What's getting on my tits is this is hardly aa new thing. We see and have seen countless incidents of defenders pushing up to play players offside, only for them to leave the ball and an onside player run.onto it. How can the offside player possibly be deemed to be 'not interfering with play'???? The defence wouldn't have acted as it did were it not for those offside players. Fkin stupid rule.
It's worth remembering too that the references to interfering with play aren't new - it's the interpretation that's changed. I know Cloughie said that if a player's on the pitch then he must be interfering but I always felt that was just a little contrived. Even then we knew what it meant. Else how many corner takers would be offside the moment they'd taken the corner. Imagine a goal disallowed for that!Why should a player who doesn't touch the ball, who doesn't try to touch the ball, who doesn't block an opponent, who doesn't make a move towards the ball, and who doesn't do anything to prevent the opponent from doing their job be judged to have committed an offense?
In the past this was offside. In the past the goalkeeper could pick up a back pass. In the past you could fly in two footed "to let him know you were there". In the past you needed three defenders behind you to be onside. The laws change. Interpretations change. Why should the game be stopped because a player was simply standing in an offside position?
I know many fans and pundits feel the way you do, but I'm simply arguing that people feel that way because that's how it used to be. These changes were done to remove grey area in the laws, promote more attacking play, and lead to fewer stoppages in the match. I think these are good changes, much like past changes to the laws have been positive.
Was just about to post this
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...league-match-antisemitism-allegation-1.458153
"If a player is not interfering with play he should't be on the pitch!". Attributed to both Bill Shankly and Brian Clough. Sums it up nicely for me!
This is the exact reason the offside rule was changed, people moaned then, people are moaning now.
Should Kyle Walker be judged to be offside here after passing the ball to Sterling? He's on the pitch and in offside position when Sterling touches the ball. That means he's interfering with play according to Shankly and Clough.
The opposing player isnt offside to start with. The defence push up to play him offside but as he's now considered to not be intefering with play as long as he doesnt actually touch the ball that was passed to him someone else can run onto it.Why should a player who doesn't touch the ball, who doesn't try to touch the ball, who doesn't block an opponent, who doesn't make a move towards the ball, and who doesn't do anything to prevent the opponent from doing their job be judged to have committed an offense?
In the past this was offside. In the past the goalkeeper could pick up a back pass. In the past you could fly in two footed "to let him know you were there". In the past you needed three defenders behind you to be onside. The laws change. Interpretations change. Why should the game be stopped because a player was simply standing in an offside position?
I know many fans and pundits feel the way you do, but I'm simply arguing that people feel that way because that's how it used to be. These changes were done to remove grey area in the laws, promote more attacking play, and lead to fewer stoppages in the match. I think these are good changes, much like past changes to the laws have been positive.
If Walker passed that ball he passed it backwards so how could he be offside???
Should Kyle Walker be judged to be offside here after passing the ball to Sterling? He's on the pitch and in offside position when Sterling touches the ball. That means he's interfering with play according to Shankly and Clough.
SC's motto!People are always going to moan about something.
If Walker passed that ball he passed it backwards so how could he be offside???
Or have I misunderstood?
Really? I've assumed that all my lifeIt's a common misconception that passing the ball backwards means a player can't be offside.
Think you're being a bit pedantic to be honest.It's a common misconception that passing the ball backwards means a player can't be offside. Walker is in an offside position when Sterling fluffs his shot, but of course he shouldn't be penalized for being in an offside position since he isn't interfering with play.
Really? I've assumed that all my life
Walkers position has no bearing on play at all.
Offside to those receiving the ball. Walker passed it! Backwards.Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make to those who think offside is offside and it should be called every time.
Thats gold it really is.These changes were done to remove grey area in the laws, promote more attacking play, and lead to fewer stoppages in the match. I think these are good changes, much like past changes to the laws have been positive.
So if the player receiving the ball is behind the player playing it, he's offside. I'm not entirely sure I've ever seen that given. I should pay more attention.It's a pretty rare situation, but the offside law doesn't say anything about the direction of the ball. It only matters if a player was in an offside position when a teammate last touched the ball and if that player then gets involved with play.
A player can also be called for offside in their own half of the field, if they were in an offside position in the opponents half when a teammate played the ball, and then they run back into their own half to receive the pass/clearance. Also rare, but possible.
Thats gold it really is.