One for the refs on here...

[Future17]

...or just anyone that knows the rules or can be bothered to search them and explain them to me! :greengrin

Not long into the Arsenal game last night, they played a free-kick into the Monaco box. Nobody was offside when the ball was kicked and the Monaco defender, Abdennour, got his head to it but sent it towards his own goal. Koscielny, who would have been in an offside position had the touch been from an Arsenal player instead of a Monaco one, then had a chance which he hit off the bar and over.

The linesman flagged for offside against Koscielny, which was given by the referee. I presume he thought the touch had come from an Arsenal player and had simply got it wrong. However, the commentator then said, on several occasions while replays were shown, that a touch from a defender in that situation had to be "deliberate". He later said it had to be a "conscious" touch or something like that. Basically, he was claiming that Koscielny was offside.

So, I have the following questions:

What is this rule all about and is it new?

What is meant by a deliberate/conscious touch and how do the refs determine whether or not the touch is deliberate/conscious?

[Geo_1875]

That sounds like a loadapish to me. How can a defender jump to header a ball and get an "unconscious" touch?

[JeMeSouviens]

It's right enough, it's to do with phases.

When the ball was played in by the Arsenal player, Koscielny is in an offside position, so if it goes straight to him it's offside.

If it goes to another Arsenal player that was onside and Koscielny gets back onside, then receives the ball, he's fine because that's a new phase of play.

Similarly, if a defender is deemed to have deliberately played the ball, then it's considered a new phase of play and none of the attackers can be offside. If the ball deflects off a defender, it's not considered a new phase.

[Onceinawhile]

It's right enough, it's to do with phases.

When the ball was played in by the Arsenal player, Koscielny is in an offside position, so if it goes straight to him it's offside.

If it goes to another Arsenal player that was onside and Koscielny gets back onside, then receives the ball, he's fine because that's a new phase of play.

Similarly, if a defender is deemed to have deliberately played the ball, then it's considered a new phase of play and none of the attackers can be offside. If the ball deflects off a defender, it's not considered a new phase.

He wasn't in an offside position when the arsenal player put the ball in though. Commentators didn't seem to grasp that and were therefore talking mince.

[scuttle]

As far as I understand it not having seen the incident yet ,he should have been onside if the last touch was from an opponent

[Future17]

It's right enough, it's to do with phases.

When the ball was played in by the Arsenal player, Koscielny is in an offside position, so if it goes straight to him it's offside.

If it goes to another Arsenal player that was onside and Koscielny gets back onside, then receives the ball, he's fine because that's a new phase of play.

Similarly, if a defender is deemed to have deliberately played the ball, then it's considered a new phase of play and none of the attackers can be offside. If the ball deflects off a defender, it's not considered a new phase.

That makes slight sense although, as AntwerpHibs has said, I don't think Koscielny was offside when the free-kick was taken.

In any event, it wasn't a deflection; the defender was quite clearly attempting to play the ball. Surely the fact that he got his header wrong shouldn't make a difference?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Yeh I thought that was funny too. How can a defender competing for the ball not be deliberately trying to play it?

The muffin mans goal against Cowdenbeath was a good example. Because the Cowden player deliberately played the ball to the keeper JC was onside .... whereas if he had been trying to lump the ball up field and it had hit a team mate and rebounded to JC he would have been offside.

Just a wee note on this:

If JC tries the same move against the Zombies the goal will be disallowed and he will be booked for ungentlemanly conduct for hiding behind the keeper :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

whereas if he had been trying to lump the ball up field and it had hit a team mate and rebounded to JC he would have been offside.

No he wouldn't have.

[JimBHibees]

No he wouldn't have.

Depends whose teammate it rebounded off

[JeMeSouviens]

That makes slight sense although, as AntwerpHibs has said, I don't think Koscielny was offside when the free-kick was taken.

In any event, it wasn't a deflection; the defender was quite clearly attempting to play the ball. Surely the fact that he got his header wrong shouldn't make a difference?

Sorry, I didn't see the game so was just being hypothetical and yes, you're right, if the ref thinks he's trying to head the ball then that should be a new phase.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yeh I thought that was funny too. How can a defender competing for the ball not be deliberately trying to play it?

The muffin mans goal against Cowdenbeath was a good example. Because the Cowden player deliberately played the ball to the keeper JC was onside .... whereas if he had been trying to lump the ball up field and it had hit a team mate and rebounded to JC he would have been offside.

Just a wee note on this:

If JC tries the same move against the Zombies the goal will be disallowed and he will be booked for ungentlemanly conduct for hiding behind the keeper :greengrin

No, JC is not offside if a defender is playing the ball, no matter the direction.

[NAE NOOKIE]

No, JC is not offside if a defender is playing the ball, no matter the direction.

In my Cummings scenario the defender is trying to clear the ball up the park, away from his goal, and it cannons back towards his goal because it has hit a team mate standing in front of him, I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If as folk are saying for the attacker to be onside the last opposition player to touch the ball before him has to have played it deliberately he cant be onside, can he.

[NAE NOOKIE]

No he wouldn't have.

See post #12

[Titch]

In my Cummings scenario the defender is trying to clear the ball up the park, away from his goal, and it cannons back towards his goal because it has hit a team mate standing in front of him, I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If as folk are saying for the attacker to be onside the last opposition player to touch the ball before him has to have played it deliberately he cant be onside, can he.

depends whos team mate your talking about Cummings or the defenders

[NAE NOOKIE]

depends whos team mate your talking about Cummings or the defenders

The defenders

[Future17]

In my Cummings scenario the defender is trying to clear the ball up the park, away from his goal, and it cannons back towards his goal because it has hit a team mate standing in front of him, I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If as folk are saying for the attacker to be onside the last opposition player to touch the ball before him has to have played it deliberately he cant be onside, can he.

I get what you're saying but, in your example, the last player to intentionally play the ball would still be Cummings opponent (before the deflection)...so he would still be onside.

I thought Figo was talking nonsense the other day about reverting to the old offside rule, but now I'm not so sure.

[Future17]

Sorry, I didn't see the game so was just being hypothetical and yes, you're right, if the ref thinks he's trying to head the ball then that should be a new phase.

Cheers. I tried to find the clip online to add it to the thread but no joy.

[Titch]

The defenders

onside if thats the case

[JeMeSouviens]

In my Cummings scenario the defender is trying to clear the ball up the park, away from his goal, and it cannons back towards his goal because it has hit a team mate standing in front of him, I thought that was pretty clear from my post. If as folk are saying for the attacker to be onside the last opposition player to touch the ball before him has to have played it deliberately he cant be onside, can he.

The last player didn't try to play the ball so the offside decision should be where JC is when the previous player touched the ball. As the previous player is a defender, JC can't be given offside even if he's in an offside position.

[NAE NOOKIE]

The last player didn't try to play the ball so the offside decision should be where JC is when the previous player touched the ball. As the previous player is a defender, JC can't be given offside even if he's in an offside position.

Life was easier when I decided to try and not bother understanding the offside rule ... my only consolation is that most refs don't either :confused:

[Geo_1875]

It's the poor women who have studied the offside rule for years and finally think they understood it that I feel sorry for.

[HIBEES 4 LIFE]

Like many before I have not seen the exact incident. If Koscielny was onside when the original pass was played then this should never have been called offside.

If he was in an offside position when the original free kick was taken then the correct decision has been made. The fact that the defender touched the ball in that situation is kind of irrelevant, if the defenders reason to attempt the clearance was because the ball was heading towards/near an offside Koscielny then its not a new "phase". As if Koscielny was not in the offside position then the defender would not have to clear it.

The rules are not clear enough, but this is the rule in this situation.

[CockneyRebel]

It's the poor women who have studied the offside rule for years and finally think they understood it that I feel sorry for.


Miaow!

[blackpoolhibs]

I think the commentator was talking bollox, if that was the case then Cummings goal on Saturday would surely be offside?

[BoomtownHibees]

I think the commentator was talking bollox, if that was the case then Cummings goal on Saturday would surely be offside?

No as it was a deliberate pass in that direction.

My opinion is that the commentator was talking nonsense

[tamig]

The ref in the Arsenal game was dreadful throughout the game. This was just one example of his many mistakes.

[brog]

...or just anyone that knows the rules or can be bothered to search them and explain them to me! :greengrin

Not long into the Arsenal game last night, they played a free-kick into the Monaco box. Nobody was offside when the ball was kicked and the Monaco defender, Abdennour, got his head to it but sent it towards his own goal. Koscielny, who would have been in an offside position had the touch been from an Arsenal player instead of a Monaco one, then had a chance which he hit off the bar and over.

The linesman flagged for offside against Koscielny, which was given by the referee. I presume he thought the touch had come from an Arsenal player and had simply got it wrong. However, the commentator then said, on several occasions while replays were shown, that a touch from a defender in that situation had to be "deliberate". He later said it had to be a "conscious" touch or something like that. Basically, he was claiming that Koscielny was offside.

So, I have the following questions:

What is this rule all about and is it new?

What is meant by a deliberate/conscious touch and how do the refs determine whether or not the touch is deliberate/conscious?


The Law of the game is very short, pretty simple & effectively hasn't really changed for many years, ie since level became onside rather than offside. What has changed is the emphasis to refs to apply the law correctly, ie players in an "offside" position must be seeking to gain an advantage by being there. We had got to the position where linos were raising their flag every time a player appeared to be in an offside position regardless of any impact on the game or where they were standing relevant to the action area. To put it another way, 90% of the goals created by Stan Mathews would have been disallowed as he was inevitably in an "offside" position when he cut the ball back from the bye line for another player to make a goal attempt. I saw an extreme example of that in a Palace-Sunderland game about 20+ years ago. With the example the other night it's basically down to commentators' non comprehension of the rules & Martin Keown is a serial offender here.
To make it simple if a player from team A is offside when a ball is intended to be hit to him he remains offside even if the ball skims off a defender from team B en route. If however Team B defender controls the intended pass, turns round & passes back, then Team A attacker is now onside.

[WeeRussell]

I had it down as simple as: as long as YOU are onside when someone from YOUR team makes contact with the ball... it doesn't matter what happens after that in regards to opponents touching the ball... you are onside. :confused:

[brog]

I had it down as simple as: as long as YOU are onside when someone from YOUR team makes contact with the ball... it doesn't matter what happens after that in regards to opponents touching the ball... you are onside. :confused:


That is 100% correct. If Koscielny was onside originally the other night ( i didn't see ) then the commentator is talking Tom Kite. The confusion arises when you are behind the last defender but not necessarily offside or even when you are offside but a different phase of play develops.

[Geo_1875]

The Law of the game is very short, pretty simple & effectively hasn't really changed for many years, ie since level became onside rather than offside. What has changed is the emphasis to refs to apply the law correctly, ie players in an "offside" position must be seeking to gain an advantage by being there. We had got to the position where linos were raising their flag every time a player appeared to be in an offside position regardless of any impact on the game or where they were standing relevant to the action area. To put it another way, 90% of the goals created by Stan Mathews would have been disallowed as he was inevitably in an "offside" position when he cut the ball back from the bye line for another player to make a goal attempt. I saw an extreme example of that in a Palace-Sunderland game about 20+ years ago. With the example the other night it's basically down to commentators' non comprehension of the rules & Martin Keown is a serial offender here.
To make it simple if a player from team A is offside when a ball is intended to be hit to him he remains offside even if the ball skims off a defender from team B en route. If however Team B defender controls the intended pass, turns round & passes back, then Team A attacker is now onside.

Pretty sure a player can't be called offside after cutting the ball back unless the ball is passed directly to him Otherwise it would be impossible to score from a corner.

[brog]

The law specifically states u cant b offside from a corner but i saw Stam Cummings beat 3 Palace players, cut the ball back 4 a wonder goal only to b given offside. It happend 2 regularly.

[Future17]

Pretty sure a player can't be called offside after cutting the ball back unless the ball is passed directly to him Otherwise it would be impossible to score from a corner.

My understanding is that the rule is a player cannot be offside if he is behind his teammate when a pass is played. The direction of the pass is almost irrelevant...albeit it can be used as a guide for the ref and assistant.

[brog]

My understanding is that the rule is a player cannot be offside if he is behind his teammate when a pass is played. The direction of the pass is almost irrelevant...albeit it can be used as a guide for the ref and assistant.


That is also 100% correct but when the person receiving the pass shoots for goal then the pass provider is often in an "offside" position & in prior years would have wrongly been flagged for offside.