‘Dennis down at the garage,’ my telephone caller said, ‘reckons that both Reading goals against Liverpool in the Carling Cup were offside. I told him,’ he continued, ‘that I had my suspicions about the first one but Dennis said that, at the second one, although there was a Liverpool player on the goal line, the goalkeeper had come out, putting Reading players offside. There has to be two opponents between attackers and the goal
line', he said.
I appreciate Dennis’s comment about the goalkeeper but, as far as the offside law is concerned, he is a little out of date. The offside law, like car engines, has moved on. His claim that, if a player does not have at least two opponents between him and the goal line he is offside, is not strictly accurate.
When they rewrote the laws in 1997, there were some subtle changes to the offside law. Previously a player would be in an offside position if he was nearer to the goal line than at least two opponents. So at that time Dennis would have been right. If the attacker was level with the second last defender he was in an offside position. The 1997 rewording said ‘A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to the opponent’s goal line than the second last defender’.
You may have to read that again to spot the difference, but what it means is that if a player is level with the second last defender he remains
onside. In fact, an attacker can now have no-one between him and his opponent’s goal line and still be onside. This would happen if he was level with the last two opponents because to be offside he has to be in front of them.
However, Dennis was right in saying that there were at least two Reading players in an offside position in the Liverpool goalmouth because the goalkeeper had come off his goal line when John Halls scored.
But what Dennis and a great number of football followers fail to understand is a vital clause in the offside law. It is contained in the very first sentence of the rewritten law. ‘It is not an offence to be in an offside position.’ It goes on to explain that a player in an offside position should only be penalised, if he is then involved in active play and gives three sets of circumstances.
The first is when the player in the opinion of the referee is interfering with play. This generally means actually playing the ball. At Reading’s second goal, John Halls played the ball through a crowd of players, including the Reading players in offside positions but as they did not touch or otherwise interfere with the ball, the goal was correctly allowed to stand.
At Reading’s first goal, Leroy Lita again was clearly in an offside position. The question here is: did he interfere with an
opponent? - which is the second reason an offside player should be
penalised. Did he, as the Liverpool goalkeeper tried to suggest to the referee, interfere by blocking his view of Convey’s shot?
When I first saw it, I thought the goalkeeper might have a case but when on
Match of the Day, they showed the view from the camera behind the goal, it was clear that Lita was to one side of the goalkeeper. He was not in a direct line of Convey’s rasping shot which found its way through the crowded goalmouth into the back of the net.
These decisions depend on the view that the referee has of the incident and then on his opinion. A tough call for the referee but that is what refereeing is often
about - making close decisions. So, as I told my caller, both goals were completely legal. I think Dennis should stick to the motors.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2007