Offside

[GordonCowansisthegreatest]

None!

[lovejoy]

If you think Rhodri intercepted Mings pass rather than tackling him - would he have been onside as he “received it”?

Ignore whether you think he did this or tackled Mings for a second.

[wittonwarrior]

It’s an easy one either your onside or offside   There should not be any grey areas

[frank black]

It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.

I believe this part of the off side rule is specifically there to cover off when defenders deliberately touch the ball back i.e back pass or a touch back to another player and it falls to an opponent. It’s been badly interpreted or IMO VAR didn’t actually replay the goal from that moment and therefore cocked up. All the comments afterwards are an attempt to cover up their error.

[aj2k77]

I think Mings touched the ball before Rhodri challenged for it, so his touch put Rhodri onside enabling him to rob Mings from an onside position.

Personally I think a player who has been offside cannot get involved in that phase of play but this would need a rule change.

So a player that goes up for a header let's say and the header goes up in the air above him, the bloke that was 10 yards behind him and offside can steam in and challenge him from behind for the second header?

The rule has never, ever, been implemented like all of a sudden it is. It's purely to cover up a massive clanger, but in doing so they've opened up a right can of worms for themselves here. Watch it snowball.

[The Edge]

I think Mings touched the ball before Rhodri challenged for it, so his touch put Rhodri onside enabling him to rob Mings from an onside position.

Personally I think a player who has been offside cannot get involved in that phase of play but this would need a rule change.

So a player that goes up for a header let's say and the header goes up in the air above him, the bloke that was 10 yards behind him and offside can steam in and challenge him from behind for the second header?

The rule has never, ever, been implemented like all of a sudden it is. It's purely to cover up a massive clanger, but in doing so they've opened up a right can of worms for themselves here. Watch it snowball.

Sickening isn't it? They are prepared to go to any lengths to cover each others backs rather than admit to a mistake being made. It's time the game was taken back from these self serving arseholes.

[old man villa fan]

It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.

However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.

Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.

I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?

No. A save is defined as stopping the ball going into, or very near to the goal. This was a cross that was going nowehere near the goal.

I posted the following in the Newcastle post-match thread.

If Watkins had not been behind the ball when it was kicked, he should have been offside.

The Offsite rule states A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)

The defender did not know that Watkins was onside or offside and had to play the ball to try and prevent Watkins scoring.  Watkins would have been gaining an advantage.  In a similar way, Rodri should have been offside.  Both are different to a defender making a back pass that goes to the attacker, for which the rule (I believe) was intended.

Interpretation of the rules are made up by officials, pundits and other 'experts' as they go along.  I think the FA should come out with a detailed explanation of each rule with as many different examples of each situation and publish videos of each that football from top to bottom could learn from.

I understand your take on 'near to the goal' but there is not clarification of the distance.  Yours is your interpretation.

I think the point is that there is a big difference in a player attempting to play the ball (whether it is a through ball or cross) when he is unsure whether the attacker is onside or not and a player coming from an offside position to make a tackle.  The offside rule was to stop the attacker seeking to gain an advantage by being closer to the goal than the defender.

[lovejoy]

Bottom line for me is that the law SHOULD be there to stop an attacker gaining advantage from being offside, currently it doesn’t.

I’d make any player offside basically unable to be involved in that phase of play.

[Neil Hawkes]

So what law states 'phase of play' or 'opponent touches the ball' as the time a player can rejoin the game ?

It's called common sense. Much the same principal as you are not allowed to track a goalkeeper and kick the ball in-between him letting go/dropping the ball to his foot to kick it.

[Neil Hawkes]

If you think Rhodri intercepted Mings pass rather than tackling him - would he have been onside as he “received it”?

Ignore whether you think he did this or tackled Mings for a second.

If Mings tried a pass, then yes, Rodri was then onside.

[lovejoy]

Ok so this all revolves around whether Rhodri tackles Mings or if he intercepted a pass attempt.

[TelfordVilla]

Law 11 part one says rodri is given offside as soon as he challenges for the ball. End of story. No need to read any further into the law. Watkins on the other hand did not challenge for the ball so law 11 part two comes into the equation. Since watkins received the ball from an opponent he is fine to head it hone and celebrate a legal goal.

[Ian.]

There was a time when you only had to explain offside to your girlfriend at the time but now nobody knows what the law is.

[wittonwarrior]

Do they have VAR in the Europa cup asking for a friend

[usav]

I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?

Ollie might have been ahead of the defender, but he wasn’t ahead of the ball, that’s why he was onside.