If in this instance, a prone player behind the goal kept Nistel onside, if an
attacking player crosses a ball in and a goal is scored, but the crosser's momentum takes him over the goal line, couldn't some of our more discerning critics insist that the crosser was offside? Say the crosser was only 6 feet from the goalpost and within the keeper's wider vision?

No, the player wouldn't be involved in active play so isn't offside.

Neither was the defender who kept Nistel 'onside'.

Yes he was. He'd left the field of play without the ref's permission, so was still active.

but the crosser's momentum takes him over the goal line.

The crosser of the ball 'left the field' without the referees permission.

Neither was the defender who kept Nistel 'onside'.

Defenders do not have to be interfering with play. A fullback standing by the sideline has played many a striker onside in the middle. A winger standing offside by the sideline is not offside, if the play is developing through the middle. The same rules apply to the Van Nistelrooy goal as the defender is deemed active until the ref gives him permission to leave the pitch.

Good point, but if the crosser is 4 feet from the goalkeeper, within his line of vision, just inside the keepers right hand post, but behind the goal line....?

Good point, but if the crosser is 4 feet from the goalkeeper, within his line of vision, just inside the keepers right hand post, but behind the goal line....?

Some players have been stood next to the goalkeeper, but because they didn't obstruct the goalkeeper or touch the ball they have been deemed not to be interfering with play. It would be up to the referee's judgement, but I find hard to imagine how an attacker could be off the field and be interfering with play.

It would be up to the referee's judgement, but I find hard to imagine how an attacker could be off the field and be interfering with play.
They couldn't as they aren't active and can't gain an advantage from the situation. They can't come back into play i.e. the ball passed to them, unless they come back on the pitch and a defender is stood on the goal line (or behind it).

The goal is scored just inside the keeper's right hand post by a shot from 5 yards (in a line drawn from the right hand post to the corner of the 6 yard box) to the keeper's right. The keeper can see the 'crosser' out of the corner of his eye 4 feet away, just behind the goal line by his right hand post. ie INSIDE the net. Surely he affects play more than a defender laid out behind the goal, 15 yards away?
If he doesn't, then the law sir, is an ass!

They couldn't as they aren't active and can't gain an advantage from the situation. They can't come back into play i.e. the ball passed to them, unless they come back on the pitch and a defender is stood on the goal line (or behind it).

agreed.

The goal is scored just inside the keeper's right hand post by a shot from 5 yards (in a line drawn from the right hand post to the corner of the 6 yard box) to the keeper's right. The keeper can see the 'crosser' out of the corner of his eye 4 feet away, just behind the goal line by his right hand post. ie INSIDE the net. Surely he affects play more than a defender laid out behind the goal, 15 yards away?

If he doesn't, then the law sir, is an ass!

As I have said earlier, as long as the attacker doesn't obstruct the goalkeeper or touch the ball he is not interfering with play.

Surely he affects play more than a defender laid out behind the goal, 15 yards away?


You're missing an important point. An attacker in an offside position is only committing a foul if he gains some advantage by being there. A defender, no matter where he is or what he's doing, automatically puts everybody onside, whether he's on the pitch or behind it. He doesn't have to be actively involved in anything.

So, yes, you're probably right; in your example the attacker is more closely involved than the defender; but this is an irrelevant point. He's not sufficiently closely involved to warrant a foul being called. The defender could be ten yards behind the goal line and out near the corner flag, but he'd still be playing people onside.

You're missing an important point. An attacker in an offside position is only committing a foul if he gains some advantage by being there. A defender, no matter where he is or what he's doing, automatically puts everybody onside, whether he's on the pitch or behind it. He doesn't have to be actively involved in anything.

So, yes, you're probably right; in your example the attacker is more closely involved than the defender; but this is an irrelevant point. He's not sufficiently closely involved to warrant a foul being called. The defender could be ten yards behind the goal line and out near the corner flag, but he'd still be playing people onside.

An interesting argument may be if the defender is 10 meters behind the goal line, and the attacker is 5 meters in front of the goal line, with the goalkeeper stood on the line. The attacker is closer to the goal line than the defender is, so is he offside?

Cheers Heyesey..... it's got to be the most pisspotical rule ever devised!

If a defender steps off on purpose to play someone offside, fair enough.. but this?

Can we safely say that this has NEVER ever happened in a game before, 'cause it's definitely the first time I've ever come across it?

Great question JFK.... I'm off to bed! I'll ponder it in the morning!
Does anybody know what today's offside ruling is?
Is it from the goal line, or the goalkeeper?
Is it level with a defender or not?
Does the attacking team still get the 'benefit of the doubt'?
I don't think anybody knows any more!
GOODNIGHT

Cheers Heyesey..... it's got to be the most pisspotical rule ever devised!

If a defender steps off on purpose to play someone offside, fair enough..


Well, this is exactly the problem. The rule was brought in precisely to stop defenders from doing that.

I don't know if it's ever happened before that a player has rolled/fallen off the pitch due to a collision, and thereby been the only defender playing a man onside. The problem is, in the heat of the moment and without interrupting play, how do you check? You can't expect the referee to judge whether or not the defender is really injured or just play-acting; not, at least, while the ball is still in play and the decision has to be made whether he's offside or not. Maybe after the event it becomes clear, but it's a bit late by then...

Summat to think about.......
A defender gets pushed over the byline and is just about to get to his feet when he is knocked unconcious by a bottle thrown from the crowd,the opposing team score,does the referee have the bottle (no pun intended) to allow the goal because he deems the defender "active"???

[QUOTE=Earwiggo;3675172]Cheers Heyesey..... it's got to be the most pisspotical rule ever devised!
If a defender steps off on purpose to play someone offside, fair enough.. but this?

Surely, better discretion should have been used in this instance.
Whatever the rules say about this particular 'goal', I maintain that the referee
was wrong, and the 'goal' should have been disallowed.
If it happened against yours or my team, I fear we'd have a vastly different re-action than "Ah well, rools iz rools" .... we'd be absolutely fuming, kicking and screaming.

Well, this is exactly the problem. The rule was brought in precisely to stop defenders from doing that.

You can't expect the referee to judge whether or not the defender is really injured or just play-acting;

To me, it dunt matter a jot, the ref should be observant enough to see whether the player purposely left the field to gain an advantage (whether injured or not) and should make a decision on what he saw. This ref did not see a man purposely leave the field or remain off it to try to gain an advantage. The ref was mistaken on this occasion.

Summat to think about.......
A defender gets pushed over the byline and is just about to get to his feet when he is knocked unconcious by a bottle thrown from the crowd,the opposing team score,does the referee have the bottle (no pun intended) to allow the goal because he deems the defender "active"???

Yes, 'cause that sort of thing happens all the time, doesn't it? On a similar note, I wonder why there's nothing in the rules of the game about whether or not a defender abducted by an alien spaceship while defending a corner is deemed to be 'active' if he's hovering over the pitch in the spacecraft within the linesman's field of vision.

Summat to think about.......
A defender gets pushed over the byline and is just about to get to his feet when he is knocked unconcious by a bottle thrown from the crowd,the opposing team score,does the referee have the bottle (no pun intended) to allow the goal because he deems the defender "active"???

It would be treated in exactly the same manner as if incident happened and the defender was laying on the field of play.

[QUOTE=Heyesey;3675148]You're missing an important point. An attacker in an offside position is only committing a foul if he gains some advantage by being there.

Acknowledged Heyesey, does that mean he personally gains an advantage, or his team gains an advantage?
Many times people have been called offside on the far touchline, when the play was going through the middle.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that I think the ruling on this one occasion was ludicrous!:)

To me, it dunt matter a jot, the ref should be observant enough to see whether the player purposely left the field to gain an advantage

Maybe he should, but since it's physically impossible to do so, only a lunatic would actually expect him to manage it.

Many times people have been called offside on the far touchline, when the play was going through the middle.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that I think the ruling on this one occasion was ludicrous!:)

The rules change on this years ago, they stopped giving offside in these instances.

From Heyesey:
Maybe he should, but since it's physically impossible to do so, only a lunatic would actually expect him to manage it.

On this occasion, it was blatantly obvious that the player didn't leave the pitch to gain an advantage. The whole game is being made in to a pastime for namby pambys.