Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
New offside rule
Covered End
Posts: 52,004
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/new-offside-rule-dermot-gallagher-backs-change-for-new-season
Glad they cleared that up. No possible misunderstandings now :-)
Glad they cleared that up. No possible misunderstandings now :-)
0
Comments
-
Dont think it'll change much... Football is played with such speed these days, there will still be a huge element of guessing0
-
Blimey I hope not.ForeverAddickted said:Dont think it'll change much... Football is played with such speed these days, there will still be a huge element of guessing
0 -
Seems pretty pointless and not really needed. Can see it just leading to more confusion and poor decisions to be honest.
I guess this prevents a player obstructing the goalkeeper during things like free kicks though.1 -
I think it makes the rule fairer on defending teams if applied correctly - but won't stop mistakes being made. In fact you could say it makes a mistake more likely as ref/lino now have to additionally consider if the striker has intentionally attempted to play the ball.0
-
Good about time they wiped away some of the grey areas in the offside rule.2
-
Can someone please explain to this simple soul how this differs from how it used to be before the active/inactive principle came in - i.e. interfering/not interfering with play? Hardly seems new to me!
"If he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch!" Bill Shankly
0 -
They should have just left the old offside rule in place and let officials 'simply' decide if the player was "interfering with play" if in an off side position.
This would still be subjective (and therefore open to debate) - but at least the ref/lino wouldn't need to be a super computer brain to calculate all of the variables required under the modern rules.4 -
Wonder if this will be the case in FIFA 16 too, although FIFA 15 still managed to get last season's offside rule completely wrong a lot of the time anyway (ie by flagging offside even though the offside player was not actually anywhere near the play).0
-
Last season if a player was in an offside position and made an attempt to play the ball but missed, he wouldn't have been flagged offside (unless the ref deemed he was interfering with the keeper's vision). With the new rule he would be given offside providing the ball is in close enough proximity to him, regardless of whether he makes contact or not.bobmunro said:Can someone please explain to this simple soul how this differs from how it used to be before the active/inactive principle came in - i.e. interfering/not interfering with play? Hardly seems new to me!
"If he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch!" Bill Shankly
Sensible adjustment that should've been in place originally.0 -
"Law"0
- Sponsored links:
-
They still have not amended the law to say the ball has to be played forward.
I gave an example a couple of months ago, and this bit backs up what I said:
Interfering with an opponent
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball"
I emphasise the bit in bold.0 -
Sensible change.
Perhaps they could look at the law that makes a player who has been flattened leave the pitch, but not the guy that flattened him.3 -
The changes make sense but it's baffling how they managed to get the law so complicated in the first place.
As a referee myself, the only thing with the law change is that it has the potential to make the game a little more stop start than normal.0 -
Still can't understand it...1
-
Must say this seems a big improvement. To me though still doesn't go far enough in what is interfering with play or the opposition.0
-
Stone himSage said:
As a referee myself
1 -
Still gonna be down to opinion though.0
-
Its a rule by officials, for officials. Until now, 50% of linos wait until a player touches the ball before flagging. The other 50% flag once the player makes an attempt to go for the ball. This 50/50 split is how it happens in matches and is contrary to the laws. This change is a reminder to the 50% that wait, so no real change.0
-
You don't understand it...AddickFC81 said:Still can't understand it...
...but you've decided how it should be applied?AddickFC81 said:Still gonna be down to opinion though.
;-)
0 - Sponsored links:
-
This is going back to interfering with play.
if you attempt to make contact it will now be given off side.
We could see a lot more goals ruled out now.
Can't we go back to calling the people with the flags lino's.0 -
Should just scrub the offside rule, just not needed really0
-
Often thought the same. It would be just like playing at school again. One up front, goal hanging. Plenty of goals.ThreadKiller said:Should just scrub the offside rule, just not needed really
0 -
It's been variously attributed to Danny Blanchflower, Bill Nicholson and Bill Shankly - I can remember the words coming out of Shankly's mouth but he could have just been repeating what others had said.PL54 said:
I thought that was Brian Cloughbobmunro said:
"If he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch!" Bill Shankly
I've never heard it attributed to Cloughie.
Edit: Then I checked and he's on the list of those who possibly said it first! Some other great Clough quotes here:
http://irish-ayes.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/brian-clough-quotes.html
0 -
