Robbie Fowler

[lyonsee]

Right place, right time again on Sunday. 4 in last 4. He's getting the sharpness back. Not quite up to pace but certainly getting there. Give the man a contract. He'll get 20 next season.

[cully]

yeah reckon it's worth a punt. as you say he's been doing the right things and looks far sharper than any other striker we have. not saying that he's the answer, reckon we still need to invest in this area, but he's worth a contract. Wonder if Blakey can let us know how much salary he'd be earning.

was a good finish on saturday, but cisse was ridiculously off-side and active to boot. they're calling the off-side a grey area these days, but it's that bad i can't even make out a colour.

[lyonsee]

I sense there will be a post from therock67 on how the offside rule is completely black and white. I don't know the strict interpretation of the rule but my feeling was that Cisse did not interfere.

[therock67]

lyonsee said:

I sense there will be a post from therock67 on how the offside rule is completely black and white. I don't know the strict interpretation of the rule but my feeling was that Cisse did not interfere.

I actually disagree I think that Cisse did interfere.

The Law:

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is touched or played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play, or
interfering with an opponent, or
gaining an advantage by being in that position.

Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

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 that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position. "

I think Cisse interfered with an opponent by making a movement which was a distraction.
The main causes of debate these days are when a player is standing in an offside position and the ball is subsequently passed to them and they score. It is very clear from the rules that this player is now only onside if the ball is either passed directly to them when they are offside or if the ball rebounds to them from an oppnent or the goalframe. Once the ball is touched by a team-mate the player who was offside can be onside again. It's like a new phase of possession.

[cully]

i reckon he was off, if you look at all the blackburn players, once they saw he was off and then made a movement toward the ball they all stopped, awaiting a flag. robbie savage lost fowler because of it.
agree with the rock67, his presence and movement toward the ball was an interference and ergo a distraction

[lyonsee]

Disagree. For me, he didn't interfere as he didn't change the direction of the ball. Ever heard the phrase 'play the whistle'? Well defenders should have copped on by now that that is what they need to do.

I've said it before I'll say it again, I think the rule should be changed. If a player is offside, regardless of 'interference' it should be given as offside. A defence that may not otherwise have done so may have stepped up to catch that player offside. Also, the offside player may gain what I would deem an unfair advantage by having a yard or two (or more) on the defence, should play continue.

[cully]

they were talking on sky about bringing in a new rule that only players offside in the old sense that were in the 18 yard box should be deemed off. The main reason why they brought in the new rule was because you could score a perfectly legit goal but some dope on the far side of the pitch could be off side and thus the flag would go up.

hard to see how they'll get around bringing the old way back in, a tv camera replay would solve everything. works in all other sports, don't see why not in footy

[therock67]

lyonsee said:

Disagree. For me, he didn't interfere as he didn't change the direction of the ball. Ever heard the phrase 'play the whistle'? Well defenders should have copped on by now that that is what they need to do.

I've said it before I'll say it again, I think the rule should be changed. If a player is offside, regardless of 'interference' it should be given as offside. A defence that may not otherwise have done so may have stepped up to catch that player offside. Also, the offside player may gain what I would deem an unfair advantage by having a yard or two (or more) on the defence, should play continue.

But you're putting your own interpretation of the rules on the situation which has allowed you to determine that he is not offside because he didn't change the direction of the ball. I honestly don't see what the confusion is:

He was standing in an offside position. He is only deemed to be offside if any of the following occurs:

1. He plays the ball
2. He interferes with an opponent.
3. He gains an advantage directly from being in that position.

The first point is self-explanatory. If he touches the ball next then he is offside.
The second point means that if he interferes with an opponent by coming into contact with him physically or by occupying his line of vision (really only the goalkeeper or else he's unlikely to be offside) or by making a movement or gesture which distracts or deceives the defender.
The third point gives rise to the usual number of debates. When a guy is blantantly standing offside but play continues and is passed to him and he scores. They have made the rule perfectly clear however that a player is only offside when the ball is passed directly to him or if it rebounds to him from an opponent or the goalposts. Once his team-mate touches it then it's game on.

Cisse is offside by virtue of the second point above in my opinion. His movement towards the bar is at best a distraction and at best deceitful. Because of this he should have been flagged or whistled for offside.

The other points you make are interesting. It is exactly to prevent defences stepping up to catch someone offside continually that the law was changed. Nowadays it doesn't matter if they move like a trip switch and leave some dude offside. As long as he doesn't go on to try and play the ball next then the game will continue.

I remember Roy Keane having a goal ridiculously disallowed for Man United against Arsenal or Liverpool I think years ago because a winger was standing a yard offside. That was a shambles.

The new rule is much better but everyone buys into what the managers and Sky pundits say after the game. Forget about the old cliches and read the rules and it's very clear.

[lyonsee]

admin said:

lyonsee said:

Disagree. For me, he didn't interfere as he didn't change the direction of the ball. Ever heard the phrase 'play the whistle'? Well defenders should have copped on by now that that is what they need to do.

I've said it before I'll say it again, I think the rule should be changed. If a player is offside, regardless of 'interference' it should be given as offside. A defence that may not otherwise have done so may have stepped up to catch that player offside. Also, the offside player may gain what I would deem an unfair advantage by having a yard or two (or more) on the defence, should play continue.

The new rule is much better but everyone buys into what the managers and Sky pundits say after the game. Forget about the old cliches and read the rules and it's very clear.

Apologies. On my initial reading of the rules I didn't see the bit about making a gesture or movement which might distract or deceive the defender. This does mean Cisse was offside.

However, I would like to express my dissatisfaction at your suggestion that I'm just 'buying into what the managers and Sky pundits say'. I've made up my own mind that I don't like the rule as it is, primarily because every player in an offside position is interfering in some small way, in my opinion.

[bandage]

This offside thing has wrecked my head for a while now. I don't remember the Keane goal mentioned above but I very vaguely recall a Charity Shield match in the early 1990s where some guy got to the by-line out wide and chipped the ball back to the edge of the box for another player to volley into the top corner. An absolutely smashing goal but ruled out because the guy standing out wide on the by-line was offside when the last few defenders pushed out to try block the shot. This clearly emphasised the folly of the old offside rule and something had to be done about it.

I was actually happier with the way things were from the mid 1990s up to the last couple of seasons. A player was not offside per se if he was standing ahead of the last defender. Rather he was only offside if he was interfering with play. It seemed fair to all parties imo. Obviously, if he was blocking the keeper's vision when a shot was taken the flag would go up etc and defenders knew they didn't have to worry about this ridiculous second phase nonsense which penalises good defensive organisation and gives an advantage to goal hangers like Van Nistelrooy.

Like the way things are now a team can play a high defensive line and a striker can stand 5 yards ahead of them blatantly offside. If someone else makes a run from deep and is put through the striker is inactive. The other player can then run in on goal, draw the keeper and then roll it across to the striker to tap in. I just find this ridiculous. I know the rule is clear cut on this but it is also clear in my mind that the back four have defended well as a unit to catch a striker offside and are then penalised for it.

I prefer the old way.

[therock67]

bandage said:

This offside thing has wrecked my head for a while now. I don't remember the Keane goal mentioned above but I very vaguely recall a Charity Shield match in the early 1990s where some guy got to the by-line out wide and chipped the ball back to the edge of the box for another player to volley into the top corner. An absolutely smashing goal but ruled out because the guy standing out wide on the by-line was offside when the last few defenders pushed out to try block the shot. This clearly emphasised the folly of the old offside rule and something had to be done about it.

I was actually happier with the way things were from the mid 1990s up to the last couple of seasons. A player was not offside per se if he was standing ahead of the last defender. Rather he was only offside if he was interfering with play. It seemed fair to all parties imo. Obviously, if he was blocking the keeper's vision when a shot was taken the flag would go up etc and defenders knew they didn't have to worry about this ridiculous second phase nonsense which penalises good defensive organisation and gives an advantage to goal hangers like Van Nistelrooy.

Like the way things are now a team can play a high defensive line and a striker can stand 5 yards ahead of them blatantly offside. If someone else makes a run from deep and is put through the striker is inactive. The other player can then run in on goal, draw the keeper and then roll it across to the striker to tap in. I just find this ridiculous. I know the rule is clear cut on this but it is also clear in my mind that the back four have defended well as a unit to catch a striker offside and are then penalised for it.

I prefer the old way.

This is nearly attracting as much interest as the Bec Cartwright discussion!

I can agree with much of what you've said there and what Lyonsee said most recently. The argument I made before is that people complain about a lack of clarity and we have fools like Jamie Redknapp on a panel saying that the rules need to be clarified because guys are clearly offside and not being flagged. Just because Jamie Redknapp doesn't bother to read up on it doesn't mean that the rule isn't clear. (Didn't mean to have a pop at Lyonsee in that context but what I was saying is that the rules exist and are clear: it's whether the rules should be changed that is debatable).

Whether it's right or not is a different matter. I see what they're trying to do and to be fair before the current interpretation there were instances where people were unsure whether a phase had ended and they've tried to clarify that. Have you any alternative measures to decide when a guy who was offside should be allowed back onside? The best alternative I can think of is something along the lines of rugby union where someone who was standing offside must be seen to make an effort to get onside, otherwise they will be flagged.

[bandage]

Yeah I take the Redknapp point. Indeed various managers in the EPL this week, including Pearce and Hughes, have called for the rules as they stand to be scrapped as they say nobody knows what they are. That is a load of scheidt as they're clearly available on the FIFA or UEFA websites and I'm sure the FA have distributed them to the clubs. The only thing I wasn't aware of earlier in the season was the part about gaining an advantage after the ball hit the post. I remember going mental during Celtic's cracking 3-2 comeback at Tynecastle on New Year's Day when Naka hit the post and Maloney tapped in the rebound only for it to be ruled out. But as you say if I'd have checked the rules beforehand I'd have known it was a correct decision as the laws currently stand.

My point is I think it's unfair. The solution that you propose seems reasonable - just show by your body language that you're making an effort to get back onside. Hold a hand in the air, put your hands on your head, etc. But in fairness Rangers were victims of the new rule against Villareal so it's not all bad.