A question from a novice about the offside rule

Respond to your comments on my article.

Thank you -- very illuminating. I think it still fits in with the notion that the offside rules from various codes may have affected other codes. I have read Tom Brown's schooldays, set during the time of Thomas Arnold as headmaster of Rugby (1828-1842), although written later. From memory there are descriptions of the Rugby game that are quite detailed, but virtually meaningless to someone thinking in terms of modern rugby union (i.e. me!). I am also interested in the notion of the "mark" -- is this as per Aussie Rules? How does this fit in with the theories that Australian Aboriginals played a game that was copied by the white coloniser (even using a term "mark" borrowed from an Aboriginal language?)

Prof, firstly while it's a logical assertion, it's not quite correct that the codes developed from the free for all kill the dill with the pill type games that we know existed prior to the 19th century. (It's also not quite correct that these were the only types of ball games played either, but that's another story). Briefly, the codified games were developed at schools. Different schools had different rules which developed as more and more schools developed along muscular Christianity lines - i.e., sport was good for young men. But the key thing is that some schools were in favour of certain styles of play, others disagreed. Eton and Harrow for instance were less in favour of carrying, and it appears also less in favour of a strict offside as per Rugby. At the same time, Sheffield was also developing its own style of football outside the public school system which was also less strict. In terms of carrying, Eton, Harrow etc were in favour of the "mark" only, and not carrying the ball itself. They were also against "hacking" and the more violent aspects of football at other schools. In terms of timing, the Cambridge Rules - an attempt to codify a game that could be played by graduates of various schools at university - essentially only allowed players to be behind the ball (this still allowed for through balls obviously although this style of play wasn't often used). This was in the 1850s. The FA codified in 1863 on a similar basis but in 1866 introduced the offside rule as we know it more or less although it demanded 3 players not 2 (this was changed in the 20s). They also got rid of the mark in 1866. Part of the reason for these changes was the need to accommodate the Sheffield game, which at that point was arguable stronger than the FA game based in London.

Olivia, You certainly set off a lively discussion but rules 11 &12 offside plus handball which comes under fouls and misconduct usually generate the most heated discussions relating to the sport. The reason for no offside in the junior game is more about building blocks. These days miniroos U5-U7 lean on a small field playing 4 v 4 with no goalkeepers and some modified rules. Moving up to U8 &U9 additional rules are brought in such as throw ins and the use of goalkeepers. More players are added in U10 & U11 making it a 9v 9 game and nearly there. Goalkeepers are encouraged to throw the ball out and we are seeing a growth of young teams that can play the ball out from the back and begin an attack without the need to punt the ball down to a waiting forward who is busy chatting to the opposition goalkeeper. There are definitely coaches out there that encourage "goal hanging" but they are dying out and anyone who undertakes even just a grassroots traiining course wil quickly learn to develop some much better coaching habits. BTW- there have been cases of tournaments - usually pre season where they have tinkered with the offside rule; one variation that comes to mind was a pre season tournament where you could only be offside if you were in an offside position inside the opponent's penalty area when the ball was passed to you...all sports need contentious issues though and this particular rule sucks every football fan that ever walked the earth into an argument at some point. There have been riots and field invasions, managers remonstrating with referees, heavy fines, bans...you name it all emanating from RULE 11!

Prof: I had heard of early versions of football where every player had to be behind the ball - pretty much as per Rugby. These games were kind of dribbling games and I know some of these had goals that ran across the entire length of the goal-line - ie a scoring zone similar to Rugby.

No worries Olivia. If you've got time we can chat about how to set an effective offside trap, how catenaccio has evolved since the introduction of the Back Pass Rule, how to score a nutmeg or how to adopt a 4-4-2 in a tight defensive situation. Or perhaps you might like to explain to us why your favourite game is called "football". :)

I would love to know if anybody in Roarville knows the history of the offside rule in Association Football and Rugby. I'm wondering if the Football rule somehow derives from the idea in rugby that players must be behind the person with the ball, or the ball itself. This was the basis of the old offside rule, and I think it was clearer than the present one, i.e. you must have someone in front of you apart from the goalkeeper, unless you have the ball. I know my question presumes that Rugby-type games preceded soccer, whereas history gives us the story of someone at Rugby school picking up the ball and running with it -- but that has always sounded unlikely. Free-for-all carrying games are present in many cultures, and it seems logical that a more restricted version (feet only) developed from them -- rather than the free-for-all developing from a restricted version. We have plenty of old pictures of carrying games, but not too many soccer games before the 19th century. Any 2-3 code experts on one aspect of football history?

Please read my comment above, it will show you a perfect example of why the offside rule is needed.

When I played as a kid I learned why we have the offside rule. During the age before it was enforced we had an game where a kid on the opposition just stood down next to our goalkeeper for the entire match. So we'd be on the attack and lose the ball, and all the opposition then had to do was boot the ball long and this kid would be wide open and 1-1 with the goalie every time. You can argue that we should have left a defender back there with him, but that isn't how soccer is meant to be played. It is a cheap way to play the game, and it is why we have offsides. We shouldn't have to have defenders shadowing people in unnatural positions to counter it, the kids should just be learning to play the game properly. Having a defender on your own goal line the entire match just to counter their offside attacker is B.S and kids should be discouraged from employing these tactics because of 'no offsides'. It doesn't help them develop their skills for when offsides do come in to play either.

Olivia, The referees in football are trained to ensure they're in the right place depending on where the ball is being played. Obviously this doesn't always happen but that's the purpose of the on field referee.

Already many forms of The Game don't invoke the off-side rule, including: Futsal, Beach Soccer and outdoor 5-a-side football. I wouldn't mind FIFA exploring an offside only in the defensive 1/4 of the pitch. The main change I'd want is to make off-side strict liability: i.e. you stand in an offside position & your team plays the ball forward = "offside". No exceptions for: not interfering with play, not interfering with an opponent or not gaining an advantage,

The official FIFA Laws history would suggested that law changes to reduce the impact of the Offside rule have led to a more open and attacking sport, as has happened in field hockey with its removal. http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/the-laws/from-1863-to-present.html Maybe the next step would be reducing offside to only apply inside the penalty box.

What is the AFWU's stance on goal line technology?

The Offside Rule was introduced to football in 1866 by the Allied Football Workers Union to increase employment in the football industry. Since the rule was introduced, the number of match officials increased by 300% providing more employment opportunities, better working conditions and increased government revenues through taxation. The Offside Rule has also increased employment and working conditions in associated industries like media, journalism and the football officials fashion industries. The Allied Football Workers Union is concerned that removing the Offside Rule will lead to a deterioration in the standard of living of people employed in the football industry world wide.

As a historical sidenote I seem to remember that initially the offside rule required 3 defenders to be between the attacker and the goal. This was changed in the 20s to be 2, and the goal scoring immediately went up and created a neat balance. Something about this debate reminds me of someone in the ken burns doco on baseball who is describing the earliest history of that game in the states. I can't remember who it is, but they say - the distance between the bases is 90 feet. It's perfect. Any shorter, and the batter is almost always going to make it, .any longer, and it's impossible for the runner to get there most of the time. So it's balanced perfectly. I kind of view this the same way. It creates a situation that is neatly balanced. And when someone slips through, boy, it's a thing of beauty.

Guess the bottom line is Olivia,the rule was instigated for a reason,maybe for goalhanging as others have said & historical reports indicate,who knows it did. From that we see the game today with its unique technical skills,creative play,intricate passing movements and various tactics indicated by other posters, all having evolved with an offside rule in place. We also see a sport that dominates the world having evolved under an offside rule. This perhaps more than any hypothetical argument about the offside rule's benefit's or otherwise is why FIFA follows the conservative line on the rule. Worldwide it's a multi billion dollar industry ,only a fool would jeopardise that for the sake of scrapping a rule, because of unproven opinions, that has served the game well since introduced.

I dont think the author wants to change it or even remove it. I guess he really wanted to know the purpose of the offside rule in the first place. Obviously he knows now. Its a crucial part of the game that obviously cant be changed or tampered with or it just changes the whole game completely. Any more AFL fans wants to get onboard the world game please feel free to ask all the questions you want. Happy to answer them.

I only say two players to observe as the timing is when the ball is kicked and many inexperienced assistants willingly put up the flag for offside based on the ball being received, not where the player is at the time of the pass. Free kicks are the easiest as you watch the second last player and listen for the contact on the ball.