Offside - why do we have it?

[Peter Grove]

I just wondered why do we have offside? Why was this law ever created?

Would it be worth FIFA doing some trials to see how the game copes with no offside law? What would be the loss?

As the post from @ClioMZ shows, the IFAB/FIFA have authorised many, many trials of modified forms of the offside law.

Indeed (although I don't have the actual statistics on this) I think there have been more experiments involving the offside law, than any other law on the books.

The bottom line is that none of them has ever been found to be an improvement over the current law.

 

[Peter Grove]

Current research also suggests that the game of football (in its various forms) originated in Scotland.

I don't recall having seen evidence for this. Do you have any references?

In terms of the early development of Association Football, it's true that the Scottish proponents of the game (notably Queen's Park FC) were probably more influential than they are often given credit for, especially in developing the passing or combination game.

However as far as I can tell, the real historical origins of the modern game go back to the various medieval "mob" games which sometimes involved whole communities playing against each other. Such games took place in various countries including England, Scotland and Italy (leading to today's calcio storico or calcio fiorentino games) but I haven't seen anything that suggests this historical form of the game originated in Scotland, or that it was more prevalent there.

(There was also a historic football game called Cuju played in China over 2,000 years ago but it has no provable direct links to the modern game).

But rugby didn't come out of nowhere.
The fact is that under the term football there were a very large number of different rules in the 19th century (every public school, club, etc. had its own).

Yes, as I already pointed out in my post (the one you are replying to):

... both codes were based on the earlier sets of laws for the different versions of what was known generally as football

 

[ClioMZ]

I don't recall having seen evidence for this. Do you have any references?

I can mention Ged O'Brien, the director of the Scottish Football Museum, who has been researching the subject intensively for a long time. I follow him on Twitter (his twitter handle is @gedboy58), where he occasionally writes about his research and debunks myths.

 

[ClioMZ]

Yes, my overview certainly does not contain all trials. They are only those mentioned in the IFAB protocols and in Rous' book on football rules. However, you have to be a bit careful with the years in Rous' book, because he was always one or two years off.

What I find so special about the offside rule:
1) There has always been a debate about offside. About the rule and its meaning as well as about offside decisions. Sure, sometimes less and sometimes more, but there is no year without discussions about offside (the same goes for handball). And that will remain the case. I think it is illusory to assume that offside will no longer cause a stir at some point ;-)

2) No rule and no rule change has such a strong influence on the game itself. Not only the change in 1866 in the FA Rules, which made combination play possible there, which was already common in other regions, no - see 3

3) Offside is closely intertwined with the theme of modern football or football as an entertainment medium. The next major change after 1866 happened in 1925: three opponents became 2 opponents. Why? The intention was to make football more offensive, higher-scoring and thus more attractive. More attractive for the entrepreneurs, of course, because it attracted more spectators and thus increased revenue. In 2021, we will be discussing the same thing. The change in 1990 (same height) was also made to make football more offensive. Making it more lucrative would probably be a more appropriate term.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I can mention Ged O'Brien, the director of the Scottish Football Museum, who has been researching the subject intensively for a long time. I follow him on Twitter (his twitter handle is @gedboy58), where he occasionally writes about his research and debunks myths.

After 150 years the truth: Scotland invented football

As Wembley prepares to host the Auld Enemy once again with a friendly for the FA's anniversary, it is time Patrick Barclay put the record straight

www.independent.co.uk

may be of interest, Clio - others wrote similar pieces, probably based on (Irishman) Ged O'Brien's work.

 

[Peter Grove]

After 150 years the truth: Scotland invented football

As Wembley prepares to host the Auld Enemy once again with a friendly for the FA's anniversary, it is time Patrick Barclay put the record straight

www.independent.co.uk

may be of interest, Clio - others wrote similar pieces, probably based on (Irishman) Ged O'Brien's work.

That article says exactly what I was talking about, that the players of Queens Park FC were instrumental in creating the modern game of (Association) Football, based on a passing style of play, and that this happened in the late 1860’s. When it says that this means the Scots "invented football," they're talking specifically and exclusively about the modern game as it is played today.

It is not referring to the historical origins of the game, which go back to at least the middle ages.

 

[Peter Grove]

I can mention Ged O'Brien, the director of the Scottish Football Museum, who has been researching the subject intensively for a long time. I follow him on Twitter (his twitter handle is @gedboy58), where he occasionally writes about his research and debunks myths.

OK, I have found an interview with Ged O’Brien where he says that the roots of the game go back to the Scottish Clan system of 500 years ago.

Scotland invented world football, says historian

The problem with that claim is that there is clear historical evidence that the game existed in England in 1314 as King Edward II banned it in April of that year.

Has football ever been illegal in Britain?

I'm not saying that proves it originated in England necessarily, but it shows that clan games 500 years ago in Scotland were not the first instance of it.

 

[bloovee]

The laws were applied in a way that matched Shankly's dictum, "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?"

In other words, the flag would go up if the ball was played forward and any attacker was in an offside position. It was a practice, not an interpretation, and guidance to referees emphasised that it was not an offence to be in an offside position.

It was of course this goal that started the debate about what "interfering" meant:

 

[bloovee]

Is this "official"?

Premier League VAR to use 'thicker lines' for offside calls next season

The International Football Association Board [IFAB] - footballs lawmakers - does not specify a maximum thickness of lines, under the laws of the game; PGMOL hopes the change will give the benefit back to the attacking team

www.skysports.com

 

[socal lurker]

The laws were applied in a way that matched Shankly's dictum, "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?"

back then it wasn’t just interfering, but included attempting to interfere. Removing attempting from the language of Law 11 was part of the trend toward trimming down OS to where it actually mattered

 

[bloovee]

back then it wasn’t just interfering, but included attempting to interfere. Removing attempting from the language of Law 11 was part of the trend toward trimming down OS to where it actually mattered

I don't know where you've got that from. "Attempting to interfere" has never been in the laws.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't know where you've got that from. "Attempting to interfere" has never been in the laws.

Forgive my imprecision. The precise language was "seeking to gain an advantage."

 

[Dan56]

I am old enough to remember running the line back in the 70s. Whatever the exact wording of the Law was, the way it was applied meant that if a player was anywhere near the flight of the ball (within about 50 yards, and I kid you not) then the flag went up immediately, whether the player attempted to interfere or not. The only way we paid any lip service to "not interfering" would be in the case of a ball down one wing with a PIOP on the far touchline. I would often flag 20 offsides every game (and the other linesman the same). The biggest change I believe is that the default assumption has switched: back then, we considered a player offside unless (in very rare circumstances) you applied the "not interfering" proviso; nowadays, we consider a player not to have comitted an offence unless (in very specific circumstances) they enter active play. I truly believe the game is ten times better for the change, however much it makes our job harder as officials.

 

[socal lurker]

Precisely. That's why in the old days you would see players step off the field or turn their back on the play and raise their arm to clearly show the ref/linesman that the were not seeking to gain an advantage.

I wish had a nickle for every wholly irrelevant player I called for OS . . .

 

[GazzaJAnimal]

Personally, I think that if any part of the attacker's body is level they should be onside, as opposed to any part in front being offside.

 

[socal lurker]

Personally, I think that if any part of the attacker's body is level they should be onside, as opposed to any part in front being offside.

This is a pretty old thread to throw a random opinion into. But be careful what you wish for. If you are a defender and that is the rule, what are you going to do? You are going to have to play more defensively because the cost of the defender getting behind you by half a step is huge. That means more bunker style defense. I really don’t see where that is likely to 8 prove the game at all. (It will also be much harder for ARs to track than just who is closer to the goal line.)