Talk:Offside (association football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)

Association football portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Stop Changing it

Fifa rules states in front of the last two players which one may be the goalkeeper. For example in the infamous david james incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud9ev2dp5xw the last pass is offside (even though it was not called) because it is the last two players (David James was not in the box so it becomes the last two defenders). If the goalkeeper is in the box it is still the last two defenders as the goalkeeper is counted as a defender so 1 outfield defender + 1 goalkeeper = 2 defenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.49.96 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Football Union?

Similar to the offsides in Football Association vs American Football in that the offsides is not a play stopper, unless like in Association the offender is "In Play". Football Union's offsides is governed by the ball's position and has nothing to do with the position of the defenders. Should there be a section for this as well in the "Football" entry? I came here looking for the differences of these offsides rules between Association and Union after Union split off thinking they would be similar, but found they are not since you ARE allowed to pass to a player in front of you in Association where you can not in Union. Billy Nair 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag is up on the far side

What exactly does it mean by "The Flag is up on the far side" which you often hear during game commentaries? Does it mean that the refree on the far side (which im assuming means the opponents half) alone can give offside? Can the main refree give offside?

Both the (main) referee and assistant referees can give offside, but it is usually the job of the assistants, who notify the main ref by raising their flag when it occurs. Each assistant patrols one sideline, and generally stay in line with the second-last man on one of the teams, so they are calling offsides for one team. "On the far side" usually would just mean the assistant ref who has called the offside is standing on the side of the field opposite the TV camera... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One comment

The article says: A player is also not committing an offside offence if the player touches and plays the ball that was last kicked by a player of the opposing team (it doesn't matter whether the kick is intentional or unintentional).

To the person without knowledge of offside, this could sound like it means "when a player of the opposing team touches and plays a ball and then it finished up with a player who is strictly in an off-side position, it is not off-side. To my best knowledge, this is not true...Since the off-side or on-side position of a player is determined when the balls is played by a team mate, this can mean that a player of the opposing team can actually touch or even kick the ball and it would still be off-side, since the off-side would already have occurred before the player of the opposing team actually touched the ball, unless the referee believes the player of the opposing team was in possession of the ball and then played it to the player of the opposing team in an off-side position.

Also, the quote talks about a player "touching and playing a ball" when in fact off-side strictly isn't about touching or playing a ball but about position.

So I think it's good to mention this rule, that when a player receives the ball from an opponent (meaning that the referee believes the opponent was actually in possession of the ball), it IS off-side, but when an opponent just touches or kicks a ball, or glances off it, or whatever, it isn't necessarily off-side.

Evito 10:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I realised that that statement was done by me. At that time I think I got a wrong interpretation of the rule. Now I know that if an opposing player deflects the ball but not in control, the offside player can still be penalised if he plays the ball.

I'm making the changes, please review them and comment here. Kiwi8 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you edited it pretty well, I think there might be a better way of explaining it but I myself am not sure how so I guess this is the best until someone comes up with something ever better...:) Evito 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased this part and moved it into the offside position section instead. It now expresses that a player's offside position status is reset when an opponent touches the ball and is deemed by the referee to be in control of the ball.Kiwi8 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I always feel I understand offside, up until any time I try again to read the details! If an attacking player is running along with the ball (regularly touching it with his feet but not yet kicking it to anyone else) while his teammate is in an offside position, is there an offence committed? I always thought that the only time it mattered was at the moment when the first player passes the ball away from himself - i.e. the last time the first player touches the ball. But my reading of this article says that an offence can have occured at any time while the first player touches the ball. Can anyone confirm that the only interesting moment is when the first player releases or passes the ball? What if the first player simply loses the ball - can an offence be committed at that moment too? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the attacking player is running along with the ball with periodic touches, then offside offence is not determined for the other players since they are not deemed to be active. Only when the attacking player makes a kick or pass to another player, then we can determine offside offence. Kiwi8 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] offside in football

Hi. In American football, offside is the premature crossing of the line-of-scrimmage or neutral zone by a member of either team. I think the article title should have a "soccer" in it somewhere to help out us ignorant and confused Americans ;p

Hi, This has been discussed before: see discussion below. Offside law was used because American football does not call it a law. Cheers, --Daveb 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I have updated the top half of the page, regarding the actual Law itself. I though it was important to clarify the different concepts involved, namely 1) Offside Position, 2) Offside Offence, 3) Offside sanction.

I have put them in the order that a match official would work through - Are they in an offside position when the ball is played? If so, are they committing an offside offence by being involved in active play and not exempt by it being from a throw-in/GK/CK? If an offence has occured, what is the sanction?

I have also corrected the terminology regarding the match officials (ie Assistant Referee, not the incorrect Referee's Assistant).

--Daveb

it makes no more sense than it did when I was made to play this stuff at school... what is the purpose of this rule? -- Tarquin 18:38 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

To give the goalie a bit of a chance. :) cferrero

And to prevent goal-scrounging, i.e. hanging around in the penalty area hoping someone boots it up the field to you. Oh, and thanks for fixing my appalling spelling, cferrero. Bagpuss

Should say that in the article. I'd figured hanging around like that was a smart tactic. -- Tarquin 20:10 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Offside is also a penalty in other sports - hockey, American football. How do we add them in? Rmhermen 20:04 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

good ol disambiguation. Guess we'll have to move this article back to the () title -- Tarquin

The owner of this website http://www.innotts.co.uk/soccer/histoff.htm states that he doesn't mind people copyign the text on his pages, so here is the verbatim text of the page on Offside if someone wants to work it into the article.

The need for an "offside" law goes back to the early years of the game. A player was "off his side" if he was standing in front of the ball, that is, between the ball and the opponent's goal. To the Sheffield Association, this didn't matter at all! There was no offside rule, and players known as "kick throughs" were positioned permanently near the opponents goal.

The people who drew up other "rules of the game" in the mid nineteenth century had been brought up with the idea of keeping all players "behind" the ball, disallowing the forward pass, and making progress towards the opposition's goal by means of dribbling with the ball or in a scrum. For a game of soccer to flow freely, it was essential to allow the forward pass, thus raising the need for an offside law. The Cambridge rules of 1848 stated that it needed three of the opponents side between a forward player and the goal for him to be "onside". However, the Uppingham rules of 1862 remained strictly against the forward pass; "if the ball is kicked by his own side past a player, he may not touch it, or advance, until one of the other side has first kicked it, or one of his own side, having followed it up, has been able, when in front of him, to kick it". The first set of Football Association rules agreed with the Uppingham idea.

As football developed in the 1860s and 1870s, the offside law proved the biggest argument between the clubs. Sheffield got rid of the "kick throughs" by amending their laws so that one member of the defending side was required between a forward player and the opponents goal; the Football Association adopted the Cambridge idea of three! Finally, Sheffield came into line with the F.A., and "three players" were the rule until 1925.

The change to "two players" rule lead to an immediate increase in goal scoring. 4,700 goals were scored in 1848 Football League games in 1924/25. It rose to 6,373 goals (from the same number of games) in 1925/26.

I'll see what else I can dig up.

Re: disambiguation hm.... tricky. The Laws of Football: Offside would be somewhere few people could complain about it I suppose, although not immediately obvious. Mintguy

I've put it back to offside (soccer). I don't much like calling football soccer, but it is the shortest unique name we could come up with. Bagpuss

God, the dreaded S word. Ohh well I said football (soccer) would be the thin edge of the wedge. Mintguy

Oh, no! Not the dreaded 'S' word! I protest!
There is a common, internationally recognized four-letter acronym for the laws that is frequently used by FIFA (and others).
If you download the offical laws from the FIFA website and look at the title (it will be a pdf file with the letters 'LOTG' in it), you will see that they are called the Laws Of The Game.
Why not title this page offside (LOTG)?
"what is the purpose of this rule?"
To prevent cherry-pickers from hanging about the goal, and allow attacking teams to get more players forward.
Offside is one of the two most controversial of the LOTG, the other being Law 12. Bluelion

I think that suffers from the problem of obscurity more than my suggestion of association football. I didn't want to put it under Offside (football) in case other footballs have an offside rule. No-one's jumped in with an American football one yet, so maybe we can move it there, but that could still be confusing. Bagpuss

The title offside (soccer) is fine with me. I was just making a sugestion. LOTG is commonly used by referees but otherwise is obscure. American football does have an offside rule, but I'm not sure it deserves a separate article. Even if it did, it could it could be called offside rule. And that gives me another idea. Why not title this article offside law? The one in American football is not called a law.Bluelion

Why wouldn't offside law (football) work? What possible objection would there be to that? I've been working on the American football page (it's not my favorite form of football, but I am familiar with it). There are other possible conflicts, such as free kick although, again, I'm not sure the one in American football deserves a separate article. Bluelion 23:43 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Everybody's talking at me. I think yours is a good idea Bluelion, so I'll do that. Personally I can't see the problem with obscure titles, since we can redirect, but policy is agin them. Offside law (football) is not bad, though.

Mintguy - finally putting your stuff in. It'd be nice to know which versions had an offside rule rather than the fact that the Sheffield one didn't. I can always look for myself, though. Bagpuss

I have a simple solution that i would like to see happen to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, to have an American English version, British English, Canadian English, Portugese Spanish. But they will not be possible to edit, they are just copies of the current English version at a certain point, transfered to each type and then some spelling changing automation. - did that make sense? -fonzy :-s

Kind of. Don't know how much of a bright idea it is though. Bagpuss

Despite reports to the contrary, there is only one English language. There are much geater differnces between various dialects of German, for example, than between American English and British English. It doesn't even come close! An American can probably understand 99% of British English, and vice versa. The same cannot be said of dialects of German.

Canadian English vs. American English? You have got to be kidding!! They are the same. There is a much bigger differnce with the some dialects used in the US South, which are almost unintelligible to "yankees". Bluelion 01:12 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] daylight

I think it may be worthwhile mentioning about there having to be daylight between the players. It's added more controversy insofar as it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference. I can't quite recall when/how that was brought in though.

Response.... There is actually no mention of "Daylight" in the FIFA Laws Of Association Football. It is a myth set up by football commentators.

Response2.... In refereeing courses I have been told that you can rather imagine a string at the absolute "end" of the back defender and that if this is "broken" its offside. There doesnt have to be any daylight between the players!

[edit] Played forward?

I'm sure the law used to say that the ball had to be "played forward", now it just has to be "touched or played" by a teammate. [1] When did that change? sjorford →•← 21:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong - I've just checked an older copy of the rules and it's not in there either. Never mind, ignore me. :) sjorford →•← 09:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes - Played Forward

The ball must be played forward for you to be offside.

Incorrect. See the discussion below. Daveb 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Direction ball played is irrelevant

The above posting suggesting the ball must be played forward is WRONG! If a player is in an offside position when the ball is last touched/played by a team-mate, it doesn't matter whether the ball goes forward, sideways or backwards: of the offside-positioned player becomes involved in active play there is an offside offence.

Example: Player A is in an offside position about 10m if front of the half-way line mear teh touchline; the second last defender has the ball and is up on the centre spot on the half-way line. Player A's team-mate - player B - somehow get the ball off this defender, and the passes the ball sideways and slightly backwards. Player A runs back and collects the ball. Player A was in an offside position when the ball was last touched by a team-mate, and this is not changed by the fact that the ball moved backwards. Furthermore, Player A has committed an offside offence by becoming involved in active play.

Note the Law 11 makes no reference to the direction the ball is played.

--Daveb 07:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the direction of the pass doen't matter. I was wondering a little too. The whole lies in the point of the first line. The thing is that the plyer recieving the ball isn't allowed to be closer to the goal line than the ball at the moment where the ball is touched (passed). Somehow, you expect this to give a backpass, but not necesarely. A player can make a pass foreward, as long as his team-mate is "behind" the ball at the start of the pass (this being the crucial moment). Gian Giorgis 23:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Offside sanction section

Disclaimer: American football fan... I don't know how to phrase this comment for the article, but shouldn't we point out that once an offside offence occurs, play stops and no goals can be scored? It seems obvious, but it's important. In fact, there generally needs to be more discussion on what actually happens following an offside offence: whistles? flags? and by whom? Melchoir 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The Referee might judge that the "offended" (defensive) team has an advantage (the ball) and therefore let play on instead of whistling the offside. Somewhat like American Football, where you get a "free play" when the defense offsides and then you choose between the result of the play or the penalty. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Sebastiankessel. I don't suppose you could be persuaded to do some explaining on the article? Melchoir 10:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Added the referee's discretion to the article. --Kiwi8 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Added info in the "Officiating" section on how assistant referees signal that offside has occurred -- Hux 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This analysis of the advantage clause is incorrect. There is no provision to apply the advantage clause to Law 11, offside. The advantage clause can only be applied to Law 12, Fouls and misconduct.

I think you are taking the "advantage" word too far. The word "advantage" used in this section just refers to the general sense, and not in respect to the Law 12. Kiwi8 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it could cause confusion for people trying to learn the details of offsides. I have modified the text to make both our points (I think)

[edit] place of infringement

Is the place of the infringement for the purpose of the free kick the place where the ball is touched, or the place where the offside player was when the ball was touched? --80.42.209.151 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally the spot where at that moment, the player commits offside. --Kiwi8 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to help on this one on FIFA's website http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,109139,00.html shows that the IDFK is taken from the position the player was in when he was first jusged to be in an offside position

Having said that, I've never actually seen an offside free kick taken from the spot where the player was offside (as with any other free kcik) Auto98uk (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct judgement humanly impossible

I read an article once claiming that a completely correct judgement of the offside law required the referee to keep track of more things simultaneously than what is humanly possible. I don't know if anyone else has heard about it, but if anyone knows anything about it, it would be interesting to add to the article. 惑乱分からん 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not really needed to find that article again, but relatively easy to come up with our own. Remember that for the assistant referee to determine offside offence, he has to see those players beyond the 2nd last oppoenent, and the players who are kicking the ball, and to see that they're not taking advantage by being in offside position. Only 2 eyes, but more than a single place to look out for. Thus it's not possible to have a correct judgement all the time.

[edit] What can a passive player in offside position when the ball is played by a teammate, do to be able to start active play?

Hi, there is something that I think is not covered by the offside rule. Suppose a player is in offside position, and a teammate plays the ball, but the offside player is passive and so there is no immediate offside. But then, a moment later, he starts running towards the ball - does he then immediately commit offside offence? How long does he have to wait before becoming actively involved?? Or does he have to first run back to cross the line of the second-last defender, and then he can turn towards active play??? This question is not covered by the current rule, is it???

For your first question, he does not immediately commit offside offence under the July 2005 rules, but some assistant referees still give offside for an offside-positioned player chasing after the ball. A player can only commit offside offence by touching the ball, or interfering with opponent's play, or gaining an advantage from an offside position.

For your second question, the safest way is to wait until his other teammates or the opponents touch the ball, if he is not going to run back to an onside position.

--Kiwi8 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For your first answer, I am sorry, but it does not answer anything. You are quoting the rules, which I know and understand, and they do not cover my question. Please read my question carefully. For your second answer, you are saying something is "the safest way" - so, this is my point exactly: we have something that is not covered by the rules, and people have to develop their own interpretations and meanings, as indicated by your wording "the safest way". If this was covered by the rules, there would be no need to figure out what the "safest way" was.

Ok, I should not have complicated things. For your first question, the player will only commit the offside offence if he touches the ball, or is the only player on his team chasing after the ball. As for the 2nd question, remove the words "safest way". --Kiwi8 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to tell you. Offside is Position + Interference = Offence. If a player is in an offside position, but not interfering with play, then they can not be flagged off by the linesman. Interference means either accepting a pass from another player whilst in, or playing into offside, or stopping a player from defending an incoming ball. The magical Spum-dandy 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offside examples in recent games

Hello all! I have been toying with the idea of starting a section that describes the offside interpretation in recent games, especially those that involve the latest offside interpretations. What is your opinion? Thanks. --Kiwi8 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a need to explain my latest addition of the EPL 2005/2006 Blackburn vs Liverpool match. I understand that this goal is highly controversial, but I still feel the goal was legitimate. But your views may be different. Let's discuss. Kiwi8 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In other languages

This artice can be linked to the german "Abseitsregel", i just dont know how to do that.

[edit] Passive offside

Passive offside was penalised more stringently before the 2003 interpretation instead of otherwise claimed. Often referees would penalise offside as long as an attacker is in an offside position. Kiwi8 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When there is no offsides...?

Isn't it true that when there is a set piece, such as corner kicks, free kicks, throw-ins or others, that offsides is not called?--Xlegiofalco 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

this is because if I receive the ball from a throw in I'm not committing an offside offence. See below. -- Macgruder 12:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that for corners, throw-ins and goal kicks, an offence isn't committed. But with free kicks, you can commit an offence. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to offside position

I have corrected a mistake in the Offside Position section which said that "Also note that offside position is determined when the ball is touched/played by a team-mate". This is incorrect, as you can see from the official laws which don't mention that in the Offside Position section. No mention of opponents etc which just confuses stuff for throw-ins etc.

Law 11

Offside Position

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:

he is in his own half of the field of play

or

he is level with the second last opponent

or

he is level with the last two opponents

The offside position aspect of the law is totally independent of who is touching the ball. The fact whether the player is 'blown up' when in an offside position is determined by whether they have committed an offence and that is where the issue of who is touching the ball comes into play.

So:

The opposition centre-forward has the ball and is dribbling toward my goal. I'm chatting to the opposition goalkeeper. Therefore I'm in an offside position. HOWEVER, I'm not penalised (i.e. 'Offside!') because someone from my team is not touching the ball. The opposition centre-forward puts the ball out of play. I'm still near the goalkeeper. Still offside position but not penalised. A player from my team launches a monster throw in, I wake up as it comes towards me. Catch the ball with my foot and bang it into the net. I'm still in an offside position BUT once again I'm not penalised and the goal stands. Because you are NOT committing on offense if you are in an offside position if you receive the ball from a throw in. In other words, I was in an offside position the whole time, but the criteria of whether I'm "offside!" is determined by whether I committed an offense. I didn't, therefore the goal stands. Macgruder 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether a player may be liable for an offside offence is determined by whether that player was in such a position when the ball was last touched or played.

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play..."

The former wording attempted to make the concepts of the law understandable to lay readers, though I will update it to make it more "technically" correct.

--Daveb 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But actually I felt the earlier reading was very confusing. The concept of Offside position is fairly straightforward except for details like part of body etc. The rule is much easier to understand if the two concept of position and offence are kept separate.

There is a problem too that many people are not aware that 'Offside position' is not the same as 'Offside'. So I think this needs to be emphasised.

I propose too adding a 'basic guidlines section':

Offside position PLUS Offside offence = Offside (Flag), and give a list of some common situations. Macgruder 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article now keeps the issues of Offside position and Offside offence completely separate. Furthermore, the offside position section clearly states "It is important to note that being in an offside position is not an offence in itself". Cheers, --Daveb 07:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Myth"

Someone posted this,:

"There is a commonly related myth that the offside law cannot be explained to women. This is not only a sexist observation but is completely infactual, misrepresenting the complexity (and fairness) of the rule itself."

I mean... c'mon! Please refrain from posting this, :)

-- unsigned comment by 200.121.116.9 on 00:18, 28 June 2006

My wife understands it perfectly. Snowbound 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a wonderful wife. Take good care of her. ;) 惑乱分からん 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We all knew the offside rule at 10 years of age

80.47.255.17 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) The new offside laws make no sense at all, from being a perfectly clear rule to apply, most interested ten years olds could recite it verbatim. Now to managers, officials, players and supporters it has become a mine field. Currently active, what is that about? any player who is not currently active should be on the subs bench or in the crowd. Offside should mean offside, it has become a lazy mans charter, where players stretch the meanings of the law and benefit from their laziness.

Having managed professionally, I can assure you that virtually all managers, most referees and the majority of players would go back to the clarity of the old offside laws. Once while attending a rule change meeting, with all the league managers present, not one of the managers in the room agreed with the interpretations allowing players who had been ten yards offside to score in what they regard as second phase play. We cant all be wrong, but did the rule still go through, of course it did.

Watching Barcelona v Celta Vigo recently the ball was played past a forward who was ten yards out, three yards offside, positioned centrally, with the defence aware he was there and bringing the fact to the referees attention. The ball rolls past him and a player from wide arrives late and puts it in, good goal! Absolute rubbish, the defenders could have marked the scorer who has benefited from another players lack of vision or lazy attitude.

Goals are all well and good,but when checked, with the old system in place less good goals were chalked out, than poor goals that are allowed to stand in what now is a crazy and illogical system. The problem does not lie with the players, or the officials, but with the out of touch law makers who manipulate things for what looks like knee jerk reasons to non existant problems. Every year a new emphasis will be placed on a certain law, bookings galore, then it will fade away within six weeks of the season starting. FIFA, EUFA, and the FA have a lot to answer for, dabbling, if well meaning, they are amateurs and will always create the kind of current chaos we now have.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. In your given example of the Barcelona vs Celta Vigo match, defenders should play to the whistle and not try to make decisions for the referee. Since they know that the forward was offside, then they should've proceeded to mark the remaining onside players. However, they neglected to do that and waited for the offside flag. This is similar to the EPL match last season involving Liverpool and Blackburn, in the buildup to Robbie Fowler's goal, involving Cisse's passive play.

And I'm sure we've all seen clips of the Manchester United - West Ham game in the FA Cup a few years ago, where Barthez decides he doesn't want to save Di Canio's shot until after it's put past him because he thinks he's offside. Mageslayer99 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem of the rules, but a mindset that the defenders have to undergo training for, and that is, to always play to the whistle. Kiwi8 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While interested in them, I totally disagree with the views of Kiwi, the rules not defenders cause the problem, anyone who has played at a professional level will tell you that one movement creates another, hence in reality there is no such thing as passive play. If the rules are applied the way you state, play would be stretched to each six yard box with no logical pattern of play required. How can a player be passive when six yards out, central and the ball passes him within touching distance. Referees are also virtually all amateurs, how many have played as a professional?.The poor quality of the officials in the World Cup highlighted the problem we have,if you have to start as a referee at eighteen in park football, how can you have had the experience of playing or understanding the professional game. It happens every week, players worth a fortune on the pitch, coaches work all week on patterns and systems and in the end the "greengrocer" who is the referees assistant decides the game with another poor decision. Park players should referee park matches and leave the pro game to the professionals. You only have to listen to the governing bodies for ten minutes to realise that despite some good intentions, they ultimately realise the finance the game stimulates and wish to retain their power through the finance generated. Take cricket as an example, umpires are virtually all ex county or international players and even from a static position twenty two yards away, tend to make far less errors at top class level than their football counterparts. Experience of the professional game is a major advantage and to anyone other than a football administrator a logical starting point to recruit referees from. But with the governing bodies, "no chance", they have vested interests in the control and the system they have,and wish to retain them.

While I admit that more referees have trouble implementing the newer rules than the previous "offside as long as in an offside position" interpretation, the objective of the newer rules are to encourage attacking football. Note that in many cases of the disputed goals that has happened due to the newer interpretation, it is often the case that the defenders failed to keep a lookout for the attacking players who were from an onside position running to get the ball. Instead, they proceeded to chase after the offside-positioned player and raised their hands to call for offside. Thus the solution to the problem should be to further train the amateur referees to be more experienced in judging offside offence. Kiwi8 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can this paragraph be edited for clarity?

In the "Application" section:

"It is important to note that being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. And also important to Law 11 is that a player cannot be offside when the ball is received directly (i.e. not being touched by a team mate before receiving it) from a goal kick, corner kick, throw in or when the player is in his own half. The same Decision 2 decides when a player is considered to be in the opponent's half (head, chest, legs etc)."

Blow by blow:

"And also important to Law 11 is that a player cannot be offside when the ball is received directly ..." [emphasis mine]

Shouldn't this read: "a player is not considered offside" rather than "cannot be offside"? Otherwise, as it now reads it sounds like it means "a player must not be offside ..."

"The same Decision 2 decides when a player is considered to be in the opponent's half (head, chest, legs etc)."

This sentence is redundant, already stated at great length two paragraphs above. I deleted it.

Would someone mind fixing the unclear sentence/phrase "cannot be" (noted above)? I'd do it myself, but I'm not a footballer (I'm an American woman), and I'd rather someone else did. Thanks! Softlavender 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Update: Never mind, I did it meself. Softlavender 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mean that as an 'American woman', you couldn't be a footballer? No, of course you didn't mean that :-) Earthlyreason 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resetting offside

I've editted the page to remove the claim that a player in offside position who receives the ball from an opponent is not offside. This is not in the Laws and not precisely correct.

Rather it is a consequence of when offside determination is reset. If a player in offside position receives the ball when an opponent makes a controlled play, then the player is not judged offside - but because the player is no longer considered in offside position once the defender makes a controlled play. However an uncontrolled play does not reset an offside.

This came up in the discussion on the Benito Archundia page. 72.211.235.171 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User 72.211.235.171 removed the reference that correctly stated "A player is not committing an offside offence if the player receives the ball...[from] an opposition player." This explanation of the Law is based on FIFA's actual wording: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play" (my emphasis). Conversely, a player cannot be penalized if the ball is played by an opponent.

What constitutes a "play" by an opponent? For clarification, a play is not judged by a player's intention or amount of "control" (obviously players almost never intend to give the ball to the opposing team or direct it into their own goal). A "play" is judged by another criterion where the following question is asked: Is it "ball to player" (i.e. a deflection), or "player to ball" (i.e. a play, like a kick or header)? When Steven Gerard (Liverpool) played (i.e. kicked) the ball back to Thierry Henry (Arsenal) who was in an offside position, Henry went on to score and was not penalized for an offside offence because of this aforementioned aspect of the Law. The same applied in the case where Oguchi Onyewu (United States) played (i.e. headed) the ball back to Atiba Hutchinson (Canada) whose goal was controversially disallowed. The latter incident is the focus of much dispute because referee Benito Archundia failed to adhere to the aspect of the Law being discussed here; the former was not disputed because the referee correctly upheld the Law.

Additionally, "resetting" offside is probably not the right terminology since being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. Resetting an offside offence can only occur after a player has been penalized and the referee has recognized his error. At this point, an offside call may be "reset" or reversed, although this is rarely done.

In any case, some form of the original explanation and accompanying citation to Henry's goal should probably be reinstated. Perhaps the reference should be modified for clarification. Other citations could also be added. I'll leave this up for discussion.

--G(A)IA 2007.06.28, 21:12 (UTC)

[edit] Offisde from drop kick

Is it possible to be offisde from a Goalkeeper's drop kick, I know its probably mentioned somewhere but i can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.193.132 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Yes. A "goalkeeper's drop kick" has no special status in the Laws: the ball never went out of play when the keeper picked it up, and as such the keeper drop kicking it is just like any other player kicking the ball (i.e. it is not a 'restart'). Cheers, --211.30.133.99 (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Soccer

In "Mini Soccer", which is played in the UK by children up to the age of 10, there is no offside rule. I imagine this is the same in other countries. Mini soccer is designed to improve skill levels, fun and participation for younger children before they take part in the 11 a side version. 84.43.0.157 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penalty

Can anyone explain if this should be offside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gi98iEziKQ

Surely if two attackers are ahead of the last defender, regardless of whether the second is behind the ball and the other attacker, it should be offside no? The ball is played forward when the other attacker is PAST the last defender.

Is this correct? Thisnamestaken (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevant time for establishing whether a player is in an offside position is when the ball is passed. In both passes in this move, the player who received the ball was behind the ball, and therefore in an onside position, when the ball was passed. Kevin McE (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The introduction says "This article is about the rule in Association football. For the American football penalty, see American football rules#Fouls by either team. For other uses of the term, see Offside (disambiguation)." What is the American football penalty thing doing here? Firstly it's covered by the disambiguation page, secondly there's no such section in the linked article and thirdly nobody looking for that could conceivably end up here.

[edit] Wording of definition

"A player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the field and is nearer to his opponents' goal line than the ball, and fewer than two of his opponents (including the goalkeeper)."

This definition isn't logically correct. For example, take the common case where 'fewer than two' is 'one'. We would then come to 'a player is offside if he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than the ball and one of his opponents.' THis is the inverse of the offside rule - clearly an attacker is not offside if zero or one opponents are behind him. It needs to be reworded to convey that a player is offside when nearer to the goal line than the ball and ALL BUT a maximum of one opponent. There must be a better way to say it than that, though.

Mattus27 (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)