Everton v Manchester City

[one]

"Gaining an advantage" related solely to rebounds from the goal frame initially.

Which serves the exact same purpose even if "gaining an advatage" phrase was removed, along with all the confusion that comes by having it in the laws.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

No, it was originally simply seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position. That was typically when a player was IOP behind the defence and an onside teammate got the pass and then passed to the player who had been IOP. Before "different phases of play" was invented.

Rather than trying to explain it myself, I have copied below a response from the Oracle @Peter Grove to a thread in 2019:

The phrase was "seeking to gain an advantage" and it was introduced in 1978. The "seeking" part was removed in 1995, so that where before, most referees interpreted the "seeking" to mean a player only had to make a move towards the ball to be penalised, the new phraseology was taken to mean that an advantage had to actually be gained before a player was to be penalised. It was also in 1995 that the idea of being active was introduced, with the following wording:

A player shall only be penalised for being in an off-side position 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 current definition of "gaining an advantage," meaning playing a ball that rebounds off the goal-frame or an opponent (and which I agree is misleading and should be removed) was introduced by FIFA Circular No. 874, issued on 22 October 2003.

 

[Russell Jones]

As others have said, the 'offside' goal is, ultimately, legitimate. What's frustrating (for me) is that so much of the discussion has centred on the defender's deliberate play, which, in what can often be a very murky world of Deliberate vs Deflection, is about as Deliberate as we will ever get!!!

The part of the decision that's a bit more interesting and leads to a valid discussion is the impact that the attacker has had on the defender's choices. The 'obvious action' by the attacker (running towards the defender) absolutely impacted the options available to the defender, leading to the ill fated choice to attempt a pass to the GK. But it's not deemed to be an offence as it's not impacted the defender's actual ability to play the ball just his ability to play the ball in an unconstrained fashion.

At the risk of a tangent, the parallel I would draw is with an attacker standing 4-5m in front of a GK hoping to punt the ball upfield but with other 'short' options available. Is the attacker actually "preventing the release of the ball" or just limiting the options available to the GK?

 

[one]

As others have said, the 'offside' goal is, ultimately, legitimate. What's frustrating (for me) is that so much of the discussion has centred on the defender's deliberate play, which, in what can often be a very murky world of Deliberate vs Deflection, is about as Deliberate as we will ever get!!!

The part of the decision that's a bit more interesting and leads to a valid discussion is the impact that the attacker has had on the defender's choices. The 'obvious action' by the attacker (running towards the defender) absolutely impacted the options available to the defender, leading to the ill fated choice to attempt a pass to the GK. But it's not deemed to be an offence as it's not impacted the defender's actual ability to play the ball just his ability to play the ball in an unconstrained fashion.

At the risk of a tangent, the parallel I would draw is with an attacker standing 4-5m in front of a GK hoping to punt the ball upfield but with other 'short' options available. Is the attacker actually "preventing the release of the ball" or just limiting the options available to the GK?

A very good point you make there RJ. Should limiting the opponent's choices (or impacting their thought process on how to play) be an offence?
While it does fall within the concept of offside, for me I'd much rather keep that out. I have no confidence in IFAB's ability to word the inclusion in a way that make it somewhat practical (saying what they mean and meaning what they say). We would probably go back a couple of decades in terms of how inconsistently offside would be applied.

 

[socal lurker]

A very good point you make there RJ. Should limiting the opponent's choices (or impacting their thought process on how to play) be an offence?
While it does fall within the concept of offside, for me I'd much rather keep that out. I have no confidence in IFAB's ability to word the inclusion in a way that make it somewhat practical (saying what they mean and meaning what they say). We would probably go back a couple of decades in terms of how inconsistently offside would be applied.

I think IFAB doesn’t want to expand this way. This isn’t that different from the OSP player ina 2 on 1 with the GK. That clearly affects the GK who has to be aware of the possibility of a pass, but the Game has decided that’s just tough luck for the GK. Adding in something about limiting the players choices seems highly unlikely to fall into what IFAB wants OS to be.