Arsenal goal - offside?

[PinnerPaul]

Danny Murphy & Alan Shearer thought so, arguing that as Tottenham player who headed og had no idea which Arsenal player behind him was on or offside, he had to head the ball, therefore said Arsenal player (Who WAS in an offside position btw) DID "...impact on opponent's ability to play the ball"
Mike Riley's mob argued (via a statement to the BBC) that as said player was BEHIND Tottenham player they can't have had an impact on him playing the ball.

Shearer & Murphy argued that by being there Tottenham defender HAD to head the ball, hence = "impact"

Actually a sensible (ish) debate for once on MOTD 2

Goal at approx 3 mins

Thoughts?

 

[WilliamD]

Disclosure - Arsenal Fan.

Think it is very clear in law that the goal should stand and I thought it was super work by the team to get the call right. Would of been so easy as that ball was coming down to blow for offside...keeping in mind that Kos was actually onside by fractions and Alexis was the one off.

However - ex players are all talking about this "impact" the player in an offside position had on the decision making of the defender. It's a really interesting point and players certainly have valuable insight...but we would be debating a law change that would start to govern mindset and intent which is very dodgy territory IMHO.

Oh - and the defender didn't have to head it into his own net...but I am grateful he did

 

[Ganajin]

Everyone should be aware that impacting on a defender's ABILITY to play a ball has nothing whatever to do with the defender's DECISION whether to play the ball: in other words forcing a defender to make a play just because he worries you might get the ball is not a reason to call offside. Defenders had it easy for years, with offside given as soon as an attacker stepped beyond the line of the last opponent (whether he played the ball or not). Now we are coming up with a truly balanced and exciting interpretation of what makes offside. It's just that it's a lot harder for we match officials to judge, that's all.

 

[Twinblade]

It's an interesting argument, seen so many people on Twitter and in the media comment on it. It has surprised me how many ex-referees have differing opinions, those including Webb, Hackett and Halsey.

For me, as a Spurs fan, agree it was a goal.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Everyone should be aware that impacting on a defender's ABILITY to play a ball has nothing whatever to do with the defender's DECISION whether to play the ball: in other words forcing a defender to make a play just because he worries you might get the ball is not a reason to call offside. Defenders had it easy for years, with offside given as soon as an attacker stepped beyond the line of the last opponent (whether he played the ball or not). Now we are coming up with a truly balanced and exciting interpretation of what makes offside. It's just that it's a lot harder for we match officials to judge, that's all.

Good explanation there. Danny Murphy, admitting he was a bit "old fashioned", called for a return to the good???? old days of when you were "offside", you were "offside" , regardless of how involved in the game you were at the time.

However, I agree with you, the current interpretation, whilst a little complex, even more so for all non referees, makes for a more open, free flowing game.

With whole teams now drilled in defending, a return to the "old" law/interpretations would be to the detriment of the game.

Just for the record, from a fan's point of view, I'm neutral on this one, having the misfortune to support a team in West London about to appointment yet another manager!

 

[RustyRef]

Ganajin has hit the nail on the head here. Shearer's entire argument was that the offside players affected Wimmer's decision as to whether to play the ball or not, and I've no doubt they did. What they didn't do is prevent his ability to play the ball, and that is what the law requires.

I have sympathy, and I don't really think the law is great (especially as someone who used to play central defence), but it is what it is and the officials were correct here.

 

[Peter Grove]

Danny Murphy, admitting he was a bit "old fashioned", called for a return to the good???? old days of when you were "offside", you were "offside" , regardless of how involved in the game you were at the time.

I often hear this sentiment expressed. The thing is, at least as far as the Laws of the Game go, there never was such a time. This has long been a sore point with me and some of you may recognise the screed that follows as I have posted versions of it before on other refereeing websites.

Even from the very earliest days, the original Laws issued in 1863 did not call for a player who was in an offside position to be penalised, unless he were to ''touch the ball [...]or in anyway whatsoever prevent any other player from doing so.'' (Which, when you think about it, is surprisingly close to the current offside law).

From then on, down the years there have been multiple occasions when the law-making authorities have issued specific instructions to referees or included wording in the Laws, to emphasise the point that a player needs to do more than just be in an offside position, to be guilty of an offence.

For instance, in 1903 the FA Council issued the following statement: ''It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected.'' Also, in the LotG issued in that same year, the phrase ''interfere with [...] play'' was used for the first time, in relation to offside.

In 1910 the FA council stated: ''Some Referees award a free kick when a player is simply in an off-side position. This must not be done.''

The following wording was included in the Laws document in 1920: ''Play should not be stopped and a player given off-side [...] because the player is in an off-side position. A breach of the Law is only committed when a player who is in an offside position interferes with an opponent or with the play.''

In 1956, Law XI International Board Decision (IBD) 1 was issued, stating that a player who was in an offside position should not be penalised if it was clear to the referee ''that he is not interfering with play.''

In 1978 the laws stated: ''A player shall not be declared off-side by the Referee [...] merely because of his being in an off-side position.''

And ever since 1997, the very first sentence of the Offside Law has been: ''It is not an offence [in itself] to be in an offside position.''

Although admittedly, there was a period when it seemed many referees would give players offside even though they were not involved in play, I think it is clear that they did so despite the law not because of it.

I think the facts stated above make the point that there has never, ever been a time in the history of the game, when the Laws held that it was an offence simply to be in an offside position.

 

[The Ref Online]

We discussed this issue on this week's The Ref Show with Mark Halsey and David Hirst which can be seen here.

http://buff.ly/2fS2Fgh

Lot's of disagreement with Howard Webb and Graham Poll. Keith Hackett explains why he thinks it's offside here.

po.st/EoQPVP

 

[SLI39]

The evolution of the offside law proves that philosophy and football can coincide in more instances than Monty Python sketches: with the exceptions first standing as lawful provisos within the offence, now the offence itself being the exception, we have effectively inverted the law without fundamentally changing it or the essence of its application.
And in terms of football punditry, I don't think they will ever reach a point where delicate nuance surpasses the demand for provocative talking points, but BT Sport has taken a positive lead in inviting Howard Webb to contribute to discussions.

 

[Trip]

Interesting summary, Peter. I assume that all those quotes which explain that merely being in an offside position is not an offence are clear, when read in context, that they don't simply mean that the ball must also be played by a player of the same team. [Spot the lawyer.]

In 1956, Law XI International Board Decision (IBD) 1 was issued, stating that a player who was in an offside position should not be penalised if it was clear to the referee ''that he is not interfering with play.''

This was the version of the laws that was in effect when I was learning to play. I recall one manager commenting that if a player "isn't interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch".

 

[Peter Grove]

I assume that all those quotes which explain that merely being in an offside position is not an offence are clear, when read in context, that they don't simply mean that the ball must also be played by a player of the same team.

If you're saying what I think you're saying then yes, in all the cases I refer to the definition of offside included the provision that it should only be considered when the ball was played by a team mate.

For instance in 1903, when the offence was still referred to as being 'out of play' and you could still be offside from a throw-in, the Law stated as follows:

When a player plays the ball, or throws it in from touch, any player of the same side who at such moment of playing or throwing-in is nearer to his opponents’ goal-line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever interfere with an opponent or with the play, until the ball has been again played, unless there are at such moment of playing or throwing-in at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal-line.