New Offside Rule

[lanky316]

Yes it has been made clear, the same way it's supposed to be clear when a ball goes 3 feet over the line. The fact is even with the other two pairs of eyes there can be "mistakes" made and anywhere when these sort of fuck ups can happen need to be taken out of the game. Offside used to be something that was just black and white and nobody could argue about it, you either were or you weren't now you have the "he is but does he matter" factor.

As you said they can't reprogram referees to make them better so do you really believe anything will happen about fines? Mark Clattenberg missed a blatant goal as did his officials and he never even had to explain it, "oh I made a mistake" was all it took and the same will stand here. Which is why passive offside is the most ridiculous thing about the way modern football is played.

[Farmer Reil]

Of course. No goal was ever mistakenly allowed/disallowed under the old rules.

Of course. Cough.

[Malenko]

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 Malenko

[lanky316]

No, blunders happened, however when they did happen something was easier to do to sort out this mistake, with a grey area it is far easier to fuck up and not get any form of action taken against these people.

With the old rules it was easier to spot repeat offenders and have them dealt with accordingly. With passive offside it is far more down to opinion then a strict ruling which is what causes problems as far as it all goes. I suppose your also against the idea of video referees to determing if it's a goal or a corner/goal kick as well?

Edited July 16, 2005 by lanky316

[Farmer Reil]

I'm not saying the old rule was crap, I'm just saying this isn't as bad as you're making it out to be.

Yes, the old rule was better. Yes, video referees would be great. But this isn't so horrifyingly bad that it's going to destroy the entire world, like you're meaking out

The new rule is a definate improvement over the old passive offside rule. But yes, given the choice, I would definately just scrap Passive Offside.

However, we aren't given the choice, so there's no point arguing

Edited July 16, 2005 by TheReilDeal

[botchedpiledriver]

I like to ignore that there is new rules. And just assume there using the old rules.

[lazy_arse]

What I want to know is how long does it take for the offside to be 'cancelled' so to speak. So if Van Nistelrooy is offside when the ball is played through, but doesn't touch it, but then 10 seconds later he taps in. Is he still considered to be offside from before?

I hope you understand what I mean.

[botchedpiledriver]

What I want to know is how long does it take for the offside to be 'cancelled' so to speak. So if Van Nistelrooy is offside when the ball is played through, but doesn't touch it, but then 10 seconds later he taps in. Is he still considered to be offside from before?

I hope you understand what I mean.

←

[Malenko]

What I want to know is how long does it take for the offside to be 'cancelled' so to speak. So if Van Nistelrooy is offside when the ball is played through, but doesn't touch it, but then 10 seconds later he taps in. Is he still considered to be offside from before?

I hope you understand what I mean.

←

I understand what you mean. And what your saying is the main problem with these new rules.

←

[lazy_arse]

What I want to know is how long does it take for the offside to be 'cancelled' so to speak. So if Van Nistelrooy is offside when the ball is played through, but doesn't touch it, but then 10 seconds later he taps in. Is he still considered to be offside from before?

I hope you understand what I mean.

←

I understand what you mean. And what your saying is the main problem with these new rules.

←

[Malenko]

What I want to know is how long does it take for the offside to be 'cancelled' so to speak. So if Van Nistelrooy is offside when the ball is played through, but doesn't touch it, but then 10 seconds later he taps in. Is he still considered to be offside from before?

I hope you understand what I mean.

←

I understand what you mean. And what your saying is the main problem with these new rules.

←

That has nothing to do with the new rules. It has to do with the rules that are already more than 10 years old which happen to be the third set of offside rules.

That hasn't changed in the last ones.

Anyway, i don't see where the doubt is in that case. If Van Nistelrooy only had a player in front in the moment of the last pass, he is offside. If he didn't he isn't.

←

[Farmer Reil]

Exactly.

If RVN was offside, someone passed to another player, who hit the post or whatever, RVN didn't touch the ball, so isn't offside.

If someone else than passes RVN the ball, and he's no longer offside when THAT pass is made, he's not offside, it's fine.

However, if RVN is the next person to touch the ball after it hit the post, or after the 'keeper parried it, or the shot was blocked by a defender, whatever, it's offside.