Offside is the new onside?

Once upon a time male football fans would quite openly mock their female counterparts for the perceived inability to understand the rules surrounding offside, today however both sexes could be forgiven for a failure to grasp its apparent complexity.

Ruud Van Nistelrooy's opening goal in Monday's clash between Holland and Italy has once again brought further doubt over the offside rule, a law which FIFA describe is 'as easy as 1-2-3' but you can bet that Italy.

As Wesley Sneijder's shot was poked in by Van Nistelrooy, the first reaction from players, fans and pundits alike was to claim that the goal should have been chalked off for offside. In the aftermath of Euro 2008's most thrilling match yet Austrian and English football chiefs have been amongst a number of officials quick to jump to the defence of referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his colleague's decision.

Italian defender Christian Panucci had rolled off the pitch injured at the time following a clash with his goalkeeper but it appears that according to the rules he was playing Van Nistelrooy onside.

English referee's chief Keith Hackett told the BBC,

"The fact is the assistant was correct; the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active.

"Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper (Gianluigi) Buffon. He is still considered part of the game" This followed a statement from Austrian refereeing commissioner Gerhard Kapl who almost immediately after the final whistle insisted that the decision from the Swedish official's was absolutely correct.

FIFA's stance on the ruling seems to claim that the offside law is a clear as crystal and points to only two elements which affect whether a player is on or offside, namely position and whether they are involved in active play or not.

In truth though, the rule is not that simple as there are many different elements which in the heat of a match cannot possibly be remembered and acted upon by the players themselves, even FIFA themselves say that being in an offside position is not enough to be deemed as being offside!

The first element which referee's and their officials must take into consideration is whether a player is in an offside position, i.e. is he closer to the goal line than the ball and the second to last defender and is he in the opponents half? If both of these requirements are met then the player is in an offside position. This is all well and good but the complications come in when the second element is considered, whether he is active or not.

Now, after spending the good part of an hour trying to get my head round this I have finally understood the ruling, I think.

A player is classed as being active only if he either, interferes with play, an opponent or gains an advantage from being in that position.

To interfere with play he must touch the ball, this seems pretty straight forward but FIFA insist on including five slides to illustrate this point. In order to interfere with an opponent - cue childish giggles - a player must either block the line of sight of an opponent, restrict their movement or make gestures or movement which in the opinion of the referee either deceives or distracts the opponent. So, if a player is stood in front of the goalkeeper he is active but if he is stood to the side, motionless, then he is inactive. This really does baffle me, after all surely the goalkeeper would now be wondering whether a pass to the dormant team-mate will be made or a shot instead? Also, on the same point, a player merely being stood in that position could lead to a defender being dragged across to cover him when instead he could have been closing down the shot.

The final decision a referee has to make is whether the player gains an advantage from being in his position. This can be from receiving a ball after it has cannoned of the framework of the goal or another player - he must have been in an offside position when the initial ball was played. To further complicate matters a player can be in an offside position but not cause an infringement if he does not make contact with the initial ball and then receives a pass from another onside team-mate when he is in an onside position - i.e. behind the ball etc - simple right? Exactly... oh and yes, a player cannot be offside directly from a goal or corner kick or a throw-in.

This has all been argued before but it seems that after spending nigh on 20 years developing the offside rule, FIFA don't want to be seen as taking the rule backwards or, in other words owning up to their own mistakes.

After all this though, there is not one mention in the rules about a player being laid off injury stricken off the field of play, so although the above information is almost migraine inducing, it really isn't relevant to Monday's scenario!

UEFA's general secretary David Taylor told a news conference that,

"The player was not offside because in addition to the goalkeeper there was another Italian player in front of the goal scorer.

"Even though he had fallen off the pitch his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law" So it's pretty clear what the official line on the matter is, the goal was good. Remember that the next time you're down the park with your mates for a game of jumpers for goalposts and don't have a rulebook at hand.

What is certain is that this result for Holland has given them a clear advantage following France's dismal draw against Romania earlier in the day and will surely lead to the betting on Group C firmly swinging to the Dutch escaping the supposed 'group of death' but it's anyone's guess where Italy or France will finish, the two meet on Friday in what is now turning out to be a mouth-watering tie.

Written by John Ford - A Freelance Football Writer