The Football Tragic

A few recent events in games I've watched have given me cause to consider the offside rule (the infamous Law 11) and its current interpretation. In particular, the increasing tendency for officials to ignore "passive offside" in some cases...usually, unfortunately, the wrong ones.

First case: Michael Essien's spectacular strike against Liverpool early in extra time in this week's Champions League semi-final second leg. The "goal" was ruled out because, in the referee's opinion, Pepe Reina in the Liverpool goal had been unsighted by two Chelsea players in offside positions.

I believe the referee made the right decision in this case, but there have been other cases when straightforward, solo goals have been ruled out due to players "unsighting" the goalkeeper. A few years back, a stunning strike by Roberto Carlos for Real Madrid was ruled out due to the offside position of some other attackers, but the idea that they had been interfering with the goalkeeper's line of vision was, in that instance, patently absurd.

Then there was the case of Danny Tiatto, in his Manchester City days, slashing through the Middlesbrough defence and scoring a peach of a goal in a tense Premiership game. Again, it was ruled out due to another player's offside position...despite the fact that, not only was the goal scored from only a few yards, but the player in question was virtually outside the goalkeeper's possible line of vision.

It's this sort of passive offside that is so often noticed. But there is another, more subtle type, which is frequently ignored.

Second case: Pippo Inzaghi's first goal of a very fine hat-trick against Livorno last weekend.

Here's what happens: Clarence Seedorf threads the ball through to Kaka on the left, and the latter crosses nicely for Inzaghi - positioning himself intelligently as always - to tap in at the far post. Kaka is onside when Seedorf plays the initial pass...so what's the problem?

The problem is that Inzaghi is offside, not when Kaka crosses to him, but when Seedorf plays the initial pass. And the speed of the move is such that Inzaghi gains a significant advantage from his original offside position. This is the sort of case where "passive" offside is actually no such thing, but the play is rarely called back in such circumstances. There was a similar goal in a Manchester United v. Leeds Premiership game some years ago, Dwight Yorke being the "passive" offsider on that occasion.

The current trend of not signalling offside until the offsider has touched the ball is not helping. To my mind, this convention is largely pointless and only leads to confusion and wasting of time. Additionally, though, it seems to be encouraging teams to hope for a continuation of play even when the ball has obviously been played forward to a player in an offside position.

And this brings me to my third case: the Bankstown v. Blacktown NSW Premier League game this afternoon.

Midway through the second half, with Bankstown 3-0 ahead, the ball is played up to Blacktown's centre-forward Chris Bedzo. He is many yards offside, and both he and the Bankstown defenders relax. Yet there is no immediate call...because Bedzo has not touched the ball.

Suddenly, Blacktown's Jordan Simpson comes charging forward from midfield, racing for the ball. Of course, the whistle comes, the play is called back. Absolutely correct, since the initial ball was clearly aimed for Bedzo.

Yet the Blacktown players assail the referee with complaints. The indignation is incredible!

This unreasonable expectation that the play should be continued even in situations like this is directly attributable, in my view, to the "not 'til he's touched it" convention. For obvious reasons, if a ball has been played forward in the direction of the player furthest forward and that player is offside, the play should be called back. It is palpably unfair on the defending side otherwise.