New Offside Rule

[therockbox]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/g...ers/4685599.stm

Ugh, just another case of Fifa trying to fix what isn't broken. Idiots.

[Darloboy]

Why can't they just stick with the original offside rules? You know, the ones that worked fine?

Edited July 15, 2005 by Darloboy

[King Ellis]

I'm more worried about the fact that this will take up all of the discussion on MOTD for at least 3 months. It is stupid though, so much time is gonna be wasted by having to wait for the flag.

[Summers]

So technically, a player can stand infront of the keeper - as one of his team mates takes a shot - completely block the keepers view, in his offside postion, interfering with play, but then move out the way so the ball goes into the net, and he doesn't touch the ball.

That's silly.

[fineintent]

Bring back the old offside rule - where if anyone was beyond the back four, they were automatically offside. That one was simple, and stopped players like RVN taking the piss by stepping back on quickly.

[The Slickman]

Football used to be a simple game . Striker in front of defenders , ball passed , offside . Simple . Everyone understood it , now its a difficult game and when i played for a sunday team last year and you dont know when your on or offside when your playing . One prick said it was offside when i layed a ball through and it hit a defender and went to my player .

[MDK]

There used to be the old joke about trying to teach women the offside rule. We ain't laughing anymore...

Seriously, there are going to lots of people that won't be happy with this rule. Why must FIFA try to make this as complicated as possible? Soon we will turn this sport into a joke like American Football, jesus.

[Malenko]

Why can't they just stick with the original offside rules? You know, the ones that worked fine?

←

[Guest TheTokenWhiteGuy]

There used to be the old joke about trying to teach women the offside rule. We ain't laughing anymore...

Seriously, there are going to lots of people that won't be happy with this rule. Why must FIFA try to make this as complicated as possible? Soon we will turn this sport into a joke like American Football, jesus.

←

[lanky316]

There was always something similar in place as far as blocking the keeper went about.

If a player ran off the field of play after crossing the ball he didn't count as offside, they were then able to casually stand in front of the goalkeeper and deflect the ball past. Similar to the way RVN and Henry as well as sooo many others abuse the "passive" offside rule.

We need something black and white like it used to be, why should the game be open to corruption and simple fuck ups like this?

[Jonny D]

So technically, a player can stand infront of the keeper - as one of his team mates takes a shot - completely block the keepers view, in his offside postion, interfering with play, but then move out the way so the ball goes into the net, and he doesn't touch the ball.

That's silly.

←

[Farmer Reil]

Everyone is overreacting, as usual.

It's not that much different. Before, if you were offside but not interfering with play, you were fine. All this new "rule" does, is clarifies what counts as "interfering with play".

Edit: Just found this quote in the article:

"It needs clarification because there is going to be major controversy during the season with it."

What the fuck? Is he thick or something? Let me explain this for you, Terry.

    G


B

        C  x

  x   x

x


A

X is your defence, ok so far Terry? You know what a defence is? Wait..it's Motherwell, poor choice of question.

A is the opposing player passing the ball.

B is an opposing player who's in an offside position.

C is an onside opposing player.

Right, now listen up Terry. Here's the bit you don't seem to get.

B is not interfering with any other players on the pitch. So if he doesn't touch the ball, he's not offside.

If he does touch the ball, at any time while he's behind the last defender, he's offside. That's a free kick. Hopefully you know what one of those is...

Got it? Sure? Ok, good.

I really don't see what the problem is...

Is it complicated? Yeah... Is it so complicated that everything is going to go into meltdown because of this horrificly simple new rule? No...

But it would get a bit confusing when teams start getting three or four people offside on purpose and have them not interfere, just to confuse people.

Edited July 15, 2005 by TheReilDeal

[lanky316]

The problem is as you pointed out there he's not interefering. A second late the shot comes in ball is dropped by keeper and spilled to the feet of B tapping it into the net. He is not interfering but a second later he is but the goal is given.

That's the problem with passive offside, it's bollocks.

[Farmer Reil]

In that scenario, it wouldn't be a goal. B is offside.

If that were to happen, and the goal stood, it would be the fucktard referee's fault, not the rule's.

[Malenko]

The problem is as you pointed out there he's not interefering.  A second late the shot comes in ball is dropped by keeper and spilled to the feet of B tapping it into the net.  He is not interfering but a second later he is but the goal is given.

That's the problem with passive offside, it's bollocks.

←

[lanky316]

Which STILL means PASSIVE offside IS bollocks AND doesn't WORK. A Referee CAN still "NOT notice" the BLATANT offside and GIVE the GOAL. Thats the POINT people are MISSING. Until they TAKE a DEFINATE black and white RULING it will always be CRAP.

[Malenko]

Explain how that case is any different now, from what it was before the passive offside rule was inducted?

When someone shoots on goal and goal keeper saves for the rebound, if the player who scores the rebound has only one player ahead (in this case the goal keeper), he is offside now, and was offside before the passive offside rule was inducted because it was always counted as a pass. The passive offside rule didn't change this at all.

The only difference that passive offside has introduced is, when a player A shoots from long distance for example, and there is a player B out of the way but only with the goalkeeper in front of him, like

G

_ B

x x x

A

Case 1: A scores directly. Before the passive offside rule was introduced it would be disallowed, after the passive offside rule it stopped being disallowed.

Case 2: A shoots, keeper saves, B scores the rebound. In this situation the goal was disallowed before and after the passive offside rule. This is the case we were talking about earlier, and the passive offside rule hasn't had any effect on this case whatsoever. Referees could not see B was ahead then and now. It has nothing to do with the rule.

[lanky316]

The fact remains it is up to the officials if he was passive or not and when they ignore the initial one as passive they always stick with it when the ball goes to the offside player who puts it in.

More often then not these goals are given and there are many many goals that SHOULD be disallowed now, they're not though and thats the problem. Certain players have done very well in the last couple of seasons by abusing this system RVN springs to mind as a great example with his tactic of walking backwards just to turn round and tap it in from his offside position.

[botchedpiledriver]

What was wrong with the old, old, old offside rule?

[Farmer Reil]

lanky, for God's sake, you make Terry Motherwell-guy look like a genius.

FIFA can't reprogram referee's brains to make them better. Whether or not a referee can do his job properly is up to the referee.

Last season, it wasn't clear when a player was passive, or when he was interfering with play. And it was down to the referee to make the distinction. So if the referee makes the "wrong" decision, nobody can really complain, because the referee's idea of "interfering with play" might not include volleying a ball into the back of the net

This year, it's been made blatantly clear. So if RVN is offside when the ball is kicked, then runs onside and back again to score, it's a dissallowed goal. If the referee doesn't spot it with two other pairs of eyes helping him, he

deserves the forthcoming fine, because there's no room for him to say "I didn't think he was interfering". He was. The rules say so.

Edited July 16, 2005 by TheReilDeal