Post Reply to Clark's Pitch

This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

The point of my posts … by ANNTOSTAL

… has not been to express my own perspective on what should be considered offside, but rather to describe the training I received. I was specifically taught that an affirmative repositioning by the GK, to cover the possibility of a pass to the player in OS position, was NOT alone sufficient to trigger a determination of active involvement in the play.

Were I in charge of writing the Laws, or of guiding their implementation, I would find that affirmative repositioning, or the GK’s maintenance of a suboptimal position for the same purpose, to be sufficient for an OS call, as I suspect you would. I’ve watched the play now about a dozen times, and I’m not sure that standard is met here.

Where you and I part company is with your point about the defender on the right who hypothetically slows because of a conviction that the player in OS position will play the ball before the player whom the defender is marking. I can’t imagine why we would want an OS rule that protects the defender from the consequences of that particular decision.

Thanks for explaining your view. I found it interesting and thought-provoking.