Offside and attacking play
in [World Football]
|
Prev: "Lord of War" Unsophisticated Prediction Contest
Next: The Best World Cup RSS *contest* so far (bicycle kick now worth 3)
From: Deeppe on 15 Jun 2010 14:56 On Jun 15, 11:45 am, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > HASM (netn...(a)invalid.com) wrote: > : JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> 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. Yes, about almost a decade ago for the most recent change. > > 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. > You have it exactly right Bruce. The instruction to referees has changed dramatically.
From: Alessandro Riolo on 15 Jun 2010 16:45 On 15 June, 18:19, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > Has always been this way in the 50+ years I've been following the game. Off the top of my head, the offside rule, or related guidelines, has changed at least twice in the last 20 years (the onside at level in 1990 and the inactivity of who don't touch or play the ball in 2005), and I'd not be surprised there were more changes. -- ale http://ale.riolo.co.uk
From: HASM on 15 Jun 2010 21:43 bds(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) writes: > 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. I think we're arguing semantics here. Directives on how to interpret the laws didn't and don't change the laws, they're just clarifications on how to interpret them, i.e. telling referees how they should have done things all along. > On German TV they regulary cite the change in the backpass rule If I believed everything I heard on TV I would be in trouble when I was on the field refereeing. The backpass was added to the laws (there's no rules in football) and that changed the game, just like they fiddled with goal-keeper number of steps, now number of seconds, etc. Those wore law changes that did change the game, not clarifications. > 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. By "equal height" do you mean deciding which player is closer to the goal line? That was indeed clarified, as it wasn't written in the laws until 4 or 5 years back, if I recall correctly. Again, I don't think you'll find any law or directive using the word passive, but the language of the offside law was changed to make it more clear, not the basics of it, by defining the three conditions that make a player to be "active" in play. One needs to be in an offside position and be active in play, for an offside infraction to have occurred. If a player is in an offside position, but is not involved in play, there's no infraction, and, TV commentators use the word "passive", which is not used in the refereeing lingo. And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember, just that the definition of active wasn't reduced to those three conditions now in the book, explicitly. -- HASM
From: HASM on 15 Jun 2010 21:48 Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.riolo(a)gmail.com> writes: > Off the top of my head, the offside rule, or related guidelines, has > changed at least twice in the last 20 years (the onside at level in 1990 Yes, what is an offside position, from level to the current definition of "any part of the body that can score, closer to the goal line" was added to the laws, explicitly, but that makes very little change to the way offside is played. And remember, this is all theoretical, on the field of play referees make mistakes of +/1 a foot, minimum, all the time. > and the inactivity of who don't touch or play the ball in 2005), and I'd > not be surprised there were more changes. This wasn't really a change, it was a clarification on what is active, and one doesn't need to touch the ball to be active, interfering with an opponent, even without touching the ball, is actively participating and the player will be deemed offside, so touching or not touching the ball is not by itself necessary. The intent of the law was always not to penalize players that don't actively participate, and I remember discussion on this matter from way before 1970, so this is not new, though USENET news is. -- HASM
From: Deeppe on 15 Jun 2010 22:19
On Jun 15, 6:43 pm, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > > And again, this has always been the case, as far as I remember, Your memory is lacking. Or things have come full circle since the time when you were still active. Bruce accurately describes the change that's occurred over the last decade. Would you like me to refer you to a referee email lists? No need to rely on our word, you can check it for yourself. |