Linesman

[Grandad48]

This was taken from the FAs official website under the offside rulings

No Offence

There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:

a goal kick or

a throw-in or

a corner kick

I must admit I was under the impression that you were only not in an offside position from a throw in so that certainly has openedmy eyes.

[Portland Bill]

After reading this thread i cannot believe that people who follow football on a regular basis don't even know the rules.I often wonder why people near me at AG complain to the linesman when he flags for an obvious offside, i now know.

[The Man In Black]

It's frustrating as well Portland when football commentators spout rubbish on a daily basis, which just helps confuse people!

It always winds me up when Andy Gray talks about 'intent' in a tackle, constantly going on about "the ref can't book him for that, there was no intent".

[Guest]

I do believe Lord Football has taught me another one tonight. Everyone presumes RVN was offside for the first goal versus Italy.

Actually he wasn't according to LF.. even though the defender slid off the pitch he was still active and thus playing him onside.

And they say girls don't know the offside rule!

[SimplyRed]

It's frustrating as well Portland when football commentators spout rubbish on a daily basis, which just helps confuse people!

It always winds me up when Andy Gray talks about 'intent' in a tackle, constantly going on about "the ref can't book him for that, there was no intent".

Yes, indeed. As an ex-ref myself, I'm constantly amazed by the lack of knowledge of the so-called 'tv football pundits and commentators' with regard to the laws of the game. All they do is stir up more controversy.

I guess you can put it down to one of the first things I learned when training as a ref - football players, in general, DO NOT know the laws of the game. It always amuses me when the pundits say that ex-pro footballers should be 'fast-tracked' to become top referees! What tripe!

In contrast, commentators and pundits on US sports programmes for the likes of baseball, football and basketball are extremely knowledgeable with regard to the technicalities of their respective sports.

[elhombrecito]

In contrast, commentators and pundits on US sports programmes for the likes of baseball, football and basketball are extremely knowledgeable with regard to the technicalities of their respective sports.

It's not just US sports though. Just look at cricket or rugby - commentators/pundits are extremely knowledgable too. It just seems to be a football thing.

[The Man In Black]

I do believe Lord Football has taught me another one tonight. Everyone presumes RVN was offside for the first goal versus Italy.

Actually he wasn't according to LF.. even though the defender slid off the pitch he was still active and thus playing him onside.

And they say girls don't know the offside rule!

I need to rewatch the highlights, but if it is true that he 'bounced' off his own keeper and left the field of play then I can see the argument for saying that he was still active - otherwise you would have players just walking off the field of play to make someone offisde!

[edson]

I like the way referees get sniffy about people not knowing the offside law when it isn't actually written down clearly anywhere.

What are people meant to do? Guess?

I think the law was wrongly applied in this instance. I can see how it's in place to prevent defenders deliberately stepping off the field of play, but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Had he gone off the field with an attacking player, would that player have been offside even though he was off the field of play?

Sorry, but the game takes place on the pitch and the offside law should only be applied to those who are on it, unless one of them deliberately leaves.

[Mr Ed]

If that linesman made the Van Nistelrooy call because he considered Panucci 'active' and therefore, to the letter of the law ,it wasn't offside then I applaud his amazing quick thinking. Personally I think it more likely that he got the decision wrong and, because it was the most controversial decision of the tournament so far, UEFA have conveniently fitted an explanation using the little known 'active' player off the pitch law.

I agree with Edson's interpretation and think the decision was incorrect unless Panucci deliberately didn't get back on the pitch because he realised he'd be playing Dutch players onside. (Can't remember from the footage what he was doing when the goal was scored).

[SimplyRed]

Had he gone off the field with an attacking player, would that player have been offside even though he was off the field of play?

Sorry, but the game takes place on the pitch and the offside law should only be applied to those who are on it, unless one of them deliberately leaves.

The law applies differently for defenders and attackers so it's an invalid argument.

The law applies to an attacker only if he is considered 'active' - that is, in a position likely to influence the current phase of play - thus an attacker leaving the field of play, either accidently or deliberately, cannot, by definition, influence any phase of play and is therefore not offside.

On the other hand, the law applies to the position of a defender regardless whether he is active or not. Therefore, if a defender leaves the field of play for any reason, or he falls injured near the goal line, he is counted regardless of whether he influences play or not, and therefore the law allows the attacking team to count that man as one of the two required to satisfy the offside law.

[Guest MaloneFM]

The lino did know the offside rule. You and your dad don't.

You can't be offside from a goal kick

LF

Level 4 Referee (ex).

VERY ex refreree your Lordship as it is now the 'referees assistant' that judges offside not a petroleum based floor covering favoured in kitchens during the 1970's.

[PhatWill]

The law applies differently for defenders and attackers so it's an invalid argument.

It's not an invalid arguement.

The rules ARE unclear.

I agree with the pundits - the goal should not have been allowed.

Apparently the rule was brought in to stop players DELIBERATELY leaving the field of play.

Therefore this FA bloke and UEFA are just trying to bury their heads in the sand for making another ridiculous rule that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

[Guest MaloneFM]

So the old adage 'you don't know what you're doing' is in fact correct William?

[edson]

The law applies differently for defenders and attackers so it's an invalid argument.

The law applies to an attacker only if he is considered 'active' - that is, in a position likely to influence the current phase of play - thus an attacker leaving the field of play, either accidently or deliberately, cannot, by definition, influence any phase of play and is therefore not offside.

On the other hand, the law applies to the position of a defender regardless whether he is active or not. Therefore, if a defender leaves the field of play for any reason, or he falls injured near the goal line, he is counted regardless of whether he influences play or not, and therefore the law allows the attacking team to count that man as one of the two required to satisfy the offside law.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

But what about if an attacker's in an offside position next to the post and steps off the field as he sees a player about to shoot straight at him?

He would then have been in an active position (i.e. obstructing the goalkeeper's view) and deliberately stepped off the field to allow a clearer shot at goal. That would be an attacking player influencing a phase of play by stepping off the pitch.

Either way, I feel the leaving of the pitch must be deliberate for any player to be considered active. Sliding off under a challenge is a pretty unfair way of being deemed active.

[RedUn]

I like the way referees get sniffy about people not knowing the offside law when it isn't actually written down clearly anywhere.

What are people meant to do? Guess?

I think the law was wrongly applied in this instance. I can see how it's in place to prevent defenders deliberately stepping off the field of play, but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Had he gone off the field with an attacking player, would that player have been offside even though he was off the field of play?

Sorry, but the game takes place on the pitch and the offside law should only be applied to those who are on it, unless one of them deliberately leaves.

A Dutch lad did go off the field with Panucci but immediately made the effort to get back on (instead of feigning injury, probably because he knew he'd obviously be playing everyone onside the moment he stepped back inside the line)

Why I think the rule is correct as well as correctly applied is that the defender and goalkeeper got themselves into a complete horlicks ... why then shouldn't the rules benefit the attacking side?

I was more irritated by the way ref prevented free kicks being taken quickly by both sides - as though it was his job to organise the defence.

[edson]

A Dutch lad did go off the field with Panucci but immediately made the effort to get back on (instead of feigning injury, probably because he knew he'd obviously be playing everyone onside the moment he stepped back inside the line)

Why I think the rule is correct as well as correctly applied is that the defender and goalkeeper got themselves into a complete horlicks ... why then shouldn't the rules benefit the attacking side?

I was more irritated by the way ref prevented free kicks being taken quickly by both sides - as though it was his job to organise the defence.

To be fair, the Dutch lad grabbed Panucci's shirt and pulled him into the keeper, causing the defender to go to ground. The Dutch player never lost his footing, so could easily rejoin play (especially knowing the player he had just helped to pull off the pitch was playing him onside).

I don't think the rules should benefit the attacking side when a player accidentally leaves the field of play. What happens if a defender slides off behind a linesman at the side of the pitch? Does the lino then have to move back into the front row of the main stand so he can see if that player is playing everyone on?

Once you start including players not on the field of play, it all starts to get a bit silly.

[RedUn]

Once you start including players not on the field of play, it all starts to get a bit silly.

Not as silly as it would be if you seriously did discount players off the field of play. How much easier would it be for a defender to take a couple of steps back from defending a corner (say) to what you have just declared the safe area behind the goal line than it would be to leg it upfield as at present?

[edson]

Not as silly as it would be if you seriously did discount players off the field of play. How much easier would it be for a defender to take a couple of steps back from defending a corner (say) to what you have just declared the safe area behind the goal line than it would be to leg it upfield as at present?

I said earlier in one of my ramblings that deliberately leaving the field to gain an advantage should be the only occasion on which a player is deemed to still be active.

[RedUn]

I said earlier in one of my ramblings that deliberately leaving the field to gain an advantage should be the only occasion on which a player is deemed to still be active.

Quite right too - that's why they'd all try to make it look accidental!

[edson]

Quite right too - that's why they'd all try to make it look accidental!

I take your point that defenders (especially our Italian friends) may try to do that and match officials have to make a call on it.

However, in this particular instance, I feel they called it wrong, as the defender was pulled by the shoulder and clattered by the keeper.

Had, for example, Barmby headed the ball back across goal for an offside Windass to nod home, with Bradley Orr lying on the floor over the touchline with a fractured eye socket and cheekbone, only for the goal to be allowed because Bradley was playing them all on, I imagine I'd have been a tad miffed.

[Red Wardy]

I take your point that defenders (especially our Italian friends) may try to do that and match officials have to make a call on it.

However, in this particular instance, I feel they called it wrong, as the defender was pulled by the shoulder and clattered by the keeper.

Had, for example, Barmby headed the ball back across goal for an offside Windass to nod home, with Bradley Orr lying on the floor over the touchline with a fractured eye socket and cheekbone, only for the goal to be allowed because Bradley was playing them all on, I imagine I'd have been a tad miffed.

But unlike our Italian friend, Bradley had a fractured eye socket. The Italians play such a cynical game, it's inevitable, that occassionally their game plan backfires spectacularly.

[RedUn]

I take your point that defenders (especially our Italian friends) may try to do that and match officials have to make a call on it.

However, in this particular instance, I feel they called it wrong, as the defender was pulled by the shoulder and clattered by the keeper.

If they missed a foul they missed a foul, nothing new there. But they did call what the pundits (in their ignorance of the laws) deemed offside exactly right.

(We're not going to agree here are we?)

[edson]

If they missed a foul they missed a foul, nothing new there. But they did call what the pundits (in their ignorance of the laws) deemed offside exactly right.

(We're not going to agree here are we?)

We're not. I agree.

[SimplyRed]

I take your point that defenders (especially our Italian friends) may try to do that and match officials have to make a call on it.

However, in this particular instance, I feel they called it wrong, as the defender was pulled by the shoulder and clattered by the keeper.

Had, for example, Barmby headed the ball back across goal for an offside Windass to nod home, with Bradley Orr lying on the floor over the touchline with a fractured eye socket and cheekbone, only for the goal to be allowed because Bradley was playing them all on, I imagine I'd have been a tad miffed.

Whether you were a tad miffed or not, that would have been the case. Had that scenario happened, the referee has no choice but to allow the goal. The player, whether injured or not, counts as one of the 2 defenders required to satisfy the law.

Whether a referee would deny it using his own discretion is debateable, but the letter of the law stands, as it does with defenders - intentionally or not - leaving the pitch without the referee's consent. Without the referee's consent, a player cannot 'officially' leave the pitch and is therefore part of the game regardless.

[edson]

Whether you were a tad miffed or not, that would have been the case. Had that scenario happened, the referee has no choice but to allow the goal. The player, whether injured or not, counts as one of the 2 defenders required to satisfy the law.

Whether a referee would deny it using his own discretion is debateable, but the letter of the law stands, as it does with defenders - intentionally or not - leaving the pitch without the referee's consent. Without the referee's consent, a player cannot 'officially' leave the pitch and is therefore part of the game regardless.

I can't remember now. Did the ref go over to check on Bradley?

If not, presumably there was no point where he got consent, so was playing everyone onside for the entire time he was being treated behind the goal.

[Laner]

Whether you were a tad miffed or not, that would have been the case. Had that scenario happened, the referee has no choice but to allow the goal. The player, whether injured or not, counts as one of the 2 defenders required to satisfy the law.

Whether a referee would deny it using his own discretion is debateable, but the letter of the law stands, as it does with defenders - intentionally or not - leaving the pitch without the referee's consent. Without the referee's consent, a player cannot 'officially' leave the pitch and is therefore part of the game regardless.

So if a player leaves the pitch without the referee's consent to, say, receive treatment near the half-way line they would still be 'active' and on the field of play. Why then can a ref book them for leaving the field without consent... as they've not 'technically left the field? And if they did wander off for treatment, I bet the fourth official or the assistant refs would not let them back on without the ref's consent - back on to a pitch they'd not left?

Unless you support Italy, this was a great incident as it's started a huge debate on the more 'unknown' rules of the game.

[The Man In Black]

It's obvious that we'll never agree on this, so to introduce another topic.

Why can't they clamp down on the time it takes a team that is winning to make a substitution?

At the moment, the subbed player claps each side of the ground, shakes all of their teammates' hands, congratulate the ref, ring their family to let them know they played OK..... etc.

Each time Portugal have subbed Nuno Gomes he has walked slowly to Ronaldo, removed his captain's arm band and lovingly placed it on Ronaldo's upper arm for him, then given him a motivational pep talk and back rub. Why can't someone else do it for him?

Caution them. They're in a tournament so won't want to pick many up. Do it to one player and they'll soon fall into line.

[SimplyRed]

I can't remember now. Did the ref go over to check on Bradley?

If not, presumably there was no point where he got consent, so was playing everyone onside for the entire time he was being treated behind the goal.

So if a player leaves the pitch without the referee's consent to, say, receive treatment near the half-way line they would still be 'active' and on the field of play. Why then can a ref book them for leaving the field without consent... as they've not 'technically left the field? And if they did wander off for treatment, I bet the fourth official or the assistant refs would not let them back on without the ref's consent - back on to a pitch they'd not left?

Unless you support Italy, this was a great incident as it's started a huge debate on the more 'unknown' rules of the game.

I think we're taking this to extremes now, so these will be my final comments and we'll have to agree to disagree

You have to consider that the referee does have some discretion at his disposal and also a bit of common sense.

If he sees that a player is obviously injured - as in Bradley's case - and is off the field receiving treatment, then he would be a fool if he were not to allow that player the treatment he needs and deem that player to have "left the field" with his full approval, since you cannot expect a player lying injured behind the goal line to come back on to the pitch for permission to leave it.

We are then getting into grey areas, should play continue, regarding when the referee made that judgement, and it is obviously up to the referee, should a controversial offside incident occur around the same time, but I would imagine the chances of that happening as pretty remote.

As for players leaving the pitch at the halfway line, again, that is a matter of discretion for the referee and also the 4th official, who will usually be in close attendance on these occasions. Often, you see the player stood inside the touchline, while the treatment is given from outside the touchline - to ensure that the player has not 'left the pitch' and thus cannot be cautioned. If they do leave the pitch and have not gained the referee's consent then, if the referee decides it was a frivolous action, rather than a genuine injury, he is within the laws of the game to caution the player.

[SimplyRed]

It's obvious that we'll never agree on this, so to introduce another topic.

Why can't they clamp down on the time it takes a team that is winning to make a substitution?

At the moment, the subbed player claps each side of the ground, shakes all of their teammates' hands, congratulate the ref, ring their family to let them know they played OK..... etc.

Each time Portugal have subbed Nuno Gomes he has walked slowly to Ronaldo, removed his captain's arm band and lovingly placed it on Ronaldo's upper arm for him, then given him a motivational pep talk and back rub. Why can't someone else do it for him?

Caution them. They're in a tournament so won't want to pick many up. Do it to one player and they'll soon fall into line.

Yes, I don't understand why they don't caution them. Any deliberate delay in restarting the game is a cautionable offence, after all. While the referee can use his discretion and stop his watch while all the paraphernalia is taking place, it is obviously done to upset the rhythm of the chasing team and to give the leading team a breather which, to my mind, deserves a caution.

The thing that has annoyed me for a long time is why a player who has been fouled and injured must go off the field and wait for the referee to wave him back on, usually after his team has taken their free kick! So, let me see, a team is offended against and then must take the resulting free kick with only ten players - where's the justice in that?

[HomerRed]

Why can't they clamp down on the time it takes a team that is winning to make a substitution?

At the moment, the subbed player claps each side of the ground, shakes all of their teammates' hands, congratulate the ref, ring their family to let them know they played OK..... etc.

Yes. But at the risk of being two-faced about it, I still thought it was funny when Noble shook the ref's hand when he was substituted at Palace.