On the ITV Premiership programme last Saturday night, there was a little
controversy over Manchester United's third and winning goal against
Southampton.
Southampton Manager Gordon Strachan criticised referee
Graham Barber, who apparently appeared on Sky television that morning
laughing and joking', which according to Strachan, meant that Barber wanted to
become a celebrity. So he felt justified having a go at Barber, which he wouldn't
have done if he had only been a referee. What a curious logic from a curious
little man.
The controversial goal according to the television pundits was due to a new
FIFA directive, which they tried to explain without much success. That's
understandable of course, as they are not experts on the laws of football, as they
have proved many times.
In fact the disputed goal had more to do with the
changes to the offside law made in 1996 than any latest words from FIFA. If
you didn't see the game on television, let me try and re-create the situation.
A free kick was awarded to Manchester United, just outside the penalty area about
ten yards from the Saint's goal line. The players lined up across the
Southampton goal with Ruud Van Nistelrooy furthest away from the kick. The
camera clearly showed that when the free kick was taken. Van Nistelrooy was in
an offside position. The first thing therefore to understand is that it is NOT an
offence to be in an offside position, AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN. What makes
it an offence is if the player becomes involved in active play by
1. Interfering with play.
2. Interfering with an opponent.
3. Gaining an advantage by being there.
The very significant change in 1996 was in that third requirement. Before
then, the law said the player offended if he was 'seeking to gain an advantage'.
Ifwe look at the Manchester United goal we can see where this new wording has
made a difference. Prior to the change, the assistant referee would have raised
his flag for Van Nistelrooy in an offside position as he was obviously seeking to
gain an advantage. However, under the present ruling he was not penalised, as he
did not gain an advantage from being there, nor did he interfere with play or an
opponent as the ball never reached him. It dropped some way short. Two or
three defenders and attackers had a go at the ball before it came to Van
Nistelrooy, now in an onside position, who put it past the goalkeeper.
As I said, allowing the goal had more to do with the previous law change than
anything new from FIFA. In fact it is not a directive but answers to a series of
questions published in a Circular issued by FIFA last October. The first question
was, 'How should we interpret "Interfering with play"?' The answer given was
'Playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team mate.' This is why we
see so many seemingly late flags. The assistant referee does not put up his flag
until the offside player touches the ball.
The next question was 'How do we
interpret "Interfering with a opponent"?' The answer is 'Preventing an opponent
from playing the ball or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly
obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements. Making a gesture or
movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive an distract an
opponent.'
The final question was 'How do we interpret "gaining an advantage
by being in that position"?' FIFAs answer was 'Playing a ball that rebounds off a
post or the crossbar or an opponent, having been in an offside position'. I think
we can see that this vindicates Graham Barber's decision, but it is a little
worrying that one of the countries Premiership managers doesn't understand the
laws of the game.
Dick Sawdon Smith