new offside 'rule' in football

[jxyama]

Eurosport (http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/S22/E5817/sport_Lng0_Spo22_Evt5817_Sto500569.shtml)

what do you guys think of this new interpretation? i like the intent, but i don't like the possibility of "delayed" calls, esp. if it nullifies a goal. if i understand it correctly, this will result in any player in an offside position (but wasn't involved in the play) to be effectively taken out of the play because if he was to go back and try to play the ball, delayed offside will be called..?

i have a feeling this will cause some problems. NHL tried running mandatory replay after any controvercial goals one season and fans weren't happy. no one could celebrate a goal spontaneously because no one knew for sure if the goal counted or not until after the review - which could last minutes! what's the fun in celebrating a goal that way?!

[question fear]

interesting. I could be wrong on this, but from what i recall of my rugby days (most of which were spent with my head wedged firmly in the scrum-yea locks-thus limiting my overall sight of the game) in rugby the ref can call offsides or another penalty after play has continued, until the advantage to the non-violating team passes. It seemed to me that this soccer ruling is effectively doing the opposite...is that true? It seems to me it could lead to some bad blood between players, as some moves previously considered offsides would slide into just this side of legal.
--carly

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by jxyama
Eurosport (http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/S22/E5817/sport_Lng0_Spo22_Evt5817_Sto500569.shtml)
if i understand it correctly, this will result in any player in an offside position (but wasn't involved in the play) to be effectively taken out of the play because if he was to go back and try to play the ball, delayed offside will be called..? I think that's one of the things they'll have to work out during the season(s). I suppose if the player was offside, then wasn't when the made a move or joined the play, they wouldn't (shouldn't at least) be called for it. I'm thinking it means that if someone if offside, but they just stand in the corner and don't move, they won't be called, but if they are right in front of the keeper and block his/her view, then I'm they'll be called then :cool:

[LethalWolfe]

Man, offsides in football seems to have always been a damned if you do, damned if you don't rule. It's going to be tough deciding in the blink of an eye who is just standing around out of the play and who is cherry picking. And you know that forwards are going to try and pretend to be out of the play in an attempt to get a jump on the play. Do you think a rule like this will effectively end defenses being able to trap players offsides?

Originally posted by question fear
interesting. I could be wrong on this, but from what i recall of my rugby days (most of which were spent with my head wedged firmly in the scrum-yea locks-thus limiting my overall sight of the game) in rugby the ref can call offsides or another penalty after play has continued, until the advantage to the non-violating team passes. It seemed to me that this soccer ruling is effectively doing the opposite...is that true? It seems to me it could lead to some bad blood between players, as some moves previously considered offsides would slide into just this side of legal.
--carly

If the violated team has/maintains an advantage then no foul will be called. I've pretty sure that is a universal rule in football, but I played in the states and US rules differ slightly than FIFA rules.


Lethal

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Man, offsides in football seems to have always been a damned if you do, damned if you don't rule. It's going to be tough deciding in the blink of an eye who is just standing around out of the play and who is cherry picking. I think that's where the delayed part comes in. Give the refs a bit to think about it.

[jxyama]

one of the problems i noticed about offsides is how difficult it is to call... and when it's difficult, the ref's decisions become inconsistent. that's when fans get MAD. :mad:

it's difficult to call because an attacking player cannot be closer to the goal than the last defender when the ball is kicked TO him. not when he receives the ball.

one way i thought offsides could be better called is to have the officials be equipped with a vibrating beeper. the one closer to the goal will watch the position of the forwards in relation to the defense. the other ref will watch the passer down field - and when the pass is kicked, activate the beeper. now, the official watching the forwards will know if any of them are offsides without paying attention to when the ball was passed...

[idea_hamster]

I think that there's a bit of selective recall regarding bad off-sides calls -- I know that I can remember two quite vividly, but can't particularly recall any where there was a close call that was made correctly.

I think that this interpretation will make it slightly more difficult to play a trap, since attackers who know that they have one idiot who always gets trapped can avoid leading him with a pass. As long as he doesn't meddle in the play, no problem. Since it's not a new rule, but a new emphasis on linesmen using their judgement as to who is "part of the attack", that's were the inconsistency will come in. As long as there's a general consensus as to who is part of the attack, I think it will be a positive change.

Specifically, I'd be interested to know how this case would be called: Attackers A1 and A2 are lurking about the last defender D2. [no offsides: no flag] The ball is about to be played forward, so D2 steps upfield putting A1 offsides. [no flag yet] The ball is played toward A2, who breaks on the attack from his onsides position. [still no flag] A2 knows that A1 was offsides and so he doesn't even look at him knowing he'll have to play alone -- but A1 runs downfield on the opposite side of the play. [is that part of the play? flag now?]

Without any way of signalling that the non-ball playing attacker is offsides, I think that they'd have to call the entire play.

[pseudobrit]

There's a delayed offside rule in hockey and it works well, FWIW. It keeps play going at times when it would normally result in stoppage, is reversible and cannot result in a cancelled goal. If a football rule could be structured similarly, I would see no problem with it.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I've pretty sure that is a universal rule in football, but I played in the states and US rules differ slightly than FIFA rules.

Actually the USSF and MLS rules follow the FIFA rules.

I got a kick that they had a picture of Pippo Inzaghi in the article.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by jxyama
one way i thought offsides could be better called is to have the officials be equipped with a vibrating beeper. the one closer to the goal will watch the position of the forwards in relation to the defense. the other ref will watch the passer down field - and when the pass is kicked, activate the beeper. now, the official watching the forwards will know if any of them are offsides without paying attention to when the ball was passed... That seems like a good idea.

[jxyama]

Originally posted by Juventuz
I got a kick that they had a picture of Pippo Inzaghi in the article.

yeah, talk about a forward constantly living on the edge of being called offside... :D