

The law is there, live with it. Play with it.

Fifa will be well aware of all the negative feedback and confusion caused. It will be interesting to see if they will do anything about it or just bury their head in the sand and quote you.

[thenodrog]

The law is there, live with it. Play with it.

Rather simplistic view Colin if I may say so. It's an almost universally unpopular law by players and spectators alike. By common agreement it is too complicated and with far to many grey areas open to skewed interpretation. The best advice to the rule makers is simply 'to keep things simple'.

[Fife Rover]

Can somebody please explain what was wrong with the old tried and tested offside law that had ruled for yonks? Why was there any need to change it?

[neekoy]

Oscar, I suggest that the fault is with MOTD; players; managers & fans. The offiside law is there for all to comprehend. If anyone wants to claim ignorance & have a bleat then it's up to them to admit that they are too stupid to understand the law.

The law is there, live with it. Play with it.

Rather harsh comment Colin. It is not a matter of being 'too stupid'

When a law is clearly open to individual interpretation (not arguing between fans but REAL interpretation) i.e Cisse's goal against us

Then the law is not black and white and needs to be addressed.

Imagine if everytime there was an injustice someone just said 'live with it' we wouldn't have any change for the better.

[philipl]

If you went back to the law as it was, we'd have 20 George Graham Arsenal's in the Prem and 20 players in a 20 yard strip either side of the halfway line playing a version of the Eton Wall Game without the wall.

[S15]

The uncertaincy makes it hard(er) to develop from a grass roots level as well IMO.

When I was a kid/teenager playing football at Sunday league level, we always did training exercises to help the defence master the offside rule, it was always something of an artform, as a defender you'd set the 'trap,' and as an attacker you'd work on movement and runs to beat the 'trap.'

Why this aspect of our game has been taken away is beyond me personally, what are our kids taught now.

You try explaining the law to kinds between 12-15, never mind trying to get them to implicate it somewhat whilst playing games. This rule will get more rediculous as time goes on, as I/we understand the ''offside'' rule, and that is why we are confused by the new interpretation.

In ten years there wont be a rule to understand.

[snatchymcsnatch]

How about this - I seem to remember it's similar to Ice hockey when I used to play NHL 95 all the time.

Ball is played forward - if there is ANY opposition player past the last the defender the linesman flags and keeps his flag up BUT play is only stopped if the offending player subsequently touches the ball whilst still in an offside position (if the player gets himself back onside the linesman can lower his flag) - otherwise play can continue.

Less stoppages, less confusion, nice and simple, everybodys happy (except McCarthy)

[DanLad]

If you went back to the law as it was, we'd have 20 George Graham Arsenal's in the Prem and 20 players in a 20 yard strip either side of the halfway line playing a version of the Eton Wall Game without the wall.

When was it like that?

If it wasn't like that when the previous rule (interpretation/whatever) was in place why would it be like that now?

[thenodrog]

Indeed Dan lad.

Personally I've always considered the trialling of an 'offside line' 15 yards or so upfield from the penalty area. Be a damned sight easier for the linesman..... err sorry I mean the pointlessly re- named 'referee's assistant'.

[AggyBlue]

linesman..... err sorry I mean the pointlessly re- named 'referee's assistant'.

The term 'man' had to be dropped. It's another of those pathetic PC 'ist' issues.

[CircoWill]

"The law really is simple and well defined. First and foremost, it is important to know the key principle: it is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. Assistants will not flag the moment someone strays offside. A player is only penalised if he then becomes active."

From all that, I still think Aliadiere was offside.

[colin]

Rather simplistic view Colin if I may say so. It's an almost universally unpopular law by players and spectators alike. By common agreement it is too complicated and with far to many grey areas open to skewed interpretation. The best advice to the rule makers is simply 'to keep things simple'.

Agreed, it is far too complicated, and it should be made simpler.

This is not a rant against you BTW

The point that Hackett made was "here's the law, get on with it and play the game." He said that Shearer, Hansen and the rest of them simply didn't know what the law is and were misleading everyone with their ignorance when in fact they should have been shining some light on it. That's what they are presumably paid for, and they are obviously failing to do that.

And by promoting their ignorance they are doing the rest of us a disservice. They are meant to be educating and teaching us fans about the game. It's one thing to listen to Graeme le Saux saying "He'll be disappointed with that," or Jamie Redknapp going on about Fat Frank as a "Top, top player" - I can just about stand these people wittering on like wet cardboard, but when they start to ramble on about their imaginary laws of offside...........

I'll calm down now.

But we've all got to live with with the law as it stands at the moment. It might be an over-complicated one, but it's there.