Why Ruud was not offside against Soton

kida

Ruud van Nistelrooy scored the winner as Manchester United beat Southampton 3-2 on Saturday at Old Trafford.
But Saints manager Gordon Strachan was left fuming because he thought the Dutchman's goal from a free-kick was offside.

As he often does, Van Nistelrooy took up an offside position before a free-kick was taken on the right flank.

Usually, as the ball is about to be kicked, the defenders will pedal back so they are level with him.

Only this time the defenders stood where they were, thinking he would be flagged.

But because the ball didn't reach him in this phase of play, he wasn't offside. Unluckily for the Saints when the ball did break to him, he scored.


Van Nistelrooy's ploy of standing offside is a clever way of exploiting the offside law.

It states that a player in an offside position is only penalised if he/she is involved in active play by:

Interfering with play
Interfering with an opponent
Or gaining an advantage by being in that position
The difference this time is that Van Nistelrooy was very close to active play but ultimately he wasn't interfering because the ball didn't reach him.

If it did and he scored he would rightly have been flagged offside.

He wasn't close to a Southampton defender so he wasn't interfering with an opponent.

So was he gaining an advantage by being taking up an offside position?


Well no. As the ball was crossed he gained no advantage as the ball didn't reach him.

At this point whether he was level with the defenders or in an offside position makes no difference.

The question is: Would Van Nistelrooy have scored if he was stood level with the defender's line in the first instance?

Probably yes. The point is that he gained no advantage as the ball was crossed first time round.

By the time the ball had deflected into the air, the Saints defenders retreated to the line meaning there was no question of being offside when he did score.

You could argue his shrewd use of the laws did create anxiety amongst the Saints' defence.

But who's to say that Ruud doesn't study the offside rules on his days off?

SheroN

Because he plays for man united and because the game was being played at old trafford.

super_furry

Because he plays for man united and because the game was being played at old trafford.

Hehehehe, it's funny because it's true.

AthAnRi

Because he plays for man united and because the game was being played at old trafford.

If thats the case then why did the ref not give a penalty in the first place and he would have solved all the confusion.

Your like a broken record with your worn out excuse of 'because the game was at OT'

TwoShedsJackson

Hilarious all these Man U supporters trying to justify the actions of one of their own. Imagine if Thierry Henry or Shearer was the subject of debate...

thegills

Well no. As the ball was crossed he gained no advantage as the ball didn't reach him

This is rubbish. Could the linesman see into the future. Offside applies as soon as the ball is kicked, and at that instant VN was offside and the flag should have went up. The fact that the ball didn't reach VN is irrelevant. In anyway if he was being marked then by taking away a defender who could have attacked the ball then he was interfering.

Basically it was OT and the ref's are biased there. How come no peno has been awarded in the league for about 11 years???

BKtje

Offside applies as soon as the ball is kicked, and at that instant VN was offside and the flag should have went up. The fact that the ball didn't reach VN is irrelevant.

No its not irrelevent according to the rules. A player must be interfering with play as was mentioned in the original post. (so says mr martin tyler who apparently read some fifa thing before coming on air)

Could the linesman see into the future.

No he cant and doesnt need to. All they need to see is the rpesent and at the time he wasnt interfering with play.

Basically it was OT and the ref's are biased there

Basically you dont know the rules and are full of **** about the biasmed ref.

Your like a broken record with your worn out excuse of 'because the game was at OT'

Let them have their excuses. They need em i guess.

Hilarious all these Man U supporters trying to justify the actions of one of their own

No Justification required seeing as he was well within the laws of the game.

Ignorance is a bad bad thing when your as arrogant as some on this board.

smemon

as a utd fan, im saying van nistelrooy WAS offside.

you cant be not interfering with play when your behind the defenders in an offside position WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED, then come back into an onside position a few seconds later.

the defenders are aware of van nistelrooy hence he's causing at least one player to mark him which is interfering with play. not very clear, but the bottom line is he was offside.

no if's or but's or quoting rules from an official book, common sense should tell u he was offside. if you were van nistelrooy's marker and that happened to you, you wouldnt be too happy knowing he was offside when the ball was played, you did your job, then a few seconds later (in which you dont have time to get goalside), the ball is played back in and he taps home with no flag from the linesman.

The Muppet

Originally posted by smemon
as a utd fan, im saying van nistelrooy WAS offside.

you cant be not interfering with play when your behind the defenders in an offside position WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED, then come back into an onside position a few seconds later.

the defenders are aware of van nistelrooy hence he's causing at least one player to mark him which is interfering with play. not very clear, but the bottom line is he was offside.

no if's or but's or quoting rules from an official book, common sense should tell u he was offside. if you were van nistelrooy's marker and that happened to you, you wouldnt be too happy knowing he was offside when the ball was played, you did your job, then a few seconds later (in which you dont have time to get goalside), the ball is played back in and he taps home with no flag from the linesman.

Thats not what FIFA's new interpretation of the rules say. The player on his way back from offside is not Offside. We have seen examples of it with chelsea Arsenal and others thsi season so in this instance utd benefited from the same rules as everyone else. Fifa changed the interpretation Ruud just takes advantage of it.

Emboss

Originally posted by smemon
as a utd fan, im saying van nistelrooy WAS offside.

you cant be not interfering with play when your behind the defenders in an offside position WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED, then come back into an onside position a few seconds later.

the defenders are aware of van nistelrooy hence he's causing at least one player to mark him which is interfering with play. not very clear, but the bottom line is he was offside.

no if's or but's or quoting rules from an official book, common sense should tell u he was offside. if you were van nistelrooy's marker and that happened to you, you wouldnt be too happy knowing he was offside when the ball was played, you did your job, then a few seconds later (in which you dont have time to get goalside), the ball is played back in and he taps home with no flag from the linesman.

When has common sense ever played a role in the ep? NEVER
The fact of the matter is he wasn't offside it doesn't matter what way you look at.

read the rules...watch a replay of the goal....

EOF

Emboss

Originally posted by thegills
This is rubbish. Could the linesman see into the future. Offside applies as soon as the ball is kicked, and at that instant VN was offside and the flag should have went up. The fact that the ball didn't reach VN is irrelevant. In anyway if he was being marked then by taking away a defender who could have attacked the ball then he was interfering.

Basically it was OT and the ref's are biased there. How come no peno has been awarded in the league for about 11 years???

how was he offisde if he wasn't interfering with play ?

if a defender is stupid enough to go back with him and keep him onside he shouldn't be playing in the top flight in the first place.

and if it was the fact it was just at OT why didn't he award the obvious penalty moments before?

BKtje

he's causing at least one player to mark him which is interfering with play

No one was marking him, thats why hes offside. If they were marking him they werent doing a very good job of it by standing that far away from him

no if's or but's or quoting rules from an official book

But if you cant believe the official rules then who can you believe!?

common sense should tell u he was offside.

O ok we believe common sense then. Makes it so much clearer than the official rule book

if you were van nistelrooy's marker and that happened to you, you wouldnt be too happy knowing he was offside when the ball was played, you did your job, then a few seconds later (in which you dont have time to get goalside), the ball is played back in and he taps home with no flag from the linesman

Other players managed to run past him and onto the goaline. Why couldnt the defender who was supposed to mark him not get goal side?

smemon

Originally posted by B-K-DzR

Other players managed to run past him and onto the goaline. Why couldnt the defender who was supposed to mark him not get goal side?

because he was trying to play him offside, WHICH HE DID. van then got back onside leaving the defender with no time to catch him. i'd be absolutely furious if that happened to manu in the fa cup, or champs league, any game for that matter.

i just think it's unfair on the defense having played the goalscorer offside at first in the same attack. in that case, its like having a man directly in front of the keeper in an offside position, blocking his view. a player takes a shot, keeper sees it late and it flies into the net. your saying thats now legal because technically the man blocking the keepers view isnt interfering with direct play?

Aliminator

this new offside thing is a whole load of bollox
i just watched ITV trying to explain it. fuking useless.
the game is being changed too much, pretty soon it'll be like the superbowl.

offside should be simple: if u are capable with the Intent to interfere with play, then u should be flagged. what vanN did was bollox. he's offside when the free is whipped in. it's like standing behind a goalkeeper and toepoking it out of his hand just as he touches it, or staying off the park then coming back on after the keeper saves to score.
fukn ridiculous. what's even more ridiculous is the lack of money given to most defenders and goalkeepers.
Blatter should be hung.

BKtje

van then got back onside leaving the defender with no time to catch him.

Van always goes offside then steps back onside tho thats not really the issue here i don think. There was plenty of time to catch him as 2 defenders got abck on the line easily. Hell if those defenders hadnt run back then Van might still have been offside

i just think it's unfair on the defense having played the goalscorer offside at first in the same attack.

Perhaps it is unfair but who ever said life or football were fair games? Speakign of unfair..... In offsides if theres a doubt the decesion sgould go to the attackers but its very seldom that you see it. Isnt that unfair to the attackers? I know what your saying and i dont know wether i like the new rule but it is the rules and thats what i've been trying to say. Until i see it more im gonna keep an open mind.

in that case, its like having a man directly in front of the keeper in an offside position, blocking his view. a player takes a shot, keeper sees it late and it flies into the net. your saying thats now legal because technically the man blocking the keepers view isnt interfering with direct play?

Well he would be interfering as from the first post "Interfering with an opponent" is considered interfering with play and blocking the keepers site is interfering i guess.

thegills

Basically you dont know the rules

I seem to know a bit more than you. There was about 15 players in front of the goal and the ball was played into them. Are you saying that just because the ball didn't reach VN in the first place then he wasn't interfering??? You must be nuts and have never played the game to save your life. The not-interfering rule was designed to apply when the player is away from the action and isn't involved in the ensuing actions. In the VN case he was directly involved as he scored.

All they need to see is the rpesent and at the time he wasnt interfering with play

At theinstant the ball was kicked everybody in the box was interfering with play and VN was offside. For all we know the ball was directed for VN but as the crosser is basically sh*t the ball was mis-kicked to someone else.

No one was marking him, thats why hes offside. If they were marking him they werent doing a very good job of it by standing that far away from him

If he was followed by a defender then the every TRS player would have followed the defender as he would be playing them onside and then their goalie would haved been crowded out; thats why there where no defenders on the posts for the initial cross in.

cournioni

Originally posted by SheroN
Because he plays for man united and because the game was being played at old trafford.

wah wah.

cournioni

And besides, it should have been a penalty regardless. Fernandes handballed inside the penalty area.

Because it was Man Utd at Old Trafford, he didn't give it... :rolleyes:

thegills

And besides, it should have been a penalty regardless. Fernandes handballed inside the penalty area

It's debatable whether he was inside the box. His feet were on the line but his hands were forward. At least you got the free kick which is more than Southampton got.

What about Scholes charging down the shot on goal inside the box? Should that have been a peno.

What about the game against Bolton when a through ball was played and VN was about 15 yards offside yet he made contact with the ball and set it up for Scholes to score, I suppose he wasn't interfering then????

astrofool

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to debate if it should have been a penalty or not

cournioni

Originally posted by thegills
It's debatable whether he was inside the box. His feet were on the line but his hands were forward. At least you got the free kick which is more than Southampton got.

What about Scholes charging down the shot on goal inside the box? Should that have been a peno.

What about the game against Bolton when a through ball was played and VN was about 15 yards offside yet he made contact with the ball and set it up for Scholes to score, I suppose he wasn't interfering then????

He was inside the box. About a yard or so inside the line.

Scholes had the ball hammered at him from close range, Fernandes was a good bit away from the ball when it was struck. And he put his hands up in the air. Scholes was protecting his face.

Van Nistelrooy wasn't interfering when he touched the ball, because he didn't change the direction or the speed of the ball in any way. But an offside decision should have been given against him.

BKtje

I seem to know a bit more than you.

Im listening.

There was about 15 players in front of the goal and the ball was played into them. Are you saying that just because the ball didn't reach VN in the first place then he wasn't interfering???

Err basically yes, no one was marking him, he wasnt obstructing anyone. Basically if he hadnt been there nothing else would have happened in the first phase of play. When the second phase of play began he was no longer offside when the shot came to him from Brown and he tapped it in. He wasnt interfering when the first ball came in when he was offside and was not when the ball came to him. The way i interpret the rules (linesman, Martin Tyler and some people here seem to agree with me) the goal was fine.

You must be nuts and have never played the game to save your life.

I dont see the relevance, i was a keeper when i played in my secondary school days.
True i never had to worry about being offside but i dont really see the relevance as ive watched enough of the bloody game.

The not-interfering rule was designed to apply when the player is away from the action and isn't involved in the ensuing actions. In the VN case he was directly involved as he scored.

You see thats what i thought as well till martin tyler explained the new fifa document that he had read last week. Tbh i agree with you that its a bit silly but if its in the rules then its in the rules.

It's debatable whether he was inside the box. His feet were on the line but his hands were forward. At least you got the free kick which is more than Southampton got.

Eh!? Not a Penalty!?
Tell me if his feet are on the line and his hands were straight above his head how are his hands not in the box!?
Now the difference between Scholes's hand ball and that of Fernades is crystal clear. The quote

You must be nuts and have never played the game to save your life.

comes to mind. One player jumps and puts his hands straight up above his head while the other is charging down a shot with his arms basically by his sides. Ones hand to ball and other is ball to hand..

AthAnRi

It's debatable whether he was inside the box. His feet were on the line but his hands were forward. At least you got the free kick which is more than Southampton got.

Debateable my a***. The guy was standing about a 2 feet inside before he jumped and about a foot after he landed. If you watched on T.V. then you would have seen that it was a penalty. The commentators said it, Glen Hoddle said it and the pundits on ITV said it.

As for the scholes incident. I think it he was lucky to not give away a penalty but if it was given away then it would have been very unlucky. It wasn't as clear cut case as the Fernandes incident. Either way the match is over and theres nothing that will reverse any of the decisions.

Emboss

Originally posted by thegills
It's debatable whether he was inside the box. His feet were on the line but his hands were forward. At least you got the free kick which is more than Southampton got.

What about Scholes charging down the shot on goal inside the box? Should that have been a peno.

What about the game against Bolton when a through ball was played and VN was about 15 yards offside yet he made contact with the ball and set it up for Scholes to score, I suppose he wasn't interfering then????

Spec savers mate 2 for the price of 1

Watch it again...and again untill it sinks in...he was well inside the box

and on the line is enough...

also if you actually WATCH it...his hands go up not out...

Sundy

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
Van Nistelrooy wasn't interfering when he touched the ball, because he didn't change the direction or the speed of the ball in any way. But an offside decision should have been given against him.

How did he touch the ball with out changing the direction or speed?:D Thats impossible think about it!

I cant comment on the RVN goal cause i didnt see it, but i think the standard of assistant referees is falling, did anybody see villa's second goal against bolton in the first leg? Angel was in an offside position three times and it wasnt called!