Offside

[Bishop Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Very harsh on McLean. Can tell he's not played a lot of football recently. Would hate to see your opinion on Forster, who was considerably worse.

I wouldn't shed a tear if Forster goes.

[Blaster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I wouldn't shed a tear if Forster goes.

Not sure what people expect from 4th and 5th choice centre halfs. If either were likely to start most games I'd be more concerned but as backups they do ok

McLean will leave anyway and one of the younger lads take his place as backup

[Bayern Bru]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure what people expect from 4th and 5th choice centre halfs. If either were likely to start most games I'd be more concerned but as backups they do ok

McLean will leave anyway and one of the younger lads take his place as backup

Ryan Porteous has been very impressive for the dev squad

[Hibernia&Alba]

Nobody is totally sure what is onside and what is offside under the current rule. All this active/inactive; onside at one moment, offside the next. It's become totally subjective. I'd be in favour of a return to the rule that any team member in an offside position means the whistle goes.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody is totally sure what is onside and what is offside under the current rule. All this active/inactive; onside at one moment, offside the next. It's become totally subjective. I'd be in favour of a return to the rule that any team member in an offside position means the whistle goes.

It's really not that difficult. Your either offside or your not.

Any part of your body that can score in front of a defender, offside.
Attempt to play the ball, offside.

Nothing subjective about it.

Last night's is only being spoken about as it happened so quickly, our boy running out, their boy sprinting in, so within milliseconds there was about 10-15 yards between them. I thought it was onside at the time, and a very difficult call for the linesman to make.

If you return to your rule then the game would be a waste of time. Someones tying their lace in the box, offside. Good tackle which the striker takes a few extra seconds to get up from, offside. Game would never be started.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's really not that difficult. Your either offside or your not.

Any part of your body that can score in front of a defender, offside.
Attempt to play the ball, offside.

Nothing subjective about it.

Last night's is only being spoken about as it happened so quickly, our boy running out, their boy sprinting in, so within milliseconds there was about 10-15 yards between them. I thought it was onside at the time, and a very difficult call for the linesman to make.

If you return to your rule then the game would be a waste of time. Someones tying their lace in the box, offside. Good tackle which the striker takes a few extra seconds to get up from, offside. Game would never be started.

But surely the active/inactive idea means it is subjective? A player who is deemed offside can suddenly become onside at another phase of play. The game wasn't a waste of time before the rule changes. I would prefer a return to the old system personally. It was much clearer.

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But surely the active/inactive idea means it is subjective? A player who is deemed offside can suddenly become onside at another phase of play. The game wasn't a waste of time before the rule changes. I would prefer a return to the old system personally.

The rules haven't really changed, it's more the guidance that has changed. At all times a player in an offside position was only deemed to be offside if they were actively seeking to interfere with play. I forget exact wording now as it's over 30 years since I took my badge. Unfortunately the interpretation of that rule was eroded over the years to the ridiculous extent that a winger cutting the ball back for a player to score was being given offside. I saw that exact scenario in a game at Crystal Palace. The clarifications that came in a number of years ago have IMO greatly benefited the game by allowing goals that 'wrongly' would have been called offside previously. As usual however players, managers & often commentators, ( Alan Parry is an idiot ) are the last to know the rules & end up wrongly complaining about a correct decision. I agree the phase of play situation can on occasion be confusing but IMO that's a small price to pay for us finally applying the rules (laws) in the manner in which they were originally intended.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rules haven't really changed, it's more the guidance that has changed. At all times a player in an offside position was only deemed to be offside if they were actively seeking to interfere with play. I forget exact wording now as it's over 30 years since I took my badge. Unfortunately the interpretation of that rule was eroded over the years to the ridiculous extent that a winger cutting the ball back for a player to score was being given offside. I saw that exact scenario in a game at Crystal Palace. The clarifications that came in a number of years ago have IMO greatly benefited the game by allowing goals that 'wrongly' would have been called offside previously. As usual however players, managers & often commentators, ( Alan Parry is an idiot ) are the last to know the rules & end up wrongly complaining about a correct decision. I agree the phase of play situation can on occasion be confusing but IMO that's a small price to pay for us finally applying the rules (laws) in the manner in which they were originally intended.

Cheers for that, brog. I do agree it muddies the waters when the so called experts don't seem to know the rules well and don't explain themselves well. I didn't know it was old system which was getting it wrong; exactly my point, it's confusing

[Allant1981]

i paused the highlights a few times and it looks like he is just onside at the goal, timed it very well but the defence should have seen it coming as they were high up the pitch

[wookie70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

i paused the highlights a few times and it looks like he is just onside at the goal, timed it very well but the defence should have seen it coming as they were high up the pitch

Agreed, he was onside whether it was 1980 rules or current rules.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agreed, he was onside whether it was 1980 rules or current rules.

Indeed. As I said it only looks terrible due to the speed our defenders were going out, and the speed he was going in the other direction, putting 10-15 yards between them in a matter of milliseconds.

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rules haven't really changed, it's more the guidance that has changed. At all times a player in an offside position was only deemed to be offside if they were actively seeking to interfere with play. I forget exact wording now as it's over 30 years since I took my badge. Unfortunately the interpretation of that rule was eroded over the years to the ridiculous extent that a winger cutting the ball back for a player to score was being given offside. I saw that exact scenario in a game at Crystal Palace. The clarifications that came in a number of years ago have IMO greatly benefited the game by allowing goals that 'wrongly' would have been called offside previously. As usual however players, managers & often commentators, ( Alan Parry is an idiot ) are the last to know the rules & end up wrongly complaining about a correct decision. I agree the phase of play situation can on occasion be confusing but IMO that's a small price to pay for us finally applying the rules (laws) in the manner in which they were originally intended.

I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a player cuts the ball back for a player to score and us then deemed offside. Wouldn't be under old rule or new. Can you elaborate?

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers for that, brog. I do agree it muddies the waters when the so called experts don't seem to know the rules well and don't explain themselves well. I didn't know it was old system which was getting it wrong; exactly my point, it's confusing

.

Thanks, I really meant to say the principle of the law hadn't changed but you understood my garbled message anyway! The 1st major changes for a long time occurred in early 90's IIRC when level became onside & many further tweaks followed on soon after, especially the clarification about actively seeking to interfere with play. The stuff about which parts of the body constitutes being offside happened much more recently & seems unnecessarily complex & a bit ridiculous but it's all intended to help which is good!

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a player cuts the ball back for a player to score and us then deemed offside. Wouldn't be under old rule or new. Can you elaborate?

I was at Crystal Palace vs Sunderland in the 1980's when that happened. Stan Cummins, the 1st £1m pound man, beat about 3 Palace players & cut the ball back from the byline & quite close to the goal. When the player scored Cummins was behind the last Palace defender. The lino, who was on the far side, saw the sunderland jersey ( Cummins ) in an 'offside' position, raised his flag & the goal was (wrongly) disallowed. On the same day ( IIRC) there was a controversial goal in the LC final at Wembley when Sammy Lee (in an offside position) ducked & Alan Kennedy's shot went in & was allowed. The ref was the infamous Clive Thomas! The fuss which arose from those 2 incidents helped bring about the subsequent clarifications to the laws.

[MB62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a player cuts the ball back for a player to score and us then deemed offside. Wouldn't be under old rule or new. Can you elaborate?

Fir Park v Motherwell, Pat McGinlay rounds the last defender, passes the ball forward past the outcoming keeper and Micky Weir runs forward and knocks it in to the net. Linesman immediately flags for offside for Weir, despite the fact he was BEHIND the ball when Pat played him in.

On Sunday on Sportscene (or whatever it was) they had the referees supervisor on (Cummings I think?) explaining why it was offside.

NAW, Weir was BEHIND the ball, so it was ONSIDE, doesn't matter if the ball was played back, forward or sideways. I'm sure it cost us a win that day as it was late on in the game.