From: spicpussy on
b o r i n g

From: HASM on
Huw Morris <no(a)spam.please> writes:

> One possible reason could be the difference in how the offside law is being
> interpreted these days.

Very little changed, if anything at all, in the offside law, just the
language was made more clear and what's "in line" or "not in line" was
finally defined.

> FIFA have for years been trying to give the attacker the benefit of the
> doubt in offside decisions,

I'm not sure the law ever said something like that, but TV commentators do.
I think this comes from the quite natural "when in doubt, don't call it",
which will usually benefit the attacker.

> The crucial difference now is whether a player in an offside position is
> interfering with play.

I'm old, and I remember this being discussed in games I watched in my
youth. Players used to stop and stand still to signal that they were not
involved in play all the time. I remember a 1-0 game in the largest derby
back in my home country that was decided on such a goal, where the ball
goes very close to a player totally in offside position, near midfield, but
not involved in play. Lots of paper and ink were dedicated to that play.

> The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered.

Not sure which games you're watching besides the World Cup. In the World
Cup no one wants to lose so badly, and have watched defensive teams win
trophies, that they just play a more defensive style.

> Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup?

I'd say normal.

From: HASM on
Abubakr <deltarasha(a)> writes:

> such as by giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt in close
> decisions

Where in the FIFA book and of which edition/year is this written down

From: HASM on
JK <jknapp(a)> writes:

> Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
> of a thousand white hot suns.

"Passive offsides"? What the heck is that? The rule is about "offside",
not "offsides" and defines the "active" part of committing an offense.
I guess if you're not active you're inactive or passive, but that's not in
the rules.

There's two parts to the offside law, position and participation. One
needs conditions specified in both parts to be present, for it to be a

Has always been this way in the 50+ years I've been following the game.
Repeat after me, "being in an offside position is not a foul by itself" and
never was.


From: Bruce D. Scott on
HASM (netnews(a) wrote:
: JK <jknapp(a)> writes:

: > Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion
: > of a thousand white hot suns.

: "Passive offsides"? What the heck is that? The rule is about "offside",

There was a clear directive from FIFA about that which came down
something like 10 or 15 years ago. It led to a massive increase in
"central decoy play" by strikers which IMHO is the main problem.

I don't dispute there's nothing in the rules about it, but surely if you
are so knowledgeable on such things you must know the details of the
directives, which instruct referees on how to interpret the laws. They
do matter. On German TV they regulary cite the change in the backpass
rule and the changes on how offside is to be interpreted (what means
passive, what means "equal height" or offside) as the two biggest recent
changes to the game.


drift wave turbulence: