Offside and attacking play
Huw Morris
are nice, but they arrive naturally as the product of an attacking mindset.
Up until Germany put four past the Aussies last night, one feature of the
World Cup so far has been the absence of good attacking play. I know it's
the first round of the Cup, and coaches are naturally cautious. This is true
at every World Cup. What appears different this time (and I don't have the
stats to back up this feeling) is the paucity of clear scoring chances that
are being created. For the most part, goalkeepers have had very, very little
to do.
One possible reason could be the difference in how the offside law is being
interpreted these days. FIFA have for years been trying to give the attacker
the benefit of the doubt in offside decisions, yet I wonder if the current
interpretation has gone too far? The crucial difference now is whether a
player in an offside position is interfering with play. An attacker can
loiter in a central offside position, yet offside will not be given if the
ball is played down the wings. The winger can advance the ball and square
it, where the previously not-offside attacker will be beyond the defence.
The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered. A defence
cannot push up and compress the midfield because they will be caught out be
a clever pass down the wings. So the defences are having to stay back, often
in a line of 4 or 5, and the defensive midfieldiers have to drop back and
for a line 10-20 metres in front of the defence. Very often, when a team
attacks there are 8 outfield players defending against no more than 2 or 3
attackers. There is simply no space in and around the edge of the penalty
area, and no space for attackers to run into.
It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost
them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond
the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily
have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances
than every other team combined has created so far!
Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup?
Huw
Abubakr
What appears different this time (and I don't have the
> stats to back up this feeling) is the paucity of clear scoring chances that
> are being created. For the most part, goalkeepers have had very, very little
> to do.
Argentina played with an ultra-offensive lineup and created lots of
chances, so it wasn't just Germany that were good in attack. So far of
the teams that have played these two are only one who have the vast
array of talented attacking players that one would expect to make lots
of goal-scoring chances and entertain. Needless to say, the other
teams haven't been blessed with such talent and that's directly
reflected in their game and styles.
Chagney Hunt
Excellent point.
> It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost
> them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond
> the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily
> have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances
> than every other team combined has created so far!
>
> Am I wrong about this?
Not at all. Great post. Talking heads kept talking how the Germans
were able to get behind Australian backline with ease, not much
attention brought to the antiquated offside trap they used.
Neil Gerace
> It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost
> them.
Right. It'll hopefully cost our coach, too. What a maroon.
Bruce D. Scott
[...]
I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
forward for it to be called)
: It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost
: them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond
: the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily
: have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances
: than every other team combined has created so far!
: Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup?
Basic execution. Missing by most teams, evident with Germany before
they did their subs. Time those runs. Hit the pass accurately (another
example is SA's first goal). The Aussies were too slow mentally to play
offside/pressing. Germany timed the runs and passes, the last Aussie
was always too slow pulling up. More mental switching than actual
quickness. I still think Germany will have a lot of trouble with a team
that can press well.
I actually think many teams are poorly prepared and the basic execution
by the better teams will improve a lot in the next matches.
The refs are exellent. No overreaction as in previous cups, but not
letting too much go either.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Huw Morris
> I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
> the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
> said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
> forward for it to be called)
That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is
damaging the game.
> I actually think many teams are poorly prepared and the basic execution
> by the better teams will improve a lot in the next matches.
There's a lot of teams/players who are way below what we know they are
capable of. It may simply be unfamiliarity with their team-mates, and that
will improve over the course of the tournament. It could also be that there
are a lot of knackered players after a gruelling domestic season. It could
also be that with all the money players earn now, they don't really want to
play at 100% for their national team.
Huw
JK
> Huw Morris (n...@spam.please) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
> the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
> said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
> forward for it to be called)
Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
of a thousand white hot suns.
Abubakr
> Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
> > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
> > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
> > forward for it to be called)
>
> That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is
> damaging the game.
There has never been a getting rid of the passive offside as this rule
has always been in place; one always had to be involved in the play to
be deemed offside. The changes in the rules were aimed at making it
easier for attackers to beat the offside trap, such as by giving the
attacker the benefit of the doubt in close decisions (this a very
counter-intuitive principle which is why it's very inconsistently
applied) and by allowing a attacker to be in line with the second last
defender as opposed to behind him in the older rules.
Bruce D. Scott
: Bruce D. Scott wrote:
: > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
: > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
: > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
: > forward for it to be called)
: That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is
: damaging the game.
We might be misunderstanding each other... what I meant was that the
rules _should_ say offside is offside, period. But the ability to decoy
and break up the trap possibility is made by the rule that says the
player has to be involved in play. Two very damaging places where the
rules emphasis referee judgement are this one, and the one about a
handball having to be unintentional, which results in certain players
(like Per Mertesacker, who did it again yesterday, but got away with it
unlike in the German Cup) flailing their arms about "naturally" and
complaining that if the ball hits them it was unintentional.
Deeppe
>, and the one about a
> handball having to be unintentional, which results in certain players
> (like Per Mertesacker, who did it again yesterday, but got away with it
> unlike in the German Cup) flailing their arms about "naturally" and
> complaining that if the ball hits them it was unintentional.
>
Well, the law also states that the arm/hand must be "in a natural
position", I was usually pretty harsh with this myself, but yeah, that
one can be dicey. A good referee team should have this sort of thing
scouted out ahead of time. Gives them an opportunity to call it when
it doesn't much effect play and gives the player a head's up he's not
going to get away with that sort of nonsense.
Bruce D. Scott
: Well, the law also states that the arm/hand must be "in a natural
: position", I was usually pretty harsh with this myself, but yeah, that
: one can be dicey. A good referee team should have this sort of thing
: scouted out ahead of time. Gives them an opportunity to call it when
: it doesn't much effect play and gives the player a head's up he's not
: going to get away with that sort of nonsense.
This allows clever players to play with their arms out therefore
increasing the cross section of an interception. If they're clever
enough they can sell it as a "natural" movement or positioning. This is
why I think they should call it regardless. The sign of it as an
increasing problem is the (recently) vastly increased frequency of
occurrence of these "was it a handball" situations, and the clear fact
that they are not called consistently (again, e.g. Baggio 1998 against
Chile on the one hand and US/Ger 2002 on the other).
Quincy
When I was a teenager we got a penalty after the ball jumped to my arm
*attached* to my body (so the Mertesacker action was much much much
worse).
It's over 20 years now ago and I am still furious about it.
Mehdi
> From : Huw Morris
I've been very critical of teams that play with a high line for years.
It's a stupid tactic, it's suicide precisely because a well time ball
over the top will shred a defence. It's much more difficult to break
down teams that defence deep, Germany succeeded because they had the
patience, movement, technique and pace other teams have lacked.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Mehdi
> I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
> the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
> said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
> forward for it to be called)
The game would be better if teams learned how to play football instead
of relying on the ability of their forwards to chase down balls over the
top. Teams can't pass through defences that park the bus because of a
lack of imagination and skill. How many great playmakers are there in
the game today and I mean real #10s that play just off the front man?
Bruce D. Scott
: > Subject : Offside and attacking play
: > From : b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de
: > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say
: > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and
: > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played
: > forward for it to be called)
: The game would be better if teams learned how to play football instead
: of relying on the ability of their forwards to chase down balls over the
: top. Teams can't pass through defences that park the bus because of a
: lack of imagination and skill. How many great playmakers are there in
: the game today and I mean real #10s that play just off the front man?
Wesley Sneijder. I still think we should have bought him along with
Robben.
spicpussy
b o r i n g
HASM
> One possible reason could be the difference in how the offside law is being
> interpreted these days.
Very little changed, if anything at all, in the offside law, just the
language was made more clear and what's "in line" or "not in line" was
finally defined.
> FIFA have for years been trying to give the attacker the benefit of the
> doubt in offside decisions,
I'm not sure the law ever said something like that, but TV commentators do.
I think this comes from the quite natural "when in doubt, don't call it",
which will usually benefit the attacker.
> The crucial difference now is whether a player in an offside position is
> interfering with play.
I'm old, and I remember this being discussed in games I watched in my
youth. Players used to stop and stand still to signal that they were not
involved in play all the time. I remember a 1-0 game in the largest derby
back in my home country that was decided on such a goal, where the ball
goes very close to a player totally in offside position, near midfield, but
not involved in play. Lots of paper and ink were dedicated to that play.
> The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered.
Not sure which games you're watching besides the World Cup. In the World
Cup no one wants to lose so badly, and have watched defensive teams win
trophies, that they just play a more defensive style.
> Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup?
I'd say normal.
-- HASM
HASM
> such as by giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt in close
> decisions
Where in the FIFA book and of which edition/year is this written down
anywhere?
-- HASM
HASM
> Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
> of a thousand white hot suns.
"Passive offsides"? What the heck is that? The rule is about "offside",
not "offsides" and defines the "active" part of committing an offense.
I guess if you're not active you're inactive or passive, but that's not in
the rules.
There's two parts to the offside law, position and participation. One
needs conditions specified in both parts to be present, for it to be a
foul.
Has always been this way in the 50+ years I've been following the game.
Repeat after me, "being in an offside position is not a foul by itself" and
never was.
-- HASM
Bruce D. Scott
: JK <jkn...@oacpc.com> writes:
: > Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
: > of a thousand white hot suns.
: "Passive offsides"? What the heck is that? The rule is about "offside",
[...]
There was a clear directive from FIFA about that which came down
something like 10 or 15 years ago. It led to a massive increase in
"central decoy play" by strikers which IMHO is the main problem.
I don't dispute there's nothing in the rules about it, but surely if you
are so knowledgeable on such things you must know the details of the
directives, which instruct referees on how to interpret the laws. They
do matter. On German TV they regulary cite the change in the backpass
rule and the changes on how offside is to be interpreted (what means
passive, what means "equal height" or offside) as the two biggest recent
changes to the game.
Deeppe
> HASM (netn...@invalid.com) wrote:
> : JK <jkn...@oacpc.com> writes:
>
> : > Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
> : > of a thousand white hot suns.
>
> : "Passive offsides"? What the heck is that? The rule is about "offside",
> [...]
>
> There was a clear directive from FIFA about that which came down
> something like 10 or 15 years ago. It led to a massive increase in
> "central decoy play" by strikers which IMHO is the main problem.
Yes, about almost a decade ago for the most recent change.
>
> I don't dispute there's nothing in the rules about it, but surely if you
> are so knowledgeable on such things you must know the details of the
> directives, which instruct referees on how to interpret the laws. They
> do matter. On German TV they regulary cite the change in the backpass
> rule and the changes on how offside is to be interpreted (what means
> passive, what means "equal height" or offside) as the two biggest recent
> changes to the game.
>
You have it exactly right Bruce.
The instruction to referees has changed dramatically.
Alessandro Riolo
> Has always been this way in the 50+ years I've been following the game.
Off the top of my head, the offside rule, or related guidelines, has
changed at least twice in the last 20 years (the onside at level in
1990 and the inactivity of who don't touch or play the ball in 2005),
and I'd not be surprised there were more changes.
HASM
> I don't dispute there's nothing in the rules about it, but surely if you
> are so knowledgeable on such things you must know the details of the
> directives, which instruct referees on how to interpret the laws.
I think we're arguing semantics here. Directives on how to interpret the
laws didn't and don't change the laws, they're just clarifications on how
to interpret them, i.e. telling referees how they should have done things
all along.
> On German TV they regulary cite the change in the backpass rule
If I believed everything I heard on TV I would be in trouble when I was on
the field refereeing. The backpass was added to the laws (there's no rules
in football) and that changed the game, just like they fiddled with
goal-keeper number of steps, now number of seconds, etc. Those wore law
changes that did change the game, not clarifications.
> and the changes on how offside is to be interpreted (what means passive,
> what means "equal height" or offside) as the two biggest recent changes
> to the game.
By "equal height" do you mean deciding which player is closer to the goal
line? That was indeed clarified, as it wasn't written in the laws until 4
or 5 years back, if I recall correctly.
Again, I don't think you'll find any law or directive using the word
passive, but the language of the offside law was changed to make it more
clear, not the basics of it, by defining the three conditions that make a
player to be "active" in play.
One needs to be in an offside position and be active in play, for an
offside infraction to have occurred. If a player is in an offside
position, but is not involved in play, there's no infraction, and, TV
commentators use the word "passive", which is not used in the refereeing
lingo.
And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember, just that
the definition of active wasn't reduced to those three conditions now in
the book, explicitly.
-- HASM
HASM
> Off the top of my head, the offside rule, or related guidelines, has
> changed at least twice in the last 20 years (the onside at level in 1990
Yes, what is an offside position, from level to the current definition of
"any part of the body that can score, closer to the goal line" was added to
the laws, explicitly, but that makes very little change to the way offside
is played. And remember, this is all theoretical, on the field of play
referees make mistakes of +/1 a foot, minimum, all the time.
> and the inactivity of who don't touch or play the ball in 2005), and I'd
> not be surprised there were more changes.
This wasn't really a change, it was a clarification on what is active, and
one doesn't need to touch the ball to be active, interfering with an
opponent, even without touching the ball, is actively participating and
the player will be deemed offside, so touching or not touching the ball is
not by itself necessary.
The intent of the law was always not to penalize players that don't
actively participate, and I remember discussion on this matter from way
before 1970, so this is not new, though USENET news is.
-- HASM
Deeppe
>
> And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember,
Your memory is lacking. Or things have come full circle since the time
when you were still active. Bruce accurately describes the change
that's occurred over the last decade.
Would you like me to refer you to a referee email lists?
No need to rely on our word, you can check it for yourself.
Google Beta User
Huw Morris
> Very little changed, if anything at all, in the offside law, just the
> language was made more clear and what's "in line" or "not in line" was
> finally defined.
The language of the law has not changed. However, over the last 20 years,
the *interpretation* of that law has changed greatly.
>> The crucial difference now is whether a player in an offside position is
>> interfering with play.
>
> I'm old, and I remember this being discussed in games I watched in my
> youth. Players used to stop and stand still to signal that they were not
> involved in play all the time. I remember a 1-0 game in the largest derby
> back in my home country that was decided on such a goal, where the ball
> goes very close to a player totally in offside position, near midfield,
> but
> not involved in play. Lots of paper and ink were dedicated to that play.
A player not involved in active play is not offside. That's the law, and has
been the case for many, many years. (Maybe dating back as far as the first
codification of the laws?) Whatever FIFA say is the correct interpretation,
there will always be edge cases, and thus always arguments about whether a
player in an offside position is actually offside or not.
The case I mentioned is a quite specific one. Ten years ago, if a forward
was standing in front of the defence, looking to gain an advantage, he would
be deemed to be offside, even if the ball was played to an onside team-mate
down the wings. That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is
having a detrimental effect at this tournament.
>> The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered.
>
> Not sure which games you're watching besides the World Cup. In the World
> Cup no one wants to lose so badly, and have watched defensive teams win
> trophies, that they just play a more defensive style.
>
>> Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup?
>
> I'd say normal.
And yet, a statistic in today's Times, that after the first 14 games, there
have been *eight* fewer goals than at any other tournament at the same
stage. Yes, even Italia '90 was a goalfest compared to this year.
I know that coaches generally play defensively and that you don't always
expect wild attacking play at this stage. It was my assertion that this year
is even worse than normal - in goals, goal chances and attacking intent
overall. I hope I'm wrong and that things improve, as they usually do.
Huw
Huw Morris
> I think we're arguing semantics here. Directives on how to interpret the
> laws didn't and don't change the laws, they're just clarifications on how
> to interpret them, i.e. telling referees how they should have done things
> all along.
That's not true at all. New interpretations can have as dramatic an effect
as a change in the laws. The only difference is that the new interpretations
are easier to implement than a law change. There's certainly nothing to
suggest that a new interpretation is how things should have been interpreted
in the past.
Huw
Alessandro Riolo
> This wasn't really a change, it was a clarification on what is active
I can ensure you that in Serie A, or in any Italian league for that
matter, before that clarification, the rule was applied in a very
different way.
Abubakr
> Has 4-2-3-1 made the game more "tactical" and less "fluid"?
Whenever you 'specialisation' of roles the game becomes rigid and some
basic fluidity is stifled and 4-2-3-1 is very much geared towards
specialised roles. When Brazil starts peddling centre-backs as
midfielders you know things have gone awry.
Bruce D. Scott
: The case I mentioned is a quite specific one. Ten years ago, if a forward
: was standing in front of the defence, looking to gain an advantage, he would
: be deemed to be offside, even if the ball was played to an onside team-mate
: down the wings. That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is
: having a detrimental effect at this tournament.
Yes, this is what I also have been citing. Leads to the central decoy
plays by strikers. All you have to do is to look at film and measure
the fraction of time strikers spend hanging around offside. Ruud van
Nistelrooy was a master at this when he could run faster. There's also
the move Brasil did against the Netherlands in one of their first two
goals in the 1994 match. Was that the first year the new interpretation
became valid? Or was it just officially confirmed later?
But I agree with you that it causes problems when the defense doesn't
know if a player is offside.
HASM
>> And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember,
> Your memory is lacking. Or things have come full circle since the time
> when you were still active. Bruce accurately describes the change
> that's occurred over the last decade.
>
> Would you like me to refer you to a referee email lists?
> No need to rely on our word, you can check it for yourself.
Here's the full text of "Law 11 - offside" from the "2000/2001 Laws of the
Game" official FIFA book, the oldest one I could find (not sure where I put
my older ones).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Law 11 - Offside
Offside Position
It is not an offense in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
- he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the
second to last opponent
A player is not in offside position if:
- he is in his own half of the field of play
or
- he is level with the second to last opponent
or
- he is level with the last two opponents
Offense
A player in an offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of hist team, he is, in the opinion of the
referee, involved in active play by:
- interfering with play
or
- interfering with an opponent
or
- gaining an advantage by being in that position
No Offense
There is no offside offense if a player receives the ball directly from:
- a goal kick
or
- a throw in
or
- a corner kick
Infringements/Sanctions
For any offside offense, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the
opposing team taken from the place where the infringement occurred.* (see
page 3/exception of ball placement in the goal area).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is 2000/2001, the book is 10 years old. Pretty much the same as it is
today.
-- HASM
HASM
> Ten years ago, if a forward was standing in front of the defence, looking
> to gain an advantage, he would be deemed to be offside, even if the ball
> was played to an onside team-mate down the wings.
Not if he was "looking", only if he was "gaining" an advantage, in the
opinion of the referee. That was certainly the way I was taught and it is
still applied today. The gaining an advantage was changed to "interfering
with play" to make it more clear what FIFA always wanted.
-- HASM
Huw Morris
> Not if he was "looking", only if he was "gaining" an advantage, in the
> opinion of the referee. That was certainly the way I was taught and it is
> still applied today. The gaining an advantage was changed to "interfering
> with play" to make it more clear what FIFA always wanted.
"Looking to gain an advantage" is my words, not FIFA's. A player standing in
such a position *is* gaining an advantage. Why FIFA don't see it that way is
baffling to me. By liberalising the interpretation to say a player is only
offside if he actually touches the ball is making the game worse.
I think we're arguing two different points. I know what the offside law
states. My point is that how referees have been instructed to *interpret*
that law has changed drastically over the last 20 years.
Futbolmetrix
> There's also
> the move Brasil did against the Netherlands in one of their first two
> goals in the 1994 match. Was that the first year the new interpretation
> became valid? Or was it just officially confirmed later?
Bebeto's goal, Brazil's second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GC1laiGlWE
I think that was before the "clarification", and I think that even
under the old directives it was quite appropriate not to sanction that
as offside. Romario is walking away from goal and not caring about the
ball in the least. Only under an extremely broad, and quite frankly
unreasonable, definition of "interfering with play" would that be a
sanctionable position.
A better example is Wiltord's goal against Denmark in Euro 2000, or
RVN in Holland - Czech Republic in Euro 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6uhJYON2DQ
Here I would agree that it's extremely generous to say that RVN is
*not* interfering with play. But that's what the new directive is
about.
D
Futbolmetrix
>
> A better example is Wiltord's goal against Denmark in Euro 2000,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TJ4JY1exB8&feature=related
around minute 9:00
By the way, I am strongly opposed to the "an offside position should
always be sanctioned" view. A player tying his shoelaces near the
corner flag should not be called offside under any reasonable view of
the Law, and a player walking towards midfield and not participating
in play is most definitely not interfering with play.
You should give even more discretion to the ref to decide whether a
player is interfering with play (I think the Wiltord and RVN examples
are good examples of goals that should have been disallowed). Since
it's almost impossible to establish "interfering with play" in real
time, have video replays.
D
HASM
> By liberalising the interpretation to say a player is only offside if he
> actually touches the ball is making the game worse.
FIFA doesn't claim that a player is only offside if/when he touches the
ball.
The 2010/2011 book is available on line.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf
Law 11 is pretty much the same it was 10 years ago and the Offense section
reads (page 31):
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the
referee, involved in active play by:
- interfering with play or
- interfering with an opponent or
- gaining an advantage by being in that position
Last year (or the previous one) they expanded the book by having the
directives/interpretations appended to it, and on page 100, they state:
Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
- "nearer to his opponents' goal line" means that any part of a player's
head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition
- "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
- "interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from playing
or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line
of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the
opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
- "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball
that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
having been in an offside position
So, of the last three points, which deal with "gaining an advantage" the
second "interfering with an opponent" means one can be offside without
touching the ball.
> My point is that how referees have been instructed to *interpret*
> that law has changed drastically over the last 20 years.
Maybe 20 years back, but when I took my first refereeing course, about 15
years ago, those last three points weren't there in writing but in spirit,
and already practiced around where I refereed.
The first point, defining "nearer to his opponents" is really the only
thing new, as there were different interpretations depending on the
confederations, and they changed through the years.
-- HASM
Futbolmetrix
>
> That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is
> having a detrimental effect at this tournament.
I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for
quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been
such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in
the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher.
D
Futbolmetrix
> - "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or
> touched by a team-mate
> - "interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from playing
> or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line
> of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the
> opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
> - "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball
> that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
> offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
> having been in an offside position
Right. But consider the following example: the ball is played in the
direction of attacking players A and B. A is not in an offside
position, but B is. A gets to the ball first and scores.
As you can see, this example does not fall under any of the
descriptions given by FIFA.
Before the new directives, player B was typically deemed to be
interfering with play, and the goal would be disallowed. Under the new
directives, many refs would (and do) let the goal stand.
Even more deceptive is the Wiltord/RVN case described in the other
post.
D
7h@ch
Perhaps because the clubs have more time to drill their offside traps
-- and they use it more (for other tactical considerations as well).
Less well drilled national teams choose the safe option.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Deeppe <tut...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>> And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember,
>> Your memory is lacking. Or things have come full circle since the
>> time when you were still active. Bruce accurately describes the
>> change that's occurred over the last decade.
>>
>> Would you like me to refer you to a referee email lists?
>> No need to rely on our word, you can check it for yourself.
>
> Here's the full text of "Law 11 - offside" from the "2000/2001 Laws
> of the Game" official FIFA book, the oldest one I could find (not
> sure where I put my older ones).
[snip Law 11]
> This is 2000/2001, the book is 10 years old. Pretty much the same
> as it is today.
The FIFA web site, at
http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/law/historylaw3.html
seems to imply that (essentially) this wording went in in 1995.
The original law was
6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who
is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play and may not
touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other
player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of
play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.
http://www.11v11.com/index.php?pageID=464
By 1889, the notion of the defensive players mattering is there:
6. When a player plays the ball, or throws it in from touch, any
player of the same side who at such moment of play or throwing-in
is nearer to his opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not
touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever interfere with an
opponent, or with play, until the ball has again been played,
unless there are at such moment of playing or throwing-in at least
three of his opponents nearer their own goal-line.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D10XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA386
(I see it called "Off-side" in a 1915 edition
http://books.google.com/books?id=tmbzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA120
that has the same wording.)
So pretty much the same as today (except for the definition of what it
meant to be in an offside position and the application to throw-ins)
or perhaps a little looser about what was allowed. Then, you could
sit offside all you wanted as long as you didn't touch the ball or
trip an opponent. I couldn't find a version from just before 1995 to
compare the wording.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the
(650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something
|for nothing.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
HASM
> Right. But consider the following example: the ball is played in the
> direction of attacking players A and B. A is not in an offside
> position, but B is. A gets to the ball first and scores.
> As you can see, this example does not fall under any of the
> descriptions given by FIFA.
One really needs to be there, but strictly as you describe it, it is quite
an easy call.
If, in the opinion of the referee,
- B interferes with an opponent, the goal is called back and restart is IFK
for offside
- if B is deemed to not have interfered, the goal stands and restart is KO.
-- HASM
HASM
(Hi Evan!)
> So pretty much the same as today
As I've been saying all along ...
-- HASM
Futbolmetrix
> One really needs to be there, but strictly as you describe it, it is quite
> an easy call.
>
> If, in the opinion of the referee,
> - B interferes with an opponent, the goal is called back and restart is IFK
> for offside
> - if B is deemed to not have interfered, the goal stands and restart is KO.
>
> -- HASM
Exactly. I think that what people are trying to say is that in recent
years referees have tended to (have been instructed to?) use a
narrower interpretation of "interfering with an opponent." To some
extent, a player running toward the ball is clearly "making a gesture
or *movement* which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or
distracts an opponent."
And yet, it looks as if refs nowadays are unlikely to sanction the
offside position if the player doesn't play the ball.
D
HASM
> in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent."
Taking the above slightly out of context, to make a point.
I started refereeing very young kids, and later on transitioned to older
kids, high school, college, amateurs, semi-pros. The notion of distracting
an opponent, in the opinion of this and most referees, is not clear cut
across all ages and skill levels. In the extreme cases a 10 year old GK
will be distracted by almost any player around him, and a WCup GK should
know better what to do, seriously.
-- HASM
Huw Morris
> FIFA doesn't claim that a player is only offside if/when he touches the
> ball.
> Definitions
> - "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or
> touched by a team-mate
You've just invalidated your own argument. Since a player is only offside if
he is "interfering with play", that's exactly what FIFA are claiming.
Huw
Huw Morris
>> So pretty much the same as today
>
> As I've been saying all along ...
And it's also what *I've* been saying! The wording of the law is pretty
much unchanged. The way referees have been instructed to interpret that law
has changed greatly. That's unarguable; Daniele has posted examples.
Huw
Huw Morris
> I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for
> quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been
> such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in
> the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher.
Yeah, you could be right. Extreme caution by the coaches has certainly meant
many teams are playing far too defensive formations, and it may be that
offside has nothing to do with it. I would argue though that the current
offside interpretation seems to encourage a "sit back and defend deep"
mentality.
Huw
HASM
>> FIFA doesn't claim that a player is only offside if/when he touches the
>> ball.
>> - "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or
>> touched by a team-mate
> You've just invalidated your own argument. Since a player is only offside if
> he is "interfering with play", that's exactly what FIFA are claiming.
Maybe you overlooked this other definition:
>> - "interfering with an opponent" means preventing an opponent from playing
>> or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line
>> of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the
>> opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
i.e. an offside infraction can occur with the offending player touching the
ball.
-- HASM
ken.o...@gmail.com
> Here I would agree that it's extremely generous to say that RVN is
> *not* interfering with play. But that's what the new directive is
> about.
Thought I'd bump this thread and add a comment. I do agree that the
whole 'non-interfering player' rule is not helpful and is better
removed altogether, but I want to speak from the opposite side:I hate
offsides that are called when the ball is already deep in the
offensive zone. These calls do nothing to help the game, as they
don't affect the massive cherry-picking that the rule is intended to
prohibit. But they're great for ruling out some great goals off of
poor clearances from crosses, free kicks, corner kicks and whatnot.
Although it will never happen in a gajillion years, I would like to
see a variant hockey's offsides -- regular offsides applies until the
ball is within some range of goal, say the top of the box, within that
range everybody's onside until the ball is cleared.
I'd also throw out the minor tweak that you could extend the no
offsides on throw-ins rule to free kicks as well.
Abubakr
wrote:
The only amendment I'd make to the offside rule is that so long as the
*ball* is behind two defending players then any attacking player who
should happen to play it in that position should be deemed onside
too.
HASM
> These calls do nothing to help the game, as they don't affect the massive
> cherry-picking that the rule is intended to prohibit.
Without arguing your point, I'll argue this. The offside rule is actually
a lot more lax today than it was originally, and the intent wasn't strictly
cherry-picking.
Both association (soccer) and rugby football didn't originally allowed
players to be ahead of the ball at all, and rugby still does it today. In
rugby, if you're ahead of the ball you have to walk back around in a way
that doesn't even interfere with play or you'll be deemed off-side.
In association football being behind the ball still gives you a free pass
in terms of number of defenders ahead of you, but you can now (where now is
for a long time) be ahead of the ball, as long you have those two
defenders ahead of you.
-- HASM
Deeppe
> Without arguing your point, I'll argue this. The offside rule is actually
> a lot more lax today than it was originally,
Make up your mind,
Thought you were simply an argumentative type, thanks for
confirmation.
HASM
>> Without arguing your point, I'll argue this.
> Make up your mind, ... Thought you were simply an argumentative type,
> thanks for confirmation.
I wasn't arguing his point/wish for the offside law to be further modified,
just the point that the law was not meant to prevent cherry picking, from
an historical perspective, but a side effect of requiring both sides to
be behind the ball. It's like a war front, you need to play from your
side, not the opponents or off-side.
From that point of view today's law allowing players to be ahead of the
ball, in soccer only not rugby, makes soccer and rugby formations quite
different. Can you imagine a soccer game with players all behind the ball?
Watch a rugby game and try to transplant it over.
That was all,
-- HASM