Lots has been read and said about Saturday’s game against Spurs but the main topic of my Tuesday article this week is going to focus on the rules of the game that led to the first goal of the match and also influenced the two other goals we conceded. I am sure that I am not alone in wanting changes to the game that would improve it as a spectacle and also to make it a fairer and less cynical sport. I doubt anyone likes the diving, time wasting and feigning injury tactics that we see so often, and those are just at the tip of the iceberg of the sports problems. The professional foul can be blatant and it can also be mischievously deceptive. The small tug of the shirt or an arm can often be as critically important as the crude trip without any intention of playing the ball.
However, one of the most controversial aspects of the game is the offside rule. For all the years I played the game it was fairly simple. A very basic analysis was if you or any of your team mates are in an offside position when the ball is played forward inside the opposition half then the ref blows his whistle and awards a free kick to your opponents. Linesmen didn’t always get it right but I doubt the reinvented assistant referees would either? However, the rule was black and white and had very little scope for an officials “interpretation”. Always a good thing that – in my opinion! The continued changes made in the Premier League era to the old law have certainly seen more goals scored but in my view it has also been detrimental to the essence of the game. Playing the offside trap under the old rules in the 70’s could actually be practised to an art form. I remember watching a local amateur team one day and they had it down pat using a sweeper. It left such an impression on me that I can write about it now some 45 years later! I never thought that something so technical could be so polished from a team playing at an amateur level. The famous Arsenal back line movement playing the offside trap inspired the writers of the Full Monty movie to use it to simplify their dance routines! However, we now have players wandering back from offside positions and providing they don’t make an immediate move for the ball, play continues. Sometimes the ball is played to a team mate in an onside position and they can score despite other members of the team being offside? How can a defence realistically play the trap in those circumstances? How is a rule that allows a player to stand in an offside position whilst his side score a goal not offering an advantage to that team? As Bill Shankly famously said “if a player’s not interfering with play he shouldn’t be on the bloody pitch?” Brian Clough went further by adding that if any of his players weren’t interfering with play at all times they shouldn’t be paid.
In 1990 for the “good of the game” and to promote attacking football the offside law underwent its first radical change in over 60 years. The advantage was now given to the attacking team. If the attacker was in line with the penultimate defender, he was now onside. This was one of the best rule changes FIFA have ever made in my opinion. It kept the old rule in place except for the small tweak which did seem to make a difference. It was easy for the match officials to rule on and I think everyone was happy? The tinkering since has ebbed and flowed and I do believe the authorities have tried to do the right thing by the fans, but in my opinion they have just created more problems and more room for controversy with the inconsistencies around players not interfering in play or gaining an advantage from being offside.
I have been mulling over writing an article on this subject for a while now but Harry Kane’s first goal on the weekend was the perfect trigger for today’s piece. Under the current rules (Law 11) it was a fair goal. But the circumstances surrounding this goal show why the new ruling is an ass. Erickson receives the ball and plays a pass out to Alli who is in an onside position, however when the ball is played, Kane who is more central, is around two to three yards offside. Kane is not ruled offside because he is not interfering with play? However, Kane keeps running towards goal and because of his original “non-interference” offside position has a three yard start on his marker Fonte. Ogbonna chases Alli who’s lost Cresswell but the Tottenham player crosses the ball to Kane who is steaming into the box. Kane scores because he is unmarked and that was because Fonte had no chance of making up the three yards on a player that had been deemed not interfering with play? Apparently. Now if anyone thinks that the law is not flawed if that is allowed to happen then I give up.
To go further, a look at the second goal and when the Spurs attack starts Kane is six yards offside, again not interfering (or gaining an advantage)…..and scores 6 seconds later? With Spurs third goal two players are in offside positions when Erickson shoots and scores from just inside the box. Yet despite both being in around the six yard box at a set piece they are not interfering with play either? I have no doubt we have scored many goals in similar circumstances but this rule has become an absolute farce, especially when you look at Kane’s first goal which was completely irretrievable once he gained his head start advantage on Fonte from the ruling. All three goals we conceded highlight the laziness we now accept from players to get back onside under the current rules but the last two were at least scored under the ethical reasoning of why the laws were changed. In fact, all three goals awarded against us were correctly given by the officials under the current Law 11 of the game providing you allow for the referees interpretation. The current rules deciding an offside position seem to have moved away from “interfering” a little and now the key words are “gaining an advantage” and perhaps this may be more relevant to why I think Spurs first goal should have been disallowed?
Now, the offside rule is for all to exploit and not just Spurs. We have scored goals in similar fashion as have all teams, well except Crystal Palace this season in the PL of course – sorry, I couldn’t help myself. However, the continued tampering of the pre-1990 rule has led to more confusion than anything else, but my main beef is whether the current rules are fair or not and whether they are open to too much interpretation from the officials? For instance in the 9th minute of the game Reid played a ball forward and Antonio and Chico were in offside positions. They both showed no interest in the pass realising they were off but Noble ran onto the ball from an onside position and the flag went up immediately? When you compare this decision to the Kane debacles it made no sense. As fans all we want is consistency from the officials and unfortunately we are not getting it whilst this rule still opens up too many grey areas. We certainly weren’t the beneficiaries of it on the weekend and I am firmly in the Shankly / Clough camp regarding players interfering with play (or gaining an advantage by not interfering).
One of the great exponents of taking advantage of the earlier changes to the offside rule was Ruud Van Nistelrooy. He continually breached the defensive line and had the uncanny knack of just putting himself onside when it mattered. No wonder he scored so many goals and I am sure his nous in reading the play around the offside rule contributed to many of them. You can only play to what the current rules are and you can’t blame the players for taking advantage of them. Indeed, credit has to be given where they do take advantage of them. In my opinion though, I find it a shame that this is one rule FIFA have interfered with too much. I am sure there will be differing opinions on this subject but enjoy the debate.
my apologies for not being able to attach a youtube video clip of the goals to support my article. I did have one yesterday but it has since been pulled down as I guess it may not have been legal