COMMENT: Ander Herrera's equaliser was just the latest debatable goal related to the passive offside law - it's now impossible for officials and players to interpret the rule
The dreaded offside rule. For years the cause of many arguments between rival clubs, players and fans, its interpretation has bamboozled the greatest of footballing minds, as well as referees and their assistants, and has even led to the creation of a sexist stereotype.
The events at Deepdale on Monday - where a controversial offside incident rescued Manchester United from a humiliating FA Cup exit to League One minnows Preston - showed that changes must be made to simplify the rule before it wreaks further havoc.
With 65 minutes gone, United were trailing 1-0 and did not look like scoring. Then, Ander Herrera hit a scruffy shot towards the far corner after good work from Antonio Valencia. Wayne Rooney was clearly standing in an offside position in the eyeline of Preston goalkeeper Thorsten Stuckmann, but was deemed by the referee and his assistant as not interfering with play.
Distracted by Rooney's position, Stuckmann hesistated and the ball trickled into the goal. United dominated thereafter and eventually won 3-1 to book their place in the next round where they will play Arsenal.
Commentating on the game, the BBC's Martin Keown asked the question: "How is Rooney not interfering with play?"
Herein lies the biggest problem with the offside rule – the definition of whether an attacking player is active or inactive.
Between 1925 and 1990, the rule in this respect was relatively simple – any player level with or ahead of the second last defender was offside regardless of whether they were active or inactive. Although the law stated that an offside player had to “move towards the ball” to be penalised, referees usually whistled against any offside player as soon as a pass was made. After the 1990 World Cup, the rule was slightly tweaked so that players level with the second last defender were deemed onside.
It was in 1995 when the confusion all began as the laws were rewritten declaring that it was not an offence to be in an offside position if the player was inactive. The wording clarified that an offside player would only be penalised if he was “gaining an advantage by being in that position”.
The dreaded offside rule. For years the cause of many arguments between rival clubs, players and fans, its interpretation has bamboozled the greatest of footballing minds, as well as referees and their assistants, and has even led to the creation of a sexist stereotype.
The events at Deepdale on Monday - where a controversial offside incident rescued Manchester United from a humiliating FA Cup exit to League One minnows Preston - showed that changes must be made to simplify the rule before it wreaks further havoc.
With 65 minutes gone, United were trailing 1-0 and did not look like scoring. Then, Ander Herrera hit a scruffy shot towards the far corner after good work from Antonio Valencia. Wayne Rooney was clearly standing in an offside position in the eyeline of Preston goalkeeper Thorsten Stuckmann, but was deemed by the referee and his assistant as not interfering with play.
Distracted by Rooney's position, Stuckmann hesistated and the ball trickled into the goal. United dominated thereafter and eventually won 3-1 to book their place in the next round where they will play Arsenal.
Commentating on the game, the BBC's Martin Keown asked the question: "How is Rooney not interfering with play?"
Herein lies the biggest problem with the offside rule – the definition of whether an attacking player is active or inactive.
Between 1925 and 1990, the rule in this respect was relatively simple – any player level with or ahead of the second last defender was offside regardless of whether they were active or inactive. Although the law stated that an offside player had to “move towards the ball” to be penalised, referees usually whistled against any offside player as soon as a pass was made. After the 1990 World Cup, the rule was slightly tweaked so that players level with the second last defender were deemed onside.
It was in 1995 when the confusion all began as the laws were rewritten declaring that it was not an offence to be in an offside position if the player was inactive. The wording clarified that an offside player would only be penalised if he was “gaining an advantage by being in that position”.
This opened up a can of worms over the exact meaning of ‘inactive’. The International Football Association Board attempted to address this with further revisions to the offside rule in 2003, 2005 and 2013 - but in doing so all the IFAB has done is further complicate matters.
As of today, Law 11 in the Laws of the Game states that:
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 by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
A further section defines the meaning of the three above clauses before 14 different scenarios are presented attempting to explain what constitutes as 'interfering' or 'gaining an advantage'. This only covers a small fraction of potential offside scenarios, but is already exhaustive enough – and that is before players and referees even think about trying to apply them in real time.
With so many strands and grey areas, it is only natural that inconsistencies will arise. One of countless examples during the last year alone was Alex Song’s strike for West Ham against Arsenal over Christmas, which was disallowed as Cheikhou Kouyate and Diafra Sakho, both offside, were deemed to have unsighted Wojciech Szczesny. A couple of months earlier, Leonardo Bonucci’s winning goal for Juventus against Roma was allowed to stand, even though an offside Arturo Vidal (not too dissimilar to Rooney against Preston) was stood in the eye-line of goalkeeper Morgan De Sanctis.
On both occasions, the referees took a pummelling in the press – but the truth is that officials often have an impossible job fathoming what is active and inactive.
“The execution of the law is difficult and requires appropriate coaching of the Assistant referee and the referee on the element of interfering with play,” Keith Hackett of You-Are-The-Ref.com, one of Europe’s top referees in the 1980s and the former general manager of Premier League referees, told Goal.
“The assistant must be in line with the second rearmost defender and the execution of the decision must be through a delayed wait. Wait and see the process unfold to ensure that the player in a passive position is not penalised. The assistant must retain a snapshot of the position of the attacking player throughout.
As of today, Law 11 in the Laws of the Game states that:
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 by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
A further section defines the meaning of the three above clauses before 14 different scenarios are presented attempting to explain what constitutes as 'interfering' or 'gaining an advantage'. This only covers a small fraction of potential offside scenarios, but is already exhaustive enough – and that is before players and referees even think about trying to apply them in real time.
With so many strands and grey areas, it is only natural that inconsistencies will arise. One of countless examples during the last year alone was Alex Song’s strike for West Ham against Arsenal over Christmas, which was disallowed as Cheikhou Kouyate and Diafra Sakho, both offside, were deemed to have unsighted Wojciech Szczesny. A couple of months earlier, Leonardo Bonucci’s winning goal for Juventus against Roma was allowed to stand, even though an offside Arturo Vidal (not too dissimilar to Rooney against Preston) was stood in the eye-line of goalkeeper Morgan De Sanctis.
On both occasions, the referees took a pummelling in the press – but the truth is that officials often have an impossible job fathoming what is active and inactive.
“The execution of the law is difficult and requires appropriate coaching of the Assistant referee and the referee on the element of interfering with play,” Keith Hackett of You-Are-The-Ref.com, one of Europe’s top referees in the 1980s and the former general manager of Premier League referees, told Goal.
“The assistant must be in line with the second rearmost defender and the execution of the decision must be through a delayed wait. Wait and see the process unfold to ensure that the player in a passive position is not penalised. The assistant must retain a snapshot of the position of the attacking player throughout.
Referees face even more difficulties because players exploit this law. It became Ruud van Nistelrooy's trademark to stand in an inactive offside position during the first phase of an attack or set-piece. He would then, often decisively, join the move in the second or third phase in an onside position. The Dutchman scored numerous goals in this way during his career – and many players have since copied him, including former team-mate Cristiano Ronaldo.
This tactic is completely legal but, not only does it complicate the life of the referee and his assistant, it also sparks a debate about what should be classed as interfering with play.
How can an offside player employing Van Nistelrooy’s method possibly be deemed inactive if he scores a few seconds later? In practical terms, it can be argued that anyone offside in the attacking half is interfering with play in some form. A player’s mere presence means that at the very least they will often either be a distraction to the opposition or they will require to be marked. This was the case on Monday - even if we accept that Stuckmann had a clear sight of Herrera's shot, the goalkeeper was distracted by Rooney. The England man cannot be described as passive.
The reason for liberalising the offside law was in order to promote attacking football – following a number of negative and low-scoring games at Italia ’90.
“The law was changed because the powers that be reached an opinion that too many goals were being ruled out,” Hackett explained. “The change has resulted in more goals being allowed than were chalked off in the past.”
A Fifa statement in 2003 defending the inactive offside law read: "It is to protect attacking play intended to result in a goal.”
This tactic is completely legal but, not only does it complicate the life of the referee and his assistant, it also sparks a debate about what should be classed as interfering with play.
How can an offside player employing Van Nistelrooy’s method possibly be deemed inactive if he scores a few seconds later? In practical terms, it can be argued that anyone offside in the attacking half is interfering with play in some form. A player’s mere presence means that at the very least they will often either be a distraction to the opposition or they will require to be marked. This was the case on Monday - even if we accept that Stuckmann had a clear sight of Herrera's shot, the goalkeeper was distracted by Rooney. The England man cannot be described as passive.
The reason for liberalising the offside law was in order to promote attacking football – following a number of negative and low-scoring games at Italia ’90.
“The law was changed because the powers that be reached an opinion that too many goals were being ruled out,” Hackett explained. “The change has resulted in more goals being allowed than were chalked off in the past.”
A Fifa statement in 2003 defending the inactive offside law read: "It is to protect attacking play intended to result in a goal.”
Certainly Fifa has succeeded in that aim – with the likes of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo breaking goal record after goal record and the art of defending dying a slow death. But has it really been for the overall good of the game?
“Should we revert back to the old law? My answer is no,” Hackett stated. “However I do think that with careful discussion with all the stakeholders in the game the interference aspect of the law application needs to be made easier for the match officials.”
Germany and Bayern Munich legend Franz Beckenbauer feels even more strongly about this issue: “In my time it was very simple, offside was offside, it didn't matter where the ball was. It's nonsense now. The active and passive offside is too complicated.
“We have a problem. We should stay away from complicated expressions and go back to making it simpler."
Manchester United's win over Preston on Monday proves Beckenbauer's point perfectly. It is time to return to the old offside rule from before 1995. Offside is offside.
“Should we revert back to the old law? My answer is no,” Hackett stated. “However I do think that with careful discussion with all the stakeholders in the game the interference aspect of the law application needs to be made easier for the match officials.”
Germany and Bayern Munich legend Franz Beckenbauer feels even more strongly about this issue: “In my time it was very simple, offside was offside, it didn't matter where the ball was. It's nonsense now. The active and passive offside is too complicated.
“We have a problem. We should stay away from complicated expressions and go back to making it simpler."
Manchester United's win over Preston on Monday proves Beckenbauer's point perfectly. It is time to return to the old offside rule from before 1995. Offside is offside.
