The Reinvention of the Offside Law

[blandy]

44 minutes 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.

They didn't apply Moss's law again. They followed the clear existing law:

Quote

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, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

The media are talking nonsense about the Mings thing .

[tom_avfc]

Just now, blandy said:

No, the opposite is the case. The defender did deliberately play the ball. It isn't go where he wanted it to, but he actively decided to play it. The law says clearly that in those circumstances Watkins cannot be offside. The law is daft, but it is clear.

It's nothing to do with the Mings decision, which (as we've discussed ad infinitim) was (we think) wrong, because the attacker challenged Mings, which is not permitted. The Officials decided the attacker "received" the ball from Mings (which is a nonsense).

This isn’t how the offside rule has ever been applied before. It’s ridiculous if this is how we’re going to start going with offsides. The deliberate play of the ball is designed for backpasses/headers when a a defender is in control of what he is doing. That’s how it’s always worked.

I have no idea why this is the route that they’ve decided to take but it all stems from the terrible decision against us. You can argue that the rules can be interpreted to make the new way correct but why on Earth would you want to interpret them that way? Offside is designed to prevent goal hanging and now we’re moving to make goal hanging a valid tactic again?

To be honest the use of ambiguously worded rules to defend decisions is pretty dull anyway. Common sense tells you that both the Man City goal and the Watkins one (if he hadn’t been behind the ball) are offside. Common sense has prevailed in these decisions in the past but our referees who are at an all time low in quality have made an issue where one has never existed before. 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, tom_avfc said:

This isn’t how the offside rule has ever been applied before.

It absolutely is. Someone (maybe @darrenm ?) posted up how Fulham were done by it. Loads of goals have stood as a result of it, going back a few seasons now. It's a crap part of the Law, but it is absolutely the law (or a "clarification" to it that has been in place a while now.

[Five Ken McNaughts]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, the opposite is the case. The defender did deliberately play the ball. It isn't go where he wanted it to, but he actively decided to play it. The law says clearly that in those circumstances Watkins cannot be offside. The law is daft, but it is clear.

It's nothing to do with the Mings decision, which (as we've discussed ad infinitim) was (we think) wrong, because the attacker challenged Mings, which is not permitted. The Officials decided the attacker "received" the ball from Mings (which is a nonsense).

I agree Schar actively decides to play the ball.

But going by FIFA’s full list of criteria to be satisfied (that I posted on page 7), would you say he had “time and options”? 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

I agree Schar actively decides to play the ball.

But going by FIFA’s full list of criteria to be satisfied (that I posted on page 7), would you say he had “time and options”? 

That's a good question.

Yes, I would. He had at least one option - to leave the ball (obviously):

His deliberate attempt (he knew) would carry the risk of an O.G. but also to give the keeper a chance to come out and catch it, or for the ball to go for a corner.

Leaving it ran the risk of it going to Watkins in space in the box, because his team mates were nowhere to be seen, or maybe the keep might have dived forward and collected or punched it or kicked it away.

So he had 2 options. Maybe more. And in terms of time, the cross was from the wing, he was somewhere around the near post, from memory, maybe corner of the 6 yard box - so he had time to consider what to do.

Others might see it differently, but it is consistent with what's been judged in other games.

I don't like this "clarification", but at least it's being applied the same for all teams. The Mings one (a rarer occurrence) is consistently flagged as offside (until mid-week) and the Ref and Lino effed up, then the PGMOL went into damage denial mode. 

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, tomav84 said:

so theoretically, attacker standing in offside position (providing he's not impeding the keeper's view) shot comes in, keeper saves, offside-standing attacker taps it in, that's now OK? because the ball has come off the keeper?

No. The Law says that is offside.

Quote

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.

 

[Rightdm00]

Okay now I feel like I'm in the upside down or something. There is no way we are actually arguing that a deflection off Schar reset Ollie and made him onside. 

This is an elaborate troll, right?  It says right in the law that deflections and saves from keepers don't count as a delibrate touch. Someone just wink at me or something so I can be in on the joke too.

[onmeedson]

On the options thing watkins is offside if the defender leaves it , same as the indirect free kick shoot at goal but you need an opposition player to touch the ball to score. MOTD played the establishment card in their summing up but we have never been a media  darling and the top six are untouchable.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

He may be behind the ball but they should be checking it, as I understood the rules as Watkins influences him. 

That's one view. The counter to that is that Watkins was miles away (though in a threatening position) and basically all the players on the pitch at all times influence the thinking of the opponents. If they're close by, then obviously they influence strongly "he can tackle me, he can block that pass, I'll make a different one" kind of thing. If they're a distance away,  and marking a team mate "I won't pass to that team mate, he's marked / that opponent is nowhere near where he should be, I can slot my mate in here" - so players are always influencing others - it's a question of extent and immediacy. Being unmarked in space, but a good distance away is not seen ( I believe) as having enough influence to affect a defender. Being close by is.

[tom_avfc]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's a good question.

Yes, I would. He had at least one option - to leave the ball (obviously):

His deliberate attempt (he knew) would carry the risk of an O.G. but also to give the keeper a chance to come out and catch it, or for the ball to go for a corner.

Leaving it ran the risk of it going to Watkins in space in the box, because his team mates were nowhere to be seen, or maybe the keep might have dived forward and collected or punched it or kicked it away.

So he had 2 options. Maybe more. And in terms of time, the cross was from the wing, he was somewhere around the near post, from memory, maybe corner of the 6 yard box - so he had time to consider what to do.

Others might see it differently, but it is consistent with what's been judged in other games.

I don't like this "clarification", but at least it's being applied the same for all teams. The Mings one (a rarer occurrence) is consistently flagged as offside (until mid-week) and the Ref and Lino effed up, then the PGMOL went into damage denial mode. 

 

I’d like to see these other occurrences where similar goals have been allowed despite a player being offside. The West Ham goal against Fulham you mention appears to be completely different in that Haller is offside and the defender heads it to stop him getting the ball. This then drops to a completely different West Ham player who scores having never been in an offside position.

The only comparable incident I can see is the Harry Kane penalty given against Liverpool because Lovren tried to clear it and it went through to Kane who was offside when the ball was played. This to me is a laughable interpretation of the law and it’s not consistent with how these incidents have been ruled previously.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Rightdm00 said:

Okay now I feel like I'm in the upside down or something. There is no way we are actually arguing that a deflection off Schar reset Ollie and made him onside. 

This is an elaborate troll, right?  It says right in the law that deflections and saves from keepers don't count as a delibrate touch. Someone just wink at me or something so I can be in on the joke too.

It's not us arguing that a touch makes Ollie onside. It is the law and has been for a while.

Defenders or goalkeepers making a save is deliberate, but such a goal line clearance or save does no make an attacker onside. That has also been the case for ages (longer).

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

The only comparable incident I can see is the Harry Kane penalty given against Liverpool because Lovren tried to clear it and it went through to Kane who was offside when the ball was played.

That's one. Last season (I think it was) Salah scored a goal after a defender sliced a clearance and Salah got it and scored. There's been a few.

[AlwaysAVFC]

1 hour ago, Tommo_b said:

You can clearly see from the photo even without the line he was well onside... reading through this thread I’ve felt like I was Shallow Hal seeing something other people weren’t, thank you for clearing up what I thought was glaringly obvious for everyone else though. 

That's not what the discussion is about though. It's about the call on the night which didn't even consider whether he was level or behind.

Yes VAR may have proven that he was behind if it was used but it wasn't. 

I'll start this by saying I think I was on side anyway, but.. a line drawn like that on the picture doesn't clearly prove he was on side. We've seen official VAR lines that have been given offside that we're still not sure about and don't even look straight across the pitch at the right angle, due to the camera angle. 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by AlwaysAVFC

[hippo]

15 hours ago, tom_avfc said:

They’ve definitely called that onside because of the defender’s touch. It’s saved us the 2 minutes of line drawing but it’s absolutely ridiculous. The doubling down on a stupid decision has changed the entire rules of football in the premier league and not for the better.

I don't believe the two incidents are comparable.

In the man city incident the player made a challenge for the ball from an offside position.

In the Newcastle came the Newcastle defender fluffed a clearance which fell to Watkins.

Going back to the rules the player can receive the ball from an opponent (per watkins) - but may not challenge an opponent (Rodri)

 

[Adam2003]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

Yes VAR may have proven that he was behind if it was used but it wasn't

VAR is used for every goal. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

Isn't the problem now largely that the linesmen aren't actually calling offsides? Like Schar yesterday. The only reason he goes for the ball is surely because he thinks Watkins might be onside. If the linesman does his job, it would never materialise. Now it's all about active play when and what. 

Or am I getting that situation wrong? I didn't watch the match mind, so only got the highlights. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by KenjiOgiwara

[Rightdm00]

Just now, blandy said:

It's not us arguing that a touch makes Ollie onside. It is the law and has been for a while.

Defenders or goalkeepers making a save is deliberate, but such a goal line clearance or save does no make an attacker onside. That has also been the case for ages (longer).

It doesn't have to be some type of goal line clearance. Anytime a defender attempts to play a ball with an active offside player around him, a miscontrol by the defender doesn't automatically make the attacker onside. 

For Ollie's goal, Schar attempts to play the ball purely because Ollie is behind him. Ollie is affecting play, something you specifically can't do as an offside attacker.  Steve Bruce and Newcastle would have been apoplectic if that had been the case. 

If you were watching the NBC Sports stream the announcers both commented that Ollie was onside due to being behind the ball when Targett played it. None of this nonsense over a deflection from a defender. Which just to be clear, is complete nonsense. 

People are looking at the Mings goal incorrectly. It wasn't mere fact that he touched the ball. It was his attempt to gain control by chesting it down. A "delibrate" play. Per the rules as written that would reset play. The problem is you have to ignore the fact that the entire time Rodri is actively moving towards the ball from an offside position. Just watch the replay, he makes a beeline for Mings. By the time Mings brings it down he is only a step or 2 away. Which during any normal game would be enough to flag him as offside due to the fact his is actively involving himself in the play from an offside position. 

Moss and his crew decided that Rodri didn't involve himself until Mings gained control which is farcical. It's a screwed up ruling that seems to have completely broken the state of discussion over the offside law  in the UK. Trust me no else is talking about that interpretation as being some new standard and we definitely aren't having pundits, people paid for their expertise on the game of football, going on TV and spouting dumb statements like Schar's touch was deliberate and therefore rendered Ollie onsides. 

[Rightdm00]

1 minute ago, Adam2003 said:

VAR is used for every goal. 

EVERY GOAL. I took this screen cap from the PL's own website. VAR checks everything related to the 4 incidents listed. It only radios down to halt play if it needs extra time to take a look.

If it's cut and dry, like Ollie being a whole step behind the ball then their is no extra time needed. 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

3 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Isn't the problem now largely that the linesmen aren't actually calling offsides? Like Schar yesterday. The only reason he goes for the ball is surely because he thinks Watkins might be onside. If the linesman does his job, it would never materialise. Now it's all about active play when and what. 

Or am I getting that situation wrong? I didn't watch the match mind, so only got the highlights. 

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. 

[fightoffyour]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No, the opposite is the case. The defender did deliberately play the ball. It isn't go where he wanted it to, but he actively decided to play it. The law says clearly that in those circumstances Watkins cannot be offside. The law is daft, but it is clear.

Yes, Schar deliberately sliced the ball into Watkins path. Impressive skill.

Come off it. A deliberate play has to have the intended result or it’s an accident. Schar tried to intercept and failed, he didn’t deliberately play it to Watkins.

I can’t fathom how it could be interpreted differently.

Edited January 24, 2021 by fightoffyour