From: Futbolmetrix on
On Jun 16, 7:44 pm, Futbolmetrix <futbolmet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> A better example is Wiltord's goal against Denmark in Euro 2000,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TJ4JY1exB8&feature=related

around minute 9:00


By the way, I am strongly opposed to the "an offside position should
always be sanctioned" view. A player tying his shoelaces near the
corner flag should not be called offside under any reasonable view of
the Law, and a player walking towards midfield and not participating
in play is most definitely not interfering with play.

You should give even more discretion to the ref to decide whether a
player is interfering with play (I think the Wiltord and RVN examples
are good examples of goals that should have been disallowed). Since
it's almost impossible to establish "interfering with play" in real
time, have video replays.

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

> By liberalising the interpretation to say a player is only offside if he
> actually touches the ball is making the game worse.

FIFA doesn't claim that a player is only offside if/when he touches the
ball.

The 2010/2011 book is available on line.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

Law 11 is pretty much the same it was 10 years ago and the Offense section
reads (page 31):

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is 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

Last year (or the previous one) they expanded the book by having the
directives/interpretations appended to it, and on page 100, they state:

Definitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
- "nearer to his opponents' goal line" means that any part of a player's
head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition
- "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 goalpost 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

So, of the last three points, which deal with "gaining an advantage" the
second "interfering with an opponent" means one can be offside without
touching the ball.

> My point is that how referees have been instructed to *interpret*
> that law has changed drastically over the last 20 years.

Maybe 20 years back, but when I took my first refereeing course, about 15
years ago, those last three points weren't there in writing but in spirit,
and already practiced around where I refereed.

The first point, defining "nearer to his opponents" is really the only
thing new, as there were different interpretations depending on the
confederations, and they changed through the years.

-- HASM


From: Futbolmetrix on
On Jun 16, 4:44 pm, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote:
>
> That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is
> having a detrimental effect at this tournament.

I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for
quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been
such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in
the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher.

D
From: Futbolmetrix on
On Jun 16, 8:01 pm, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote:

> - "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 goalpost 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

Right. But consider the following example: the ball is played in the
direction of attacking players A and B. A is not in an offside
position, but B is. A gets to the ball first and scores.
As you can see, this example does not fall under any of the
descriptions given by FIFA.

Before the new directives, player B was typically deemed to be
interfering with play, and the goal would be disallowed. Under the new
directives, many refs would (and do) let the goal stand.

Even more deceptive is the Wiltord/RVN case described in the other
post.

D
From: 7h on
On Jun 16, 1:05 pm, Futbolmetrix <futbolmet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:44 pm, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is
> > having a detrimental effect at this tournament.
>
> I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for
> quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been
> such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in
> the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher.
>
> D


Perhaps because the clubs have more time to drill their offside traps
-- and they use it more (for other tactical considerations as well).
Less well drilled national teams choose the safe option.