The mancityfans.net football forum

I think the offside rule is becoming really hard to understand.Players clearly stood in offside positions, making active moves towards the Ball ,changing their mind,pulling out,a team mate, coming in from a not offside position, slots the Ball home, goal given. I have seen more of these given than ever this season. players stood in off side positions,impairing a Keepers line of vision,goals still given,players stood offside blocking Keeper path to collect the Ball. ridiculously deemed to have not been interfering with play by officials, Not being biased either, I thought our goal the other week, where Sterling was standing in an off side position, but moved to connect with a goal bound shot shouldn’t have stood. Fortunately it went straight in,he missed connecting with the Ball.Still he became active the second he tried to connect with the Ball, failing to connect should be irrelevant. He shown intent, a bit like the Arse player did for their first today. How the fuck can a goal keeper anticipate/act accordingly, he don’t know who is, or who is not stood in an offside position in the 6 yard box from his goal line. If two players are showing intent moving towards the Ball it affects his thought process.

Also never understood how a player retreating from an offside position is nearly always deemed not to be interfering with play .If his team mate hits a shot from outside the box a keeper vision is nearly always impaired because he in his line of vision it shouldn’t stand. Yet how many of those goals do we see given these days ?, I have seen goals, where a shot has been goal bound,but had to go through the player standing in an offside position, said player has physically had to lift his feet, or jump to avoid making contact with the goal bound Ball, the Ball has gone straight in, and a goal has been given.How can you not be deemed active/interfering with play,if you have had to move to avoid contact with said goal bound Ball.

It was much easier to understand the offside rule, when offside was “offside”. Anyone in an offside position the ref blew.

They have made it much harder to understand than it should be, with all this active/inactive/interfering with play.It is open to a Ref interpretation.

Last night was just another example of the bad path they have taken with this rule. Obviously Courtios reacts to the offside player and then there is hesitation as it's obviously offside and then he has to react to Sanchez steaming in.

Should have been the easiest offside call ever and we've muddied the waters so much over this "active player" and "interfering with play" that who the fuck knows anymore whether it was a good call or not.

Yesterday Danny Murphy on the goal: "whether he gives it or not it's a goal"

I'm pretty sure if he hadn't given it it wouldn't have been a goal you fuckin cretin!

This has so far centred on the impact of the offside player on the goalkeepers decision making, but i was struck by David Luiz's reaction yesterday. The ball was heading to the offside player so he casually put his hand up in an appeal. People may criticise him for this but I am pretty certain i would have done the same in the circumstances.

If he doesnt keep the line and decides to go back and cover the offside player, he then plays him on so by that measure, he is damned if he does, damned if he doesnt.

zabbadabbado wrote:I think the offside rule is becoming really hard to understand.

You make it sound like you have been taking hormone tablets...

Socrates wrote:

zabbadabbado wrote:I think the offside rule is becoming really hard to understand.

You make it sound like you have been taking hormone tablets...

Might be being a bit dim here mate,please elaborate ?.Not getting the joke.

I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Slim wrote:Last night was just another example of the bad path they have taken with this rule. Obviously Courtios reacts to the offside player and then there is hesitation as it's obviously offside and then he has to react to Sanchez steaming in.

for me that is Coutois's' fault. whether he actually was offside or not Courtois (and all the players) have to play until the whistle.
all too often these days you see players raise their arms and stop playing because they assume it's offside--as if the linesman is going to listen to them and/or sees it the same way they do. you play until you hear the whistle regardless of what you think should or shouldn't be called.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Not to mention the handball rule.
That should have been a free out, a couple of different ways.
I thought the Chelsea defense appealed for handball first.

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Not to mention the handball rule.
That should have been a free out, a couple of different ways.
I thought the Chelsea defense appealed for handball first.

Absolutely.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Spot on, Mikhail.

I can't imagine why anyone would want that to happen.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Totally agree,he can interpret how he sees fit.When it was black and white he couldn't really do that.

zabbadabbado wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Totally agree,he can interpret how he sees fit.When it was black and white he couldn't really do that.

Years before the offside law was changed, I remember a discussion on TV where the question of offside players not interfering with play was being raised.

I think it was Danny Blanchflower who made the point that if a player was not interfering with play whilst standing there, what the heck was he doing there in the first place.....End of discussion.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

zabbadabbado wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I'm sick and tired of the current offside 'rule', if the current state of chaos could even be elevated to the dignified status of a 'rule' in the first place.

To my mind, it just gives free rein to any referee to interpret the situation in any way he sees fit, to the benefit of any team he sees fit.

Totally agree,he can interpret how he sees fit.When it was black and white he couldn't really do that.

Years before the offside law was changed, I remember a discussion on TV where the question of offside players not interfering with play was being raised.

I think it was Danny Blanchflower who made the point that if a player was not interfering with play whilst standing there, what the heck was he doing there in the first place.....End of discussion.

Bill Shankly "If a player of mine is on the field and not interfering with play, I want to know the reason why."

The way I have always dealt with the offside rule, in whatever era or however it was at that time interpreted, was simply:

If it was a City player, "He could NOT possibly have been offside"
If it was a rag or a team playing against City, "How the fuck could that blind bastard of a lino have NOT seen what was a blatant offside.

Dealing with such questions in that manner has served me fine for over 61yrs of following City, I see no reason to make me change my mind, (what's left of it).

john68 wrote:The way I have always dealt with the offside rule, in whatever era or however it was at that time interpreted, was simply:

If it was a City player, "He could NOT possibly have been offside"
If it was a rag or a team playing against City, "How the fuck could that blind bastard of a lino have NOT seen what was a blatant offside.

Dealing with such questions in that manner has served me fine for over 61yrs of following City, I see no reason to make me change my mind, (what's left of it).

Beautifully dealt with there again, by the voice of reason.

phips wrote:

Slim wrote:Last night was just another example of the bad path they have taken with this rule. Obviously Courtios reacts to the offside player and then there is hesitation as it's obviously offside and then he has to react to Sanchez steaming in.

for me that is Coutois's' fault. whether he actually was offside or not Courtois (and all the players) have to play until the whistle.
all too often these days you see players raise their arms and stop playing because they assume it's offside--as if the linesman is going to listen to them and/or sees it the same way they do. you play until you hear the whistle regardless of what you think should or shouldn't be called.

He's believed that Ramsey was about to shoot so set himself to save that shot. Ramsey then stops, wrong footing the keeper so Sanchez can score. Natural instinctive reaction from Cortois and you can't blame him.

john68 wrote:The way I have always dealt with the offside rule, in whatever era or however it was at that time interpreted, was simply:

If it was a City player, "He could NOT possibly have been offside"
If it was a rag or a team playing against City, "How the fuck could that blind bastard of a lino have NOT seen what was a blatant offside.

Dealing with such questions in that manner has served me fine for over 61yrs of following City, I see no reason to make me change my mind, (what's left of it).

Your mind is magnificent John.

Send that 'modus operandi' to the snouts at PIGMOB; problem solved.

I think your last line sums it up perfectly. It gives officials the power to determine the outcome of games.

I'm doing a Phips here and resurrecting an old thread ...


I'm not trying to divert blame from Walker for their goal yesterday - he handled that situation very poorly - but I do think that the somewhat ambiguous offside rule was partly to blame. The ball was clearly intended for the Wigan players just behind Walker who was stood offside. Walker (wrongly and naively) assumed that the ref would blow and just let the ball go. The Wigan player walked away from the situation and his onside team mate went for it instead.

As I said, I think Kyle did extremely poorly and that he should learn a lesson from that, but I do understand what went on in his head. The ball was played to a player just next to him who was clearly offside, so he instinctively relaxed.