The Footie Thread

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
It was clarified earlier this year when City scored against Villa and Rodri took the ball off Mings when coming back from an offside position.

Spurs won a penalty a few years back at Anfield when Lovren mishit the ball to Kane who was offside when the ball was played

It’s not offside if an opposing player makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball, a deflection or accidental touch is still offside.

VAR last night decided the contact from the Spaniard was a deliberate attempt to play the ball.
I think this was slightly different because Lovren made such a hash of it he was deemed to be in full possession of the ball (because he should have controlled it comfortably). But of course I would say that.😆 I wouldn't have objected much if that one had have been given offside. This rule seems daft because in theory someone could just stand offside waiting for a pass and hoping the defender gets a touch on it. It should be if you're offside when your teammates kicks it then you're offside. The defender wouldn't have to try and play it if you weren't there standing offside, it's a silly paradox.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
15,996
Location
Seaham
I think this was slightly different because made such a hash of it he was deemed to be in full possession of the ball (because he should have controlled it comfortably). But of course I would say that.😆 I wouldn't have objected much if that one had have been given offside. This rule seems daft because in theory someone could just stand offside waiting for a pass and hoping the defender gets a touch on it. It should be if you're offside when your teammates kicks it then you're offside. The defender wouldn't have to try and play it if you weren't there standing offside, it's a silly paradox.
What about the scenario were a player is an offside position and a defender intercepts a pass then cocks up a deliberate backpass.

I agree it’s not clear, but it is intended to give the attack the advantage
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
What about the scenario were a player is an offside position and a defender intercepts a pass then cocks up a deliberate backpass.

I agree it’s not clear, but it is intended to give the attack the advantage
That would be defender error for me. If he actually takes possession of it then it's a new phase of play or whatever they call it now. But I'm talking about ones where a defender is lunging for the ball and gets a tiny nick on it, failing to cut it out - you can't let that cancel out an offside player, it's insane.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
3,177
I think this was slightly different because Lovren made such a hash of it he was deemed to be in full possession of the ball (because he should have controlled it comfortably). But of course I would say that.😆 I wouldn't have objected much if that one had have been given offside. This rule seems daft because in theory someone could just stand offside waiting for a pass and hoping the defender gets a touch on it. It should be if you're offside when your teammates kicks it then you're offside. The defender wouldn't have to try and play it if you weren't there standing offside, it's a silly paradox.
Your absolutely right to be stunned. The football lawmakers do not even understand the original concept of offside, not undertand the game from a footballers point of view, that they interpret last nights incident to be onside. The Spanish defence played a good line, so that Mbappe was in an offside position. The Spanish defender did the right thing in trying to cut out the forward pass, as he cannot of course be sure if Mbappe or any other French attacker times their run perfectly. Had the defender completely missed the ball, it would have been offside. But, as he got a slight touch, and deliberately tried to get a touch, then suddenly Mbappe is onside. It is crazy, ridiculous and shameful that the lawmakers get it so wrong. But, there you go, they seem to do that a lot.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
3,177
What about the scenario were a player is an offside position and a defender intercepts a pass then cocks up a deliberate backpass.

I agree it’s not clear, but it is intended to give the attack the advantage
To me, that would be onside. If a defender has either been judged to have been in control of the ball, or played a controlled one touch pass backwards, then the attacker should be onside. However, if the defender has not yet got fully under control of the ball, or try to intercept a through ball, then it should be the same phase of play and offside. In some occasions, the ref may need to make a call as to whether he thinks the defender was under control or not, however most of the time it should be fairly obvious.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
Your absolutely right to be stunned. The football lawmakers do not even understand the original concept of offside, not undertand the game from a footballers point of view, that they interpret last nights incident to be onside. The Spanish defence played a good line, so that Mbappe was in an offside position. The Spanish defender did the right thing in trying to cut out the forward pass, as he cannot of course be sure if Mbappe or any other French attacker times their run perfectly. Had the defender completely missed the ball, it would have been offside. But, as he got a slight touch, and deliberately tried to get a touch, then suddenly Mbappe is onside. It is crazy, ridiculous and shameful that the lawmakers get it so wrong. But, there you go, they seem to do that a lot.
Yeah. One of the main reasons I watch a hell of a lot less football now than I used to. :cautious:
 

Bdill93

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
1,249
Your absolutely right to be stunned. The football lawmakers do not even understand the original concept of offside, not undertand the game from a footballers point of view, that they interpret last nights incident to be onside. The Spanish defence played a good line, so that Mbappe was in an offside position. The Spanish defender did the right thing in trying to cut out the forward pass, as he cannot of course be sure if Mbappe or any other French attacker times their run perfectly. Had the defender completely missed the ball, it would have been offside. But, as he got a slight touch, and deliberately tried to get a touch, then suddenly Mbappe is onside. It is crazy, ridiculous and shameful that the lawmakers get it so wrong. But, there you go, they seem to do that a lot.
I honestly see this as a good rule not a bad one. More goals overall.

We (football fans) all moaned when attackers were having goals ruled out - now they've addressed it in some competitions, we are moaning the guys offisde......

5 years ago we moaned that refs needed help/ VAR.

We will always moan is the moral of the story.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
To me, that would be onside. If a defender has either been judged to have been in control of the ball, or played a controlled one touch pass backwards, then the attacker should be onside. However, if the defender has not yet got fully under control of the ball, or try to intercept a through ball, then it should be the same phase of play and offside. In some occasions, the ref may need to make a call as to whether he thinks the defender was under control or not, however most of the time it should be fairly obvious.
Definitely obvious on VAR!
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
I honestly see this as a good rule not a bad one. More goals overall.

We (football fans) all moaned when attackers were having goals ruled out - now they've addressed it in some competitions, we are moaning the guys offisde......

5 years ago we moaned that refs needed help/ VAR.

We will always moan is the moral of the story.
lol, what? Just scrap the offside rule altogether then? Loads of goals. Get rid of goalkeepers as well actually. More goals!
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
15,996
Location
Seaham
To me, that would be onside. If a defender has either been judged to have been in control of the ball, or played a controlled one touch pass backwards, then the attacker should be onside. However, if the defender has not yet got fully under control of the ball, or try to intercept a through ball, then it should be the same phase of play and offside. In some occasions, the ref may need to make a call as to whether he thinks the defender was under control or not, however most of the time it should be fairly obvious.
It comes down to the word deliberate and its interpretation by the Referee, surely the clarification has been made to reduce inconsistencey by Officials? There’s been nothing worse than a Ref giving a decision one week and another Ref the week after seeing it differently.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
15,996
Location
Seaham
That would be defender error for me. If he actually takes possession of it then it's a new phase of play or whatever they call it now. But I'm talking about ones where a defender is lunging for the ball and gets a tiny nick on it, failing to cut it out - you can't let that cancel out an offside player, it's insane.
So if a defender goes to trap a ball and he mis-controls it, surely that’s defender error and you are suggesting he’s allowed gets away with.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
So if a defender goes to trap a ball and he mis-controls it, surely that’s defender error and you are suggesting he’s allowed gets away with.
That's offside as well. The only time it wouldn't be offside is if the defender consciously kicks it back to the forward not realising he was there. As Swango said, it will be the ref's interpretation from the VAR replay, but you just cannot allow situations like that Spain/France one. Before long you'll have defenders hesitating to actually clear the ball just in case they only get a toe on it which plays someone offside. Then it will become commonplace like players trying to tackle with their hands behind their backs, which we've all accepted as normal now after some of the farcical handballs of the last five years.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
3,177
I honestly see this as a good rule not a bad one. More goals overall.

We (football fans) all moaned when attackers were having goals ruled out - now they've addressed it in some competitions, we are moaning the guys offisde......

5 years ago we moaned that refs needed help/ VAR.

We will always moan is the moral of the story.
That is not a great argument in being in favour of this interpretation. Unless you are in favour of scrapping offside altogether? You could also ignore any accidental handballs by attackers (even with outstretched arms), but give penalties when the defender does the same. More goals after all.

It may sound fantastic, until your team loses an important match because of it. Had England lost the World Cup final on such a goal, I can imagine the reaction over here. Not a good one. Sure, if England won on the same type of goal, there'd be celebrations, but there would be at least a little embarrassment from decent fans that they got away with one based on a dodgy rule.

Refs did need help. They got it in VAR. The reason it was criticised is that its use was appalling. It also resulted in the rules being changed on a weekly basis. Why? Because VAR or not, there will always be inconsistent decisions, subjectivity will always play a role, whether it be by the guy on the field or the guy watching it on the monitor.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
15,996
Location
Seaham
That's offside as well. The only time it wouldn't be offside is if the defender consciously kicks it back to the forward not realising he was there. As Swango said, it will be the ref's interpretation from the VAR replay, but you just cannot allow situations like that Spain/France one. Before long you'll have defenders hesitating to actually clear the ball just in case they only get a toe on it which plays someone offside. Then it will become commonplace like players trying to tackle with their hands behind their backs, which we've all accepted as normal now after some of the farcical handballs of the last five years.
So a defender mis-controls a ball, you say offside and an attacker mis-times his run and that’s offside, that is favouring the defence and only punishing one player for making a mistake.

As it stands it’s only not offside if the defending player makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball, whether he only reaches it with his toe or whatever is irrelevant.

This isn’t new this season, this has been in a couple of years now, the only clarification, change, has been since the Villa/City game.

I take it the Watkins goal in this one you disagree with?
 
Last edited:

Bdill93

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
1,249
At least its a fast decision though. No one liked the tiny tight lines they used to the minutest detail when checking for offsides.. no one likes this. But this is faster :ROFLMAO:
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
15,914
Location
Watford
So a defender mis-controls a ball, you say offside and an attacker mis-times his run and that’s offside, that is favouring the defence and only punishing one player for making a mistake.

As it stands it’s only not offside if the defending player makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball, whether he only reaches it with his toe or whatever is irrelevant.

This isn’t new this season, this has been in a couple of years now, the only clarification, change, has been since the Villa/City game.
Do you think Mbappe's goal being onside was acceptable then? If he's offside when the ball is played he should be offside. That's all there is it to it. I don't even know what case you're arguing for.
 

Bdill93

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
1,249
lol, what? Just scrap the offside rule altogether then? Loads of goals. Get rid of goalkeepers as well actually. More goals!
Bit OTT. This is someone attempting to play at a ball at least. There is intent there.


That is not a great argument in being in favour of this interpretation. Unless you are in favour of scrapping offside altogether? You could also ignore any accidental handballs by attackers (even with outstretched arms), but give penalties when the defender does the same. More goals after all.

It may sound fantastic, until your team loses an important match because of it. Had England lost the World Cup final on such a goal, I can imagine the reaction over here. Not a good one. Sure, if England won on the same type of goal, there'd be celebrations, but there would be at least a little embarrassment from decent fans that they got away with one based on a dodgy rule.

Refs did need help. They got it in VAR. The reason it was criticised is that its use was appalling. It also resulted in the rules being changed on a weekly basis. Why? Because VAR or not, there will always be inconsistent decisions, subjectivity will always play a role, whether it be by the guy on the field or the guy watching it on the monitor.

You could ignore handballs down to the elbow, not a bad idea!

Quite an overdramatic response to me liking an actual approved EUFA rule tho.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
3,177
At least its a fast decision though. No one liked the tiny tight lines they used to the minutest detail when checking for offsides.. no one likes this. But this is faster :ROFLMAO:
I believe they've improved the "lines" issue this season, as they seem to have a larger margin for error. Certainly not been a major talking point this season as it has in the past.

However, I wonder how fast it will be when the defender may or may not get the slightest of touches on the ball. VAR will be rolling back and forth for minutes to see if the direction / movement of the ball changes.
 
Top