Question Corr 2nd goal

[Mick]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is whether or not Corr is behind the ball when Hurst crosses it. I can't get the highlights here at work, so I can't say. Can someone have a look? If he's behind the ball he can't be off side.

I'm also assuming Hursts cross went forward. If that went sideways then he can't be off side either...again I can't get the highlights to check, but I'm pretty sure the ball went forwards.

The direction the ball travels is not relevant to whether a player is offside; only the player's position relative to the ball.

 

[londonblue]

The direction the ball travels is not relevant to whether a player is offside; only the player's position relative to the ball.

Wow. Has that changed? I'm pretty sure you couldn't be offside of the ball was played backwards, although that is covered by the fact that you can't be offside from a corner, which is pretty much the only time it is likely to be an issue.

However, the main question still stands: was Corr behind the ball when the cross came in?

 

[BrettieAngell]

To summarise no-one actually knows if it was offside or not!

 

[dannypav]

All this debate about Corr's 2nd goal , reminded me of the comment from Bill Shankly just after the offside law was changed.
Something along the lines of "If a player isn't interfering with play , then he shouldn't be on the pitch" !
Always made me chuckle that one.

 

[Jam_Man]

Wow. Has that changed? I'm pretty sure you couldn't be offside of the ball was played backwards, although that is covered by the fact that you can't be offside from a corner, which is pretty much the only time it is likely to be an issue.

However, the main question still stands: was Corr behind the ball when the cross came in?

No it hasnt, you cant be offisde if the ball is played backwards or sideways. You can be in an offside position but the whistle will only blow when the ball is played forwards.

 

[Pubey]

To summarise no-one actually knows if it was offside or not!

It wasn't offside, because the ref didn't give it. That's all that matters :happy:

 

[Mick]

No it hasnt, you cant be offisde if the ball is played backwards or sideways. You can be in an offside position but the whistle will only blow when the ball is played forwards.

MYTH ALERT:

I repeat, the direction the ball is travelling in has no bearing on whether a player is offside.

 

[Jam_Man]

MYTH ALERT:

I repeat, the direction the ball is travelling in has no bearing on whether a player is offside.

Yeah just read the rules, its just when the ball is played by a team mate.

Guess however that if you are in an offside position and the ball is played backwards/sideways theres no way you can be active though so youll still never be blown for offside.

 

[Norwichshrimper]

I disagree. I think the interpretations ARE complex and ill-defined. You will find top officials disagreeing with each other over interpretation of the guidelines. They are also inconsistently applied at all levels of football.

How do you define "makes an attempt to receive the ball" ? Would you include getting into position for a cross?

How would you define "interferes with a defender" ?

No, it is far from straightforward and I don't think the Laws, guidelines and interpretations that currently exist are fit for purpose.

Interpretation = key word in this debate. Whilst a lot of recent tweaks to rules (or laws) are certainly beneficial in many ways, in my opinion too much is left to the match officials discretion. It's not just the "active / inactive" argument... when yellow / red cards are handed out for "deliberately" denying a goalscoring oppurtunity or "deliberate" handball, it's all down to the referee's opinion as to whether it was deliberate or not, and he can only guess the answer.

As I said earlier, the only way to be 100% fair is to take the discretion and interpretation out of the referee's role. Just let him apply the laws of the game. I'm not suggesting this is what should happen, just pointing out that there will always be debate, argument and differences of opinion while this is the way things are done.

 

[Fish]

"engages with play" is not a recognised term within the Laws of Football so you will need to define that as part of your statement.

I never said I was trying to use recognised terms within the Laws of Football, I wasn't trying to quote a Law or anything? why the heavy handed tone? I was just trying to get a point across clearly, and I would have thought that 'engages with play' is pretty clear?

Would 'becomes active' suffice? 'Gets involved in play'?

 

[Fish]

But it was brought in for a reason... todays game is only so tight because the offside rule is there. Take it away, the pitch becomes technically bigger and it invites kick and rush.

Read the rest of my post, fbm, and you'll see why I don't think you're right. It would be an interesting experiment to see how teams adapted to there being no off-sides.

Hockey got rid of offside years ago, and it's a much faster, better game as a result. Even with a shooting area at each end, you still don't often get goal hangers, because teams have to defend as a unit, and a having a goal-hanger means choosing to defend with one fewer players.

 

[Jam_Man]

I once played in a game where they only had offside in the penalty area, up to the 18 yard box you werent offside.

Completely ruined the game as strikers just lurked on the edge of the area and defenders couldnt move any further than their 18 yard line.

It was the most absurd game Ive ever played in and would ruin the game.

 

[Fish]

Jam, how did it 'ruin the game' exactly? Did you have more chances at both ends? More goals? Did the attacking team not twig that if the defenders came forward and joined in the attack (as they do now) then they've got 2 extra players and keeping the ball is easier then?

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I once played in a game where they only had offside in the penalty area, up to the 18 yard box you werent offside.

Completely ruined the game as strikers just lurked on the edge of the area and defenders couldnt move any further than their 18 yard line.

It was the most absurd game Ive ever played in and would ruin the game.

Did you also have jumpers for goalposts and anyone can save?

 

[Jam_Man]

Jam, how did it 'ruin the game' exactly? Did you have more chances at both ends? More goals? Did the attacking team not twig that if the defenders came forward and joined in the attack (as they do now) then they've got 2 extra players and keeping the ball is easier then?

Because the strikers dont have to track back, and your defenders cant leave the 18 yard box the whole play is spread far more. You therefore just get defenders booting it, midfielders have far too much space to cover. Theres no point in neat passing moves as theres far too much space everywhere.

Only played one game like that and never did again as it killed the game.

Dont recall the score so cant comment on whether there were more goals, but if that was the result that too would be a terrible thing for the game.

 

[fbm]

Yeah just read the rules, its just when the ball is played by a team mate.

Guess however that if you are in an offside position and the ball is played backwards/sideways theres no way you can be active though so youll still never be blown for offside.

Unless for instance it is a crossfield ball, the player who it's being passed to is offside when the ball is played but runs back to an onside position to receive the ball

 

[Fish]

Because the strikers dont have to track back(1), and your defenders cant leave the 18 yard box the whole play is spread far more. You therefore just get defenders booting it, midfielders have far too much space to cover. Theres no point in neat passing moves as theres far too much space everywhere.

Only played one game like that and never did again as it killed the game.

Dont recall the score so cant comment on whether there were more goals, but if that was the result that too would be a terrible thing for the game(2).

1) They do if the defenders attack, because the strikers team mates otherwise get overrun.
2) Did you really just say that more goals would be a terrible thing for the game? Scoring goals is the AIM of the game!!!! As it is at the moment, the game is spoilt by negative tactics (enabled by rules like off-side) and deliberate fouls, all of which are genuinely terrible for the game

Teams that want to have effective possession wouldn't just boot it up to a striker who was marked, because there'd be too much risk of losing possession, just as there is now. Getting rid of off-side makes no difference to that.
To keep better possession and have a better chance of a decent attack, the attackers would have to come deeper to receive their passes, especially quicker attackers who can then use their pace behind the defence.

 

[Jam_Man]

1) They do if the defenders attack, because the strikers team mates otherwise get overrun.
2) Did you really just say that more goals would be a terrible thing for the game? Scoring goals is the AIM of the game!!!! As it is at the moment, the game is spoilt by negative tactics (enabled by rules like off-side) and deliberate fouls, all of which are genuinely terrible for the game

Teams that want to have effective possession wouldn't just boot it up to a striker who was marked, because there'd be too much risk of losing possession, just as there is now. Getting rid of off-side makes no difference to that.
To keep better possession and have a better chance of a decent attack, the attackers would have to come deeper to receive their passes, especially quicker attackers who can then use their pace behind the defence.

The fact that goals are hard to come by is what makes football the great game it is. The joy and ectasy of a goal is amazing, if you got too many per game they would be devalued.

If every game was 5-4 it would get dull very quickly.

What next ? Having 10 foot high goals so its easier to score?

As for removing offside, that would kill the game dead. There would be no point in intricate passing as you wouldnt have to play through the opposition because without offside squeezing the play you would have players in the entire length of the pitch with far too much space to exploit. Youd only have to leave one striker in the 6 yard box to ensure 2 defenders were there minimum. You say strikers would have to come deep to get the ball. Why ? There would be far more space in the middle so the midfielders could run with the ball more and bring it to them.

Even Sepp Blatter wouldnt consider removing offside thankfully.

 

[Fish]

The fact that goals are hard to come by is what makes football the great game it is. The joy and ectasy of a goal is amazing, if you got too many per game they would be devalued.

If every game was 5-4 it would get dull very quickly.

What next ? Having 10 foot high goals so its easier to score?

As for removing offside, that would kill the game dead. There would be no point in intricate passing as you wouldnt have to play through the opposition because without offside squeezing the play you would have players in the entire length of the pitch with far too much space to exploit. Youd only have to leave one striker in the 6 yard box to ensure 2 defenders were there minimum. You say strikers would have to come deep to get the ball. Why ? There would be far more space in the middle so the midfielders could run with the ball more and bring it to them.

Even Sepp Blatter wouldnt consider removing offside thankfully.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the more goals = better game point. Goals are significant not because they're rare but because they give you a boost in the game. I've never heard a manager apologise after a 4-3 for making the game dull with too many goals. One of the most exciting periods in our history was under Barry Fry, whose mantra was 'score more than them'.

Without offside, midfielders wouldn't be able to run the ball from box to box all the time - that's my point. We'd still have intricate passing, cos you need all players involved around the pitch to get around the opposition. Believe me, as an experienced hockey umpire (umpiring to the same level and higher than Southend play football, having no off-side doesn't mean you get goal hangers and defenders staying deep to mark them very much (though when you do, it increases the variety of tactics available, therefore making the game more interesting, because you can use more of the pitch). All players have to be involved in build up play, and passing movements are often very intricate.

A team that marked a lone striker with 2 defenders deep would have problems attacking cos they'd be a player down, so they'd quickly find play up their end much more.

 

[Mick]

The fact that goals are hard to come by is what makes football the great game it is. The joy and ectasy of a goal is amazing, if you got too many per game they would be devalued.

If every game was 5-4 it would get dull very quickly.

What next ? Having 10 foot high goals so its easier to score?

As for removing offside, that would kill the game dead. There would be no point in intricate passing as you wouldnt have to play through the opposition because without offside squeezing the play you would have players in the entire length of the pitch with far too much space to exploit. Youd only have to leave one striker in the 6 yard box to ensure 2 defenders were there minimum. You say strikers would have to come deep to get the ball. Why ? There would be far more space in the middle so the midfielders could run with the ball more and bring it to them.

Even Sepp Blatter wouldnt consider removing offside thankfully.

Never try to second guess what Sepp Blatter might do. The power-mad lunatic is not fit to supervise a tiddly-winks match let alone oversee the world's millions of footballers.