Offside

[WasStefan]

I froze it and he was just onside

I know mate but one second has 60 frames its impossible to know exactly when the ball was hit even at 60 frames. At high speed like that with a striker on the shoulder and the defender trying to play him off it’s not accurate. It’s a farce

 

[Jonzy54]

I know mate but one second has 60 frames its impossible to know exactly when the ball was hit even at 60 frames. At high speed like that with a striker on the shoulder and the defender trying to play him off it’s not accurate. It’s a farce

Unfortunately that’s all they have currently.Even without VAR we would be reliant on the AR’s judgement or even the blink of an eye .

 

[Jonzy54]

I know mate but one second has 60 frames its impossible to know exactly when the ball was hit even at 60 frames. At high speed like that with a striker on the shoulder and the defender trying to play him off it’s not accurate. It’s a farce

I suppose it all hinges on clear and obvious

 

[Contrarian]

The authorities have tried to frame a rule to give attackers an advantage but by moving away from a black and white interpretation they have introduced inconsistency which just winds everyone up.

Back to the drawing board methinks .

And using lines to allow millimeter offsides is also inconsistent with that idea. Especially when the technology isn't even accurate to millimetres.

The number of goals in open play must be declining, while the number of penalties has increased significantly. Not in the spirit of the game at all. A well worked goal is disallowed because a part of an attackers body is a few millimeters in front of play. While an attacker going nowhere on the corner of the penalty area can win a penalty, so long as he can engender a convincing enough fall over a defenders leg. Or blast the ball into the defenders arm from 2 feet away. The game has lost the plot.

 

[WasStefan]

I suppose it all hinges on clear and obvious

But its not is it, it’s either offside or its not, if it cant be definitively proven they should stick with the on field decision

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

But its not is it, it’s either offside or its not, if it cant be definitively proven they should stick with the on field decision

Yep but unfortunately they seem to think when they freeze it is 100% right

They amend the lines a few times . They never change the time the ball leaves the players foot

 

[Spitfire]

think that by the letter of the latest attempt at defining the offside rules there is so much to interpret that both Salah and Rashford could equally have been ruled onside or offside depending on the ref, and for either decision VAR wouldn’t have overruled as not a clear and obvious error.

The problem with offside at the moment is the rules themselves, all the changes have just made it worse.

The offside law is clearly a joke right now. Salah's goal should never have stood, but as it did, why on earth was Raul's ruled out today?? The defender has the least touch, and it looked like he played the ball to me.

It was a deflection as opposed to a deliberate attempt to play the ball so it was the correct decision and not just a VAR interpretation.A deflection has always been interpreted as offside at the point of contact

These incidents show just what a farce it has become. The more I watch Raul’s goal the more I think it’s a deliberate touch by the defender, but it’s just too open to interpretation/bias. I think most sane people who have ever watched or played football would say all 3 are offside. They’ve just made a complete pig’s ear of it.

 

[Superted]

And using lines to allow millimeter offsides is also inconsistent with that idea. Especially when the technology isn't even accurate to millimetres.

The number of goals in open play must be declining, while the number of penalties has increased significantly. Not in the spirit of the game at all. A well worked goal is disallowed because a part of an attackers body is a few millimeters in front of play. While an attacker going nowhere on the corner of the penalty area can win a penalty, so long as he can engender a convincing enough fall over a defenders leg. Or blast the ball into the defenders arm from 2 feet away. The game has lost the plot.

I've been banging this drum for two years.

The margin of error inherent in the system makes it totally unsuitable for the accuracy they're trying to achieve.

A player running at an entirely reasonable 6m/s could have moved 0.1m between frames at 60FPS. Doesn't sound like much but that's 4 inches and we've seen offsides given/not given based on less.

Until they accept this and offer the benefit of the doubt to assistant referee (i.e. Umpire's call in cricket) we will continue to have these problems.

 

[wolvesjoe]

How can any of the apologists for the officials justify the current interpretation of offside? Many goals disallowed for toenail offsides. Not forgetting ours against Liverpool, where it seems the officials just had a feeling that somebody somewhere was offside, they just weren't sure who. Yet Salah and Rashford, half a mile offside and the goals stand.

So exactly the incidents that the spirit of the offside rule is meant to prevent (i.e .goal hanging) are allowed, yet some great goals get disallowed for a shoulder or a heel being offside. This is so wrong.

We seem to have had a fair few disallowed in recent seasons, too. No problem with the blatant ones that would always have been disallowed. But the hairline ones that would have been goals at any point in the past 50 years. Though probably not at Anfield or Old Trafford of course - that's always been the case. Add those in and we might not be such low scorers!

Anyway, the whole point of the game is to score goals without cheating - and these millimetre offsides are pathetic as that just never was what the rule was meant to prevent. Especially irritating as it is still open to interpretation exactly how long they spend drawing the lines and interpreting phases of play to disallow goals for the unfavoured teams.

Agree very much with this post.

It's the hairline offsides which for me are the most ruinous of the spirit of the game. Raul yesterday should have been called onside for example. He was level and it was an excellent piece of forward play. Instead wolves win is endangered through a lousy call.

The rules could be tweaked to reflect the spirit of the game, as they seemed to be at the world cup. But that would be to give up the subjective licence that the refs use to enforce their agenda.

I would even venture that VAR without the off side bull**** wouyjust become mainly a useful tool, largely accepted, and just occasionally a minor irritant.

 

[wolvesjoe]

I suppose it all hinges on clear and obvious

In reality most fans and players know when a player is offside or not. It's the ultra marginal calls that are anti-football

 

[ToastedWanderer]

VAR is the best script writing tool the Premier League has ever been given..

 

[jrpb-3]

it is a difficult one to get right. I can sort of see what they are trying to do with the rules, but difficult to interpret and get consistency
I think most would agree that there's a difference between a ball nicking of a defender as it goes through and a defender playing the ball that then goes to the offside player

Equally there is a difference between when a player is in an offside position but well away from the play and when they are right up with play and affecting things.

Inevitably there is a threshold one side of which is offside and the other not.

The main area of contention seems to be whether the offside player is interfering/affecting play

Again its difficult to get a rule that works for all cases, where the offside itself is marginal then for cases like the Salah goal there's an argument that even if he had been onside he would still have been in a position where Toti had to try and play the ball so it did not get to him, so not different to if he was off and therefore comes back to did he deliberately play the ball or not

I'm not sure if its possible to write a rule that is completely clear and works well for all cases, the best you an hope for is that there is consistency in how the thresholds are interpreted.

Maybe what needs looking at is the threshold where VAR will overrule a decision. i.e. in these sorts of cases are we more likely to get consistent decisions if they are looked at by VAR with replays etc. and VAR makes the decision or asks ref to look again even when marginal (like they do with drawing the lines),

or should they stick with as is and VAR only overrules when it a clear error (maybe what constitutes a clear error needs to be better defined)

 

[S G Wolves]

Saw Utd's first goal last night. Its offside. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows very little about football.

Shocking decision.

Even worse decision was Toney's I know its nothing to do with off side. It was a foul on the defender. Then smug Frank said Toney was being clever. If it went against him he'd be crying all across the Sky coverage. Terrible decision.

 

[Beijing Wolf]

What was wrong with the original rule?? Was anybody saying that it needed changing???

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I agree with most of what's said on here. I don't know what happened to the thicker lines, I don't know how they've managed to make such a mess of this whole idea of 'phases of play', I don't know why 'level' can't be used as it used to be. They really need to sit down at the end of the season (if not before) and get the refs AND players/managers to decide. Not just the PGMOL, IFAB is not fit for purpose either.

 

[Jefe]

The offside rule could be condensed into two clauses and be fixed overnight, if this was about simple justice and not about the FA creating borderline subjective laws for the purposes of generating controversy.

A player is judged offside if he is advanced of the ball and the last outfield opponent when the ball is played, and he:
-Is still in such a position when he touches the ball, or attempts to play the ball in a way that impacts an opponent. This includes when the ball has rebounded off the frame of the goal, or has been saved by the goalkeeper.
-obstructs the vision of the opposition goalkeeper (e.g., from a shot).
-challenges an opponent.
-physically obstructs an opponent.

A player is not judged offside:
-From a goal kick, throw-in or a corner kick.
-When inside his team’s half of the pitch.
-If an opponent, in full control of the ball, deliberately plays it in a way that benefits the player in an offside position. This does not include accidental deflections.
-If he is onside when he touches the ball.

I included the last point because in my opinion, you haven’t gained a material advantage if you are onside when you receive the ball. The defender(s) are back behind the ball. This ruling would have allowed our third goal to stand against Liverpool for instance, and the silly ones where a player is coming back from an offside position, like Neto against Leicester.

 

[Jonzy54]

But its not is it, it’s either offside or its not, if it cant be definitively proven they should stick with the on field decision

No but it should be

 

[Jonzy54]

In reality most fans and players know when a player is offside or not. It's the ultra marginal calls that are anti-football

Agreed

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Offside jjst given - no questions asked - when schar was offside but didn’t head ball

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Perfect example being shown on MOTD now with the first NF goal.

Who the hell as a fan knows whether that's going to be on or off?

It baffles me how much they celebrate when a goal is given after a check. I barely move. It's just not the same at all.

I've run around the garden before now when Wolves have scored a 'big' goal. Ok, perhaps I can't run around the garden any more but I hardly celebrate when we score now. Sadly a goal is almost like any other part of the game now; VAR has wiped out the joy.

 

[Ponty]

Anyone who thinks the first MU goal isn't offside should give up watching football.

 

[RichB]

It’s just been totally over complicated with stupid rules and stipulations.

With simplifying it and going back to how offside seemed to work.

Salahs goal was offside. Rauls goal yesterday was offside.

If it was simple and consistent nobody would complain.

 

[sillytuna]

Toney's goal was another atrocious var call. Toney grabbed the defender!

 

[Contrarian]

Bamford scored a rocket against us a couple of seasons ago that was disallowed for a marginal VAR offside call. I'd be happy to concede that as a goal - as it would have been at any point in the past 50 years (unless he scored it at Old Trafford, of course) - provided Saiss similar thunderbolt (v Leeds the season before?) was also allowed. As well as all our toenail offside goals v Liverpool, Leicester , too many to remember all.

And as long as abominations like the Salah and Fernandes goals were disallowed. And for the finale, please stop giving such soft penalties that are given or not depending on the refs mood that day and the colour of the attackers shirt. For that, would be quite happy to accept all borderline disallowed offside goals in recent seasons.

Ideally, I think the rule should be changed such that if any part of the attacker is onside, they they are onside. Get rid of this toenail and earlobe offside idiocy.

 

[Beeches wolf]

Part of the problem i think is this stupid instruction to lines-person's to keep the offside flag down untill end of passage of play.
Flag straight away and it eliminates the problem.

 

[Spitfire]

Part of the problem i think is this stupid instruction to lines-person's to keep the offside flag down untill end of passage of play.
Flag straight away and it eliminates the problem.

Appreciate the idea behind that but you can’t really do it with VAR in case the linesman has got it wrong.

 

[I'm the Wanderer]

It’s just been totally over complicated with stupid rules and stipulations.

With simplifying it and going back to how offside seemed to work.

Salahs goal was offside. Rauls goal yesterday was offside.

If it was simple and consistent nobody would complain.

I'm not so sure Raul was in an offside position to begin with. Looked even with the defender to me. Salah was 1/2 a step ahead.

 

[Rauls Headband]

Trouble with some of this now is it almost feels the rules are in place for the benefit of the officials (and to give them enough ambiguity and wriggle room to make excuses for their decisions) as much as to benefit the game.

How anyone can say Rashford wasn’t influencing or interfering yesterday arguing the rules is just being obtuse.

 

[Beeches wolf]

Appreciate the idea behind that but you can’t really do it with VAR in case the linesman has got it wrong.

Its the obvious well offside one's that everyone can see, But the flag stays down which really annoy me.

 

[Rauls Headband]

Another example today while watching the Newcastl/Fulham game with Mitrovitchs penalty being struck off.

Hes scuffed his shot and it’s glanced his other ankle so the goal is disallowed because it’s been ‘touched twice’.

Its not like he’s tapped the ball forward and then struck it.

So yes the strict interpretation is it’s it’s disallowed. Is it in the spirit of the game though?………

 

[Spitfire]

Its the obvious well offside one's that everyone can see, But the flag stays down which really annoy me.

Yes that’s a fair point.

 

[Notsoslimshady]

One of my main gripes is that the large large majority of offside goald disallowed are the 'toenail offside' ones, which is not what the rule is there for. I imagine most opposing fans wouldn't oppose these being allowed against them of it was across the board. A quick look, without sny lines should be enough to judge. If the lines have to cone out, then it is onside. I want to see goald disallowed when someone is 5 yards offside. One of the worst examples is when bamford,s arm was offside when he pointed where he wanted the ball.

Interfering with play should be easier to assess. If you are offsife when the ball is from a team mate and you are in the vicinity of it, you are interfering by your very oresence, and offside, regardless of who it comes off and whether they intended it.

The rule is there to stop attackers having an unfair advantage/goal hanging, not because their arm is 1cm offside, as shown on technology that isn't accurate enough, shown at the point someone decides the ball has been played.

It shouldn't be as complicated as they have made it

 

[Notsoslimshady]

Also today. We had an offside given today when the West Ham defender clearly headed the ball backwards to our player. Perhaps the Premier League should say that you won’t be flagged offside if you’re a well known player. Could call it Salah’s law.

i am sure today the excuse (walton-esque) that the wesr ham defender "didnt make an attemot to play the ball". There is always a get out clause

 

[glorybox]

Part of the problem i think is this stupid instruction to lines-person's to keep the offside flag down untill end of passage of play.
Flag straight away and it eliminates the problem.

Corners being given left right and centre now when play continues without a flag. Seen several this week alone.

 

[Wolves Heathen]

Apparently there was a meeting in London earlier today of IFAB, one of the things discussed was the offside rule.

Guidance around offside decisions initially relayed last summer was made law, including the issue of players interfering with play.

The controversy around Manchester United's equalising goal against Manchester City on Saturday was discussed and whether it was felt there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.

"The conclusion was there is no gap in the law," said Bullingham.

So it seems the rule with regards offside will remain as it is.

 

[Chris H]

Apparently there was a meeting in London earlier today of IFAB, one of the things discussed was the offside rule.

Guidance around offside decisions initially relayed last summer was made law, including the issue of players interfering with play.

The controversy around Manchester United's equalising goal against Manchester City on Saturday was discussed and whether it was felt there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.

"The conclusion was there is no gap in the law," said Bullingham.

So it seems the rule with regards offside will remain as it is.

If they don’t believe there is a gap in the law which allowed the Man Utd goal, then the law itself is ****.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

To be fair there isn’t a gap on the law.

He should have been given offsideb