A&H

One for the Law Historians

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Another query from the fans messageboard I frequent.

When were more strict criteria introduced for a player to be 'involved' before being judged offside?

It used to be the case that by just being in an offside position you were penalised - I certainly remember it being that way in my youth.

Anyone got any more specific information around the detail and timing of the changes?

Thanks
 
The Referee Store
I heard a rumour that all the laws from early 1900s are now available for perusal on the ifab website. Perhaps you could point the good old QPR faithful in that direction. Never know they might learn a thing or two 😋
 
I heard a rumour that all the laws from early 1900s are now available for perusal on the ifab website. Perhaps you could point the good old QPR faithful in that direction. Never know they might learn a thing or two 😋
I've been trying to educate them for years now...............................its a slow process believe me! :p
 
I heard a rumour that all the laws from early 1900s are now available for perusal on the ifab website. Perhaps you could point the good old QPR faithful in that direction. Never know they might learn a thing or two 😋
Thanks James.

Interestingly its seems "interferes with play or an opponent" has always been in there - certainly not how I remember the law being applied in the 70s.
 
It used to be the case that by just being in an offside position you were penalised - I certainly remember it being that way in my youth.
I don't believe that was ever the case. But it used to be that "seeking to gain an advantage" was enough to be an offense, and that was very broadly interpreted. Essentially, if you were still moving forward or paying attention and the ball was played even remotely toward your general direction, you were seeking to gain an advantage, and that was enough. That's why if you watch old games (think the 70s) you will see players literally turn their back on the play and raise an arm to show they are not seeking to get involved. It is also why the Laws until very recently had language about leaving the field of play to demonstrate you were not getting involved.

I haven't gone back to look, but I believe it was in the 80's that "seeking" was removed and that we changed from "even is off" to "even is on."

And since then there have been many incremental changes--either in law or interpretations--that methodically narrowed active involvement to what we have today.
 
When I started, offside was offside, somewhere I have the coaching papers
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that was ever the case. But it used to be that "seeking to gain an advantage" was enough to be an offense, and that was very broadly interpreted. Essentially, if you were still moving forward or paying attention and the ball was played even remotely toward your general direction, you were seeking to gain an advantage, and that was enough. That's why if you watch old games (think the 70s) you will see players literally turn their back on the play and raise an arm to show they are not seeking to get involved. It is also why the Laws until very recently had language about leaving the field of play to demonstrate you were not getting involved.

I haven't gone back to look, but I believe it was in the 80's that "seeking" was removed and that we changed from "even is off" to "even is on."

And since then there have been many incremental changes--either in law or interpretations--that methodically narrowed active involvement to what we have today.
Yes you're right, as I said above. Genuinely surprised that 'interfering with play' has always been in there - as you say its the interpretation that's changed.
 
If anyone is interested, the 1973 Scottish league cup was trialed with offside only counting 18 yards from the goal line
 
If anyone is interested, the 1973 Scottish league cup was trialed with offside only counting 18 yards from the goal line

In the 70s/80s the NASL in the US was given permission to try an offside line 35 yards out from goal. Most considered it a failure except that it let out of shape former star forwards come to the US to play as they didn't have to run as much . . .
 
Was it not following the 1990 World Cup. I just finished reading Jonathan Wilson’s “Inverting The Pyramid” a few hours ago and in the last chapter he mentioned a change in tactics due to the “change in enforcement of the offside due to the negativity of the 1990 World Cup.”

Could be nothing to do with that, just find it weird I just read that passage and then this question appears here
 
When I started, offside was offside
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but let's be clear about one thing.

It has never, ever been the case in the entire history of the laws of the game that the Law called for a player to be penalised simply for being in an offside position.

Even from the very beginning, the original Laws issued in 1863 did not call for a player who was in an offside position to be penalised, unless he were to ''touch the ball himself or in anyway whatsoever prevent any other player from doing so.''

From then on, down the years there have been several occasions when the law-making authorities have issued specific instructions to referees or included wording in the Laws, to emphasise the point that a player needs to do more than just be in an offside position, to be guilty of an offside offence.

For instance, in 1903 the FA Council issued the following statement: ''It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected.''

In 1910 the FA council stated: ''Some Referees award a free kick when a player is simply in an off-side position. This must not be done.''

The following wording was included in the Laws document in 1920: ''Play should not be stopped and a player given off-side [...] because the player is in an off-side position. A breach of the Law is only committed when a player who is in an offside position interferes with an opponent or with the play.''

On June 14, 1924, an IFAB decision was issued saying: "It is not a breach of the Law for a player to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position he interferes with an opponent, or with the play."

In 1956, another IFAB decision was issued, stating that a player who was in an offside position should not be penalised if it was clear to the referee ''that he is not interfering with play.''

In 1978 the laws stated: ''A player shall not be declared off-side by the Referee [...] merely because of his being in an off-side position.''

And ever since 1997, the very first sentence of the Offside Law has been: ''It is not an offence (in itself) to be in an offside position.''

Now, if you want to argue that there was a time in the 70s and 80s when many officials applied the law as if it was an offence simply to be in an offside position then I would not disagree with you but I hope the various excerpts from the laws, along with the pronouncements from the FA and the IFAB that are given above show that this was never at any time, in either the wording or the intent of the law.

Some of you may remember the (in)famous offside incident in 1971 in the Leeds v West Brom game when referee Ray Tinkler correctly allowed play to continue with Colin Suggett in a clearly offside position but not interfering with play. The decision caused outrage at the time (you can hear it on the YouTube clip below) and there was an ongoing controversy about it for many months if not years. However to my mind, while Tinkler's decision may have been against the way that a large number of referees and linesman were applying the law at the time, it was not against the way the law itself was written, even back then.

 
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but let's be clear about one thing.

It has never, ever been the case in the entire history of the laws of the game that the Law called for a player to be penalised simply for being in an offside position.

Even from the very beginning, the original Laws issued in 1863 did not call for a player who was in an offside position to be penalised, unless he were to ''touch the ball himself or in anyway whatsoever prevent any other player from doing so.''

From then on, down the years there have been several occasions when the law-making authorities have issued specific instructions to referees or included wording in the Laws, to emphasise the point that a player needs to do more than just be in an offside position, to be guilty of an offside offence.

For instance, in 1903 the FA Council issued the following statement: ''It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected.''

In 1910 the FA council stated: ''Some Referees award a free kick when a player is simply in an off-side position. This must not be done.''

The following wording was included in the Laws document in 1920: ''Play should not be stopped and a player given off-side [...] because the player is in an off-side position. A breach of the Law is only committed when a player who is in an offside position interferes with an opponent or with the play.''

On June 14, 1924, an IFAB decision was issued saying: "It is not a breach of the Law for a player to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position he interferes with an opponent, or with the play."

In 1956, another IFAB decision was issued, stating that a player who was in an offside position should not be penalised if it was clear to the referee ''that he is not interfering with play.''

In 1978 the laws stated: ''A player shall not be declared off-side by the Referee [...] merely because of his being in an off-side position.''

And ever since 1997, the very first sentence of the Offside Law has been: ''It is not an offence (in itself) to be in an offside position.''

Now, if you want to argue that there was a time in the 70s and 80s when many officials applied the law as if it was an offence simply to be in an offside position then I would not disagree with you but I hope the various excerpts from the laws, along with the pronouncements from the FA and the IFAB that are given above show that this was never at any time, in either the wording or the intent of the law.

Some of you may remember the (in)famous offside incident in 1971 in the Leeds v West Brom game when referee Ray Tinkler correctly allowed play to continue with Colin Suggett in a clearly offside position but not interfering with play. The decision caused outrage at the time (you can hear it on the YouTube clip below) and there was an ongoing controversy about it for many months if not years. However to my mind, while Tinkler's decision may have been against the way that a large number of referees and linesman were applying the law at the time, it was not against the way the law itself was written, even back then.


My short post was in simple terms as you say, " many officials applied.."

for whatever the directives said, its certainly all me or my colleagues knew.

At that time. If you youtube nearly any late 70s mid 80s Scotsport or Sportscehe clips, offside flags raised and accepted for players simply being offside
I put this down to at that time, it was referees on the line, there was no select ref and special ars.

my post was not meant to state it was printed in fact that offside was offside, more, the common accepted notion
 
My short post was in simple terms as you say, " many officials applied.."

for whatever the directives said, its certainly all me or my colleagues knew.

At that time. If you youtube nearly any late 70s mid 80s Scotsport or Sportscehe clips, offside flags raised and accepted for players simply being offside
I put this down to at that time, it was referees on the line, there was no select ref and special ars.

my post was not meant to state it was printed in fact that offside was offside, more, the common accepted notion
Fair enough. I just don't like to see the view expressed (and I have seen it in the past on here) that at one period of time, it was deemed correct in law to penalise any player who was in an offside position when the ball was played in an attacking direction.
 
Another query from the fans messageboard I frequent.

When were more strict criteria introduced for a player to be 'involved' before being judged offside?

It used to be the case that by just being in an offside position you were penalised - I certainly remember it being that way in my youth.

Anyone got any more specific information around the detail and timing of the changes?

Thanks
I think the change you are looking for was in mid 1990's. While the law was the same in the late 80/early 90, when I was active; the offisde changed after the 1994 disaster of a World Cup in USA.
 
Fair enough. I just don't like to see the view expressed (and I have seen it in the past on here) that at one period of time, it was deemed correct in law to penalise any player who was in an offside position when the ball was played in an attacking direction.

now i re read it, i do see how it can be taken wrongly as fact

man on street terms rather than lotg was ( as good as) offside was offside
 
I think the change you are looking for was in mid 1990's. While the law was the same in the late 80/early 90, when I was active; the offisde changed after the 1994 disaster of a World Cup in USA.
I think what you are referring to (and what he's looking for) may be the changes that came in 1995, when they added the phrase about active involvement, as follows:

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.

At the same time, the offside phrase "seeking to gain an advantage by being in that position" was subtly changed to "gaining an advantage by being in that position."

The difference being that whereas previously a player only had to be trying to gain an advantage to be penalised, the new phrase implied that an advantage actually had to accrue before a player was to be penalised.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top