For the 15,000 folk unaware…

[Mucker1884]

3 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

I was one of the 15k shouting abuse so this thread has taught me something.  But it’s a daft and unnecessary change to the law - take the free kick from the point of the offence. 

The ref yesterday was generally ok which makes a change. 

As daft as it is, and as much as I'm tempted to agree with you, the rule states that offside doesn't become an offence until the player affects play.  If that ends up being back in our own half, then so be it.
If he stands still and stays "uninvolved", the offence never occurred.

It's kinda daft, but kinda makes sense!  ?

The important things is, we all know now, so no more looking silly in front of 20k mates!   ?

[Gaspode]

27 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

I was one of the 15k shouting abuse so this thread has taught me something.  But it’s a daft and unnecessary change to the law - take the free kick from the point of the offence. 

The ref yesterday was generally ok which makes a change. 

The club come to an agreement with the EFL regarding our 'punishment' and we suddenly get a half-decent ref and a penalty in the same gaame? Too much of a coincidence methinks......

[Retro_RAM]

Never really thought you could be offside in your own half about, so technically if it's a goal kick the opposing team all could all just stand on the goal line and any pass to an outfield player would be considered offside at that point?

I presume this could be legal as you can be offside for other dead ball scenarios such as a free kick.

[duncanjwitham]

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Without any checking at all, it's something like the (offside) offence is obviously in the attacking half, 

 

37 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

take the free kick from the point of the offence. 

I think this is what's confusing people.  Under the current rules, the actual offence is touching the ball (or interfering with play etc etc) after being stood in an offside position when it was previously played by a team mate.  So the freekick does occur at the point of offence.  Being stood in an offside position, even if the ball was very clearly played to you, isn't an offence until you touch it (or otherwise interfere).

[Mucker1884]

10 minutes ago, Retro_RAM said:

Never really thought you could be offside in your own half about, so technically if it's a goal kick the opposing team all could all just stand on the goal line and any pass to an outfield player would be considered offside at that point?

I presume this could be legal as you can be offside for other dead ball scenarios such as a free kick.

No.

1/  You must be in the opponents half, in an offside position.
2/  You must then "interfere with play".

Both must occur before the offence can be called.

It just so happened that by the time our man "interfered with play", he'd returned to our half, from being in that offside position in the oppo's half.
And that is the time and place the offence gets called (Flag up, free kick gets taken from).

 

It's really not as confusing as some are making out.   

Edited November 22, 2021 by Mucker1884

[24Charlie]

I think the title of the thread is confusing.

He was in the opposition half in an offside position which is when the offence occurred. In effect it was a suspended offside decision which only became punishable when touched the ball next, which could have been anywhere. 

That the freekick gets taken from where he touched the ball and not where the actual offence took place, seems silly.

So the answer the OP you cannot be offside in your own half. CKR was in the opponents half when the offence was committed. If he had been standing 1 inch inside his own half then moved toward the ball and touched it there would have been no flag.

 

The referees decision was correct but the premise of this thread is wrong.

[May Contain Nuts]

Change for change's sake, not made obvious beforehand to the casual observer. Can hardly blame people for not knowing there's been a pointless reinterpretation of a rule that was never a problem in the first place 

 

[TuffLuff]

Home team boos ref for making an unbiased decision.

Right or wrong, we’re in a dog fight and fans need to get on top of these refs.

Its part of the game up and down the country, across the continent etc etc. 

[Wazztie16]

27 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

I think the title of the thread is confusing.

He was in the opposition half in an offside position which is when the offence occurred. In effect it was a suspended offside decision which only became punishable when touched the ball next, which could have been anywhere. 

That the freekick gets taken from where he touched the ball and not where the actual offence took place, seems silly.

So the answer the OP you cannot be offside in your own half. CKR was in the opponents half when the offence was committed. If he had been standing 1 inch inside his own half then moved toward the ball and touched it there would have been no flag.

 

The referees decision was correct but the premise of this thread is wrong.

The LOTG state it isn't an offence to be in an offside position. No offence occurred until the player became active which is either interfering with an opponent, playing or attempting to play the ball etc. 

So the offence DID occur inside the players own half. 

[rynny]

3 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

I (rightly) got pulled up for this on here, a couple of years ago(?) when it happened.

Without any checking at all, it's something like the (offside) offence is obviously in the attacking half, but the offence isn't called up until the attacker effectively comes into play (ie plays for, or actually touches the ball).  That's the point when the flag goes up, and that's the position the free kick is taken from.  Not from where the off-side position was.

I was (rightly) made to look foolish last time.  Yesterday, at the ground, I made myself look rather knowledgeable.  I like this rule!  ?

EDIT:
Might have been last season?  No idea!  ?‍♂️

It was 2 years ago, Swansea at home, IIRC. 

[Mucker1884]

8 minutes ago, rynny said:

It was 2 years ago, Swansea at home, IIRC. 

Cheers.

I wouldn't even consider arguing that.  I'll take your word for it.   ??

[WamRam]

4 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

I (rightly) got pulled up for this on here, a couple of years ago(?) when it happened.

Without any checking at all, it's something like the (offside) offence is obviously in the attacking half, but the offence isn't called up until the attacker effectively comes into play (ie plays for, or actually touches the ball).  That's the point when the flag goes up, and that's the position the free kick is taken from.  Not from where the off-side position was.

I was (rightly) made to look foolish last time.  Yesterday, at the ground, I made myself look rather knowledgeable.  I like this rule!  ?

EDIT:
Might have been last season?  No idea!  ?‍♂️

Did the same thing a few years ago at Birmingham away...felt rather smug yesterday haha!

[nottingram]

Can sleep easy knowing that this rule got sorted out. Used to ruin the game for me when a team would be forced to take a free kick from where the player was when the ball was played instead of where he became active.

[Ram-Alf]

48 minutes ago, Wazztie16 said:

The LOTG state it isn't an offence to be in an offside position. No offence occurred until the player became active which is either interfering with an opponent, playing or attempting to play the ball etc. 

So the offence DID occur inside the players own half. 

CKR became "active" when he moved forward from the opponants half to chest the ball down in his own half...now the confusing bit is "active", I've seen players this last couple of seasons given offside when chasing a long ball then flagged when the ball is controlled, But where is the free kick taken from, The point of control of where he started the run...this has bugged me since this new law came about.

[24Charlie]

59 minutes ago, Wazztie16 said:

The LOTG state it isn't an offence to be in an offside position. No offence occurred until the player became active which is either interfering with an opponent, playing or attempting to play the ball etc. 

So the offence DID occur inside the players own half. 

Sorry I don’t see it that way. Had he not been standing in an offside position in the first place then there would have been no offence to punish.

The assertion of the original post is that you can be offside in your own half and you simply cannot be. CKR was offside in the opponents half.

[Mckram]

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

As daft as it is, and as much as I'm tempted to agree with you, the rule states that offside doesn't become an offence until the player affects play.  If that ends up being back in our own half, then so be it.
If he stands still and stays "uninvolved", the offence never occurred.

It's kinda daft, but kinda makes sense!  ?

The important things is, we all know now, so no more looking silly in front of 20k mates!   ?

I know what you’re saying by it makes sense…but what about on the flip side and an attacker runs 20 yards and touches the ball knowing he was offside in the opponents half.

Does the defending team get to take the ball 20 yards further up the field where he started his offside to take the kick…or have they got to take it from where he touched the ball?!

I’m sure everyone pulls it back to where it started even still now.

 

[Mucker1884]

The new interpretation of the offside law says it is not necessarily an offence to be in an offside position.
... an attacker can stand in an offside position so long as they are NOT involved in active play in the three following scenarios:

Scenario 1- Interfering with play
Scenario 2 - Interfering with an opponent
Scenario 3 - Gaining an advantage by being in that position

Until either scenario occurs, the flag will stay down.

 

Interfering with play:
If the attacker receives the ball either directly or courtesy of a flick on from a team-mate or a defender then they are offside.
This is because by receiving the ball they are interfering with play.

Interfering with an opponent:
If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball, then they are offside.
One way of doing this would be to block the goalkeeper.
Or get in their line of vision...

Gaining an advantage:
Lastly if the ball is played into the penalty area and the ball rebounds off either a post, the crossbar or an opposing defender, then the attacker is offside.
This is because they have gained an advantage by being in that position.

 

All above quoted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/rules/newsid_3481000/3481977.stm

 

 

Of course, "Interfering with play" can effectively be wide open to interpretation.  To take that away, the rules would need to revert to "Off-side is Off-side", and a footnote referring to a famous and oft-quoted piece by a certain Mr B Clough OBE!  ?

 

[Mucker1884]

3 minutes ago, Mckram said:

I know what you’re saying by it makes sense…but what about on the flip side and an attacker runs 20 yards and touches the ball knowing he was offside in the opponents half.

Does the defending team get to take the ball 20 yards further up the field where he started his offside to take the kick…or have they got to take it from where he touched the ball?!

I’m sure everyone pulls it back to where it started even still now.

 

Don't start aiming your technical questions at me, pal!  I didn't write the bloody rules, and I certainly don't administer them!

I didn't get to where I am today by fielding technical questions set by folk who almost certainly know more than I do, anyway! ?   

[ilkleyram]

2 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

As daft as it is, and as much as I'm tempted to agree with you, the rule states that offside doesn't become an offence until the player affects play.  If that ends up being back in our own half, then so be it.
If he stands still and stays "uninvolved", the offence never occurred.

It's kinda daft, but kinda makes sense!  ?

The important things is, we all know now, so no more looking silly in front of 20k mates!   ?

You're correct of course, when you think about it, it kind of makes sense. But.

Like some other sports, football (and primarily football administrators) are turning what is in essence a simple game into something unnecessarily complicated - the offside law, handball laws, VAR/use of technology, head injuries/stopping the game - being just four examples off the top of my head of where the authorities have messed with the rules and interpretations and made, IMO, the game worse.  I suspect that most fans, if asked, might rather there be a greater concentration on diving, time wasting or feigning injury as scourges of the modern game, never mind the role of agents and the overall influence of TV

Rugby Union is another sport where the rules have become so complex that the game as a spectacle is less than it was because those watching, especially live rather than on TV, have no idea what is happening. And football is going the same way.  At least refs are often mic'd up in Rugby for fans to hear, in the professional game anyway.

We, and the fans of increasing numbers of other clubs, should probably see our greater knowledge of stadium sales, amortisation and the rules around administration in similar light. The game's off pitch regulatory shambles reflects the paucity of quality football administrators generally, the excessive influence of money and a media (social and mainstream) that serves solely to wind we fans into an even greater frenzy in the chase for clicks  

[Mucker1884]

11 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

You're correct of course...

 

TLDR

That was good enough for me, buddy!   ?  ?