On another thread, part of the post was what looked like the exact wording of the offside rule. The bit about the attacker being behind the ball was new to me.

Since I read it, I've been trying to visualise the circumstances that would result in an attacker being ahead of the last outfield defender but behind the ball.

All I can come up with is that two attackers are involved who outpace the last outfield defender, so that when one attacker passes to the other, the second attacker is ahead of the defender but behind the ball.

Was that what happened in the Bellamy disallowed goal and are there any other scenarios, other than variations of the one I've described where the offside rule could be wrongly applied if the official ignores/forgets the 'behind the ball' part of the rule ?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Answers

Apposite positions.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Hence you cant be offside from a corner

or when the winger gets to the byline

I thought everyone knew this;-)

Jonboy

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Bellamy wasnt offside vs Sunland, on Canal+ they looked very closely into the sitauation in half time and explained the rules. Bellamy was behind the ball and therefor it was correct.

The offside rule is destroying the football. There must be someway to implant a electronic device in the ball and also on the player so a computer decides wheter its offside or not. Its not possible for a human eye to decide and react when there is such small margins as i was in the Bellamy case for exampel.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Football fans could just accept that the Referee and Refs Assistants are honest men and women and they are reacting to events as they see them.
I would have put a tenner on Bellamy's onside goal being offside the moment I saw it on TV. You win some you lose some, or is this view old fashioned?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Football fans could just accept that the Referee and Refs Assistants are honest men and women and they are reacting to events as they see them.

I agree 100%. This was OK 20 years ago but with every game now televised, it means that mistakes are more obvious. (This is mistakenly perceived by some, as refs getting worse). So I reckon video assistance should be provided to the ref as far as is practicable. It would need a fair amount of discussion to determine exactly how it would work. For example, if in the derby game, the ref blew the whistle BEFORE Bellamy "scored", then the video evidence would be inadmissable as the ball is dead straight away. Should the ref play on marginal offsides and await video confirmation? I suspect not, but these are the kind of issues that would need to be looked at.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Being offside from static positions wasn't what I had in mind, they're mostly self evident.

I was thinking more about situations where players are breaking on the opposition goal, as in the Bellamy case.

I can't think of another moving situation in which the player delivering the ball can pick out a receiver who's closer to the opposition goal than the last outfield defender and (the receiver) be onside.

It looks to me as though the player delivering the ball has to have carried it from an onside position before passing to the receiver, both having outpaced the last defender.

Any other scenario I can think of is just a variation of the receiver timing his run properly past the last defender.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I think you're right Pit Bill, and it was what happened on Sunday. I suppose the defender could make a back pass to a player beyond the last defender, who then passes it to another player beyond the last defender but behind the ball.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

in his own half

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Well, that's exactly it. Think of it like rugby where you have to pass the ball sideways or behind.

And yes, I quoted from Fifa's lovely handbook on the matter. Complete with pictures for our makem brethren ;-P

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Sorry if this is turning a bit pedantic Bobby, but I have to disagree again.

If the player running through gets ahead of the both the last defender and the eventual receiver, who also gets ahead of the last defender, there's nothing to stop him (the player carrying the ball) sending the ball forward for the receiver to run onto, because he (the receiver) will still be behind the ball.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Spot on PB

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I'm packing my bags

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

'....sending the ball forward for the receiver to run onto, because he (the receiver) will still be behind the ball. '
Even more pedantically, that should read 'was still behind the ball when it was played' ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Going anywhere nice Bobby ? :-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

And even more pedantically still, Pete, I'd already specified that the player running through was ahead of the eventual receiver, in which case I'm having difficulty appreciating (might as well introduce some sarcasm as well) how the receiver could be behind the deliverer but ahead of the ball. :-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Let me assist you then PB in appreciating the lack of precision in your statement. ;-)) Because you do not identify the timing of events, the player running through might still at some stage get ahead of the both the last defender and the eventual receiver, but the achievement of this arrangement of players does not in itself mean that the player carrying the ball (are you allowed to carry the ball in football? Ed.) can send the ball forward without a player being offside, since by the time the player carrying the ball sends the ball forward to the 'eventual receiver', the eventual receiver could now be ahead of the ball and therefore offside. I think that's pretty clear, Your Honour.

Off with the wig, on with the hat and quickly out the door before I get hit. ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

You can be offside from a corner, as the ball is rarely placed on the byline, but on the edge of the quadrant.

An attacked on the line with the 'keeper and nobody else would be offside (if he is interfering with play)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Shocking confession, I'm doing a referess course at the mo. You can't be offside from a corner as the ball was dead, it's just the same as a throw. A player can only be offside if as the ball is played forward, he is in ahead of the ball and there are no more than one dending player between him and the goal as it is played. If there is a player level he is not offside (but than cna you actually be level to the nth degree - no)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Ignoring the groans from non-interested parties, can't get me heed round your last Pete.

The player with the ball is ahead of the last defender and the potential receiver, who, for the sake of the argument, is also ahead of the last defender, but I don't think that matters.

The ball is played forward, so how does the receiver get ahead of the ball, as long as he stays where he is in relation to the deliverer ?

If the receiver has moved like greasy lightning and somehow got to a position where he's now ahead of everything, then yes, he's offside, but the criteria have been changed in that eventuality, and don't apply in this case.

Hat on, coat on, gloves on, shawl round shoulders, tablets swallowed, going for lie down. :-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I'm sure I saw a linesman give offside from a corner. It must have been played short first, though as DLF's ref's course would suggest. It sounds like a simple enough rule for a ref to remember so it must have been short.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I remember a game on telly about 3 or 4 years ago when Rob Lee scored at the Leazes End. It was just this situation - he was in front of the defenders but behind the bloke who was playing the ball across the to him. Terry Vegetables, who was the resident "expert" said that Lee's goal should have been disallowed for offside. This man managed England and he didn't know the bleedin' offside law!!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Dave, can you be offside form a corner if the ball goes forward? You could (just about) play the ball forward if you placed the ball in the right spot in the corner triangle........ I presume thee answer is yes, since you can be offside from a free kick. I'm with Heednhands, I like footall the way it is, let's leave it alone. To be honest, having a bit of injustice now and then isn't necessarily a bad thing as it gives us something to talk about.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Don't know about you lot, but I'm taking another two tablets. :-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

You can't be offside from a corner because the ball doesn't go forward. The fact that it might be placed a slight distance from the bye line is neither here nor there - to all intents and purposes the ball is either played backwards or in a straight line across.

If a corner is taken short and there are no defenders on the goal line then the corner taker is immediately in an offside position and the receiver couldn't pass straight back to him.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

The ball can go a little bit forwards from a corner, albeit not by very much.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2002

My simple understanding of offside.

If you are behind or level with the ball you are onside If you are in front of the ball (when it is played) there must be 2 players between you and the goal line otherwise you are offside.

If you are playing for the Toon and have a goal scoring opportunity you are onside

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2002