Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Offside - Spain v France final

I was of the understanding that if a ball is played to a player in an offside position even though the ball is subsequently deflected into the attackers path by the opposition, it is still offside. It is being heavily discussed on Spanish tv and there seems to be two opinions. Obviously VAR allowed the goal but I’m confused. Am I becoming a girlie or have the offside rules changed again? 

Comments

  • Solidgone said:
    I was of the understanding that if a ball is played to a player in an offside position even though the ball is subsequently deflected into the attackers path by the opposition, it is still offside. It is being heavily discussed on Spanish tv and there seems to be two opinions. Obviously VAR allowed the goal but I’m confused. Am I becoming a girlie or have the offside rules changed again? 
    Offside In my opinion and I'm surprised it was allowed. I think the refs were English as well so shows how crap our refereeing has got to.
  • edited October 11
    I thought if the ball was last played by the opposition then its onside.

    Same as if you come back from being offside & the opposition player then touches it, you can then challenge that player, win the ball & score - even though you were 10 yards offside just seconds before.

    Laws that seem to have been amended without the general public knowing.....until it happens in a televised match & is debated widely.....and then the officials roll out Law 31.6 subsection 10 and show its all there in black & white.
  • I thought if the ball was last played by the opposition then its onside.

    Same as if you come back from being offside & the opposition player then touches it, you can then challenge that player, win the ball & score - even though you were 10 yards offside just seconds before.

    Laws that seem to have been amended without the general public knowing.....until it happens in a televised match & is debated widely.....and then the officials roll out Law 31.6 subsection 10 and show its all there in black & white.

    The key to this is if the ball is last played 'deliberately' by an opposition player then the attacking player in an otherwise offside position would be played onside. A deflection is not playing the ball 'deliberately' - I haven't seen the game but if it was a deflection and not a deliberate playing of the ball by the defender then that does not play the attacking player onside.
  • The defender stuck a leg out to block the pass. The ball hit his foot and then into the path of Mappe. 
  • Offside when the ball was played, so offside in my view.
  • Solidgone said:
    The defender stuck a leg out to block the pass. The ball hit his foot and then into the path of Mappe. 

    That sounds like a deliberate attempt by the defender to play the ball - in which case Mbappe would be played onside.
  • Offside when the ball was played, so offside in my view.

    Not what the laws of the game say - it is when the player becomes active. It may be heading in his direction when in an offside position but he is only deemed offside if he becomes active. If before becoming active it is deliberately played by a defender then the attacker cannot be offside.
  • edited October 11
    bobmunro said:
    I thought if the ball was last played by the opposition then its onside.

    Same as if you come back from being offside & the opposition player then touches it, you can then challenge that player, win the ball & score - even though you were 10 yards offside just seconds before.

    Laws that seem to have been amended without the general public knowing.....until it happens in a televised match & is debated widely.....and then the officials roll out Law 31.6 subsection 10 and show its all there in black & white.

    The key to this is if the ball is last played 'deliberately' by an opposition player then the attacking player in an otherwise offside position would be played onside. A deflection is not playing the ball 'deliberately' - I haven't seen the game but if it was a deflection and not a deliberate playing of the ball by the defender then that does not play the attacking player onside.
    This is correct if the player who is in an offside position impacts the opposition player’s ability to deliberately play the ball.

    As you may remember, an incident of some similar nature happened between Man City and Aston Villa last season involving Mings, Rodri and eventually Bernardo Silva scoring. They changed the law after this to clarify the goal would now not have stood.

    They’ve made the law of offside so unnecessarily complex that officials struggle with it and have their own interpretations. This is poor and only will allow for such confusing situations to occur often where people will have differing opinions of whether it’s offside or not.

    I don’t know why they can’t make it simple by having ‘if a player is in an offside position when the ball is played, and either interferes with play or gains an advantage through possession of the ball, whether it is from a team mate or an opposition player, playing the ball both deliberately or not, the said player is offside.’
  • However, the other aspect to that last paragraph would be a player is not offside if the opposition deliberately play the ball backwards where a player who may be in an offside position goes on to gain an advantage, and ultimately could score.

    There needs to be very clear laws and right now, it isn’t so clear.
  • bobmunro said:
    Offside when the ball was played, so offside in my view.

    Not what the laws of the game say - it is when the player becomes active. It may be heading in his direction when in an offside position but he is only deemed offside if he becomes active. If before becoming active it is deliberately played by a defender then the attacker cannot be offside.
    Yes, this.
  • Sponsored links:


  • In does, in theory, mean you could have a player offside all game with the hope that the opposition make a deliberate attempt to play the ball. The ball eventually goes to the player who can have a one on one situation with the keeper.
  • Sage said:
    bobmunro said:
    I thought if the ball was last played by the opposition then its onside.

    Same as if you come back from being offside & the opposition player then touches it, you can then challenge that player, win the ball & score - even though you were 10 yards offside just seconds before.

    Laws that seem to have been amended without the general public knowing.....until it happens in a televised match & is debated widely.....and then the officials roll out Law 31.6 subsection 10 and show its all there in black & white.

    The key to this is if the ball is last played 'deliberately' by an opposition player then the attacking player in an otherwise offside position would be played onside. A deflection is not playing the ball 'deliberately' - I haven't seen the game but if it was a deflection and not a deliberate playing of the ball by the defender then that does not play the attacking player onside.
    This is correct if the player who is in an offside position impacts the opposition player’s ability to deliberately play the ball.

    As you may remember, an incident of some similar nature happened between Man City and Aston Villa last season involving Mings, Rodri and eventually Bernardo Silva scoring. They changed the law after this to clarify the goal would now not have stood.

    This is the incident I was alluding to in my post. I remember the furore at the time & it was widely debated on MOTD with all the pundits saying the Man City player was offside. They then read out a statement from the Referees Association (or whoever) pointing out the relevant law.

    So you are now saying that they've changed the law back (as no one remembered it changing in the first place and I've seen many instances where the attacker is immediately flagged offside when coming back to challenge a defender) because it was too complicated. 

    Why do I sense of arse covering somewhere along the line here.
  • Glad that got sorted out.
  • Sage said:
    In does, in theory, mean you could have a player offside all game with the hope that the opposition make a deliberate attempt to play the ball. The ball eventually goes to the player who can have a one on one situation with the keeper.
    Didn't Thierry Henry do that to us in the 4-2 game at Highbury.
  • I understand the rule and Bob is right but.........it's a bullshit rule.

    He was offside when the ball was played forward, has gained a clear advantage by being offside, and regardless that it then touched Garcia, i think it should still be given offside.

    If Mbappe wasn't offside and clear of Garcia then maybe he doesn't need to make a desperate lunge to try and get the ball. But he did, deflected it, and then that makes mbappe suddenly onside. Ridiculous.
  • I understand the rule and Bob is right but.........it's a bullshit rule.

    He was offside when the ball was played forward, has gained a clear advantage by being offside, and regardless that it then touched Garcia, i think it should still be given offside.

    If Mbappe wasn't offside and clear of Garcia then maybe he doesn't need to make a desperate lunge to try and get the ball. But he did, deflected it, and then that makes mbappe suddenly onside. Ridiculous.
    Completely agree. I think the only situation that it isn’t ridiculous is if a player passes it back to the keeper but a player in an offside position intercepts play. In the attempt to lunge and stop that from happening, it’s ridiculous. If the ball doesn’t touch Garcia, Mbappe is offside, for example.
  • Sage said:
    bobmunro said:
    I thought if the ball was last played by the opposition then its onside.

    Same as if you come back from being offside & the opposition player then touches it, you can then challenge that player, win the ball & score - even though you were 10 yards offside just seconds before.

    Laws that seem to have been amended without the general public knowing.....until it happens in a televised match & is debated widely.....and then the officials roll out Law 31.6 subsection 10 and show its all there in black & white.

    The key to this is if the ball is last played 'deliberately' by an opposition player then the attacking player in an otherwise offside position would be played onside. A deflection is not playing the ball 'deliberately' - I haven't seen the game but if it was a deflection and not a deliberate playing of the ball by the defender then that does not play the attacking player onside.
    This is correct if the player who is in an offside position impacts the opposition player’s ability to deliberately play the ball.

    As you may remember, an incident of some similar nature happened between Man City and Aston Villa last season involving Mings, Rodri and eventually Bernardo Silva scoring. They changed the law after this to clarify the goal would now not have stood.

    This is the incident I was alluding to in my post. I remember the furore at the time & it was widely debated on MOTD with all the pundits saying the Man City player was offside. They then read out a statement from the Referees Association (or whoever) pointing out the relevant law.

    So you are now saying that they've changed the law back (as no one remembered it changing in the first place and I've seen many instances where the attacker is immediately flagged offside when coming back to challenge a defender) because it was too complicated. 

    Why do I sense of arse covering somewhere along the line here.
    It’s very complicated but yes they since changed the law. There was an article on the BBC about it. I agree it does seem like a bit of arse covering and in this instance, Man City came out beneficiary’s from it.
  • The more I think about it, the more I doubt if I am right and a law of the game shouldn’t do that. Shows how ridiculous and confusing it is.
  • The law has not fundamentally changed but was tweaked after the Mings incident. 

    For some years now, if a player in an offside position receives the ball, having been deliberately played last by an opposing defender, then no offence of offside has occurred. If however, the same opponent has not deliberately played the ball (it inadvertantly touches him), then the forward is adjudged to be offside.
     
    The Mings incident was when he chested down the ball, with a player behind him in an offside position. Mings was slow in controlling the ball and the offending offside forward ran back from an offside position to win the ball back from Mings and subsequently score; the goal was allowed. Subsequently the law was tweaked to disallow such a goal, on the basis that Mings had not deliberately played the ball at that stage (still trying to control it). Therefore that incident was not covered by the "deliberately played" scenario that covers that previously-described offside incident.
  • 100% offside. It’s crazy to think the defender has to leave it rather than make an effort to stop it. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • The defender was punished for being just about quick enough to get his toe on it  , if he was a slow ponderous cat funt like me he wouldn’t have got there and the decision would have been offside , all whilst playing to the whistle .
    ridiculous decision /ruling / law or whatever it is 
  • The that gets me, is where a player is in an offside position runs back into his own half to receive the ball, then given offside.
  • The that gets me, is where a player is in an offside position runs back into his own half to receive the ball, then given offside.
    That is because the judgement on offside is made when the ball was last played not when the "offside" player receives the ball.

    Your post reminds me of the often asked question "can a player be offside if the ball is played backwards?" Yes, is the answer.
  • They interviewed Dermot Gallagher about the goal on sky.
    He said that the ref was correct to award the goal under the current laws....but also stated that he did not like the law itself.
  • PeterGage said:
    The that gets me, is where a player is in an offside position runs back into his own half to receive the ball, then given offside.
    That is because the judgement on offside is made when the ball was last played not when the "offside" player receives the ball.

    Your post reminds me of the often asked question "can a player be offside if the ball is played backwards?" Yes, is the answer.
    Yes, but only if the receiving player is in an offside position when the ball is played.
  • PeterGage said:
    The that gets me, is where a player is in an offside position runs back into his own half to receive the ball, then given offside.
    That is because the judgement on offside is made when the ball was last played not when the "offside" player receives the ball.

    Your post reminds me of the often asked question "can a player be offside if the ball is played backwards?" Yes, is the answer.
    Yes, I know it's when the ball is played, however I think that once you're in your own half, you can't be offside.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!