Talk:Offside (association football)

Backwards logic
The formulation "A player is in an offside position if ... There are two or more opposing players between him and the opposing goal line" gets the rule exactly backwards. What would be the best way to invert this clause so that the entire paragraph can still be understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.a.foth (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

- "A player is in an ONSIDE position if there are two or more opposing players between him and the opposing goal line."

Neutral on offside rule being misunderstood
Whether or not the offside rule is misunderstood is irrelevant to this article. While it might be true that the author of "soccer for dummies" thinks it's the most misunderstood/confusing rule, simply citing that source doesn't actually make offside the most misunderstood rule. In the interest of wikipedia's neutrality point of view policy, it's probably best just to avoid anything in the article about offside's subjective rank on an arbitrary scale of misunderstanding.

At first I had changed the wording of a wiki-editor so to avoid a subjective opinion being portrayed as a fact by clearly writing that it was claimed to be the most misunderstood rule. When wiki-editor reverted the wording back I thought more about it, and I figure that the article is probably better with that claim omitted all together. ~anon


 * AFACT, Soccer for Dummies is a perfectly valid reliable source. I also fail to see how it is in any way "un neutral". Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The offside rule probably IS the least understood rule. It's probably the reason we have an article on it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, that the reference isn't even really necessary. Offside is the most misunderstood laws of the game. There are countless sources stating the confusion involved. Do they state it is the most confusing? There are quite a few that do, from lower quality sources such as soccer blogs then to better sources like club sites. But then we have SFD and small quiet articles in sites like Yahoo, which should be good enough for us to say so. I don't think we need a peer reviewed source to make this statement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As is, the statement is fine ("one of the most misunderstood") in that it is correct, although I'm not sure how much that adds (it's probably an example of weasel words). How do you measure what is the "most misunderstood", however? No obvious reasoning behind the claim. What about other rules? Backpass? Indirect free kicks? The new rule about how you can't score when the other team is expecting to get the ball back after kicking it out for an injury? They are pretty misunderstood, whatever that means. Macosal (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

'''The statement Law 11 is "one of the most misunderstood" is surely true but it offers about as much information as the statement Law 11 "is one of the lowest(or highest) numbered laws" or even "one of the most understood". They are all tautologies in the sense that any member of a group is still a member of the group no matter how you sort(i.e. reorder) it.

Note: A possibly more up to date revision/edit from the same source, "Football For Dummies Cheat Sheet (UK Edition)" (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/explaining-the-offside-law-law-11.html) doesn't call the rule misunderstood, instead it says it's "the most argued-over law wherever in the world the game of football is played, even though it’s pretty simple."
 * This might be a good compromise too, any argument would just be making it more true! :-p

~anon 30jul14


 * Why do we have an article about the offside rule? It's because it's largely incomprehensible to a big chunk of the world's population. Even it's existence is incomprehensible to me. This incompehensibility is one of the more notable aspects of the rule. The article should explain that. (Now, if an enthusiastic fan comes back and says I'm wrong in saying "largely incomprehensible", you've missed my point. I will be happy to explain.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Largely incomprehensible is ok(ish) (although no one involved in the game has any issues with the rule, so it literally is "able to be comprehended"), but "to a big chunk of the world's population" needs a source or else is a case of weasel words. There is certainly some infamy surrounding this rule in non-footballing circles which should be reflected in the article but I think the current terminology used in the article is an example of weasel words. Macosal (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Infamy, I like it, presumably we have articles for each law.  I see no problem with stating that this law is the most whatever, because the sources support it.  It is helpful to inform the reader that Law 11 has more impact on the game than say Law 5 and the color of the refs kit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 I'm not an enthusiastic fan, but you're wrong. Incomprehensibility is a relation not an intrinsic property. If you wrote "I don't really understand the rules very well and the little aussie kids that I try to teach often have trouble understanding as well." Then you'd be bang on. The fact is there are many people around the world that don't understand many things. The understandability of a concept or idea depends on the abilities and resources of the people trying to understand it and is NOT an intrinsic quality of the concept itself. Consider whether trigonometry is "largely incomprehensible", even though many people might have difficulty understanding basic trig concepts, we also teach the subject to many children that seem to get the jest of the basic concepts very quickly. An even better example, consider Greek, a perfectly comprehensible language to millions of people, but it is also used to describe anything that is largely incomprehensible to a person: "It's all Greek to me!".

Wikipedia articles are a resource that people can use to help them learn to understand new concepts, ideas, rules and much information of all kinds. A well written article can be a valuable resource to one who is eager to understand and learn new things, but sometimes a writer's intentions (conscious or subconscious) or opinions may result in work that is more about the propagation of an opinion or political philosophy rather than altruistic attempt to help the reader understand most easily.

@HiLo48 I've noticed that you seem to be a big fanboy of Two kinds of pork and have showered him with praise, but in this instance I don't think he understands the context and intended message of the source he referenced. It is from the For dummies series of books, I don't have a copy, but I read some of their online content and from other editions and the common tone of the series in general I think it's fair to say that what the author was saying in the book could be paraphrased as: "You may think yourself a dummy(you did pick a book called soccer for dummies) but don't feel bad if you don't yet understand the offside rule. Many people have difficulty understanding it, but I'll make it simple to understand in this chapter." I think it's a fair assumption that it was not the author's intention to convey a message along the lines of "A examination was done of soccer officials worldwide and the questions most often answered incorrectly were with regard to offsides." But someone could easily (and incorrectly) infer this from the statement that "[offside is] one of the most misunderstood laws of the game."

Two kinds of pork indicated on his talk page that he dislikes soccer and thinks little of it's fans. So I figure that if one's view is "stupid sport has stupid rules", then one's belief that soccer is stupid would be supported by emphasizing that one of it's rules is misunderstood (and therefor stupid). I think that people should be free to hold whatever opinions they want, but I think that the Wikipedia readers are better served when articles are free of prejudicial undertones.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. This means that if there are conflicting viewpoint the standard is to include ALL that are relevant. However, for this SPECIFIC example I think it would be largely unnecessary and would not benefit the reader to read either "Offside is misunderstood" or "Offside is easy to understand" and including both is just a waste of space. Including neither would maintain a neutral point of view and, in my opinion, is the best solution.

@HiLo48 I think I understand your point if it's "This rule is stupid and lot's of people don't get it, man!". If that's the case I actually agree with you. My point is that this article should be an objective description of the rule and written to help people better understand it, rather than try to persuade them to think the rule is stupid or not. ~anon 31jul14


 * WP:TLDR HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, there were a number of relevant points to this discussion brought up. Pretty conclusively explained why the phrase shouldn't really be used here. Not constructive to respond dismissively. To sum some key points (as I read it): the offside rule should not be called "incomprehensible" as this is a subjective term. Soccer for Dummies was obviously not trying to make a well sourced or definitive claim that offside was statistically the most misunderstood rule (whatever that means). To call the rule easy/hard to understand is expressing a POV which doesn't need to be here (aside: it's not much harder to find a source claiming offside is simple such as this). Macosal (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also urge you to read WP:TLDR. Macosal (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Macosal on both points. Indeed, how about reading WP:TLDR, HiLo48? It's a good essay. Here, I'll quote it: "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity." Bishonen &#124; talk 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

We don't have an article on the handling the ball rule. We do have one on offside. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @HiLo48 I believe the reason should be self evident; because nobody has created one yet. You can create one yourself or request that one be created. This probably isn't the right place to discuss such since ball handling rules would be in a separate and distinct wiki page.
 * Who wrote that? HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 99, Please dont attribute statements to me that I never made. I said anyone with a smidgen of common sense prefers real football.  Soccer has its place, mostly for children, and who could really dislike children, but I digress.  Since you have made it apparent you will continue to edit war, I'm done with this article.  Try and keep your eyes off of my contributions.  Should you start following me around to articles I frequent, I'll ask an admin to order you to stay away, as you've already indicated you were doing whatever the heck you've been doing for your amusement and not for the purposes of editing articles.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You already asked an admin and got zilch. Please don't make meaningless threats on talkpages, it's not collaborative. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Also, if you are referring to the rule against using your hands to play the ball, it seems that is covered in the wiki article Fouls and misconduct (association_football)

~anon:31jul14


 * Please don't reframe my posts, and do learn to sign your posts properly with ~ HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Anon (no article on handball because none has been created). Also seems like rules have been turned into articles based on the stand-alone rules which can be seen at Template:Association football laws. Not quite sure how that's relevant in any case. Macosal (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. My attempt at a rhetorical question obviously went way over the heads of some here. Clearly the reason we have an article on the offside rule is because it's confusing, and controversial. The reason we don't have an article on handling the ball is that it's not confusing. We don't need an article on handball. We do need one on offside, and the article should explain why. Even those who believe it's simple must acknowledge that many don't believe it's simple. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to belittle other editors. Are you saying that every rule with a page is confusing and controversial? Should throw-in be labelled as one of the most misunderstood rules of football simply because there is an article on it? Is offside (rugby) confusing and controversial (there is a page on it, after all)? Should it therefore be labelled one of the most controversial rules in rugby? Clearly the mere existence of an article is insufficient to label something as confusing and controversial... (In fact, for the record, the handball rule has led to its fair share of controversy). As I said earlier, I'm not against referring to the conception by many that the rule is complicated, but the current use of weasel words/inappropriate sourcing is not the way to do that. Macosal (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

June 2015 cleanup
I've removed the following: "Critically, an offside offense occurs if a player is an offside position when the ball is played to him/her, their position when they receive the ball is irrelevant."

Appears to be a WP:SYNTH possible situation in which the laws apply; in any case, no source to show where this situation is addressed specifically. I've replaced it with an interpretation of the current laws, by adding "at the moment the ball touches or is played by the player's team" to an earlier part of the explanation. "A player who does not possess the ball or is not the most recent player on his team to play the ball is in an offside position if he is in the opposing team's half of the field and is also "nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent." (ref http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290867.html )"

The source is a dead link; I don't see anything about "does not possess the ball or is not the most recent player on his team to play the ball" in Law 11 in the 2014/2015 Laws of the Game; indeed, Law 11 seems to contradict "most recent player on his team" by saying that any player on his team can be the most recent player with the ball when an offside happens. I've removed that phrase and sourced the rest to the 2014/2015 rules. Anyone have a different interpretation? "The International Football Association Board has clarified in the 2009–2010 Laws of the Game that a player temporarily off the field of play is considered to be on the boundary line at the point that he crossed over it. (ref Laws of the Game 2009/2010 (page 130), FIFA, )"

Neither book-numbered page 130 (PDF page 128) nor PDF page 128 (book-numbered 130) of this PDF deal with offside; one deals with the corner arc, and the other begins the organizational rules of the IFAB. I can't find this phrasing in either those 2009/2010 Laws or the 2014/2015 Laws. Page 109 of the 2014/2015 Laws says: "Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on his own goal line or touch line for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play." Per WP:PROVEIT, I've removed it until someone can show a citation specific enough to be verifiable.

I've added citations to the current FIFA Laws for each statement I could identify, and I've also added citation needed span tags to a few other things that I couldn't identify. Editors should remember that the rule for including a claim in a Wikipedia article isn't whether the editor and his friends have always thought a certain way; it's whether each interpretation and opinion about the rule can be sourced back to specific verifiable reliable sources for that interpretation or synthesis. --Closeapple (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

pictures of previous offside positions
article states offside rules were different in history. can someone upload them explained in a picture/diagram? or where can we find their pictures, if you know share the link --Sir artur (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Offside (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901125632/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901125632/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901125632/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901125632/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140901125632/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2017 Cleanup and Reference source updates
Over the course of a couple of days, I have tried to add and update as many reference sources as I could (mostly, updating references to the Laws of the Game to the 2017-18 edition). I also modified several sections of the article in an attempt to make them match more closely with the provisions in the Laws and removed some wording that was not supported by anything in the Laws. User:GroveWanderer (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Whose goal is it anyway?
I sit on the fringe of soccer, with an interest in the game, but not an obsession. I admit to having given up on the offside rule ages ago, leaving it to the experts. But today I thought I'd have another go at understanding it.

I hit my first hurdle with "...in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line". Now, in life in general, a goal is something I aim to get to. It seems that's not the case is soccer. Apparently I aim at my opponents' goal. Weird. Maybe that needs to be explained to readers of soccer articles at some point. How did the language get so screwed up in soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You try to defend your goal, like in a war you defend your flag or capital from the enemies. :) It's the same in other sports, isn't it? Ice hockey, handball, bandy, volleyball, basketball, tennis ... you have your own half, from which you move the ball to the other team's half where you try to score it.  At least in Swedish you talk about scoring "own goals" in all similar sports. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the rule?
What is the purpose of the rule? How would the game be harmed if this rule was not part of the game? 70.169.159.48 (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a shame this has received no answer. The article doesn't explain it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I added a short paragraph on motivation. Maybe someone can finde more sources and extend it. Sebastian (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A usual misunderstanding is that there would be more offensive play and more goals if the offside rule were to be eliminated. Probably it would not be so.  Without an offside rule, each team would be forced to let a few defenders stay behind and not take part in an attack.  Thanks to the offside rule, there is an incentive for the teams to involve more players in the attack.  (This I have read somewhere, and it totally makes sense.)  Fomalhaut76 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

open goal
without ANY defendant the goal is just an open box with a net. its "no sport" to make the ball enter the goal without any person to block that ball. so its "off" when there is no defendant between the attacking player to bal to goal line. is that fair game ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Empty Page?
How can ever this page's description be Empty!? Yes, and if you don't think so, check the page (I guess, there was an edit war in the page history). It's never OK to do this to the page, and guess what? Useless references. Yes, that's what the evil one have done to the page! I hope someone can fix it. تنعيم ٩ (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Tanim_9