Jaidi -offside?

[Craig_H]

Difficult to prove though isn't it?

How can anyone prove he was interfering with the keepers view? You can't ergo not interfering with play.

If he's in the keeper's line of vision, he's interfering because the keeper has to consider Jaidi when deciding what to do.

Nonsensical decision today, he's clearly offside.

[Johnny]

If he's in the keeper's line of vision, he's interfering because the keeper has to consider Jaidi when deciding what to do.

Nonsensical decision today, he's clearly offside.

We need to go back to offside=offside,nothing else.

[sonsofthedesert]

Where does it end?

For example, a player has a shot form 30 yards which flies in, but there's a player, nowhere near the ball in the box in an offside position.
Does the keeper claim that his view was being interfered with by the other player?

It's a daft rule, I agree with reece about going back to the good old days when men could understand the offside rule but women couldn't. Now no-one knows what's going on.

The dif is that he was in Pepe's way, pepe could not see the ball being kicked or where it was going so was interfering with play and gaining an unfair advantage. It was offside under the present rule, MOTD proved that.

[Craig_H]

We need to go back to offside=offside,nothing else.

Not necessarily, the 'not interfering with play' thing is simple enough to enforce. The 'active/passive' and 'phase 1/phase 2' thing is the problem because nobody can actually say when 'phase 1' ends and 'phase 2' begins. It's all a bit

[Craig_H]

The dif is that he was in Pepe's way, pepe could not see the ball being kicked or where it was going so was interfering with play and gaining an unfair advantage. It was offside under the present rule, MOTD proved that.

My interpretation is that if a player is in a position which causes the goalkeeper to have to actively think about what that player's going to do and how it might affect his (the gk's) movements, then that's interfering.

If a player is offside, but his position has no bearing on what the goalkeeper does, then he's not interfering IMO.

That's just it though, everyone has their own opinion on it, including refs and linesmen

[Joe King]

FIFA introduced the rule in order for the game to become more exciting and to have more goals scored by teams. What has happened is that commentators of the game have criticised the lack of logic by FIFA in implementing such rule which brings confusion to the footballing masses.

[Johnny]

Not necessarily, the 'not interfering with play' thing is simple enough to enforce. The 'active/passive' and 'phase 1/phase 2' thing is the problem because nobody can actually say when 'phase 1' ends and 'phase 2' begins. It's all a bit

Go on DJ,Explain phase 1 and phase 2,I just understand the past the last defender rule.

[5aq1b]

I believe Houllier taught him that at Clairfontaine.

I believe Inzaghi taught them all

[Craig_H]

Go on DJ,Explain phase 1 and phase 2,I just understand the past the last defender rule.

That's the point, i cant really explain what they mean by it. It's something to do with two different phases of the attack - the player can be offside during phase one (i think they mean when the ball is, for example, played down the right wing and there's a player in the centre, offside - but not interfering in 'phase one' of the attack), but then during phase two (when the other player who is NOT offside has received the ball and gone running down the wing, then crossed it to the first player) the goalscoring player is no longer in an offside position.

Clear as mustard...

[Ben_Itez]

That's the point, i cant really explain what they mean by it. It's something to do with two different phases of the attack - the player can be offside during phase one (i think they mean when the ball is, for example, played down the right wing and there's a player in the centre, offside - but not interfering in 'phase one' of the attack), but then during phase two (when the other player who is NOT offside has received the ball and gone running down the wing, then crossed it to the first player) the goalscoring player is no longer in an offside position.

Clear as mustard...

Spot on. Really it's so simple

[Joe King]

I can explain but I need diagrams to help me help you.

[Johnny]

Not necessarily, the 'not interfering with play' thing is simple enough to enforce. The 'active/passive' and 'phase 1/phase 2' thing is the problem because nobody can actually say when 'phase 1' ends and 'phase 2' begins. It's all a bit

That's the point, i cant really explain what they mean by it. It's something to do with two different phases of the attack - the player can be offside during phase one (i think they mean when the ball is, for example, played down the right wing and there's a player in the centre, offside - but not interfering in 'phase one' of the attack), but then during phase two (when the other player who is NOT offside has received the ball and gone running down the wing, then crossed it to the first player) the goalscoring player is no longer in an offside position.

Clear as mustard...

Bluff called.........................

[Joe King]

Here you go ladies. The definitive guide to offside

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4993924.stm

[Shaggy]

Brian Clough used to say 'if a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch'.

If you're offside, you're offside. It should go back to being that way IMO. Everybody knows where everybody stands. Literally.

[Craig_H]

Brian Clough used to say 'if a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch'.

If you're offside, you're offside. It should go back to being that way IMO. Everybody knows where everybody stands. Literally.

That's flawed though, because you could have a great goal ruled out due to someone being 20 yards to the right of centre, by the touchline and doing nothing, but getting flagged offside pointlessly.