Offside

[The Edge]

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.

I didn't spot that so thanks for pointing that out. Makes sense now.

[Legion]

My head hurts after trying to digest all that.

[Brend'Watkins]

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.

I didn't spot that so thanks for pointing that out. Makes sense now.

Why were the panel on MOTD last night not aware of this? It’s really quite shocking that they are so clueless....and Dion, you are included too. 

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

Correct, he was onside because of his position in relation to the ball.

But according to VAR, there was no offside check because the defender played the ball.

[SoccerHQ]

Tammy scored a similar one for Chelsea. Was ahead of the defenders but because he was behind the ball when it was cutback there was no issue of offside whatsoever because he simply wasn't.

I really get the feeling premier league made up the touch thing just to get the Rodri offside out of the media agenda but it's a load of nonsense.

[Neil Hawkes]

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

Correct.

[frank black]

They cocked up with the Rodri goal and tried to cover it up by miss interpretation of the rule book. It’s not the mistake that winds me up the most, it’s the whole load of rubbish afterwards. Just put your hands up, admit it and move on.

[The Edge]

They cocked up with the Rodri goal and tried to cover it up by miss interpretation of the rule book. It’s not the mistake that winds me up the most, it’s the whole load of rubbish afterwards. Just put your hands up, admit it and move on.

It's quite obvious they won't admit their mistakes which is why they've made the rules so convoluted. Pathetic bunch of pricks if you ask me.

[Ian.]

For the same reason I’m sure that’s why they have been so focused on ruling out goals which are a gnats whisker offside because of the same sort of arrogant attitude and to show the fans how mighty clever they are now, in doing so all common sense has left the building.

[Astral Weeks]

Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.

[The Edge]

Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.

Totally agree. The Rhodri debacle for instance would have been offside once their player headed the ball forward. Simple. They've tinkered and tinkered with the offside to the point where it's so complicated that players, managers, pundits, and especially us the fans just don't know what the hell is going on anymore. With that and their catastrophic use of VAR they are ruining the game as a spectacle. Is there no one out there with the clout and the balls to call a stop to the whole bloody mess and have a rethink. The few are ruining the game for the many.

[Clive W]

Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.

Totally agree
Link to the 1925 meeting that changed the offside rule that was used until 1990
It’s simple, clear and unambiguous

https://ssbra.org/ifab/assets/pdf/1925min.pdf

[paul_e]

The bit with the offside rule that bugs me, and has ever since the 'interfering with play' idea came in is why the rule only applies to attacking players. Why is the full back 50 yards away from where the ball is played interfering with play but the striker he's jogging out in front of isn't? If they want an objective rule then it needs to be the old version as above, if they want it to be subjective then officials need to apply the rule in the spirit it was designed.

The problem right now is we have a subjective law that requires understanding and context but they're using things like the VAR lines to make it highly objective and losing all common sense in the process.

[andyh]

Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.

[Ian.]

I’ve just see that too on Twitter

https://twitter.com/robdorsettsky/status/1354061816427667456?s=21