Is this offside?

I normally love these threads but this one has got me thinking.

• Right back boots ball up towards striker, who is clearly offside.
  
• Ball completely misses striker and goes through to goalie, who comes to meet it.
  
• Keeper attempts to head it clear.
  
• Ball goes straight to striker.
  
• Flag goes up.
  

Is this classed as 'interfering with play', 'looking to gain an advantage' or neither? Is there a 'second phase of play' as soon as the goalie heads it?

The flag should have gone up as soon as the striker showed initial interest in chasing the ball. Im not sure whether the keeper clearing the ball constitutes a 2nd phase or not.

Maybe the offside was given for the first pass, as you said, he was clearly offside, sucks though as he didnt do anything until the keeper headed it to him.

The law seems to change and be applied differently on a regular basis.

IMO it is offside, clearly when the ball was played ahead of him, made a forward run towards it.

That said I could see it applied differently as you've suggested and say when the keeper has the ball a new "phase" of play starts. In that case GK error and offside not applicable.

Oh My Cheese! A Moderator asking a question.. I've never ever seen such a thing before.

Oh My Cheese! A Moderator asking a question.. I've never ever seen such a thing before.

It does happen from time to time.

Perhaps it was just a late offside flag?

He can't be offside if the GK passes the ball to him, can he? So presumably the 'phases' of play are rightly considered such - ie. parts of the same. In that respect, yes he's offside because he was interfering with play (the ball going towards him and being intended for him) but he can't really be called offside if he doesn't come into contact with, or indeed looks like coming anywhere near, the ball.

Or yeah, could be a late call or poor observation by the referee..

Interesting one.

He is clearly offside. I think it's wrong to view this as two different phases of play. The striker puts pressure on the rushing out goalkeeper who makes a mistake. The striker took advantage from the the offside position because he was then able to put more pressure on the goalkeeper. Now, you may argue that the goalkeeper could have made the same mistake even if the striker wasn't offside to begin with, but he was, and he took advantage.

My two cents, anyway. Take it for what it is.

He is clearly offside. I think it's wrong to view this as two different phases of play. The striker puts pressure on the rushing out goalkeeper who makes a mistake. The striker took advantage from the the offside position because he was then able to put more pressure on the goalkeeper. Now, you may argue that the goalkeeper could have made the same mistake even if the striker wasn't offside to begin with, but he was, and he took advantage.

My two cents, anyway. Take it for what it is.

I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but the goalie could have easily stayed in his box and caught the ball, there was no way the striker was getting to it first.

i think that it was given for the first pass that was made, he was offside at first, although i think that it wouldve gone into the "2nd phase" in which when the keeper kicked it away, the ball was then in the other team's control in which an offside cannot happen

Its not offside

I saw an article the other week in which Graham Poll clarified this law. You are only interfering with play if you a) touch the ball or b) prevent an opponent from touching the ball.

The striker in this case does neither in the first phase of play, hence not offside, and is not offside anyway in the second phase of play as the ball is played by an opposition player.

FM doesn't seem to apply the 'interfering with play law' very well at all, as flags go up all the time when they shouldn't. In this case, you've been robbed of a goal, as there's no reason that the goal should not stand, apart from the referee misinterpreting the law

My interpretation is that as soon as the player in an offside position attempts to obtain the ball (regardless of whether or not he succeeds) he is therefore attempting to gain an advantage and is therefore offside.

In this example it is acceptable to play on as the defending team can play advantage however the advantage is lost and the referee can pull it back for the original offence.

At least thats what I THINK.

Scholars maintain that the true meaning of offside was lost many years ago

It is the 'gaining an advantage' and 'phases of play' bit that I've never understood (has anyone?). The only advantage he has gained is positionally, in the event of a mistake from the goalie (which happened in this case). Isn't this what players sometimes try to do by standing behind the wall at a free kick in the hope of a rebound?

It certainly is a very interesting scenario. In my opinion it's offside, but obviously it's not set in stone.

It is the 'gaining an advantage' and 'phases of play' bit that I've never understood (has anyone?). The only advantage he has gained is positionally, in the event of a mistake from the goalie (which happened in this case). Isn't this what players sometimes try to do by standing behind the wall at a free kick in the hope of a rebound?

And that is exactly the problem with the offside rule as things stand. It is far to open to interpretation. In terms of free kicks this is generally irrelevant as alot of teams will but a man on the post or mark players on the edge of the 6 yard box.

The only advantage he has gained is positionally, in the event of a mistake from the goalie

But if he had recieved the ball he would have been offside. Like I say though it's been left open to interpretation.

Not offside for my money. If anyone can remember the goal van Persie scored at Stamford Bridge last season, that was a similar case to this chance, and it was correctly allowed. First phase, he was offside but not interfering with play, second phase, he was played in by the opposition, thus cannot be called offside.

FM10 does seem to have problems with the correct interpretation of the offside law, however it's so confusing, I'd hardly hold it against them.

Simply put, he can't be offside because he doesn't interfere with play UNTIL a point at which he is not offside.

It should be offside but with the new offside rules be changed on a daily basis with the different phases then the player in question is not offside IMO. The offside rules over the years has seeked to benefit the attacking side and when it is debatable it seems the attacking side get the benefit of the doubt.

It should be offside but with the new offside rules be changed on a daily basis with the different phases then the player in question is not offside IMO. The offside rules over the years has seeked to benefit the attacking side and when it is debatable it seems the attacking side get the benefit of the doubt.

Pretty much, yes.

With traditional rules, it would be offside, but with the more modern rules, it isn't

If he has not touched the ball untill the keeper passes to him then he is not offside,you should all know this as something like this happened in the prem this season .

If he has not touched the ball untill the keeper passes to him then he is not offside,you should all know this as something like this happened in the prem this season .

Are you suggesting that everybody watches the EPL or better still MOTD?

That's not offside, but must have been given for the initial pass. It isn't really open to interpretation, unless you don't know the laws.

"Gaining an advantage" means kicking the ball after it was rebounded off the woodwork. I have no idea why that gets a seperate law

Phrases of play, likewise, is jargon that doesn't need to be that complicated. Each touch of the ball starts a new "phrase of play", except when a defender doesn't properly touch it (it deflects off them, or they don't get a proper block in). Deflections off an attacker are different.

Source: a Football League assistant referee has explained the offside law to me in great detail.

He is offside because he gained an advantage by being in an offside position when the ball was player through. If he'd been onside, he wouldn't have been lurking to pick up the ball once the keeper headed it.

It's like if a player shoots from range while his team-mate is in an offside position. If it goes in then it stands, but if the keeper parries it to the offside team-mate then it is a free kick to the defending team.

If he has not touched the ball untill the keeper passes to him then he is not offside,you should all know this as something like this happened in the prem this season .

Unless he blocks the goalkeeper's line of sight (interfering with an opponent), or the goalkeeper's touch was a save that he couldn't hold (that also comes under "gaining an advantage").

He is offside because he gained an advantage by being in an offside position when the ball was player through. If he'd been onside, he wouldn't have been lurking to pick up the ball once the keeper headed it.

It's like if a player shoots from range while his team-mate is in an offside position. If it goes in then it stands, but if the keeper parries it to the offside team-mate then it is a free kick to the defending team.

The first paragraph isn't what "gaining an advantage" means.

Gaining an advantage means gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. He clearly did gain an advantage.

Gaining an advantage means gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. He clearly did gain an advantage.

No, because then every time a player was in an offside position, they'd be flagged. It doesn't mean that.

http://www.fifa.com/flash/lotg/football/en/flash/start.html

See "gaining advantage".

In dafuge's example, the ball doesn't "rebound", the goalkeeper plays it.

I suppose it's like the events that led to Man City's second goal at Wolves the other week in the Prem, where a ball was played over the top looking for Bellamy (who was offside when the ball was played) but was intially intercepted by Craddock with a stretching header. Barry then picked up the loose ball and continued the move, which Bellamy was then involved in, to win the free-kick, which Garrido scored from. It wasn't given at the time, but most reports/interviews/opinions I've seen and heard agree that it should have been given offside. A bit of a longer delay between the initial pass and goal I guess, but it sounds like the officials got it right in dafuge's example.

It wasn't given at the time, but most reports/interviews/opinions I've seen and heard agree that it should have been given offside.

Were any of these people referees?

No, because then every time a player was in an offside position, they'd be flagged. It doesn't mean that.

http://www.fifa.com/flash/lotg/football/en/flash/start.html

See "gaining advantage".

In dafuge's example, the ball doesn't "rebound", the goalkeeper plays it.

No, because they're not gaining an advantage if the ball doesn't come to them.

If he hadn't been offside he wouldn't have been able to get to the keeper's stray pass. Therefore, he gained an advantage by being in an offside position.

He is offside because he gained an advantage by being in an offside position when the ball was player through. If he'd been onside, he wouldn't have been lurking to pick up the ball once the keeper headed it.

It's like if a player shoots from range while his team-mate is in an offside position. If it goes in then it stands, but if the keeper parries it to the offside team-mate then it is a free kick to the defending team.

This answer has the most logic and has the most sense and should be the rule. The fact that the player is the furtherst forward does imply that he has gained an advantage and has done this, otherwise why would he seek to hold that position.

But the 'law's an ass' and the people that be that set these new rules do not seem to apply common sense, and thus the offside rule has become a bit silly!

After watching that flash animation provided by SCIAG I have to agree that offside must have been given for the initial pass.

This sort of thing happened in Wolves v Man city t'other day. Was NOT given offside, as a new stage (or whatever they call it) and apparently is the correct decision.

No, because they're not gaining an advantage if the ball doesn't come to them.

If he hadn't been offside he wouldn't have been able to get to the keeper's stray pass. Therefore, he gained an advantage by being in an offside position.

A) Look at the link. That isn't what "gaining an advantage" means, with good reason.

B) IIRC, it's "attempting to gain an advantage".

Nev, you seem to agree that a player standing in an offside position must be gaining an advantage- after all, why does he hold that position?

Look, it shouldn't have been given.

A) Look at the link. That isn't what "gaining an advantage" means, with good reason.

B) IIRC, it's "attempting to gain an advantage".

Nev, you seem to agree that a player standing in an offside position must be gaining an advantage- after all, why does he hold that position?

Look, it shouldn't have been given.

SCIAG, I agree that in the letter of the law then what you have said is correct that the scenario is legitimate, i.e. not offside. But I agree with Misod in terms of in theory from what I believe the offside rule does not benefit the game of football and is to the detriment of football. Why try and fix something that has worked fine for many many years, but the question is 'is this offside?' so the answer for me is no.

He's been given offside for the initial pass imo as the ball is intended for him.

But not given by the linesman, if you look through the pictures the linesman hasn't given the decision, he keeps moving throughout to keep up with play, so its a refereeing decision. So the commentary is also wrong as the linesman clearly didn't flag.

He's been given offside for the initial pass imo as the ball is intended for him.

But not given by the linesman, if you look through the pictures the linesman hasn't given the decision, he keeps moving throughout to keep up with play, so its a refereeing decision. So the commentary is also wrong as the linesman clearly didn't flag.

All offsides are given by the referee.

That's a representation issue, official movement is pretty poor.

All offsides are given by the referee.

That's a representation issue, official movement is pretty poor.

Yes, all offside decisions are technically given by the referee, but normally with indication from the linesman, sorry, assistant referee as they should be called.

I was just making the point that clearly the commentary is incorrect as the assistant didn't raise his flag.....

I think we've come to the inclusion that he wasn't offside.

Did you slam him in your post-match press conference?

I think we've come to the inclusion that he wasn't offside.

Did you slam him in your post-match press conference?

It wasn't a disallowed goal, so it didn't seem to be picked up at all in the media. I just noticed it while watching the match and thought it was interesting.

It wasn't a disallowed goal, so it didn't seem to be picked up at all in the media. I just noticed it while watching the match and thought it was interesting.

Maybe the game should have picked up on it, as it was an almost certain goal if the flag stays down.

Did you win the game?

Maybe the game should have picked up on it, as it was an almost certain goal if the flag stays down.

Did you win the game?

I won the game 2-1, that happened in added on time so it didn't affect the outcome at all.

Even if the flag hadn't gone up, he still had two defenders to beat to score a goal so I really wasn't bothered.

I just thought it would be an interesting discussion

What level was the game at?

If its high enough up, you would have thought he would have the ability to just chip the keeper from there

What level was the game at?

If its high enough up, you would have thought he would have the ability to just chip the keeper from there

He was runner up for the European Golden Boot last season and scored 43 in all competitions, so he was good enough to do that. Don't think I've ever seen him chip a keeper though.