The Reinvention of the Offside Law

[Vive_La_Villa]

Is the problem the interpretation of the second phase?  If a play was standing miles offside and a ball was played to him, the defender attempts to head or clear and it bounces backwards to the player that is still miles offside. Is he deemed onside ?

[TheStagMan]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

This discussion isn't about whether Watkins was standing in a offside position or not. That's irrelevant to this. The VAR didn't even draw the lines which means they applied the 'Moss law' again. This discussion is about whether the Moss law is valid or not.

EVERY GOAL IS CHECKED BY VAR. EVERY GOAL. 

it was checked (they even said it at the time on the Sky commentary). VAR and lines being drawn only come about if there is doubt. 

One look clearly shows Ollie to be onside (due to the position of the ball, not the attacker). No need for the VAR guy to get his slide rule out and the game can carry on.

The pundits are just showing themselves up to be the idiots they are.

[TheStagMan]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Is the problem the interpretation of the second phase?  If a play was standing miles offside and a ball was played to him, the defender attempts to head or clear and it bounces backwards to the player that is still miles offside. Is he deemed onside ?

If he plays for Man City, and they aren't winning, yes. It is clause 5, subsection  3

[Rightdm00]

7 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think even if the ref flagged he would have to go for the ball as VAR would have checked the decision afterwards.  That’s what would have happened last season. 

Correct.  Flag or no flag Schar would need to play the ball because if Ollie scored VAR would check it. 

[OutByEaster?]

For Watkins, and without deliberately wanting to make things even more ridiculous, I thought he was behind the ball, but I'm not sure how the ball is actually judged for offside decisions - is it the leading edge of the ball, the majority of the ball, or does the whole of the ball have to be ahead of the player, like it does when it crosses the line for a goal?

Do you remember how much simpler all of this was before VAR came in and simplified it for us?

 

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 minute ago, TheStagMan said:

EVERY GOAL IS CHECKED BY VAR. EVERY GOAL. 

it was checked (they even said it at the time on the Sky commentary). VAR and lines being drawn only come about if there is doubt. 

One look clearly shows Ollie to be onside (due to the position of the ball, not the attacker). No need for the VAR guy to get his slide rule out and the game can carry on.

The pundits are just showing themselves up to be the idiots they are.

Tell you what. That's a pretty damning statement of facts. I did not know that, but considering the amount of wrongly given goals I've seen this season, I'm rather baffled. Unless the VAR check purely involves the ball's movement across the chalked line. 

[TheStagMan]

11 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Tell you what. That's a pretty damning statement of facts. I did not know that, but considering the amount of wrongly given goals I've seen this season, I'm rather baffled. Unless the VAR check purely involves the ball's movement across the chalked line. 

Read the premier league website.

It states that every goal is checked by VAR.

Why are you baffled? The technology is run by the same incompetent fools that make the decisions it is trying to correct, all as part of the old boys club that you are not allowed to criticise. Wrong decisions are commonplace, as is the desire to circle the wagons when those wrong decisions are questioned. Nothing baffling about it. The only question is whether they are corrupt or if they are really as incompetent as they look.

 

Edit to add: The ball's movement across the chalked line is checked by Hawkeye....(which as we know is not 100% reliable). VAR only checks that all the play up to the point where it crossed the line was correctly adjudicated and will then only intervene if there was a clear and obvious mistake in the refereeing.

 

Obviously they have not understood the bit about clear and obvious mistakes, and one of them got a stencil kit for Christmas, so we are where we are now with an utter shitshow that has made everything more complicated and is ruining the enjoyment of the game.

Edited January 24, 2021 by TheStagMan

[Rightdm00]

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Tell you what. That's a pretty damning statement of facts. I did not know that, but considering the amount of wrongly given goals I've seen this season, I'm rather baffled. Unless the VAR check purely involves the ball's movement across the chalked line. 

VAR checks the entire phase of play. Anything subjective is given an extra look. The Prem's poor usage of VAR and it's inability to communicate to it's paying customers how it's used has been quite the screw up. 

Here in the states every televised game has a rules official that will speak up when the refs do something that needs explaining. After the game, in the NBA, the league even releases a report detailing the errors made by the referee crew. The Prem definitely needs to bring some clarity to how games are officiated. The tools are there but for whatever reason they have chosen this path. 

[fightoffyour]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

For Watkins, and without deliberately wanting to make things even more ridiculous, I thought he was behind the ball, but I'm not sure how the ball is actually judged for offside decisions - is it the leading edge of the ball, the majority of the ball, or does the whole of the ball have to be ahead of the player, like it does when it crosses the line for a goal?

Do you remember how much simpler all of this was before VAR came in and simplified it for us?

 

I’m glad you asked this because I also wanted to know. The vanishing point lines were good but which part of the ball was used, and was that correct?

He does look behind the ball but it’s certainly not clear enough to just eyeball it for me, especially considering how much the VAR loves drawing lines.

[TheStagMan]

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

For Watkins, and without deliberately wanting to make things even more ridiculous, I thought he was behind the ball, but I'm not sure how the ball is actually judged for offside decisions - is it the leading edge of the ball, the majority of the ball, or does the whole of the ball have to be ahead of the player, like it does when it crosses the line for a goal?

Do you remember how much simpler all of this was before VAR came in and simplified it for us?

 

I believe the attackers longest armpit hair has to be behind the leading edge of the ball, but only if he is wearing a short sleeved shirt. If he is wearing a long sleeved shirt, it is personal preference as to whether to use the logo, elbow or pinkie finger. Of course, all of this is negotiable, based on what the brown envelope contains.

[KenjiOgiwara]

5 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said:

VAR checks the entire phase of play. Anything subjective is given an extra look. The Prem's poor usage of VAR and it's inability to communicate to it's paying customers how it's used has been quite the screw up. 

Here in the states every televised game has a rules official that will speak up when the refs do something that needs explaining. After the game, in the NBA, the league even releases a report detailing the errors made by the referee crew. The Prem definitely needs to bring some clarity to how games are officiated. The tools are there but for whatever reason they have chosen this path. 

How do they define that?

[Rightdm00]

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

How do they define that?

In the most vaguest manner possible

Some of things that start a new phase include:

Ball going into touch

An attack deciding to play back to the keeper 

Fouls

Their are some more out there but I wasn't able to find a definitive list. 

 

 

 

 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

I know I posted this once before – after the Man City game – but I think it is worth repeating here. According to IFAB’s own published Law updates for the 20-21 season, this (below) is the ONLY change to the offside law this season. It is an entirely niche scenario about offside after a deliberate handball. It bears zero relation to any decision we have seen on Wednesday or Saturday.

The reason pundits keep reading out this (irrelevant) amendment is so they can quote the bit of the text that HASN’T changed and try to convince us THAT is the new ruling.

Dan Walker became the latest in a long line to do it on MOTD last night.

Those words (“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball is not considered to have gained an advantage”) have been in Law 11 for years and (I maintain) they have never been interpreted like this in previous seasons – or even the first half of this season. So why do we keep being told these decisions are because of some new amendment? There is none.

And it’s not only pundits doing it. Ex-refs too. I have just finished listening to Dermot Gallagher talking on an overseas PL broadcast where he says: “IFAB wanted to create more goals and they put this CAVEAT in – I don’t think they realised it would occur on Wednesday night and tonight like this.”

What caveat, Dermot??? 

Something, really, really strange is going on with football right now.

(From 3:00...)

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Five Ken McNaughts

[a m ole]

31 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

I’m glad you asked this because I also wanted to know. The vanishing point lines were good but which part of the ball was used, and was that correct?

He does look behind the ball but it’s certainly not clear enough to just eyeball it for me, especially considering how much the VAR loves drawing lines.

interesting, because the back edge of the ball would just play his knee offside by an inch.

However, I think the point would be which is further ahead, the ball or the player? So the leading edge would be the most obvious and sensible line although i don’t know what the rules actually say.

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Come off it. A deliberate play has to have the intended result or it’s an accident. 

Deliberate play is to intentionally play the ball, as opposed to being hit by the ball. For that "deliberate" part of the law it matters not whether it's misdirected, or mis controlled, only that it's intentional.

[fightoffyour]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Deliberate play is to intentionally play the ball, as opposed to being hit by the ball. For that "deliberate" part of the law it matters not whether it's misdirected, or mis controlled, only that it's intentional.

That’s fair enough.

However, in this rule it is “receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball”. This sentence needs to be taken as a whole and not just the playing the ball part.

Watkins received the ball from Targett via a slice from Schar. Watkins couldn’t have received the ball from Schar because Schar didn’t send the ball, he received the ball after Schar touched it.

Edited January 24, 2021 by fightoffyour

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Those words (“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball is not considered to have gained an advantage”) have been in Law 11 for years!

And (I maintain) they have never been interpreted like this in previous seasons – or even the first half of this season. So to all the pundits talking about a new amendment... What new amendment???

Completely agree it's been in place for a good few years. Mainly because I remember when it came in there was some controversy and I recall a Liverpool goal that was one of the early instances of the player not being offside because a defender deliberately played (and sliced) the ball in his direction.

The media have been talking rubbish about the Mings thing. I'm certain that up till Wednesday a player coming from offside to tackle a defender who has the ball has 99% of the time been flagged. Wednesday it wasn't. And that's when the PGMOL came out with the excuse about phase of play and receiving the ball, saying that tackling was receiving. We, as observers of matches don't think that excuse/justification stacks up. That it's daft and arse covering. The officials (obviously) present a different story.

But the stuff about deflected or miscontrolled balls has been round for ages. (it's a crap law too) 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Watkins couldn’t have received the ball from Schar

He absolutely did exactly that. That's what the law and clarification say.

[a m ole]

We know as blandy is pointing out that the wording of the rules can correctly adjudge the scenario last night (ignoring Watkins actually being onside) to be onside.

The question is whether that is a fault of the wording not doing the intention of the rule justice, or “what football expects” as the ref forum mention.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that a defender can be punished in that situation by trying to clear or intercept the ball where if he’d left it intentionally it would be offside. Both are deliberate actions, so why would only one be punished? I think it does a disservice to what the offside rule is trying to achieve and I also don’t think it was written explicitly to allow that scenario to be a goal. 

I also know that despite what the law actually says, that scenario has been routinely given offside over and over again for my entire life watching football and it has never been a problem.

Edited January 24, 2021 by a m ole

[fightoffyour]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Completely agree it's been in place for a good few years. Mainly because I remember when it came in there was some controversy and I recall a Liverpool goal that was one of the early instances of the player not being offside because a defender deliberately played (and sliced) the ball in his direction.

That it caused controversy should tell you that the rule was wrongly applied in that case, by the same incompetent ref who did so on Wednesday by the way.

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

He absolutely did exactly that. That's what the law and clarification say.

Then we fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it at that!  I think it goes to show that the rules are far too open to interpretation.