Liverpool vs Spurs Match Thread
- Thread starter Bulletspur
- Start date
Why should a player who doesn't touch the ball, who doesn't try to touch the ball, who doesn't block an opponent, who doesn't make a move towards the ball, and who doesn't do anything to prevent the opponent from doing their job be judged to have committed an offense?
In the past this was offside. In the past the goalkeeper could pick up a back pass. In the past you could fly in two footed "to let him know you were there". In the past you needed three defenders behind you to be onside. The laws change. Interpretations change. Why should the game be stopped because a player was simply standing in an offside position?
I know many fans and pundits feel the way you do, but I'm simply arguing that people feel that way because that's how it used to be. These changes were done to remove grey area in the laws, promote more attacking play, and lead to fewer stoppages in the match. I think these are good changes, much like past changes to the laws have been positive.
Last edited:
Ironskullll
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2010
- 1,378
- 1,894
It's worth remembering too that the references to interfering with play aren't new - it's the interpretation that's changed. I know Cloughie said that if a player's on the pitch then he must be interfering but I always felt that was just a little contrived. Even then we knew what it meant. Else how many corner takers would be offside the moment they'd taken the corner. Imagine a goal disallowed for that!
Blackrat1299
Well-Known Member
- Jan 8, 2006
- 5,368
- 6,404
Fine Liverpool and 3 games behind closed gates. Besides shooting the offenders.
Blackrat1299
Well-Known Member
- Jan 8, 2006
- 5,368
- 6,404
There is a more stupid rule than the offside rule................Lallana got a straigh red for violent conduct during the U23 game, however he won't be allowed to play for the next 3 U23 games......but can play for the first team. So effectively he will suffer no punishment for his violent conduct.
Last edited:
Should Kyle Walker be judged to be offside here after passing the ball to Sterling? He's on the pitch and in offside position when Sterling touches the ball. That means he's interfering with play according to Shankly and Clough.
Gb160
Well done boys. Good process
- Jun 20, 2012
- 23,667
- 93,386
This is the exact reason the offside rule was changed, people moaned then, people are moaning now.
Should Kyle Walker be judged to be offside here after passing the ball to Sterling? He's on the pitch and in offside position when Sterling touches the ball. That means he's interfering with play according to Shankly and Clough.
People are always going to moan about something.
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
The opposing player isnt offside to start with. The defence push up to play him offside but as he's now considered to not be intefering with play as long as he doesnt actually touch the ball that was passed to him someone else can run onto it.
It makes it impossible to defend or a lot more difficult because as a unit you dont know whether to stick or twist but that opposing player IS intefering with play. The defence only did what they did because of him.
Last edited:
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
If Walker passed that ball he passed it backwards so how could he be offside???
Should Kyle Walker be judged to be offside here after passing the ball to Sterling? He's on the pitch and in offside position when Sterling touches the ball. That means he's interfering with play according to Shankly and Clough.
Or have I misunderstood?
- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,590
- 205,123
- Admin
- #2,631
SC's motto!
It's a common misconception that passing the ball backwards means a player can't be offside. Walker is in an offside position when Sterling fluffs his shot, but of course he shouldn't be penalized for being in an offside position since he isn't interfering with play.
- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,590
- 205,123
- Admin
- #2,633
Really? I've assumed that all my life
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
Think you're being a bit pedantic to be honest.
Walkers position has no bearing on play at all.
An offside player who is offside because the defence pushed up but then leaves the ball for someone else does have a bearing on play.
Anyway its a lot more muddled and grey area now than it ever was and that cant be a good thing.
Besides the player judged to be in an offside position is whoever is receiving the ball not passing the bloody thing.
Really? I've assumed that all my life
It's a pretty rare situation, but the offside law doesn't say anything about the direction of the ball. It only matters if a player was in an offside position when a teammate last touched the ball and if that player then gets involved with play.
A player can also be called for offside in their own half of the field, if they were in an offside position in the opponents half when a teammate played the ball, and then they run back into their own half to receive the pass/clearance. Also rare, but possible.
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make to those who think offside is offside and it should be called every time.
The current laws just take it a step further and say that Kane had no bearing on play leading up to Lovren touching the ball. It's exactly the same situation except it is now taken further than it was in the past and fans/pundits have yet to accept/adapt to it.
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
Offside to those receiving the ball. Walker passed it! Backwards.
Nobody is saying stop the game everytime somebody walks offside.
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
Thats gold it really is.
- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,590
- 205,123
- Admin
- #2,639
So if the player receiving the ball is behind the player playing it, he's offside. I'm not entirely sure I've ever seen that given. I should pay more attention.
I know you disagree but they were. Previously the referee judged the intent of the defender. What was he trying to do? Did the position of the other player cause him to do something? The referee doesn't do that now. He only acts on what the player did. Did Lovren deliberately play the ball? Yes. Did Kane make any movement to obstruct or prevent Lovren from playing the ball? No.
The argument that Kane standing there caused Lovren to do something requires the referee to read his mind.
I can't summarize it any more than that. These are the current laws of the game and I don't see any reason for major changes back to the old way. If we disagree then we disagree I guess.
