Isn't this offside?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

While mr. Fer isn't offside in this situation, it should have been offside. Needless to say Dortmund scored on this chance. I have had several situations like this before, some of them to my advantage.

Maybe SI should have a look at how the offside rule is implemented in the game?

Edit: what I am aiming at here is a closer look at how FM deals with offside interpretations. The image above shows two Dortmund players in offside as Hlousek plays the ball (even though the decision to allow this would be unlikely in real life, it is probably correct by the law), the image(s) below, however, shows a player of mine in offside as the ball leaves Crisetig's foot and then he is going into a challenge with Juventus' defender, which the latter wins but puts into his own goal. The question is then: how did FM come to the conclusion that these two instances were not offsides? The common factor is that the player who received the ball was not in offside. In real life there is more to it than that!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

looks marginal. does Fer have good Positioning and/or off the ball?

Just like RL officials in FM make mistakes from time to time.

TBF though it does look 50/50, he certainly isn't miles offside.

50/50 to me. Also, that defender looks like he's closing down the player crossing. So, just a second earlier said defender could have easily been playing Fer onside.

Either way, tight call and a difficult decision for the linesman.

Would you prefer the games officials to get every single decision right? I certainly wouldn't.

Fer isn't offside, and the two that were offside didn't interfere with the play, so the it looks a fair goal to me.

They may not have interfered with play as far as the match engine goes, but IRL, there's no way those two other players wouldn't have been given offside, whether they touched the ball or not.

Tough one. For me it's an interpretation of the positioning of the other two players. How they effect the keeper really. Fer is possibly onside. Could be off but not always. I do wonder how the situation of having 3 players ahead of both your centre backs in the middle occurred.

Fer isn't offside, and the two that were offside didn't interfere with the play, so the it looks a fair goal to me.

Well it wasn't Fer who scored, but one of those two players. It is a very clear offside even if the one player who is onside, Fer, is the one who receives the ball. The two other players are of course interfering, since they are between Fer and the goal. If a referee let something like this slide in a real life match, he would have been beheaded for sure.

The problem is that since it is Fer that receives the ball, the game doesn't recognize that the two others are in offside and interfering with the play. The decision should have been called as the pass leaves Hlousek's foot, not when Fer receives the ball - so this is a programming error. An even worse situation was when my player, who was offside, did NOT receive the ball because the opposing defender reached it first. The interception was clumsy, though, so my player picked up the ball and scored. This should also have been an offside. The fact that the game does not recognize "interference offsides" can have serious consequences.

And here Sørensen scored an own goal because he had to intercept a cross from Crisetig to my regen winger Mesquita, who were offside when the ball left Crisetig's foot. Again, this should have been offside, but weren't, seemingly because "interference offsides" aren't properly programmed.

Well, that's what I think it is. I know referee errors are in the game, so I would like to know if this is one of those, or if the way the offside rule is programmed makes it a necessity for the player who is in offside to actually receive the ball if he is to be caught doing something illegal.

Thats not offside. If Fer had shot while the player was infront of the goalie then yes but he didn't.

Thats not offside. If Fer had shot while the player was infront of the goalie then yes but he didn't.

The linesman's flag should have shot up the moment Hlousek passed the ball, because there were two players in offside. Which one of them received the ball is irrelevant.

No it shouldn't. They were never going to receive the ball nor made an effort to go for the ball. Neither did they impinge on any defenders nor the goalkeepers sight. They weren't interfering with play.

No it shouldn't. They were never going to receive the ball nor made an effort to go for the ball. Neither did they impinge on any defenders nor the goalkeepers sight. They weren't interfering with play.

How is it possible to interfere MORE with play than that? Dortmund got an advantage from having players in offside when the ball was passed from the flank. The ball was passed in their direction, so if Fer hadn't controlled it they would. They were clearly not signalling disinterest in the ball, because once Fer received the ball and dribbled to the byline, they were more than eager to join him.

Its allowed. In the first phase they were offside but didn't directly affect play so play can continue. By the second phase were they are interfering with play they are clearly onside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1239310/The-offside-rule-explained-Alan-Hansen-Mick-McCarthy-rest-us.html

"So, unless a player touches the ball he is not interfering with play"

Its allowed. In the first phase they were offside but didn't directly affect play so play can continue. By the second phase were they are interfering with play they are clearly onside.

Fer and the guy who scored, Lewandowski, stand 1,5 meters away from each other. How on earth could the linesman see that Hlousek's pass was to Fer and not Lewandowski? Again, who receives the ball is irrelevant. The rule is counted from the moment the ball leaves Hlousek's foot, and at that exact moment, Dortmund has two players in offside within a two-meter radius around Fer. The linesman's job is to signal this situation immediately and not wait to see who gets the ball of those three. The issue is that in FM, this is not what is happening. Look at the screenshot in the OP again - that's when the flag should come up, when the linesman's decision should be made, and I am 100% certain that no real-life referee would ever keep the flag down in that situation precisely because which one of those three players receive the ball is irrelevant to his decision-making. However, in FM, the referee "knows" that it is Fer who receives the ball (just look at his name appearing over his head), and since he is not in offside he does not raise the flag.

Just looking at the other video, it is clear to me at least that this is an actual issue.

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goal-post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing the ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position."

Those are the rules. It isn't offside whether you think it should be or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1239310/The-offside-rule-explained-Alan-Hansen-Mick-McCarthy-rest-us.html

"So, unless a player touches the ball he is not interfering with play"

That's simply much too simplified. If a player walks out of offside, head down, not watching the ball at all - then he is not interfering with play. If he watches the ball come toward him, turning towards it, he is interested in it and then he is offside. I have seen many players attempting to not interfere with the play and still, correctly, become judged offside, simply because the ball comes too near him. The "uninterested" player does not have to touch the ball to be deemed as interfering with play.

"That's simply much too simplified"

It really isn't, those are the rules. The only other case is when players obstruct an opposition player getting the ball which none did in this instance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4993924.stm

"Fifa, world football's governing body, gives the following definition:

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate."

However, a player does not necessarily have to touch the ball to influence play. They are still offside if, in the opinion of the referee, they are judged to be:

Interfering with an opponent If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside.

Gaining an advantage If the ball is played into the penalty area and he plays the ball that rebounds to him off a post, crossbar or an opposing defender, then the attacker is offside as they have gained an advantage by being in that position. "

Like I said, you might disagree with the rule of what's interfering with play but its FMs job to follow them which in these cases it is.

I can see it argued both ways on your second one as to whether the striker could be deemed to be distracting the defender by his movement towards goal but not the first. I'd actually say it probably was offside but linesmen make mistakes.

The first one is completely fine though.

"That's simply much too simplified"

It really isn't, those are the rules. The only other case is when players obstruct an opposition player getting the ball which none did in this instance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4993924.stm

"Fifa, world football's governing body, gives the following definition:

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate."

However, a player does not necessarily have to touch the ball to influence play. They are still offside if, in the opinion of the referee, they are judged to be:

Interfering with an opponent If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside.

Gaining an advantage If the ball is played into the penalty area and he plays the ball that rebounds to him off a post, crossbar or an opposing defender, then the attacker is offside as they have gained an advantage by being in that position. "

Like I said, you might disagree with the rule of what's interfering with play but its FMs job to follow them which in these cases it is.

Well, since you bring up FIFA's pdf:

A player is in offside if: "he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent" and

When: "At the moment the ball touches or is played by his teammates".

So, as I have said at least two times now - when Hlousek plays the ball, Dortmund has two players in offside position, and the ball is played in their direction. At that point interference doesn't even come into the picture.

The offside rule changed a few years ago - you're interpreting the rule as it was maybe 5 years ago. If Fer receives the ball in an onside position, and then plays the ball to one of the other players who have since moved into an onside position, it's not offside.

It would only be offside if the other players are offside when Fer plays the ball; where they are standing when the initial cross is played is irrelevant as long as they are not "interfering with play". Running back into an onside position does not constitute "interfering with play".

In fact, FM was wrongly calling players offside after the rule was changed, so it's good that's it's now getting the calls right.

Not being funny but you clearly don't understand what that means properly.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41660000/gif/_41660328_offside_rule_416x300.gif

Those definitions are what an offside position is and as that picture above will tell you (player 1) it isn't an offence to be in an offside position itself.

Not being funny but you clearly don't understand what that means properly.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41660000/gif/_41660328_offside_rule_416x300.gif

Those definitions are what an offside position is and as that picture above will tell you (player 1) it isn't an offence to be in an offside position itself.

That example shows a player 20 meters outside the area in which the ball is played, and is clearly not interfering with play because he wouldn't have received the ball in any case. The picture in the OP shows three Dortmund players within two meters of each other all watching Hlousek play the ball in their direction. If you can't see the difference, I think you'd have to remove that 2by4 in your eye first, no offense.

The graphic was just a simplistic mock up to help understand the rule to people. Fifa have set the rule, FM is following it correctly and if you don't like it then I'm not really bothered. I've tried to explain it to you but you just aren't listening.

The graphic was just a simplistic mock up to help understand the rule to people. Fifa have set the rule, FM is following it correctly and if you don't like it then I'm not really bothered. I've tried to explain it to you but you just aren't listening.

It's just that the rule is not clear at all - it is all up to the referee's interpretation of how involved in the play those players are. You are not in any way "more correct" than me in that respect, since the linesman should have signaled offside when the ball was played and not when Fer received it, and therein lies the problem I try to highlight here:

I believe that FM couldn't possibly follow this rule correctly since it doesn't interpret involvement or interference at all. The video in #10 is a better example of this than the OP.

There have been loads of goals scored recently where the goalscorer was offside at one point during the move; the key issue being that they were no longer offside when the ball was played to them. Themer is right, as is FM.

This discussion cropped up a while back, shortly after the rule was changed. Except then the issue was that FM was not getting the offside calls right; instead it was applying the old offside rule (i.e. the one you're trying to apply). I can't remember what the game was, but I think it was the Europa League Final, and that saw the first high profile goal allowed based on the new offside rule. The goalscorer was clearly offside initially - and the goal would have been disallowed the previous season - but was onside when the final ball was played to him. FM would not have allowed that goal, even though it was a perfectly valid goal, and pretty much what you're situation is. So the current interpretation - which has been changed in newer version of FM - is the correct one. Or at least, the one that referees are told to use.

It's just that the rule is not clear at all - it is all up to the referee's interpretation of how involved in the play those players are. You are not in any way "more correct" than me in that respect, since the linesman should have signaled offside when the ball was played and not when Fer received it, and therein lies the problem I try to highlight here

No, he shouldn't. A player is only offside when he touches the ball, not when it was played. Until you understand that, you won't grasp what people are trying to tell you.

In this instance, although, by the letter of the law, the linesman and FM are correct, I find it exceedingly unlikely that he wouldn't signal offside in real life. However, such an incidence would never happen, as the defence wouldn't be pushing out so aggressively on a half cleared wide ball. In fact they wouldn't be pushing out at all.

So, letter of the law onside call. ME bug.

There have been loads of goals scored recently where the goalscorer was offside at one point during the move; the key issue being that they were no longer offside when the ball was played to them. Themer is right, as is FM.

This discussion cropped up a while back, shortly after the rule was changed. Except then the issue was that FM was not getting the offside calls right; instead it was applying the old offside rule (i.e. the one you're trying to apply). I can't remember what the game was, but I think it was the Europa League Final, and that saw the first high profile goal allowed based on the new offside rule. The goalscorer was clearly offside initially - and the goal would have been disallowed the previous season - but was onside when the final ball was played to him. FM would not have allowed that goal, even though it was a perfectly valid goal, and pretty much what you're situation is. So the current interpretation - which has been changed in newer version of FM - is the correct one. Or at least, the one that referees are told to use.

I can't remember that goal, but it all depends on where he was (in offside) when the ball was played to his teammate. If he was two meters away from the player who received the pass, between him and the goal, I would be very surprised if the referee allowed that. If you can find that real-life example and show me that this situation here and that situation was similar, I'd admit that I was wrong.

However, I'm really not trying to argue this specific case at all (even though that is how it ended up). I am trying to have a look at -how- FM is programmed to deal with offsides, since the video in #10 shows a player clearly interfering with play (he goes into a challenge with a defender - a much clearer case than the OP) but the goal is allowed because he never actually received the ball.

However, I'm really not trying to argue this specific case at all (even though that is how it ended up). I am trying to have a look at -how- FM is programmed to deal with offsides, since the video in #10 shows a player clearly interfering with play (he goes into a challenge with a defender - a much clearer case than the OP) but the goal is allowed because he never actually received the ball.

Unfortunately I can't remember the match and I can't find the goal on youtube - but he was clearly offside by the old offside rule. No question. But by the new law he wasn't. Maybe someone can remember what the game was - I'm pretty sure it was a final or semi-final, and I think it was Europa League.

There's also a van nistelrooy goal that sees him offside by about 20 yards when the first pass is played. But when the ball is actually played to him, he's onside by virtue of being behind the ball. Another goal that would have been offside a while back, but no longer is.

I think you're simply stuck on the old offside rule.

Edit: but the goal in #10 shouldn't have counted IMO (although the linesmen in FM also get it wrong).

Unfortunately I can't remember the match and I can't find the goal on youtube - but he was clearly offside by the old offside rule. No question. But by the new law he wasn't. Maybe someone can remember what the game was - I'm pretty sure it was a final or semi-final, and I think it was Europa League.

There's also a van nistelrooy goal that sees him offside by about 20 yards when the first pass is played. But when the ball is actually played to him, he's onside by virtue of being behind the ball. Another goal that would have been offside a while back, but no longer is.

I think you're simply stuck on the old offside rule.

I have edited the OP, to clarify what I want to discuss

Well I just edited my post above yours, but to recap:

#9 is a goal, nothing wrong with it; it's a carbon copy of the goal I referred to earlier. Offside 10 years ago, but not today.

#10 is either a mistake by the linesman or a mistake in FM. Should not be a goal, as clearly interfering with play. Maybe the implementation in FM is too simplistic and only checks whether a player who actually touches the ball is offside at the time the last ball was played by his team; and not whether a player who was offside when the last ball was played is clearly interfering with play.

Well I just edited my post above yours, but to recap:

#9 is a goal, nothing wrong with it; it's a carbon copy of the goal I referred to earlier. Offside 10 years ago, but not today.

#10 is either a mistake by the linesman or a mistake in FM. Should not be a goal, as clearly interfering with play. Maybe the implementation in FM is too simplistic and only checks whether a player who actually touches the ball is offside at the time the last ball was played by his team; and not whether a player who was offside when the last ball was played is clearly interfering with play.

Well yeah, so the player who -received- the ball must not have been between the goal and the second-last opponent at the time the ball was played right right right In any case, my bad original opening post obscured my point completely. I wanted to know if these were coded refereeing errors or not, and consequently -how- the referee trio decide what is offside and what is not, based on a suspicion that something was not right. Even though #9 was right, and #10 was wrong, imo both questions FM's ability to correctly determine interference.

EDIT - Sorry.

A lot of the time when it's a refereeing mistake the commentary will tell you so. But apparently this isn't always the case; I've had the odd goal disallowed that wasn't offside (but was close) where the commentary had nothing to say about it. So you could check the commentary, but I'm assuming there wasn't anything there.

My gut instinct is that #10 is probably a glitch in determining interference due to it being an own goal. The defender can't be offside, so the ME probably doesn't check offside at all.

I remember offside calls every time a pass was made and someone was in the offside position even if he was like 50 yards away from the play back in older CMs and people cursing and demanding to change it. This is a very similar situation, the player who received the ball was onside, so the ref made the right call.

How is it possible to interfere MORE with play than that? Dortmund got an advantage from having players in offside when the ball was passed from the flank. The ball was passed in their direction, so if Fer hadn't controlled it they would

If my auntie was a bloke she'd be my uncle. The point is, when they were in an offside position, they didn't get involved.

In the first image and the first video, I don't believe any offside offence occurred. FIFA clarified the rules with the last 10 years because they were being erroneously given as offside because 'interfering with play' was too vague a description.

The second video I think you have a fair claim. If nothing else, the attacker was obstructing the goalkeepers view.

Themer - the Daily Mail article contradicts itself. It carefully describes what constitutes interfering with play (getting in peoples way/otherwise distracting), then completely ignores it to write something that makes Hansen look stupid. While Hansen-bashing is a legitimate activity, it rarely makes for reliable news.

Well it wasn't Fer who scored, but one of those two players. It is a very clear offside even if the one player who is onside, Fer, is the one who receives the ball. The two other players are of course interfering, since they are between Fer and the goal. If a referee let something like this slide in a real life match, he would have been beheaded for sure.

The problem is that since it is Fer that receives the ball, the game doesn't recognize that the two others are in offside and interfering with the play. The decision should have been called as the pass leaves Hlousek's foot, not when Fer receives the ball - so this is a programming error. An even worse situation was when my player, who was offside, did NOT receive the ball because the opposing defender reached it first. The interception was clumsy, though, so my player picked up the ball and scored. This should also have been an offside. The fact that the game does not recognize "interference offsides" can have serious consequences.

Sorry but the first paragraph is wrong.

If Fer received the ball and it was him that scored then the goal should be classed as good as he is onside, no matter where the other two players are. None of the other two players are blocking the 'keeper or obstructing him in any way and they are not active so a goal by Fer would - and should - stand. The team doesn't gain any sort of unfair advantage because the goal would have been scored by a player who was onside.

If Fer passed the ball to one of the other players THEN it should be classed as a clear offside for very obvious reasons and unfortunately ridiculous mistakes like this happen in real life as well where players are so clearly offside when they receive the ball.

In my opinion this situation just mimics what can - and does happen - in real life and I will admit that I would be pissed if it against my team as well.

No it shouldn't. They were never going to receive the ball nor made an effort to go for the ball. Neither did they impinge on any defenders nor the goalkeepers sight. They weren't interfering with play.

Exactly.

Referee here. No offside for the first video, second one on the other hand I'd give as offside if and only if, the defender went into that sliding tackle precisely because the striker was moving towards the ball. That's really down to your judgement as the linesman to be honest.

Not offside, but those who changed the laws have obviously never been a keeper.