Offside - What's Going on?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I liked it when you could sit down with a blonde lass and patiently explain to her the rules of offside using the standard salt and pepper apparatus. She would nod and maybe understand a bit. What chance has she now, poor thing?

― MikeyG (MikeyG), Friday, 13 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

cf: the infield fly rule

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 13 February 2004 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

It took us lassies soooo long to get the gist of it, but we did. That's why their changing it, can't have us in the know...

― Rumpy Pumpkin (rumpypumpkin), Friday, 13 February 2004 17:53 (twenty-two years ago)

A lady is on R4 now explaining it using a bottle of ketchup and a jar of mayo. This is the chjange that FIFA has promoted - new condiments needed.

― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 13 February 2004 17:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm perfectly happy with the change to the guidelines (the law hasn't changed) - it seems to me to clarify what 'interfering with play' means in a useful and pretty sensible manner.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 14 February 2004 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

um what's happened?

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 14 February 2004 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

my brother has gone completely insane over the changes. he gave me such a rant over it a couple of days ago but I couldn't understand a word of it.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 14 February 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Sepp Blatter probably devised the changes to upset his wife

― pete s, Saturday, 14 February 2004 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

David, there has been a new directive to refs to only interpret a player as interfering with play if the ball goes to him, or if he is jumping around in front of the keeper to distract him, that kind of thing. The law hasn't changed, and most of the times someone claims a problem with the new principles it has been nothing to do with them.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 14 February 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The changes are wrong.

"It's a lottery".

We have agreed on these things in today's pub conversation.

― the bluefox, Saturday, 14 February 2004 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the ambiguity of the phrase "seeking to gain an advantage" that throws the whole thing up in the air. The idea that any player on the pitch at any time is not seeking to gain an advantage with their off-the-ball movement is fairly ludicrous. Unless you're watching Everton, where we continually run into disadvantageous positions as if in permanent fear of the assistant's flag.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 14 February 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

This will reduce scoring, no? That's not what football needs.

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Saturday, 14 February 2004 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

oh who cares. the offside rule'll remain the same old same old, i expect.

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 14 February 2004 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

But it has not.

Have you never seen The Premiership? Do you realize what we are being subjected to, in the form of Andy Townsend]'s pseudo-authoritative rants?

― the beebfox, Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

oh i watch it religiously, the pinefox! it's just tht this sounds like such an incremental alteration tht. i'm not worried abt it.

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

we'ill have lee dixon decrying it next season

― pete s, Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It's true; the BBC's pundit quality has wavered badly in recent years.

It would be good if Crooksy could become a regular fixture.

Good?

'Good' is really not the word.

― the beebfox, Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

This is now being discussed during the commentary in the Sunderland v Birmingham match on BBC1. "they have abolished the offside rule totally in hockey you know. Not that that's relevant"

― ailsa (ailsa), Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Wee Ailsa, I am gutted to be missing that match.

Even though it is only Sunderland - Birmingham.

Is Crooksy involved?

― the beebfox, Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

pinefox you must love the african nations coverage

― pete s, Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

thr ws a period in scottish football (in uk football?) when they made the offside rule only applicable within a certain section of the field (last fifth or something, akin to subbutteo).

now the shop assistant's 'somewhere in china' has come on and i've lost my thread.

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Pinefox - i have no idea if Crooks is involved as I was on the phone to Cookie at halftime so wasn't watching. Lawrenson doesn't half sound bored.

― ailsa (ailsa), Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

"This will reduce scoring, no? That's not what football needs"

palace 6 stoke 3?
too many goals there matey.
not that i'm complaining

― ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 15 February 2004 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Since it makes it less likely for strikers to be offside, it will surely increase rather than reduce scoring - except I think that will be a very small increase.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 15 February 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Bah. Never happened in my day. All power to the current campaign of Italian fans - 'No alla calcio moderno' which is wonderfully curmudgeonly, but the aims are spot on if you ask me...

― Dave B (daveb), Sunday, 15 February 2004 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It's one thing for Van Nistelrooy and Henry to dangle around in offside positions exploiting the ambiguity of the rule. But when Bolton and Leicester start trying to be clever, there is trouble afoot.

The offside rule is really important, it defines attacking play. It requires definition. My coffee table is a mess of sauce bottles involved in 'first phase' examples. My girlfriend is crying.

― MikeyG (MikeyG), Monday, 16 February 2004 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave was there really a demonstration involving visual aids on the radio or are you lying to us?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:18 (twenty-two years ago)

"if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?"

― chris (chris), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I sometimes wonder that of Kevin Horlcok.

― MikeyG (MikeyG), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

There WAS a visual demo on Radio 4 - it was on about 5.30 last Friday. They got someone from Arsenal Ladies to demonstrate the various phases with mayonaise bottles and Maltesers.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:52 (twenty-two years ago)

They got someone from Arsenal Ladies to demonstrate the various phases with mayonaise bottles and Maltesers.

Tee hee hee! Oh what a filthy mind!

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:53 (twenty-two years ago)

The story had someone from Arsenal Ladyeez FC (conquerers of AFC Wimbledon Honeyz 9-0 at the w/e, fact fans) explaining the law to a male reporter in a cafe near Highbury using condiments. They used a woman because women are'n't supposed to understand the offside rule. Don't you see?

x-post

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 16 February 2004 10:56 (twenty-two years ago)

On a tangent.

Barry Davies made a prescient point during the Sunderland vs Birmingham game. Ensure corner kicks go ten yards to stop timewasting attempts.

― MikeyG (MikeyG), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)

that's a good move in anyone's book, especially after watching Pompey messing about last night.

― chris (chris), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

But then he went and blew it with his 'electric shocks to replace yellow cards' rant.

― MikeyG (MikeyG), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:21 (twenty-two years ago)

hahaha

― Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

He can fuck off with his pompous shite. Solsharer indeed. Averyone knows he's called (phonetically) Olly Gunner Solski-ar. Alternatively, Solshar. Anyway. He's a cockfarmer. Rant over.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

watch out Dave, your Manyoo shirt's showing ;o)

― chris (chris), Monday, 16 February 2004 11:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i think the point is they've taken interpretation out of almost all the other refereeing decisions (cf "intent" in professional foul), why put it back in this one?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 16 February 2004 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.