The Reinvention of the Offside Law

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

But Schar doesnt slide if Watkins isnt there so he influences how the play turns out. 

So it would be offside if Watkins if offside. That's my understanding of how offside has always worked. 

Yeah this is my understanding of what "interfering with play" means. Certainly it's my understanding of what it *should* mean.

Watkins is the intended recipient of Targett's cross, so the offside decision shouldn't be affected by anything Newcastle do to try and block that cross.

[One For The Road]

22 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Amazing thread, thank you.

Shows how much of a clash there is between refs who understand "the spirit of the law" and refs who obsess over the wording. We all know what is meant, and how it has always been interpreted prior to the Mings / Rodri situation.

It isn't though, it's about how VAR justified the City goal and tonight's goal using the same interpretation of the rules. You're going off at a tangent here. I agree with your take on Watkins's goal, but it just isn't the point we're discussing.

Go through the thread mate. There's plenty of people talking about the ball being played backwards. People have a right to discuss whichever part of the offside decision they choose, without being rebuked for going off on a tangent. Which btw, it isn't. 

[Risso]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

But Schar doesnt slide if Watkins isnt there so he influences how the play turns out. 

So it would be offside if Watkins if offside. That's my understanding of how offside has always worked. 

That's not what the rules say though.  Just "being there" isn't enough to be offside. He has to try to tackle the defender if the defender has the ball, or otherwise get in the way of he defender. In tonight's case, the defender was closer to the player with the ball than Ollie was, played the ball, and gave it to Ollie. Under the rules as written, that is most definitely onside. They might be shit rules, but as they're stated, he was onside.

[Risso]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

Yeah this is my understanding of what "interfering with play" means. Certainly it's my understanding of what it *should* mean.

Watkins is the intended recipient of Targett's cross, so the offside decision shouldn't be affected by anything Newcastle do to try and block that cross.

But that's not what the rules say.

[KentVillan]

Just now, Risso said:

But that's not what the rules say.

The rules are ambiguous.

[StefanAVFC]

Not quoting but that's always how the rules have been interpreted. If Watkins isnt there Schar doesnt have to slide. It seems like they've now decided to change that with the non call against City.  

[tom_avfc]

1 minute ago, Risso said:

That's not what the rules say though.  Just "being there" isn't enough to be offside. He has to try to tackle the defender if the defender has the ball, or otherwise get in the way of he defender. In tonight's case, the defender was closer to the player with the ball than Ollie was, played the ball, and gave it to Ollie. Under the rules as written, that is most definitely onside. They might be shit rules, but as they're stated, he was onside.

This isn’t how football has been played for years. If Watkins had been offside and that goal had been given because Schar touched the ball then we’re now playing an entirely different game. It’s ludicrous and people trying to say that this is how the rules have always worked are wrong.

On the positive side you can probably give Watkins five goals this season that he wouldn’t have got if we’re going to continue with any touch by a defender negating obvious offsides.

 

[StefanAVFC]

As I've said, I'm not trying to rule out our goal. 

I want the game governed properly and fairly. If Watkins is offside from the cross (not saying he is) then the goal shouldn't stand because an offside player influences the defender. 

[Sulberto21]

Schar tried to save the ball. The rule clearly says receiving. So that would imply a direct pass such as Jagielka's to Ashley Young all those years ago.

[Risso]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

The rules are ambiguous.

I don't think they are:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

"Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:"

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or - Ollie didn't touch the ball from a team mate
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or - He was further away than the defender, so this isn't relevant
• challenging an opponent for the ball or - he didn't challenge the opponent, unlike Rodri last match
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or nope
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball nope

 

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. - exactly what happened here

Nothing ambiguous there that I can see.

[StefanAVFC]

Oh god we've come full circle. 

[KentVillan]

It's worth reading that thread that @a m ole shared because it has some really good debate between qualified referees.

https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/mci-vs-av.16114/page-4

Quote

Perhaps IFAB could clarify the parameters for deliberate play and challenge for the ball, if they won’t comment on a particular incident.

Quote

I think, but I can’t prove, that IFAB intends there to be a difference in how OS is reset on interference with play vs. interference with an opponent by challenging for the ball. But, in not atypical IFAB form, it’s really not as clear as it should be. There have been some examples floated by different authorities (not IFAB as far as I know) that supports he idea that an immediate pounce on a defender who just played the ball can still be an offense. Butt he fact that Referee nerds like those who frequent this site cannot even agree on what the basic rule is on that is a fundamental failure by IFAB to clearly delineate the Law.

For me (and this is consistent with the position AYSO has taken so far), until there is more clear guidance, I am going to apply the “no immediate pouncing” rule on OSP attackers, and allow at least a beat before a defender is challenged. I can’t prove that is ultimately “right,” and if IFAB gives us more clear guidance, I’d be happy to change how I do it.

Quote

“Challenging for the ball” is in the opinion of the referee. This is no different than determining if a foul is careless or reckless.

What you realise is that the laws can mean lots of different things, and it comes down to how well the rules have been written, and how well referees understand the "spirit" of the rules.

You might remember how handball in the Premier League and handball in La Liga used to be two completely different rules. PL was only blatant deliberate handballs, whereas La Liga was virtually any contact with the arm.

[tom_avfc]

4 minutes ago, Risso said:

I don't think they are:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

"Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:"

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or - Ollie didn't touch the ball from a team mate
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or - He was further away than the defender, so this isn't relevant
• challenging an opponent for the ball or - he didn't challenge the opponent, unlike Rodri last match
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or nope
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball nope

 

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. - exactly what happened here

Nothing ambiguous there that I can see.

I mean he quite evidently played a ball passed by a team mate. So it comes down to whether he received a ball deliberately played by the defender. This rule is there for misplaced backpasses but the Premier League has now decided based on an incorrect call in our game against Man City to go with any touch from a defender changing the way the game has been refereed in the past.

Interestingly if we stick with this interpretation I think we’ll be playing to different rules than any other competition.

[VillaChris]

It's a mental rule.

Surely it should be interpreted like a backpass e.g. not everytime it hits a defenders foot and rolls to the keeper who decides to pick it up is ruled as intentional as refs can determine what is deliberate or not, should be same here.

I wonder if VAR said it just to give them another goal to ease off from the criticism from the other day once they saw Watkins was onside anyway from being behind the ball and appears TV companies have helped peddle the line.

[Risso]

4 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

I mean he quite evidently played a ball passed by a team mate. So it comes down to whether he received a ball deliberately played by the defender. This rule is there for misplaced backpasses but the Premier League has now decided based on an incorrect call in our game against Man City to go with any touch from a defender changing the way the game has been refereed in the past.

Interestingly if we stick with this interpretation I think we’ll be playing to different rules than any other competition.

No he didn't, he played a ball played by an opposition defender. Therefore, onside.

[tezzaleed]

3 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Very clear now on the Sky coverage of the Newcastle game that the Watkins goal wasn’t checked for offside by VAR because of Schar’s touch.

Now of course it seems like Watkins was probably onside anyway because he was slightly behind the ball, but the point is that should have been checked. We would expect it to be checked if it had happened to us.

Are we really rewriting the offside law now so that Watkins isn’t interfering with play there? Schar is literally trying to intercept a pass to... Watkins.

This is blatant attempt by PGMOL to close ranks on their bizarre interpretation of the rules in the City game.

But clearly now this is just going to become “the rules”. What a load of **** nonsense.

(EDIT: A lot of people saying every goal is checked by VAR. The point is they didn't get their laser lines out to check Watkins' position (we'd know if they did), which is what would normally happen if there was *any* hint of offside. And the reason they didn't do that, according to Sky - who will have got their info from the VAR team - is that Schar got a touch on the ball.)

this one hundred percent.   I cant believe how little fuss this is causing.  it's like trump is in charge of football all of a sudden and we've all swallowed a total load of sh1te.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

No he didn't, he played a ball played by an opposition defender. Therefore, onside.

No. 

If Watkins is offside from the initial cross, then his influence should rule the goal out. 

That's how I've always understood the rules. 

[tom_avfc]

Just now, Risso said:

No he didn't, he played a ball played by an opposition defender. Therefore, onside.

I mean you’re on the same page as the premier league at least.

Targett has passed the ball to him which a defender has tried to block and deflected to him. Had he been in an offside position this would have been called offside in every game up to our game against Man City last week. It’s basic common sense.

The premier league has found a nice loophole in the wording of the rules to justify a stupid decision against us and now we’re just going to run with the worst rule in football? We’re going to tell strikers that they can now stand a couple of yards offside because the defender will attempt to play the ball as they always been trained to do?

Its absolute nonsense and as I said earlier in this thread I wish he’d been miles offside to highlight how ridiculous this “interpretation” is.

[Risso]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

No. 

If Watkins is offside from the initial cross, then his influence should rule the goal out. 

That's how I've always understood the rules. 

With all due respect your understanding isn't really relevant though is it?  He didn't influence anything until he got the ball by a route that the rules without any equivocation at all say means he is onside. It's perfectly clear.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Risso said:

With all due respect your understanding isn't really relevant though is it?  He didn't influence anything until he got the ball by a route that the rules without any equivocation at all say means he is onside. It's perfectly clear.

Sure, taking my understanding out of it. An offside player should never influence what a defender is doing, as it's an advantage. If Watkins is challenging Schar from an offside position (and challenging here means making him attempt to do something with the ball) then it should be offside.