Talk:Offside (association football)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Offside (association football). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

offside in football

Hi. In American football, offside is the premature crossing of the line-of-scrimmage or neutral zone by a member of either team. I think the article title should have a "soccer" in it somewhere to help out us ignorant and confused Americans ;p

Hi, This has been discussed before: see discussion below. Offside law was used because American football does not call it a law. Cheers, --Daveb 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I have updated the top half of the page, regarding the actual Law itself. I though it was important to clarify the different concepts involved, namely 1) Offside Position, 2) Offside Offence, 3) Offside sanction.

I have put them in the order that a match official would work through - Are they in an offside position when the ball is played? If so, are they committing an offside offence by being involved in active play and not exempt by it being from a throw-in/GK/CK? If an offence has occured, what is the sanction?

I have also corrected the terminology regarding the match officials (ie Assistant Referee, not the incorrect Referee's Assistant).

--Daveb

it makes no more sense than it did when I was made to play this stuff at school... what is the purpose of this rule? -- Tarquin 18:38 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

To give the goalie a bit of a chance. :) cferrero

And to prevent goal-scrounging, i.e. hanging around in the penalty area hoping someone boots it up the field to you. Oh, and thanks for fixing my appalling spelling, cferrero. Bagpuss

Should say that in the article. I'd figured hanging around like that was a smart tactic. -- Tarquin 20:10 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Offside is also a penalty in other sports - hockey, American football. How do we add them in? Rmhermen 20:04 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

good ol disambiguation. Guess we'll have to move this article back to the () title -- Tarquin

The owner of this website http://www.innotts.co.uk/soccer/histoff.htm states that he doesn't mind people copyign the text on his pages, so here is the verbatim text of the page on Offside if someone wants to work it into the article.

The need for an "offside" law goes back to the early years of the game. A player was "off his side" if he was standing in front of the ball, that is, between the ball and the opponent's goal. To the Sheffield Association, this didn't matter at all! There was no offside rule, and players known as "kick throughs" were positioned permanently near the opponents goal.

The people who drew up other "rules of the game" in the mid nineteenth century had been brought up with the idea of keeping all players "behind" the ball, disallowing the forward pass, and making progress towards the opposition's goal by means of dribbling with the ball or in a scrum. For a game of soccer to flow freely, it was essential to allow the forward pass, thus raising the need for an offside law. The Cambridge rules of 1848 stated that it needed three of the opponents side between a forward player and the goal for him to be "onside". However, the Uppingham rules of 1862 remained strictly against the forward pass; "if the ball is kicked by his own side past a player, he may not touch it, or advance, until one of the other side has first kicked it, or one of his own side, having followed it up, has been able, when in front of him, to kick it". The first set of Football Association rules agreed with the Uppingham idea.

As football developed in the 1860s and 1870s, the offside law proved the biggest argument between the clubs. Sheffield got rid of the "kick throughs" by amending their laws so that one member of the defending side was required between a forward player and the opponents goal; the Football Association adopted the Cambridge idea of three! Finally, Sheffield came into line with the F.A., and "three players" were the rule until 1925.

The change to "two players" rule lead to an immediate increase in goal scoring. 4,700 goals were scored in 1848 Football League games in 1924/25. It rose to 6,373 goals (from the same number of games) in 1925/26.

I'll see what else I can dig up.

Re: disambiguation hm.... tricky. The Laws of Football: Offside would be somewhere few people could complain about it I suppose, although not immediately obvious. Mintguy

I've put it back to offside (soccer). I don't much like calling football soccer, but it is the shortest unique name we could come up with. Bagpuss

God, the dreaded S word. Ohh well I said football (soccer) would be the thin edge of the wedge. Mintguy

Oh, no! Not the dreaded 'S' word! I protest!
There is a common, internationally recognized four-letter acronym for the laws that is frequently used by FIFA (and others).
If you download the offical laws from the FIFA website and look at the title (it will be a pdf file with the letters 'LOTG' in it), you will see that they are called the Laws Of The Game.
Why not title this page offside (LOTG)?
"what is the purpose of this rule?"
To prevent cherry-pickers from hanging about the goal, and allow attacking teams to get more players forward.
Offside is one of the two most controversial of the LOTG, the other being Law 12. Bluelion

I think that suffers from the problem of obscurity more than my suggestion of association football. I didn't want to put it under Offside (football) in case other footballs have an offside rule. No-one's jumped in with an American football one yet, so maybe we can move it there, but that could still be confusing. Bagpuss

The title offside (soccer) is fine with me. I was just making a sugestion. LOTG is commonly used by referees but otherwise is obscure. American football does have an offside rule, but I'm not sure it deserves a separate article. Even if it did, it could it could be called offside rule. And that gives me another idea. Why not title this article offside law? The one in American football is not called a law.Bluelion

Why wouldn't offside law (football) work? What possible objection would there be to that? I've been working on the American football page (it's not my favorite form of football, but I am familiar with it). There are other possible conflicts, such as free kick although, again, I'm not sure the one in American football deserves a separate article. Bluelion 23:43 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Everybody's talking at me. I think yours is a good idea Bluelion, so I'll do that. Personally I can't see the problem with obscure titles, since we can redirect, but policy is agin them. Offside law (football) is not bad, though.

Mintguy - finally putting your stuff in. It'd be nice to know which versions had an offside rule rather than the fact that the Sheffield one didn't. I can always look for myself, though. Bagpuss

I have a simple solution that i would like to see happen to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, to have an American English version, British English, Canadian English, Portugese Spanish. But they will not be possible to edit, they are just copies of the current English version at a certain point, transfered to each type and then some spelling changing automation. - did that make sense? -fonzy :-s

Kind of. Don't know how much of a bright idea it is though. Bagpuss

Despite reports to the contrary, there is only one English language. There are much geater differnces between various dialects of German, for example, than between American English and British English. It doesn't even come close! An American can probably understand 99% of British English, and vice versa. The same cannot be said of dialects of German.

Canadian English vs. American English? You have got to be kidding!! They are the same. There is a much bigger differnce with the some dialects used in the US South, which are almost unintelligible to "yankees". Bluelion 01:12 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

daylight

I think it may be worthwhile mentioning about there having to be daylight between the players. It's added more controversy insofar as it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference. I can't quite recall when/how that was brought in though.

Response.... There is actually no mention of "Daylight" in the FIFA Laws Of Association Football. It is a myth set up by football commentators.

Response2.... In refereeing courses I have been told that you can rather imagine a string at the absolute "end" of the back defender and that if this is "broken" its offside. There doesnt have to be any daylight between the players!

Played forward?

I'm sure the law used to say that the ball had to be "played forward", now it just has to be "touched or played" by a teammate. [1] When did that change? sjorford →•← 21:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong - I've just checked an older copy of the rules and it's not in there either. Never mind, ignore me. :) sjorford →•← 09:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes - Played Forward

The ball must be played forward for you to be offside.

Incorrect. See the discussion below. Daveb 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Direction ball played is irrelevant

The above posting suggesting the ball must be played forward is WRONG! If a player is in an offside position when the ball is last touched/played by a team-mate, it doesn't matter whether the ball goes forward, sideways or backwards: of the offside-positioned player becomes involved in active play there is an offside offence.

Example: Player A is in an offside position about 10m if front of the half-way line mear teh touchline; the second last defender has the ball and is up on the centre spot on the half-way line. Player A's team-mate - player B - somehow get the ball off this defender, and the passes the ball sideways and slightly backwards. Player A runs back and collects the ball. Player A was in an offside position when the ball was last touched by a team-mate, and this is not changed by the fact that the ball moved backwards. Furthermore, Player A has committed an offside offence by becoming involved in active play.

Note the Law 11 makes no reference to the direction the ball is played.

--Daveb 07:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the direction of the pass doen't matter. I was wondering a little too. The whole lies in the point of the first line. The thing is that the plyer recieving the ball isn't allowed to be closer to the goal line than the ball at the moment where the ball is touched (passed). Somehow, you expect this to give a backpass, but not necesarely. A player can make a pass foreward, as long as his team-mate is "behind" the ball at the start of the pass (this being the crucial moment). Gian Giorgis 23:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Offside sanction section

Disclaimer: American football fan... I don't know how to phrase this comment for the article, but shouldn't we point out that once an offside offence occurs, play stops and no goals can be scored? It seems obvious, but it's important. In fact, there generally needs to be more discussion on what actually happens following an offside offence: whistles? flags? and by whom? Melchoir 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The Referee might judge that the "offended" (defensive) team has an advantage (the ball) and therefore let play on instead of whistling the offside. Somewhat like American Football, where you get a "free play" when the defense offsides and then you choose between the result of the play or the penalty. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Sebastiankessel. I don't suppose you could be persuaded to do some explaining on the article? Melchoir 10:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Added the referee's discretion to the article. --Kiwi8 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Added info in the "Officiating" section on how assistant referees signal that offside has occurred -- Hux 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This analysis of the advantage clause is incorrect. There is no provision to apply the advantage clause to Law 11, offside. The advantage clause can only be applied to Law 12, Fouls and misconduct.

I think you are taking the "advantage" word too far. The word "advantage" used in this section just refers to the general sense, and not in respect to the Law 12. Kiwi8 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it could cause confusion for people trying to learn the details of offsides. I have modified the text to make both our points (I think)

place of infringement

Is the place of the infringement for the purpose of the free kick the place where the ball is touched, or the place where the offside player was when the ball was touched? --80.42.209.151 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally the spot where at that moment, the player commits offside. --Kiwi8 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to help on this one on FIFA's website http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,109139,00.html shows that the IDFK is taken from the position the player was in when he was first jusged to be in an offside position

Having said that, I've never actually seen an offside free kick taken from the spot where the player was offside (as with any other free kcik) Auto98uk (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct judgement humanly impossible

I read an article once claiming that a completely correct judgement of the offside law required the referee to keep track of more things simultaneously than what is humanly possible. I don't know if anyone else has heard about it, but if anyone knows anything about it, it would be interesting to add to the article. 惑乱分からん 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not really needed to find that article again, but relatively easy to come up with our own. Remember that for the assistant referee to determine offside offence, he has to see those players beyond the 2nd last oppoenent, and the players who are kicking the ball, and to see that they're not taking advantage by being in offside position. Only 2 eyes, but more than a single place to look out for. Thus it's not possible to have a correct judgement all the time.

Except that obviously it is quite possible for humans to judge offside in many situations, since humans can't teleport nor move at infinite speeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.251.122 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What can a passive player in offside position when the ball is played by a teammate, do to be able to start active play?

Hi, there is something that I think is not covered by the offside rule. Suppose a player is in offside position, and a teammate plays the ball, but the offside player is passive and so there is no immediate offside. But then, a moment later, he starts running towards the ball - does he then immediately commit offside offence? How long does he have to wait before becoming actively involved?? Or does he have to first run back to cross the line of the second-last defender, and then he can turn towards active play??? This question is not covered by the current rule, is it???

For your first question, he does not immediately commit offside offence under the July 2005 rules, but some assistant referees still give offside for an offside-positioned player chasing after the ball. A player can only commit offside offence by touching the ball, or interfering with opponent's play, or gaining an advantage from an offside position.

For your second question, the safest way is to wait until his other teammates or the opponents touch the ball, if he is not going to run back to an onside position.

--Kiwi8 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For your first answer, I am sorry, but it does not answer anything. You are quoting the rules, which I know and understand, and they do not cover my question. Please read my question carefully. For your second answer, you are saying something is "the safest way" - so, this is my point exactly: we have something that is not covered by the rules, and people have to develop their own interpretations and meanings, as indicated by your wording "the safest way". If this was covered by the rules, there would be no need to figure out what the "safest way" was.

Ok, I should not have complicated things. For your first question, the player will only commit the offside offence if he touches the ball, or is the only player on his team chasing after the ball. As for the 2nd question, remove the words "safest way". --Kiwi8 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to tell you. Offside is Position + Interference = Offence. If a player is in an offside position, but not interfering with play, then they can not be flagged off by the linesman. Interference means either accepting a pass from another player whilst in, or playing into offside, or stopping a player from defending an incoming ball. The magical Spum-dandy 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Offside examples in recent games

Hello all! I have been toying with the idea of starting a section that describes the offside interpretation in recent games, especially those that involve the latest offside interpretations. What is your opinion? Thanks. --Kiwi8 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a need to explain my latest addition of the EPL 2005/2006 Blackburn vs Liverpool match. I understand that this goal is highly controversial, but I still feel the goal was legitimate. But your views may be different. Let's discuss. Kiwi8 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In other languages

This artice can be linked to the german "Abseitsregel", i just dont know how to do that.

Passive offside

Passive offside was penalised more stringently before the 2003 interpretation instead of otherwise claimed. Often referees would penalise offside as long as an attacker is in an offside position. Kiwi8 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One comment

The article says: A player is also not committing an offside offence if the player touches and plays the ball that was last kicked by a player of the opposing team (it doesn't matter whether the kick is intentional or unintentional).

To the person without knowledge of offside, this could sound like it means "when a player of the opposing team touches and plays a ball and then it finished up with a player who is strictly in an off-side position, it is not off-side. To my best knowledge, this is not true...Since the off-side or on-side position of a player is determined when the balls is played by a team mate, this can mean that a player of the opposing team can actually touch or even kick the ball and it would still be off-side, since the off-side would already have occurred before the player of the opposing team actually touched the ball, unless the referee believes the player of the opposing team was in possession of the ball and then played it to the player of the opposing team in an off-side position.

Also, the quote talks about a player "touching and playing a ball" when in fact off-side strictly isn't about touching or playing a ball but about position.

So I think it's good to mention this rule, that when a player receives the ball from an opponent (meaning that the referee believes the opponent was actually in possession of the ball), it IS off-side, but when an opponent just touches or kicks a ball, or glances off it, or whatever, it isn't necessarily off-side.

Evito 10:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I realised that that statement was done by me. At that time I think I got a wrong interpretation of the rule. Now I know that if an opposing player deflects the ball but not in control, the offside player can still be penalised if he plays the ball.

I'm making the changes, please review them and comment here. Kiwi8 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you edited it pretty well, I think there might be a better way of explaining it but I myself am not sure how so I guess this is the best until someone comes up with something ever better...:) Evito 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased this part and moved it into the offside position section instead. It now expresses that a player's offside position status is reset when an opponent touches the ball and is deemed by the referee to be in control of the ball.Kiwi8 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I always feel I understand offside, up until any time I try again to read the details! If an attacking player is running along with the ball (regularly touching it with his feet but not yet kicking it to anyone else) while his teammate is in an offside position, is there an offence committed? I always thought that the only time it mattered was at the moment when the first player passes the ball away from himself - i.e. the last time the first player touches the ball. But my reading of this article says that an offence can have occured at any time while the first player touches the ball. Can anyone confirm that the only interesting moment is when the first player releases or passes the ball? What if the first player simply loses the ball - can an offence be committed at that moment too? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the attacking player is running along with the ball with periodic touches, then offside offence is not determined for the other players since they are not deemed to be active. Only when the attacking player makes a kick or pass to another player, then we can determine offside offence. Kiwi8 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When there is no offsides...?

Isn't it true that when there is a set piece, such as corner kicks, free kicks, throw-ins or others, that offsides is not called?--Xlegiofalco 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

this is because if I receive the ball from a throw in I'm not committing an offside offence. See below. -- Macgruder 12:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that for corners, throw-ins and goal kicks, an offence isn't committed. But with free kicks, you can commit an offence. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction to offside position

I have corrected a mistake in the Offside Position section which said that "Also note that offside position is determined when the ball is touched/played by a team-mate". This is incorrect, as you can see from the official laws which don't mention that in the Offside Position section. No mention of opponents etc which just confuses stuff for throw-ins etc.

Law 11

Offside Position

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:

he is in his own half of the field of play

or

he is level with the second last opponent

or

he is level with the last two opponents

The offside position aspect of the law is totally independent of who is touching the ball. The fact whether the player is 'blown up' when in an offside position is determined by whether they have committed an offence and that is where the issue of who is touching the ball comes into play.

So:

The opposition centre-forward has the ball and is dribbling toward my goal. I'm chatting to the opposition goalkeeper. Therefore I'm in an offside position. HOWEVER, I'm not penalised (i.e. 'Offside!') because someone from my team is not touching the ball. The opposition centre-forward puts the ball out of play. I'm still near the goalkeeper. Still offside position but not penalised. A player from my team launches a monster throw in, I wake up as it comes towards me. Catch the ball with my foot and bang it into the net. I'm still in an offside position BUT once again I'm not penalised and the goal stands. Because you are NOT committing on offense if you are in an offside position if you receive the ball from a throw in. In other words, I was in an offside position the whole time, but the criteria of whether I'm "offside!" is determined by whether I committed an offense. I didn't, therefore the goal stands. Macgruder 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether a player may be liable for an offside offence is determined by whether that player was in such a position when the ball was last touched or played.

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..."

The former wording attempted to make the concepts of the law understandable to lay readers, though I will update it to make it more "technically" correct.

--Daveb 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But actually I felt the earlier reading was very confusing. The concept of Offside position is fairly straightforward except for details like part of body etc. The rule is much easier to understand if the two concept of position and offence are kept separate.

There is a problem too that many people are not aware that 'Offside position' is not the same as 'Offside'. So I think this needs to be emphasised.

I propose too adding a 'basic guidlines section':

Offside position PLUS Offside offence = Offside (Flag), and give a list of some common situations. Macgruder 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article now keeps the issues of Offside position and Offside offence completely separate. Furthermore, the offside position section clearly states "It is important to note that being in an offside position is not an offence in itself". Cheers, --Daveb 07:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Myth"

Someone posted this,:

"There is a commonly related myth that the offside law cannot be explained to women. This is not only a sexist observation but is completely infactual, misrepresenting the complexity (and fairness) of the rule itself."

I mean... c'mon! Please refrain from posting this, :)

-- unsigned comment by 200.121.116.9 on 00:18, 28 June 2006

My wife understands it perfectly. Snowbound 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a wonderful wife. Take good care of her. ;) 惑乱分からん 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We all knew the offside rule at 10 years of age

80.47.255.17 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) The new offside laws make no sense at all, from being a perfectly clear rule to apply, most interested ten years olds could recite it verbatim. Now to managers, officials, players and supporters it has become a mine field. Currently active, what is that about? any player who is not currently active should be on the subs bench or in the crowd. Offside should mean offside, it has become a lazy mans charter, where players stretch the meanings of the law and benefit from their laziness.

Having managed professionally, I can assure you that virtually all managers, most referees and the majority of players would go back to the clarity of the old offside laws. Once while attending a rule change meeting, with all the league managers present, not one of the managers in the room agreed with the interpretations allowing players who had been ten yards offside to score in what they regard as second phase play. We cant all be wrong, but did the rule still go through, of course it did.

Watching Barcelona v Celta Vigo recently the ball was played past a forward who was ten yards out, three yards offside, positioned centrally, with the defence aware he was there and bringing the fact to the referees attention. The ball rolls past him and a player from wide arrives late and puts it in, good goal! Absolute rubbish, the defenders could have marked the scorer who has benefited from another players lack of vision or lazy attitude.

Goals are all well and good,but when checked, with the old system in place less good goals were chalked out, than poor goals that are allowed to stand in what now is a crazy and illogical system. The problem does not lie with the players, or the officials, but with the out of touch law makers who manipulate things for what looks like knee jerk reasons to non existant problems. Every year a new emphasis will be placed on a certain law, bookings galore, then it will fade away within six weeks of the season starting. FIFA, EUFA, and the FA have a lot to answer for, dabbling, if well meaning, they are amateurs and will always create the kind of current chaos we now have.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. In your given example of the Barcelona vs Celta Vigo match, defenders should play to the whistle and not try to make decisions for the referee. Since they know that the forward was offside, then they should've proceeded to mark the remaining onside players. However, they neglected to do that and waited for the offside flag. This is similar to the EPL match last season involving Liverpool and Blackburn, in the buildup to Robbie Fowler's goal, involving Cisse's passive play.

And I'm sure we've all seen clips of the Manchester United - West Ham game in the FA Cup a few years ago, where Barthez decides he doesn't want to save Di Canio's shot until after it's put past him because he thinks he's offside. Mageslayer99 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem of the rules, but a mindset that the defenders have to undergo training for, and that is, to always play to the whistle. Kiwi8 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While interested in them, I totally disagree with the views of Kiwi, the rules not defenders cause the problem, anyone who has played at a professional level will tell you that one movement creates another, hence in reality there is no such thing as passive play. If the rules are applied the way you state, play would be stretched to each six yard box with no logical pattern of play required. How can a player be passive when six yards out, central and the ball passes him within touching distance. Referees are also virtually all amateurs, how many have played as a professional?.The poor quality of the officials in the World Cup highlighted the problem we have,if you have to start as a referee at eighteen in park football, how can you have had the experience of playing or understanding the professional game. It happens every week, players worth a fortune on the pitch, coaches work all week on patterns and systems and in the end the "greengrocer" who is the referees assistant decides the game with another poor decision. Park players should referee park matches and leave the pro game to the professionals. You only have to listen to the governing bodies for ten minutes to realise that despite some good intentions, they ultimately realise the finance the game stimulates and wish to retain their power through the finance generated. Take cricket as an example, umpires are virtually all ex county or international players and even from a static position twenty two yards away, tend to make far less errors at top class level than their football counterparts. Experience of the professional game is a major advantage and to anyone other than a football administrator a logical starting point to recruit referees from. But with the governing bodies, "no chance", they have vested interests in the control and the system they have,and wish to retain them.

While I admit that more referees have trouble implementing the newer rules than the previous "offside as long as in an offside position" interpretation, the objective of the newer rules are to encourage attacking football. Note that in many cases of the disputed goals that has happened due to the newer interpretation, it is often the case that the defenders failed to keep a lookout for the attacking players who were from an onside position running to get the ball. Instead, they proceeded to chase after the offside-positioned player and raised their hands to call for offside. Thus the solution to the problem should be to further train the amateur referees to be more experienced in judging offside offence. Kiwi8 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can this paragraph be edited for clarity?

In the "Application" section:

"It is important to note that being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. And also important to Law 11 is that a player cannot be offside when the ball is received directly (i.e. not being touched by a team mate before receiving it) from a goal kick, corner kick, throw in or when the player is in his own half. The same Decision 2 decides when a player is considered to be in the opponent's half (head, chest, legs etc)."

Blow by blow:

"And also important to Law 11 is that a player cannot be offside when the ball is received directly ..." [emphasis mine]

Shouldn't this read: "a player is not considered offside" rather than "cannot be offside"? Otherwise, as it now reads it sounds like it means "a player must not be offside ..."

"The same Decision 2 decides when a player is considered to be in the opponent's half (head, chest, legs etc)."

This sentence is redundant, already stated at great length two paragraphs above. I deleted it.

Would someone mind fixing the unclear sentence/phrase "cannot be" (noted above)? I'd do it myself, but I'm not a footballer (I'm an American woman), and I'd rather someone else did. Thanks! Softlavender 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Update: Never mind, I did it meself. Softlavender 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mean that as an 'American woman', you couldn't be a footballer? No, of course you didn't mean that :-) Earthlyreason 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Resetting offside

I've editted the page to remove the claim that a player in offside position who receives the ball from an opponent is not offside. This is not in the Laws and not precisely correct.

Rather it is a consequence of when offside determination is reset. If a player in offside position receives the ball when an opponent makes a controlled play, then the player is not judged offside - but because the player is no longer considered in offside position once the defender makes a controlled play. However an uncontrolled play does not reset an offside.

This came up in the discussion on the Benito Archundia page. 72.211.235.171 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User 72.211.235.171 removed the reference that correctly stated "A player is not committing an offside offence if the player receives the ball...[from] an opposition player." This explanation of the Law is based on FIFA's actual wording: "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" (my emphasis). Conversely, a player cannot be penalized if the ball is played by an opponent.

What constitutes a "play" by an opponent? For clarification, a play is not judged by a player's intention or amount of "control" (obviously players almost never intend to give the ball to the opposing team or direct it into their own goal). A "play" is judged by another criterion where the following question is asked: Is it "ball to player" (i.e. a deflection), or "player to ball" (i.e. a play, like a kick or header)? When Steven Gerard (Liverpool) played (i.e. kicked) the ball back to Thierry Henry (Arsenal) who was in an offside position, Henry went on to score and was not penalized for an offside offence because of this aforementioned aspect of the Law. The same applied in the case where Oguchi Onyewu (United States) played (i.e. headed) the ball back to Atiba Hutchinson (Canada) whose goal was controversially disallowed. The latter incident is the focus of much dispute because referee Benito Archundia failed to adhere to the aspect of the Law being discussed here; the former was not disputed because the referee correctly upheld the Law.

Additionally, "resetting" offside is probably not the right terminology since being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. Resetting an offside offence can only occur after a player has been penalized and the referee has recognized his error. At this point, an offside call may be "reset" or reversed, although this is rarely done.

In any case, some form of the original explanation and accompanying citation to Henry's goal should probably be reinstated. Perhaps the reference should be modified for clarification. Other citations could also be added. I'll leave this up for discussion.

--G(A)IA 2007.06.28, 21:12 (UTC)

Offisde from drop kick

Is it possible to be offisde from a Goalkeeper's drop kick, I know its probably mentioned somewhere but i can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.193.132 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Yes. A "goalkeeper's drop kick" has no special status in the Laws: the ball never went out of play when the keeper picked it up, and as such the keeper drop kicking it is just like any other player kicking the ball (i.e. it is not a 'restart'). Cheers, --211.30.133.99 (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mini Soccer

In "Mini Soccer", which is played in the UK by children up to the age of 10, there is no offside rule. I imagine this is the same in other countries. Mini soccer is designed to improve skill levels, fun and participation for younger children before they take part in the 11 a side version. 84.43.0.157 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Penalty

Can anyone explain if this should be offside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gi98iEziKQ

Surely if two attackers are ahead of the last defender, regardless of whether the second is behind the ball and the other attacker, it should be offside no? The ball is played forward when the other attacker is PAST the last defender.

Is this correct? Thisnamestaken (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevant time for establishing whether a player is in an offside position is when the ball is passed. In both passes in this move, the player who received the ball was behind the ball, and therefore in an onside position, when the ball was passed. Kevin McE (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Union?

Similar to the offsides in Football Association vs American Football in that the offsides is not a play stopper, unless like in Association the offender is "In Play". Football Union's offsides is governed by the ball's position and has nothing to do with the position of the defenders. Should there be a section for this as well in the "Football" entry? I came here looking for the differences of these offsides rules between Association and Union after Union split off thinking they would be similar, but found they are not since you ARE allowed to pass to a player in front of you in Association where you can not in Union. Billy Nair 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop Changing it

Fifa rules states in front of the last two players which one may be the goalkeeper. For example in the infamous david james incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud9ev2dp5xw the last pass is offside (even though it was not called) because it is the last two players (David James was not in the box so it becomes the last two defenders). If the goalkeeper is in the box it is still the last two defenders as the goalkeeper is counted as a defender so 1 outfield defender + 1 goalkeeper = 2 defenders. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.49.96 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction says "This article is about the rule in Association football. For the American football penalty, see American football rules#Fouls by either team. For other uses of the term, see Offside (disambiguation)." What is the American football penalty thing doing here? Firstly it's covered by the disambiguation page, secondly there's no such section in the linked article and thirdly nobody looking for that could conceivably end up here.

Wording of definition

"A player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the field and is nearer to his opponents' goal line than the ball, and fewer than two of his opponents (including the goalkeeper)."

This definition isn't logically correct. For example, take the common case where 'fewer than two' is 'one'. We would then come to 'a player is offside if he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than the ball and one of his opponents.' THis is the inverse of the offside rule - clearly an attacker is not offside if zero or one opponents are behind him. It needs to be reworded to convey that a player is offside when nearer to the goal line than the ball and ALL BUT a maximum of one opponent. There must be a better way to say it than that, though.

Mattus27 (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History

Desmond Morris in his book (he purchased a team) goes into why Oxbridge decided to craft the offside rule but you don't.

Cite 1

Doesn't seem to actually say anything about the offside rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.248 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag is up on the far side

What exactly does it mean by "The Flag is up on the far side" which you often hear during game commentaries? Does it mean that the refree on the far side (which im assuming means the opponents half) alone can give offside? Can the main refree give offside?

Both the (main) referee and assistant referees can give offside, but it is usually the job of the assistants, who notify the main ref by raising their flag when it occurs. Each assistant patrols one sideline, and generally stay in line with the second-last man on one of the teams, so they are calling offsides for one team. "On the far side" usually would just mean the assistant ref who has called the offside is standing on the side of the field opposite the TV camera... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear if the photograph at the top of the article shows an assistant referee signalling offside. If he were, he would be standing exactly in line with the position of the offside either with his arm pointing straight up (offside is on the side of the pitch near to him) or pointing across the pitch (at 45 degrees to show the offence was in midfield, horizontally to show the offside was on the far side from him). As he appears to be pointing his flag along the touchline, the assistant referee in the photograph is probably indicating a throw-in (where the throw is taken by the team playing in the direction in which he is pointing). Tinglis (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Growing up I remember that Offsides a little differently. I thought that offsides was having more people (minus 1 for the goalie) between the ball and the goal than the defending team. For example, a Goalie and 2 defenders are infront of 3 offensive players which are in in front of the ball would be offsides, has that ever been the case or am I just mistaken? Or a Goalie, 1 defender then 2 offensive players then the ball. A Goalie, 0 defenders then 1 offensive player then the ball is obviously still offsides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.135.3 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that you weren't told that, or didn't think that, or even have some misguided teacher who tried to make you play to that rule, but it was never the case. That would pretty much outlaw any breakaway attack. Kevin McE (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Different Question

1) If a player is in an offside position and a team mate kicks the ball to him but it takes a deflection from a defender on the way what happens? 2) Also what happens if the player who was offside moves onside before the defender touches the ball? N4m3 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the intent that the ball is played with that determines If a deflected ball is considered as offside and who plays the ball

1) The law states that gaining an advantage by being in an offside position is offside. For example, if I were to play the ball to a teammate in an onside position on the left wing but the ball took a deflection off a defender and fell to my teammate in the centre who was in an offside position, the flag would go up and the decision be offside.

However if a defender was to play a poor ball back to his goalkeeper and an attacker in an offside position were to pick the ball up before it reached the goalkeeper then the flag will stay down and play will continue as it is not the direct result of an attacking move that the attacker got the ball.

2) In response to the second question, offside is determined from when the ball is played. So if the attacker was in an offside position when the initial ball is played, he will be given offside (subject to the conditions above)

Error

The statement in the article under "Offside position" that "third, there must be fewer than two opposing players between him and the opposing goal line" is incorrect.

The actual law (Law 11) states "A player is not in an offside position if: • .... • he is level with the second-last opponent or • he is level with the last two opponents"

Being level with at least one of the two opponents is not the same as having two opponents between the player and the opposing goal line.

By the way, why isn't the actual law quoted in the article? Rainjar (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions

(Maybe there should be a separate "questions" area for this page...)

No there shouldn't, the talk page is about the discussing the article and how to improve it, not a forum about offside rule interpretation. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If an attacking player who is legally onside but only has the goalie in front of him (say he dribbled the ball up the field) spins around so that he is now in front of the ball (say he is dribbling to evade the goalie), does he become offside? It seems as if he'd meet all three conditions, but it seems odd as he was previously legally onside and the ball never left his control
If a defender has the ball and has an attacker behind him (say the goalie just passed him the ball over the head of the attacker), can he pass the ball back to the attacker, making him offside, and gaining a free kick (and wasting time)? Again, the attacking player would be meeting all three conditions, but it seems odd as it was the defending player that passed him the ball.

Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the article: Offside is a law in football which states that if a player is in an offside position when the ball is touched or played by a team mate, he may not become actively involved in the play. The underlined phrase provides the negative answer to both your queries. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Title

Unless changing it to (football) would be ambiguous, please can we do so? Turkeyphan^t 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But it would be, so we won't. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How would it be ambiguous? Which other football games have an offside rule? And then why not "(soccer)"? Turkeyphan^t 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Offside (American football)

Offside (rugby)

And not soccer, because association football has been accepted (against my preference) as the disambiguation term for the sport. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but we both realise it makes no sense to use "association football" when rugby is "rugby"... Turkeyphan^t 11:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You may choose to make that conclusion... Kevin McE (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain a way in which it made consistent sense? Turkeyphan^t 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of 'he', 'his', and 'him'

I recently stumbled across this article wanting to find out what the offside rule was, and I noticed that whoever had written the article had always referred to players using masculine pronouns. Women do play football too. Usually I'd think it a bit pedantic to bother correcting this, but I did actually decide to spend time going through and changing everything to gender neutral language, referring to players as 'they' instead. I did this partly because I get the impression that football is one particular place where sexism is still a big problem and so I thought it was important for the article not to re-enforce this, but mainly because I was bored and wanted to make a useful contribution to wikipedia that didn't require any specialist knowledge.

However, since making this change someone has gone through and changed everything back to masculine language, not just reversing what I had done but also altering a picture caption that had already used gender neutral language before I changed anything. Now I can understand the criticism that me tediously changing everything to gender neutral language may have been pedantic, and that if someone carelessly calls players 'he' when they write the article that doesn't make them a sexist. However, now someone has done what I did the other way round, by carefully going through and deliberately changing everything back to masculine language, and that does seem to be sexist. Now this may just be my ignorance of football, perhaps women's football uses different rules and this article doesn't apply to them, in which case fair enough. But if not, I think changing it back was wrong and the article should now be made gender neutral. I'm posting on the talk page to try and get some consensus so I'm not just engaging in an edit war with whoever changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.31.90 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just realised I was mistaken that the person who corrected the article had gone even further, and so it was just a simple undo of my edit I suppose. I still do not understand why this was justified though? Should gender neutral language not be used? Does wikipedia have a policy on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.31.90 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I was the editor in question, and, unlike the complainant, provided an explanation in the editnote: "inappropriate plural pronouns for singular noun." English does not have a gender free singular personal pronoun: they certainly is not one. It legislation, and the explanation of legislation, the principle that the singular includes the plural, and that the masculine includes the feminine is well established, and is used in the Laws of the Game as published by FIFA (see p4). Kevin McE (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I should have put in a reason for my edit but I'm not too familiar with the editing process on wikipedia. 'They' is used as a gender neutral pronoun in English though, even if the correctness of this usage is arguable. According to wikipedia's own article it has been in use since the 1300s. Speaking as a native English speaker it sounds far more natural to me to use 'they' to describe a singular than it does to use 'he' to describe a role that could be either a man or a woman. Maybe I'm unusual in this but that is why I made the edit. For example, the sentence 'If someone finds my phone I will reward them' sounds far more natural than 'If someone finds my phone I will reward him'. For comparison I decided to see what had been done on the wikipedia article about Netball, a sport played predominantly by women but also by men. They have interestingly used 'they' to refer to singular players, as I tried to do on this article. If they were to use your logic though they should have referred to individual players as 'he'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.31.90 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Although they is often used as a pseudo-singular pronoun,the grammatical validity for doing so, and the appropriateness of it in the formal tone expected in an encyclopaedia, is by no means universally accepted. In the case of discussing the offside rule, where the number of individuals is relevant, the ambiguity of using the plural to mean the singular does not seem wise. The inclusiveness rule is well established in law, and is used by the lawmakers of the game. Time to see if there are any other opinions on the matter, I would suggest. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Simpler explanation

Since many people will come to this page looking for a simple way to understand the offside rule, might it be sensible to include a less precise but simpler explanation of the rule? I have in mind something like "You can't pass the ball to a player with a free run at goal". I completely understand that this is not strictly correct, but it gets across the general point of the rule, and makes it easier to understand the more precise definition as a clarification of this. (AG, 13/01/12 16:00GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.121.221 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

- An explanation is certainly not made simpler by making it false;
A very good pass allows a free run at the goal,
but must be timed such that the player is onside at the time the pass is made.

It would be good if the article explained the PURPOSE of the offside rule. We know what it is, and how it's enforced, but the article doesn't explain why the rule is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.100.1 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

- The PURPOSE of the offside rule is surely a matter of opinion. 
  It is universally true that the PURPOSE of sport/game rules is to define the game itself.
  If the rules are changed it becomes a different game (albeit maybe with same name).

As a kid, school yard rules were by no means official, but if some kid was being lazy and hanging out by the goal waiting for the ball to come to them so they could have the excitement of shooting on net without putting in very much effort this would often bring cries of foul from the other kids; "Not fair! No Cherry Picking!"

Needs updating post about 2010

Uhh, around about that year, I believe that there was a change. A team is not penalised for having a player who is offside (satisfies all three criteria) IF the ball clearly is not being passed to him. Not sure about the exact wording or the year, maybe someone more knowledgable than me could clarify this. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Offside vs offsides

While the laws of the game uses "offside", the use of "offsides", while in the minority cannot be denied. Just searching recent news articles from the past month shows many instances of the term being used. I don't see what the problem is with also saying the term is known as offsides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Provide those "recent news articles" and your point will be made. Kevin McE (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

6/21/13

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2013/06/19/neymar-brazil-mexico-confederations-cup/2439805/

"Daniel Alves nearly added to Brazil's lead in the 14th with a remarkable lob shot that forced Corona to make a difficult save with the tip of his gloves. Oscar had a goal disallowed just five minutes into the match because Neymar was caught offsides before making a cross to the Chelsea playmaker. Captain Thiago Silva also had a goal called off for offsides in the 47th."

6/19/13

http://www.phillysoccerpage.net/2013/06/19/recap-and-reaction-usmnt-1-0-honduras/

"In the 60th minute, the U.S. looked to have scored, as Altidore took a feed from Dempsey into the box and finished across the keeper, but it was called back for offsides."

6/19/13

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323566804578554420733307936.html

"In the 59th minute Altidore slipped offsides just before Clint Dempsey put a pass through the defense for what could have been an easy score."

6/19/13

http://www.sportsnola.com/sports/sports-blogs/alan-deritter/597795-us-soccer-enjoys-result-of-hard-earned-victory-over-honduras.html

"They had two real chances that the US back four soundly ended by drawing off-sides."

5/26/13

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865580710/Soccer-leads-the-way-for-suggested-rule-changes-by-readers.html

"The main suggestions for soccer are No.1 — eliminate the offsides rule, and No. 2 — create slightly larger goals to allow more scores into the net."

5/30/13

http://news.wsu.edu/articles/36465/1/Soccer-strategy,-thrills-in-a-board-game-

"KickShot also introduces referee signals for specific infringements, such as direct free kicks, penalty kicks and offsides."

6/18/13

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1677459-usa-vs-honduras-world-cup-qualifier-live-blog-instant-reactions-and-analysis

"58' Altidore places the ball in the back of the net, but offsides!"

6/17/13

http://www.ktvu.com/news/sports/soccer/cronin-lenhart-score-earthquakes-beat-rapids/nYNTB/

"Lenhart had a second goal waved off by an off-sides call in the 85th minute."

6/15/13

http://www.wect.com/story/22602101/hammerheads-beat-red-bulls-reserves-1-0

"After numerous attempts, Greig was near giving the Hammerheads the insurance they needed with a second goal but was called offsides on a late call by the referee" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I note these are all US references: by all means in that case add (sometimes) known as 'offsides' in USA, but a local variant should be labelled as such. Some of your examples are, of course, simply plurals. Kevin McE (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is not limited to the US. And here are some articles from Canada and the UK. There are some from Australia as well.

Canada

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/508743201.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+11%2C+1998&author=&pub=The+Spectator&desc=Yesterday's+Summaries&pqatl=google

UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4101215.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/7990471.stm

And particularly note the this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/7721049.stm

"The LMA will propose fast-tracking of talented young referees, looking at the role of referee assessors and post-match appraisals, and clarifying ambiguous rules relating to offsides and hand-ball decisions"

If it were plural, then hand-ball would read "hand-balls" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1 more from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/my_club/sale/6262949.stm

And South Africa -- Without a doubt this is NOT referring to multiple instances off offside being called, but a specific instance.

"Sterjovski beat Khune again in the 36th minute but, to the relief of the South African side, the goal was disallowed after the Australian was ruled offsides."

http://www.southafrica.info/news/sport/soccer-200808.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The BBC ones are all plural and one isn't even about the sport in question! As to the one where you are adamant that it is not a plural: did you not see the s at the end of decisions? And the 'proof' from Canada doesn't use the word. Kevin McE (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Possession

A player who being legally onside who controls the ball can advance and become the only player between the keeper and the goal line and step in font of the ball and is still onside. In such a situation if a player legally possesses or plays a ball forward they are still in an onside position until a player on their side behind them AND has a defender between them touches the ball, the ball crosses the center line towards their own goal, or the player loses possession to a defender. Basically possession is a trump card for being in an offside position.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No objection. I think offsides is always defined when a teammate plays the ball so possession trumps. I think even a pass backwards to a teammate who then shoots is still not offsides even if the position is one where it would be offsides without the pass. Example would be offensive player attacking the goal with just goalie in front. He passes to trailer that is behind a defenseman. The trailing offensice player shoots and the lines it crosses are the defenseman, the offensive player that passed ball backwards and finally the goalie. The original offense man that passed back is in an offsides position, but is not offsides. If the defender took possession, though before the shot, it would be offsides. --DHeyward (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the situation you describe, the leading offensive player would be in an offside position, because the ball passed (backwards) a defender to another offensive player. If this forward player who is now in an offside position does not interfere with the play - the shot by his teammate, or interfere with the keepers right to defend, then no offside sanction should occur. In the same situation, let's say the defender in between the attackers stops the shot and possesses the ball, the player in the offside position may attempt to gain possession of the ball from the defender, thus becoming "level" and negating their offside position, no unfair advantage was gained by being in the offside position.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Something seemingly missing from the article is the reason for the offside rule. I raise this as someone who has been involved with soccer and (field) hockey (both at a very amateurish level). Despite massive protests from traditionalists, the latter sport abolished the rule decades ago, and the universe did not end.

I'm in a country where soccer is not the dominant footballing code, and players new to the sport, used to the other sports where the rule doesn't exist, frequently ask "Why?" A good explanation of why the rule exists would be helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it baseball batters get 3 strikes instead of 4? As for offside, my impression has always been the intent is to keep a player playing with his team or his "side" instead of hanging out alone.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But what we have is a rule that's very hard to explain to novices, and hard to justify. As I've said, I'm in a country where soccer is trying to improve its share of the market, both spectators and players. A very complex rule that's hard to justify doesn't help. Three strikes is just a number out of several that could have been chosen. That's much simpler than the offside rule. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But you ask for the "point" of onside. There may be a point, but its not written as cannon in the official laws. There may be secondary sources which explain the intent, but I'm unaware of any.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it's to prevent what's perceieved as an unfair advantage being gained by the team whose player is off-side. This is certainly the case in rugby football's off-side rules.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that explanation doesn't work. If the rule changed, both teams would have to follow the new rule, so there would be nothing unfair about it. And the rugby rule is a lot simpler. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The rugby rule is maybe simpler at face value but gets complicated when elements about the kicker chasing through and offside players being within the 10 are introduced (and allowing the opponent to run 10 metres before being able to play him). If the rule were changed in association football the worry would be that teams would just load the box with players and "spam" them with long balls, instead of teams having to play their way through an opponent's defence. Macosal (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that field hockey abolished the offside rule around thirty years ago. The same fears were expressed before it was done. Those fears were misplaced. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If any sources can be found discussing the pros and cons of abolishing soccer's offside rule, I'm sure their incorporation into this article would be welcomed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)