The Offside Rule (Interfering with an Opponent) Explained TO Graham Poll

Is it possible that one of the most respected referees in Premier League history did not (and still doesn't) understand the offside rule properly ? I have unearthed concrete black and white evidence which points to this quite bizarre and, some might say, shocking revelation. If you've got time, and the desire to learn about the offside rule, feel free to read my first forray into investigative journalism. Otherwise look at the pictures and do one....


As mentioned in an earlier post, I was suitably riled following Graham Poll's article this week which states '....Ferguson is the best and most successful manager in Premier League history and yet does not know seem to know the laws of the game'. This was in reference to Cisse's goal which was disallowed, for offside, and then allowed again, on Boxing Day. Poll goes on to say that the referee got the call exactly right - something I couldn't quite get my head round. Whilst I am not an acclaimed ex-referee, writing for the world's most popular online newspaper, I am familiar with the term 'interfering with play' and felt, like many others, that Cisse was clearly interfering with Jonny Evans, from an obvious offside position, as the players tussled prior to, and during, the cross which resulted in an Evans own goal. More about that later. It was the sentence 'does not seem to know the laws of the game' that got to me most, so I thought I'd do a little research into them.

A quick search on google led to two very interesting results appearing on the first page. Firstly, Fifa's PDF explaining the offside rule, and, a bit further down the page, an article written by the one and the same, effervescent, Graham Poll entitled 'The offside rule explained for Alan Hansen, Mick McCarthy (and the rest of us)'.

I opened the article first, to see how Poll would explain (or rather interpret) the 'interfering with...' rules in layman's terms. After quoting FIFA's decree on the matter, Poll summarizes with the following statement:

"So, unless a player touches the ball he is not interfering with play. It’s that simple.."

This seemed to contradict the FIFA decree which was above his statement. Either that, or Poll has failed to differentiate, or acknowledge, the rules concerning interfering with play and interfering with an opponent, which are both covered by FIFA. I then took a look at the fifa link, which is presented in a very easy to understand PDF document. Here are three key pages/diagrams, with regards to the interfering with play rule, from that document:







So, in summary, FIFA say that a player can indeed be ruled offside without touching the ball - exactly the opposite of what Poll is saying in a national newspaper. When you think about the effect that might have on the game in England, across all levels, it is shocking. No doubt referees, as well as fans, will read Poll's articles and take them as some sort of gospel truth - and in this instance his interpretation is comletely, totally and utterly, wrong (and needs correcting).

Going back to the incident on boxing day, the following picture (already posted previously) sums up exactly why Cisse was offside. It is very similar to the the example posted by Fifa, above:



Cisse clearly interferes with Evan's by making a movement from an offside position, which distracts the defender. He is also blocking De Gea's own line of vision (being positioned in between the goalkeeper and the defender). They are two clear violations of FIFA's guidelines, and the goal should clearly not have been given. If Cisse hadn't been running for the ball, Evans would not have had lashed out at it, like he did. It's that simple.

The fact that Utd went on to win the game means the decision had little effect, but it could so easily have cost Utd the 3 points, and who knows, later on in the season, it could have ended up costing a title. However it is the fact that Poll has come out to support the decision, and previously gone on record with a totally flawed statement about the offside rule, which needs addressing and correcting.

I have tweeted Graham Poll, and asked for him to explain his words, and likewise will forward this letter across to the Daily Mail with a request they publish an appology to Fergie, along with the factually correct FIFA version of the offside rule.

Bazza.

Not reading all that

Sorry, somebody had to say it ;-)

I'm loving Baz the journo.

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

Not reading all that

Sorry, somebody had to say it ;-)

Me neither - is the outcome beneficial for us in some way?

I think you've misinterpreted the 'line of sight' line. That applies to the goalkeeper looking at the ball - not to the defender looking at his goalkeeper And it only applies at the moment the ball is played. De Gea can see the ball.

Top work otherwise. Just let it go tho. We won.

Bazzler dropping stinking great truth bombs.

I thought it was just me. it's so obviously offside there it's ridiculous. if "in the opinion of the referee" he's not interfering with play then he's a @#%&!.

I mentioned it in another thread but some shit-thick journo (mick dennis) on sky sports news said exactly the same thing ie "if you dont touch the ball you are not offside" while brandishing a copy of the laws of the game and berating freggles for not knowing the offside law. he went so far as to quote the law and I'm sure he had a moment of clarity when he mentioned the "interfering with the opponent" bit, but he carried on regardless. his wikipedia page says he is a referee as well. and a magistrate. so, an all round #@&%! then, and one who's too stupid too know he's stupid.

Originally Posted by Grimson

I think you've misinterpreted the 'line of sight' line. That applies to the goalkeeper looking at the ball - not to the defender looking at his goalkeeper And it only applies at the moment the ball is played. De Gea can see the ball.

Top work otherwise. Just let it go tho. We won.

That's a fair point, Grimmers, but then the flipside of that the the line of sight
for Evans is clearly being effected - he cannot clearly see his own goalkeeper, or the whole goal, when the ball was played/dealt with because of the position of the offending player. So De Gea can see the ball, but Evans can't see De Gea OR the goal clearly (therefore line of sight rule could also be considered). Again, if Cisse wasn't stood there, Evans would have dealt with totally differently.

Originally Posted by irk

I thought it was just me. it's so obviously offside there it's ridiculous. if "in the opinion of the referee" he's not interfering with play then he's a @#%&!.

I mentioned it in another thread but some shit-thick journo (mick dennis) on sky sports news said exactly the same thing ie "if you dont touch the ball you are not offside" while brandishing a copy of the laws of the game and berating freggles for not knowing the offside law. he went so far as to quote the law and I'm sure he had a moment of clarity when he mentioned the "interfering with the opponent" bit, but he carried on regardless. his wikipedia page says he is a referee as well. and a magistrate. so, an all round #@&%! then, and one who's too stupid too know he's stupid.

That's the Graham Poll effect right there. Those diagrams, and words, come directly from FIFA and I'm on a one night, whiskey fuelled campaign, to get them made public.

Originally Posted by BarryX

That's a fair point, Grimmers, but then the flipside of that the the line of sight
for Evans is clearly being effected - he cannot clearly see his own goalkeeper, or the whole goal, when the ball was played/dealt with because of the position of the offending player. So De Gea can see the ball, but Evans can't see De Gea OR the goal clearly (therefore line of sight rule could also be considered). Again, if Cisse wasn't stood there, Evans would have dealt with totally differently.

It only applies to the ball. Nothing else. As the directive says, 'Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision'

Blocking Evans' line of vision to De Gea or the goal doesn't prevent him from playing the ball. As we saw.

not reading all that, but is the conclusion that is was a perfectly legimate goal, that still stands now?

Thought I'd opened RAWK for a minute

Originally Posted by Grimson

It only applies to the ball. Nothing else. As the directive says, 'Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision'

Blocking Evans' line of vision to De Gea or the goal doesn't prevent him from playing the ball. As we saw.

Valid point, but it still put's him in position which is clearly interfering with play, by hindering the defenders vision when dealing with the incomming ball. Whether or not that, in itself, is a secondary offence, I guess could be debatable, but it's not all important considering the fist offence is indesputable. It's exactly the same as FIFA's lovely little homemade diagram...

Originally Posted by Grimson

It only applies to the ball. Nothing else. As the directive says, 'Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision'

Blocking Evans' line of vision to De Gea or the goal doesn't prevent him from playing the ball. As we saw.

where does it say that?

it gives an example not an exhaustive list.

Originally Posted by believe

not reading all that, but is the conclusion that is was a perfectly legimate goal, that still stands now?

No. It was an illegal goal, according to FIFA's directives. And I have proved Graham Poll to have a lack of understanding with regards to the offside rule.

Originally Posted by Mao's Favourite Starling

Thought I'd opened RAWK for a minute

I thought that when writing it. It just goes to show what a bit of free time, a sense of injustice and a football forum can do to you (the work shy @#%&!S).

Originally Posted by BarryX

Valid point, I guess, but it still put's him in position which is clearly interfering with play, by hindering the defenders vision when dealing with the incomming ball.

No. No. No.

Baz - take this and run with it regarding PHYSICALLY interfering with Evans. But Evans can see the £#%&!ing ball. Look at the screen shot you posted. He's looking right at it. It's in front of him, Cisse is behind him - that's why he's offside.

Are you going to try to claim the law allows for 'distracting' an opponent by being in his peripheral vision?

Originally Posted by irk

where does it say that?

it gives an example not an exhaustive list.

The key words are 'prevent the player from playing the ball'.

Regarding 'line of vision', what else could be obstructed from vision that would prevent a player from playing the ball, other than the ball?

The reverse angle shows Cisse about a foot away from Evans, the goal still stands regardless and we won the £#%&!ing game

Originally Posted by Grimson

No. No. No.

Baz - take this and run with it regarding PHYSICALLY interfering with Evans. But Evans can see the £#%&!ing ball. Look at the screen shot you posted. He's looking right at it. It's in front of him, Cisse is behind him - that's why he's offside.

Are you going to try to claim the law allows for 'distracting' an opponent by being in his peripheral vision?

I am not disputing you Grimers, and guess I'll drop the line of vision section from my, ahem, official approach to the Daily Mail later this evening. Love a good whiskey, me.

Originally Posted by BarryX

I am not disputing you Grimers, and guess I'll drop the line of vision section from my, ahem, official approach to the Daily Mail later this evening. Love a good whiskey, me.

Good man.

There is a case to be made that he interfered with Evans and directly caused the OG. Go for it.