This Offside Law

[Guest TK-421]

The Guardian article is thought provoking but I strongly disagree with these bits:

 

The modern offside law may be the best thing that's ever happened to football, and it is almost certainly the reason Barcelona have been so successful

 

Gimme a break.

 

Barcelona's victory in the Champions League and Spain's success in Euro 2008 were both brought about by the sort of small, skilful midfielder who was supposed to have died out two or three decades ago.

 

That's just their policy, it's not because of the offside rule that these players are chosen to represent Barca and Spain. Am I missing something here? There are great sides of the past who managed to play attractive football despite the presence of offside traps.

 

The new rule makes it too easy for attacking players to exploit it, in my opinion, and then join in the play during the so-called second phase. In a way it rewards laziness because you can gain an advantage by not getting back onside.

 

It makes it too easy for attacking midfielders to break through as well. You don't need any timing, just bomb on because the fullback, not knowing whether to push up or not, has dropped deep to cover the lazy arsed attacker who is debating with themselves whether they should join in the second phase.

[Redexile]

You're confused because you are using every day definitions of active and gaining an advantage (pundit speak) which makes it sound like the rules are more ambiguous than they are.

 

Active means:

• Interfering with play

* playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a

team-mate

• Interfering with an opponent

* preventing an opponent from playing or being able to

play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the

goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement

* making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion

of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent

• the opponent must be reasonably close to the play so

that the blocking, deceiving or distracting makes a

difference

• Gaining advantage

* playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or

crossbar, having previously been in an offside position

* playing a ball, that rebounds to him off an opponent,

having previously been in an offside position

 

So, except in pundit speak, RVP wasn't active (until he received the ball at which point he was onside) and he didn't gain an advantage. Very simple when you ignore bollox from pundits.

 

Blackpool chose not to drop-off when he went past them knowing full well that as soon as Walcott got beyond RVP, RVP would be onside and they obviously thought they could could handle it. They couldn't. Tough. Make better decisions.

 

You say it's simple but the number of posts on the subject already IMO say it prove's it's not simple. Fuck all to do with any pundits when I evaluate the law but but how can you say RVP didn't gain any advantage when he was four or five yards closer to the Blackpool goal than any other player (except the Blackpool keeper) when the ball was played forward to Walcott. Once Walcott received the ball he was off and charging forward and the Blackpool back four where never going to catch him. Finally in terms of your interpretation would RVP have been judge offside if Walcott shot and the ball rebounded off the post to him or is this considered another phase and thus the previous original offside is ignored?

[piscinin]

The Guardian article is thought provoking but I strongly disagree with these bits:

 

 

 

Gimme a break.

 

 

 

That's just their policy, it's not because of the offside rule that these players are chosen to represent Barca and Spain. Am I missing something here? There are great sides of the past who managed to play attractive football despite the presence of offside traps.

 

It's hyperbole. Rijkaard was interviewed in that UEFA article I mentioned and he said it would make little difference to Barca because they could penetrate teams that defended high as well as teams that defended deep.

 

In as much as now most teams defend deep and Barca are pretty much out there on their own when it comes to unlocking deep defences it plays to their strengths. But everyone knows the step-up Barca made recently was all about adding Sacchi style pressing and tempo to their game.

 

 

The new rule makes it too easy for attacking players to exploit it, in my opinion, and then join in the play during the so-called second phase. In a way it rewards laziness because you can gain an advantage by not getting back onside.

 

It makes it too easy for attacking midfielders to break through as well. You don't need any timing, just bomb on because the fullback, not knowing whether to push up or not, has dropped deep to cover the lazy arsed attacker who is debating with themselves whether they should join in the second phase.

 

All that is only true if you let the player get so far into an offside position that you can't recover in the time it takes to get the ball to him. It's much the same as how a fullback has to decide how narrow to be when has to both be part of the flat back 4 but also the first defender if the ball is switched to a winger on his side of the field.

 

It's putting players in complicated situations like that which causes mistakes which lead to goals!

[Guest TK-421]

It's putting players in complicated situations like that which causes mistakes which lead to goals!

 

Unfairly, I would argue.

 

I'd rather see goals scored because of good play, not because defenders have to hedge their bets and make compromise decisions based on guesswork.

[piscinin]

Unfairly, I would argue.

 

I'd rather see goals scored because of good play, not because defenders have to hedge their bets and make compromise decisions based on guesswork.

 

Fuck 'em as a midfielder I can assure you all defenders are trogs. Let 'em suffer, I say!

[dou9thekopite]

My god i love this thread!!! Ha ha its pure gold.

 

Offside rule and associated aspects of it are not complicated. Pundits do, as has been mentioned, make it sound like a nightmare. They usually do it when the officials have managed to screw up badly or when their own interpretation of the rule conflicts with the officials. They basically want incident and controversy to talk about.

 

A play may be complicated to either assess as offside or otherwise due to the speed of play and number of players involved and quality of officials (or number of active eyes on the important aspects of the game). This just reinforces the fact that video technology needs to be used to ensure these gross errors and massive pundit conspiracys dont take centre stage.

 

But sometimes i do actually like big controversy so ummmm yea