Jaidi -offside?

[dww]

I read an article a few weeks where Keith Hackett was complaining that pundits don't know the offside law and that's why there is so much controversy. His argument was that the current law is perfectly clear and workable. He's right to say pundits don't know what they're doing (which is disgraceful really) but he's also wrong - even in the way he discussed it in his article it was obvious there was so much scope for inconsistent and illogical decision-making.

The old rule was fine. There will always be scope for referees to interpret the laws of the game and hence there will be variation in how they judge whether a player is interfering with play but if the old law were reinstated there would be far fewer occasions when an injustice is done.

I was about to post that. Although actually IIRC from his description this case is actually nothing to do with "interfering with play" as he defined: the player having to play the ball or make an action which indicated the intention. Which means that the law is just unbelievably crap rather than the referee being wrong.

I completely agree with your analysis of his full description of the law. It had to many get out clauses and never refuted convincingly the idea that multiple referees would have different interpretations which he started by claiming he would.

[Vermilion]

Only if you're holding a banana when you receive the ball

I was once asked to leave the field of play for having a tangerine in my shorts, no it's not an analogy, just forgot it was there, was going to eat it before kick off but forgot. It fell out of the little pocket, the ref saw it & told me to get off & either eat it or throw it.

He did let me come back on though. Good ref. As you can imagine it wasn't exactly a cup final.

[saveferris]

It was a great free kick though. I think it would have gone in regardless of Jaidi

[dww]

It was a great free kick though. I think it would have gone in regardless of Jaidi

Yeah thats true. I guess the specific case is a bad example to use to highlight the ludicrous nature of the law and to be honest the point of a free kick is to punish the team committing the foul so we can't really have any complaints.

I do think though the wider issue of the offside law is one that needs to be looked at.

[Paul12]

The rule is actually quite simple to apply in cases like this.....the "interfering with play/gaining an advantage" notion is only relevant when players get themselves accidentally offside. A player who deliberately puts himself in an offside position is either trying to gain an advantage or taking the p*** out of his own team...in other words, is always offside and an indirect free kick should be awarded to the defending unless giving that freekick would be to their disadvantage.

[dww]

But that isn't true according to the way Hackett set out the official definition of 'interfering with play' and also I think that trying to assign intent to a players actions is rarely a good way to make things clearer (although in this case it would be clearer I still think it would leave too much leeway).

[GypsyRed]

The question of whether Jaidi is interfering with play is actually irrelevent. There are three ways to be offside, its just that the interfering with play bit is the one most quoted. They are:

- interferring with play
- interferring with an opponent
- gaining an advantage by being in that position

Each of these is defined so isn't really a matter of interpretation (except for the "opinion of the ref" bit). That's what makes the Jaidi case so unbelievable.

Jaidi is clearly interfering with an opponent. That's defined as follows:

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing
or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line
of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the
opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
(quoted from the Laws of the Game - FA website)

Its very clear in this case that Jaidi is interfering with an opponent - he's "clearly obstructing the line of sight" and also "making a gesture or movement which distracts an opponent".

The offside rule doesn't actually need the player to touch the ball - in fact the rule doesn't even mention touching the ball if you're interfering with an opponent.

You've got the be a bit of an anorak like me to actually start reading the rules but isn't that was refs are paid to do???

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/095F9568-466D-4D71-ABF5-C1253A1C28FD/122272/FIFALaws2007_08_book.pdf

[Craig_H]

in today's PC world that could be classed as a racist comment!

Not when i said it because Ben Tover was calling us 'offside monkeys'...

[Exiled_red]

It was offside, it was clear from the moment he took up his position that he was there solely to block Reina's line of vision, a poor decision by the officials.

[Fan65]

in today's PC world that could be classed as a racist comment!

Not in our PC World, call their staff what you like because all they care about is selling you a crappy computer

[Neil Young]

Not in our PC World, call their staff what you like because all they care about is selling you a crappy computer

Actually what they seem to care most about is selling you an extended warranty.

[TheElephantMan]

Whether it was technically considered interfering with play or not, it wasn't very sporting. What bizarre behaviour. It was an excellent free kick, which Reina wouldn't have saved anyway. I thought we should have been awarded a free kick when McFadden almost booted Skrtel in the face.

[Neil Young]

Whether it was technically considered interfering with play or not, it wasn't very sporting. What bizarre behaviour. It was an excellent free kick, which Reina wouldn't have saved anyway. I thought we should have been awarded a free kick when McFadden almost booted Skrtel in the face.

Yes I thought that too. In Europe it would have been a foul I think.

[El Jefecito]

Whether it was technically considered interfering with play or not, it wasn't very sporting. What bizarre behaviour. It was an excellent free kick, which Reina wouldn't have saved anyway. I thought we should have been awarded a free kick when McFadden almost booted Skrtel in the face.

The point is we need something like case law in the judicial system. I don't have an issue with an individual decisions per se, I do have a problem though when the same situtation is constantly re-interpreted differently each week with different teams and officials.

The fact that there is no avenue to get the officials to justify their decisions just makes is much more of a mess. I'd like for a "professional" referee to explain how Jaidi was not offside according to the letter of the law. If the officials aren't held (publicly and visibily) accountable for their decisions then they will continue to re-interpret them as to most benefit them in the current context.

It's a farce, if most of us we to perform as poorly as referrees do we'd be sacked by now.

[tomasjj]

I think the current rules are better than the old ones.

The only problem is the lack of consistency from the refs, and I think we should expect more from them...pros and all.