The Offside Rule-How it's applied

[Spursalot]

Don't make perfection the enemy of improvement. Yes, there might still be some debatable decisions. But surely getting 95+% of them right and then accepting that there will be some still too close to call correctly still is an improvement of sorts.

Possibly, what percentage do they currently get right though?

I wouldn't think it that far south of 95%, just everyone seems to remember those 'big' decisions for their own teams.

 

[braineclipse]

Possibly, what percentage do they currently get right though?

I wouldn't think it that far south of 95%, just everyone seems to remember those 'big' decisions for their own teams.

I was talking about getting the close decisions that they now get wrong fairly regularly right around 95% of the time.

They might be right a high percentage of the time, but I think that's because a rather high portion of the situations are obvious one way or the other.

 

[Charlie]

Would Lennon have been offside for the first goal against Stoke if we apply the 80's offside rules? IIRC, he would have been.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Had an interesting chat yesterday with a ref in my Sunday league about whether a player in an offside position is interfering with play or not.

My point to him was that if a defender reacts to a player in an offside position, then he should be given offside as he has affected play by pulling the defender out of position. The ref said this was incorrect according to FIFAs rules on interpreting the offside law. By their guidelines, the attacking player can only be ruled offside if he makes a move to touch the ball (ie. lets the ball deliberately run through his legs) even if he then doesn't make contact whether on purpose or not. So apparently, if you are offside but not close to the ball you are able to make a run that drags a defender so an onside player can take advantage of the situation.

It used to be so much simpler when I was a kid. You just kicked something, flesh or leather, it was all the same. Different game nowadays.

 

[Jurgen the German]

It's not wrongfully when according to the currently accepted interpretations of the rules he was actually in an offside position just because you think the rules should be different.

I think the rules are quite good the way they currently are.



Don't make perfection the enemy of improvement. Yes, there might still be some debatable decisions. But surely getting 95+% of them right and then accepting that there will be some still too close to call correctly still is an improvement of sorts.

That makes it incredibly hard for attacking players if every part of their body has to be onside/level.

The officials are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, but they never do.

 

[braineclipse]

That makes it incredibly hard for attacking players if every part of their body has to be onside/level.

The officials are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, but they never do.

I don't think so. It's a line, whoever is closest to the goal out of the attacker and defender is furthest back and thus sets the line. Saying that either has to be behind the other would make it more difficult for that player, now it seems more obvious and easier to me.

There are plenty of goals scored that shouldn't have been given each season. We scored one not long ago, remember?

There might be a slight bias in the decisions, especially if the attacker is running into an offside position as if the assistant refs then see it a fraction of a second late (likely) then they will see the player in an offside position. I think that happens more often than strikers being offside and being caught up by the defenders.

I think quite a bit of your perception of the situation is down to confirmation bias. Especially when you play yourself unless you play at a level where you have the chance to review situations on video after the game.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I don't think so. It's a line, whoever is closest to the goal out of the attacker and defender is furthest back and thus sets the line. Saying that either has to be behind the other would make it more difficult for that player, now it seems more obvious and easier to me.

There are plenty of goals scored that shouldn't have been given each season. We scored one not long ago, remember?

There might be a slight bias in the decisions, especially if the attacker is running into an offside position as if the assistant refs then see it a fraction of a second late (likely) then they will see the player in an offside position. I think that happens more often than strikers being offside and being caught up by the defenders.

I think quite a bit of your perception of the situation is down to confirmation bias. Especially when you play yourself unless you play at a level where you have the chance to review situations on video after the game.

I don't know the stats, but I would bet more legitimate goals are given offside than offside goals being wrongfully given onside.

I don't see how they can give the benefit to the attacker if the margin is so small, basically any part of your body you can score with.

 

[braineclipse]

Had an interesting chat yesterday with a ref in my Sunday league about whether a player in an offside position is interfering with play or not.

My point to him was that if a defender reacts to a player in an offside position, then he should be given offside as he has affected play by pulling the defender out of position. The ref said this was incorrect according to FIFAs rules on interpreting the offside law. By their guidelines, the attacking player can only be ruled offside if he makes a move to touch the ball (ie. lets the ball deliberately run through his legs) even if he then doesn't make contact whether on purpose or not. So apparently, if you are offside but not close to the ball you are able to make a run that drags a defender so an onside player can take advantage of the situation.

It used to be so much simpler when I was a kid. You just kicked something, flesh or leather, it was all the same. Different game nowadays.

I agree, it was simpler. And I was quite critical when they changed it myself, I think it's working out well though. In a way it also differentiates more between good and average defenders and great team attacking play is broken down by one lone idiot who couldn't stay onside despite being on the other side of the pitch and nowhere near the play.

I don't know the stats, but I would bet more legitimate goals are given offside than offside goals being wrongfully given onside.

I don't see how they can give the benefit to the attacker if the margin is so small, basically any part of your body you can score with.

I would be interested to see a stat like that myself. My guess would be in the direction you say as well, but I wouldn't think that there's a massive difference. Very difficult to estimate though.

I don't understand what you mean by benefit to the attacker, what does that have to do with how the line is drawn? Isn't the benefit of the doubt thing just an instruction to the referees about what to do when in doubt? It isn't some overall strategy that the offside rule in general is supposed to benefit the attackers.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I agree, it was simpler. And I was quite critical when they changed it myself, I think it's working out well though. In a way it also differentiates more between good and average defenders and great team attacking play is broken down by one lone idiot who couldn't stay onside despite being on the other side of the pitch and nowhere near the play.



I would be interested to see a stat like that myself. My guess would be in the direction you say as well, but I wouldn't think that there's a massive difference. Very difficult to estimate though.

I don't understand what you mean by benefit to the attacker, what does that have to do with how the line is drawn? Isn't the benefit of the doubt thing just an instruction to the referees about what to do when in doubt? It isn't some overall strategy that the offside rule in general is supposed to benefit the attackers.

I'll clarify it. Basically if the linesman is unsure whether the player is offside, he is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, not the defender.

 

[braineclipse]

I'll clarify it. Basically if the linesman is unsure whether the player is offside, he is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, not the defender.

And why can't he do that under the current interpretations of the rules?

I think in most of those decisions the assistants will have a feeling one way or the other and go with that when they're unsure.

 

[Jurgen the German]

And why can't he do that under the current interpretations of the rules?

I think in most of those decisions the assistants will have a feeling one way or the other and go with that when they're unsure.

Not saying they can't, but they don't.

 

[braineclipse]

Not saying they can't, but they don't.

That's what I thought you said above... Never mind, I think we pretty much agree.

 

[Viper]

Would Lennon have been offside for the first goal against Stoke if we apply the 80's offside rules? IIRC, he would have been.

Only if he had a tash and a perm

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I agree, it was simpler. And I was quite critical when they changed it myself, I think it's working out well though. In a way it also differentiates more between good and average defenders and great team attacking play is broken down by one lone idiot who couldn't stay onside despite being on the other side of the pitch and nowhere near the play.

I agree that the new rules have had a positive impact on the game overall but I still feel that if an attacker forces the defender to change his position so that a second attacker is able to take advantage of the same defender, then it should be ruled offside.