The Ref on Friday Night

[Shrimp in a Kilt]

Quote[/b] (Maldon Blues @ Jan. 29 2006,21:52)]I must admit I can't recite the Laws of the Game off the top of my head, but with my job involving a lot of work with Referee's, I have discussed this matter with many of them and the rule with regards to offside nowadays is basically that a player is only offside if he actually touches the ball.

A very good article on offside can be found:

>...Here...<

It is more complicated than just touching the ball, viz:

The Three Cases of Interfering With Play

Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate.

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

The second paragraph is the one where people are getting confused - it is open to a certain amount of interpretation, but I think that overall the new Law 11 is an improvement in that it allows the ref more leeway to keep the game moving.  E.G. Why on earth stop a game for offside when a player who has perhaps been replacing a lost boot is now jogging back near one touchline towards his half of the field, making no attempt to join in play, when the ball is played forwards on the other side? Under the old rules, he is offside, stop the game, freekick. Under the new rules, he is in no way interfering and the game is allowed to flow.

In Trundle's case,

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements applies, and I thought he clearly obstructed the defender's line of vision - he was between the defender and the ball, and then obstructed his movement - the defender had to go around The Talented One to try and clear it off the line. As soon as Trundle started jogging along close to the ball, in the direction of the goal, he became active.

 

[steveo]

But whatever the law states, it is still impossible for a linesman to watch when a ball is kicked and at the same time watch the last line of defence.
What would be the implications of completely scrapping the offside law?
I know people would say it would invite goal hanging but would that be a bad thing? Might create more excitement for the spectator knowing with a minute to go and needing a goal you can whack the ball into the box and hope for the best.

 

[Shrimp in a Kilt]

Just a further thought on Trundle and that goal, if the defender had (subtly&#33;)collided with him as he ran back to try to get the ball, surely the goal would not have been allowed to stand - Trundle clearly obstructing the defender&#39;s access to the ball?

 

[Banksy]

Quote[/b] (Maldon Blues @ Jan. 29 2006,13:13)]As the Offside rule currently stands, linesmen have an impossible job.

With the Gray Offside, you could see Ian Searle wanted to put his flag up, but couldn't because Wayne Gray hadn't touched the ball!  It's not his fault, justr the stupid rules at the moment.

IMO the rule should be that when the ball is played forward, and a player is in an offside position, regardless of what role he is playing, he should be offside!

Correct !!!!!!!