Help with the new offside rule

[ju5tin]

Can anyone help me with the offside rule?

3rd Doncaster goal on Friday one of their players makes a huge leap in the penalty box. The ball goes under him. From the sky+ you can see he starts his jump with the ball to his left and lands with it on his right and he is in direct line of sight between flavs and the ball.

The leaper is in an offside position so he is interfering with play and therefore offside?


Can a player leap, step over, block the goalies view etc…… as long as he does not touch the ball?

Im not asking why the goal wasn’t disallowed, we lost the game, but why isn’t it offside?

Thanks.

 

[fredheim_holm]

No-one knows the answer, thats what you get with saying referee's can use their judgement.

For me, that's CLEARLY offside. You must be interfering with play there.

It doesn't bother me though as the game had gone by that point.

That's the reason why its not offside.

Regarding the ruling, I'm not too sure on the terminology, but it basically states that:

A player can only be called offside if they are interfering with play.

 

[Ayrshire Blue]

Can anyone help me with the offside rule?

3rd Doncaster goal on Friday one of their players makes a huge leap in the penalty box. The ball goes under him. From the sky+ you can see he starts his jump with the ball to his left and lands with it on his right and he is in direct line of sight between flavs and the ball.

The leaper is in an offside position so he is interfering with play and therefore offside?


Can a player leap, step over, block the goalies view etc…… as long as he does not touch the ball?

Im not asking why the goal wasn’t disallowed, we lost the game, but why isn’t it offside?

Thanks.

Good question but i don't think anyone knows the answer.

 

[BrettieAngell]

Thats offside IMO.

 

[A Century United]

As stated on another thread, and gently pointed out by me on the night, that is clearly offside under the NEW laws. But when it isn't your night, it isn't your night, and perhaps now it is time to look ahead and put all this behind us.

 

[The General]

2 offside, surely!?

;)

 

[Mick]

Law 11 states:

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

The assistant referee who has to make the call is not always best placed to tell whether a player is obstructing a keeper's line of vision. He may have thought that jumping, as he did, he was actually allowing the keeper a sight of it.

We played badly on the night (understatement alert!) but we had no luck at all either. As usual, I was less than impressed with Halsey.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Halsey is a Knob jockey who knows nothing about refereeing!!!

 

[ju5tin]

As stated on another thread, and gently pointed out by me on the night, that is clearly offside under the NEW laws. But when it isn't your night, it isn't your night, and perhaps now it is time to look ahead and put all this behind us.

I did say this was a question of "offside" not the game.

I posted because not one of our players even puts a hand up. The goal was replayed loads on TV and there wasnt even a mention of offside.

I read most of fridays post but I missed that one.

 

[steveo]

they seem to focus on if a player is active which they seem to interpret as is he attempting to get the ball or not. In any case the lino has an impossible job which is always ignored. He has to look at when the ball is played and the position of the last defender, all at the same time which is not physically possible, especially if it is played from inside the other half of the pitch. What's the answer?

 

[A Century United]

2 offside, surely!?

;)

Na, because:

1: JJ Price is not interfering with play under the new Law, and

2. JJ Price is clearly exempt from all the Laws.

:'(

 

[A Century United]

Law 11 states:

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

The assistant referee who has to make the call is not always best placed to tell whether a player is obstructing a keeper's line of vision. He may have thought that jumping, as he did, he was actually allowing the keeper a sight of it.

We played badly on the night (understatement alert!) but we had no luck at all either. As usual, I was less than impressed with Halsey.

I told my son we were screwed the minute I saw who the ref was.

 

[A Century United]

I did say this was a question of "offside" not the game.

I posted because not one of our players even puts a hand up. The goal was replayed loads on TV and there wasnt even a mention of offside.

I read most of fridays post but I missed that one.

Wasn't directed at you at all, it's a very valid point and I am pleased to see the picture so clearly illustrating it. And I too am suprised that no one appealed or has since mentioned it.

Many, many years ago I went to a game at P'boro where we were beaten by 5, and it was a similar thing, every shot they took went in, including an own goal by (Otulakowski?) who received a hearty shove that took him into the path of the ball for the deflection, and no one appealed a clear foul.

 

[ju5tin]

I was thinking a leap, jump, obstruction, dive etc... in an offside position was offside. (anything other than being a bystander)

The linesman had a clear view of the leap (it was huge) and that he was in an offside position?

 

[Firestorm]

I was thinking a leap, jump, obstruction, dive etc... in an offside position was offside. (anything other than being a bystander)

The linesman had a clear view of the leap (it was huge) and that he was in an offside position?

I think that the current interpretation given to Refs is that they are not "active" unless they play the ball, thus the jump was to avoid playing the ball and thus being offside.

Ok the First was not a pen, the 2nd was a shove on barratt, the Third Offside, The Fourth was not a foul, We have grounds here for a Leeds style "everyone is against us" season long blub here

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

I told my son we were screwed the minute I saw who the ref was.

Me too, interesting quote from a Geordie site

Mark Halsey, originally from Welwyn Garden City in Hertfordshire, but now based in Bolton in Lancashire, is 44 years old. He is taking charge of his 4th Newcastle match of the season, and the 3rd in the Premiership, having been in the middle at Stamford Bridge and Anfield, and for our Carling Cup tie at Grimsby, although this is his 1st trip to St James’ Park this campaign.

Mark Halsey Background

Mark has been a fixture on the Football League since the mid-90’s, and his big step up to the Premier League came in 1999 after he refereed a very contentious Play-Off Final between Gillingham and Manchester City. Gillingham were 2-0 ahead in the closing minutes, but Halsey allowed 5 minutes of injury time and ity pulled level at 2-2, and then won on penalties. Halsey was then seen drinking with City fans in the aftermath of the game, which saw Gillingham complain and demand the game be replayed. Halsey defiantly responded “As far as I am concerned the Gillingham fans are clutching at straws. For the record, I'm a QPR fan."

So it does seem he has a history of favouring the northern teams, also our drubbing of QPR maybe another reason he dislikes us. ;)

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

Christ this is one boring thread.

 

[TBV_Dan]

No-one knows the answer, thats what you get with saying referee's can use their judgement.

For me, that's CLEARLY offside. You must be interfering with play there.

It doesn't bother me though as the game had gone by that point.

That's the reason why its not offside.

Regarding the ruling, I'm not too sure on the terminology, but it basically states that:

A player can only be called offside if they are interfering with play.

Yeah, but we could have clawed back 4 goals, then we would feel like we had been robbed of the game because the goal (In my opinion) was offside, the player was interfering with play, maybe blocking the view of Flahavan.

 

[C C Csiders]

Yeah, but we could have clawed back 4 goals, then we would feel like we had been robbed of the game because the goal (In my opinion) was offside, the player was interfering with play, maybe blocking the view of Flahavan.

To be fair though Shellhavens view would be blocked by a stray daisy growing on the pitch.

 

[Angell Delight]

As a referee myself it's clearly offside, however speaking as an assistant also it's sometimes difficult to decipher from a position on the line (possibly with bodies in front) whether a player who does this is truly interfering with play. On this occasion though the goal should certainly have been disallowed.

Oh and can I shamelessly plug my monthly refereeing column in Total Youth Football magazine here while I'm at it?!! Check it out guys, the mag really is a fantastic read!!

;)