New offisde law for this season

[Jacko51]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/rule-change-will-simplify-game

[valiant58]

I thought it was like that now. It seems the rule is all about how you interpret it.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

It used to be simple didn't it..you were offside if the ref said you were.

 

The lineo flags, ref sees it, makes a decision..most times I reckon he/she will be right, sometimes he/she will be wrong. If he/she doesn't see the flag go up..so be it.

[Andyregs]

I don't think it goes far enough. If you are standing in the middle of the penalty area, in front of the keeper, you shouldn't be able to be not interfering with play. As you will be effecting the keepers and defences positioning and decision making. The rule has become a ridiculous mess, when it used to be quite simple. In the past the only time you were not office in an offside position was when you were running back towards an onside position,mutually with your hands up to signal your intent. Easy for players to work with and easy for linesmen to deal with.

[Bycarsbill]

Anything that doesn't make a decision 'black or white' and instead leaves it open 'to interpretation' is going to cause a few arguments. I can now imagine Mourinho adding a few choice words on this subject during the coming season!!

[rsb]

but this will only happen if the lines person can keep up with play

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Looking at those examples:

 

Rojo case he's clearly trying to gain an advantage by putting himself in an offside position so he is offside..does trying to get an advantage still apply??

 

The Lukaku one is interesting..what if Lukaku ignored the pass, Mirellas ran thru to collect the ball, Lukaku then made a run to goal and Mirellas crossed/passed for him to score whilst in an onside position. he'd possibly not have been able to get in a position to score without having been in an offside position to start with. How far back does the ref go??

[Warren]

The new interpretations were explained on sky ports news app by Dermot. A difference seems to be that a player can become active retrospectively by blocking or challenging a defender clearing or causing a defender to pass to the keeper. Another change in interpretation is non ball touching interference. This is the one where the cross comes in to the guy who is offside who may head it but doesn't and the guy onside behind does score instead - but the interference occurred because the keeper had to assume the offside player might actually head it before moving to try to save the second attempt.

 

I am in favour of this. But it can still be convoluted. Suppose the guy who was offside runs 40 yards across the pitch from the offside position to close down the other defender after the ball is played square - he is likely to be given offside but the whole scenario is then quite a significant delay in productive game play for the enjoyment of spectators?

[Warren]

Looking at those examples:

 

Rojo case he's clearly trying to gain an advantage by putting himself in an offside position so he is offside..does trying to get an advantage still apply??

 

The Lukaku one is interesting..what if Lukaku ignored the pass, Mirellas ran thru to collect the ball, Lukaku then made a run to goal and Mirellas crossed/passed for him to score whilst in an onside position. he'd possibly not have been able to get in a position to score without having been in an offside position to start with. How far back does the ref go??

 

 

I am responding to this without checking. But I assume a striker is onside if falls back so a defender plus keeper is closer to the goal line. That is normal. If that does not happen then the attacker has never recovered from the offside position. In some cases he will be behind the ball when played to him and so not offside because of that pass. But he might be deemed to have reached an advantageous position to score ahead of the defenders because he started from offside. I feel he is potentially offside under these rules. But there must be some judgement involved by the ref. For example are we 10 seconds on and the other player has had a dribble well away from the point of offside. Time, distance and subsequent nature of play is relevant? Officials are going to need very good short term memory of situations?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

" For example are we 10 seconds on and the other player has had a dribble well away from the point of offside."

 

That was my point re this sort of situation...a player could deliberately get into an offside position away from the ball, wait for the ball to get thru the defence (perhaps dribbled thru by a team mate) so he's no longer in an offside position and then turn to receive the ball from a team mate and score..if he's behind his team mate when the ball is passed then he's not offside.

 

Seems to happen quite frequently..should the ref go back and say "You gained an unfair advantage by standing in an offside position" and disallow the goal?

[For Us All]

I take it that this new ruling is supposed to be an improvement? :rolleyes:

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/rule-change-will-simplify-game

 

To clarify its not a new law, its direction on interpreation of what is suggested to be interfering with play.

 

For those that play sunday morning football (or any other 11 aside) without offical assistants direction will still be exactly the same as always.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

I don't think it goes far enough. If you are standing in the middle of the penalty area, in front of the keeper, you shouldn't be able to be not interfering with play. As you will be effecting the keepers and defences positioning and decision making. The rule has become a ridiculous mess, when it used to be quite simple. In the past the only time you were not office in an offside position was when you were running back towards an onside position,mutually with your hands up to signal your intent. Easy for players to work with and easy for linesmen to deal with.

 

You won't find too many referees or assistants disagreeing in private Andy.

[old sage]

More confusion I'm sorry to say. Rules should be clear cut and not left to individual interpretation. The only winner here will be Sky & Match of the Day as they will have more to talk about 'was he wasn't he'

[Yukon]

More confusion I'm sorry to say. Rules should be clear cut and not left to individual interpretation. The only winner here will be Sky & Match of the Day as they will have more to talk about 'was he wasn't he'

 

Agreed. I'm all for the "not interfearing with play" thing but for absolute clarity, maybe there's a case for offside being as clean cut as a player being goalside of the last defending player, in the oppositions half- ball or no ball.