Offside question, Karl et al

[Peter R]

I saw a replay of the own goal scored by Tottenham; when the ball was struck a couple players on Arsenal were offside and running at the goal...my question is, does or doesn't that give Arsenal an advantage? Isn't the defender (who doesn't know if they are offside or not) now forced to defend against those players and in so doing heads into his own goal?

Just a technical question. I can see where the player would feel hard done by.



Coincidentally, that's one of the first questions they posed on my half time analysis...though they didn't belabour the point much.

[Rockman]

The linesman messed that call up,however Arsenal was a goal better that Spurs in the first..
Interestingly enough,it is selfish Sanchez that is making sure his side is properly positioned when the opponents have the ball.

[Paul Marin]

I saw a replay of the own goal scored by Tottenham; when the ball was struck a couple players on Arsenal were offside and running at the goal...my question is, does or doesn't that give Arsenal an advantage? Isn't the defender (who doesn't know if they are offside or not) now forced to defend against those players and in so doing heads into his own goal?

Just a technical question. I can see where the player would feel hard done by.



Coincidentally, that's one of the first questions they posed on my half time analysis...though they didn't belabour the point much.

As I understand it, it would only have been offside if the referee (or his assistant) thought it gave Arsenal an advantage. That one for me falls SQUARELY in the gray box, and more fodder to change the damn law to make it clearer. There is no doubt they were in an offside position. Would the defender NOT have gone for the ball if they were "1 foot" back and onside?

[Bricktop]

what do you mean "advantage"? the players are in an offside position and the ball is played directly at them...clear offside goal...

[Paul Marin]

what do you mean "advantage"? the players are in an offside position and the ball is played directly at them...clear offside goal...

Here- you figure it out. It is an opinion and interpretive issue, your opinion doesn't mean squat. Thirty-Seven pages to explain it; have fun. While I don't agree with the call, as I said, it falls into a grey area and the only thing that matters is the referees opinion. The law says two things have to be in effect for a player to be called offside:

1. Offside position, and
2. Player gaining and advantage, interfering with play, OR interfering with an opponent

While there is no argument about #1, #2 is subject to interpretation. The ball being played "directly at them" is not a factor unless it results in one of the three listed in #2. I understand why it could be considered "interfering with an opponent" as Peter suggested...but my opinion, like yours, doesn't matter. Only the referees does.

Here, knock yourself out - 37 pages explaining it: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...e_en_47383.pdf

[Rockman]

For me it would have been perfectly fine if the whistle was blown while the ball was in mid-flight based on the projectory.
In my opinion,the linesman should have done better

[Bricktop]

what does advantage or interfering with play have to do with this...they were in an offside position and the ball was played to them...simple...because the ball didn't make it to them is irrelevant...

[Bricktop]

While there is no argument about #1, #2 is subject to interpretation. The ball being played "directly at them" is not a factor unless it results in one of the three listed in #2.

Rubbish...the second the ball was kicked the players were offside...& the ball was played directly to the (3) offside players...no interpretation needed...

[Bricktop]

exactly...as the ball was kicked there were three offside players in the box...the ball was obviously being played to the box...clear offside...no "interpretation" needed...

[Paul Marin]

Rubbish...the second the ball was kicked the players were offside...& the ball was played directly to the (3) offside players...no interpretation needed...

You need to understand that law. BOTH have to be in effect:

1. offside position
2. and one of advantage, interfering with a player, interfering with play

You can say 1+interfering with play if you want, but your argument (playing directly at them) would not hold up to the tenets of the law unless one of the three in #2 were to apply. You been hengin' wid X too long.

[Bricktop]

the players in an offside position were actively involved in the play...the ball was played to them...they are active in the play...

[Bricktop]

so standing in an offside position...having a ball played to you...and attacking the ball is not interfering with play?

[Paul Marin]

so standing in an offside position...having a ball played to you...and attacking the ball is not interfering with play?

You are saying that now, after being educated. I said from the beginning that I thought so as well, but our opinion does not matter, does it? And by the way, your original argument was not based on dissecting the tenets of the law, only on it being "played directly at them"...so no bada come with no revisionist history.

[Peter R]

Obviously the ref and linesman did not see any advantage being gained by the positions taken by the Arsenal players (admittedly offside), hence, no whistle.

My position is that all goals should be subject to review by a fourth (or fifth) official and then communicate the decision to the ref. Ice hockey does this with no stoppage to the game. The fifth official should have x minutes to decide and communicate his/her decision.

[Bricktop]

how can you be in an offside position...attack the ball and not be intefering with play?