Referees' Performances | 2025/26

[Prestwich_Blue]

Im sure that the original laws used similar to " standing in an offside position"
Feet position falls exactly within this .

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

 

[Platt Lane 59]

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

This tactic may reduce the ridiculous amount of grappling, blocking, shoving and obstructing at set-pieces ?
There definitely would be a reduction in the amount of bodies in the penalty area...

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

Exactly, but the current interpretation of the offside law shares one feature with the handball law - both of them appear to be variable depending on who has conceded and who has scored.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Exactly, but the current interpretation of the offside law shares one feature with the handball law - both of them appear to be variable depending on who has conceded and who has scored.

Very true, and you do wonder if the laws have deliberately been designed that way.

 

[lonestay]

Hows the corruption work? Do “they” get directly involved in VARs in game decisions?
Or are they told pre match ensure certain decisions go against city ?

Genuinely interested

I think they are coached to a certain degree about how the prem would like certain outcomes to happen in games , usually a ref that has gone against a VAR decision find themselves reffing a lower standard game the following week, so I think there is a an element of you toe the party line to ensure your career keeps moving forward so you get those cup finals and Eufa games . Do they get monetary gain ? It's easy to joke about brown envelopes I personally think it's more subtle than that, maybe preferential loans at low to zero rates from the prem or pigmol who knows ? But I am sure the league is not squeaky clean when it comes to reward for a job done .

 

[Rammy Blue]

I’ve always been steadfast that offside should be done only utilising the feet, it would be so much easier for var, AI and semi automated offside etc to deal with it - back of foot, front of foot. Job done.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Is there any offside "rule" which can prevent VAR making perverse decisions such as ruling out Phil's "equaliser" on Sunday?

 

[york away to this!]

Has anyone seen a freeze frame of the moment Haaland was through vs bournemouth?

 

[ArniArason]

I'd say feet or head, whichever is further forwards. All this bollocks about arses and knobs being offside is wild.

 

[ArniArason]

Has anyone seen a freeze frame of the moment Haaland was through vs bournemouth?

He was possibly marginally off, but the issue is, there is no way a linesman could truly see that in real time, yet he flagged instantly (which they're not supposed to do, and generally done). Yet Guehi was almost injured recently because the flag stayed down for someone who was obviously yards offside.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

Has anyone seen a freeze frame of the moment Haaland was through vs bournemouth?

Yes (see post 6222 & 6233) and he was on, their right back was playing him on. But, and this is what should be asked by the club, why did the flag go up straight away and not, as in the first half let the move play out. Bear in mind the Bournemouth player was at least one yard offside and the liner didn't flag. Same liner flagged straight away when Haaland was on, why? They aren't even consistent in the same game

 

[Leeky]

The reason our goal was disallowed

 

[Vic]

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

Yet nobody does it.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yet nobody does it.

Howard Webb's brain would explode if a goal was scored that way.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Although I disagree with almost everything he says, I actually think Gallagher is onto something when he says it should just be judged on the feet. If the attackers foot (feet) is/are offside then it’s offside. Anything else and it’s on.

He has never been a linesman obviously ... you can't ask a linesman to judge feet.

Any linesman uses the torso in the split second he has. So you would be disallowing goals because of laws that can only be applied to VARred matches - something they are trying to avoid, quite rightly.

Anyway, using feet is fine when players are standing still but when they are running the feet move twice as fast as the rest of the body. It's ridiculous to judge offside from body parts that may be offside or onside depending on where an attacker is in his stride pattern at an inaccurately determined kick point.

IFAB should just admit that offside decisions are subjective, not factual, and only changed for "clear and obvious" errors - errors that can be determined on first replay at full speed.

Imho.

 

[Bluesince1979]

I think they are coached to a certain degree about how the prem would like certain outcomes to happen in games , usually a ref that has gone against a VAR decision find themselves reffing a lower standard game the following week, so I think there is a an element of you toe the party line to ensure your career keeps moving forward so you get those cup finals and Eufa games . Do they get monetary gain ? It's easy to joke about brown envelopes I personally think it's more subtle than that, maybe preferential loans at low to zero rates from the prem or pigmol who knows ? But I am sure the league is not squeaky clean when it comes to reward for a job done .

Im honestly dumbfounded that people think that sort of stuff goes on!!!!

Loans?? What you on about ??

 

[Cassandra]

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

In my view a lot of the problem is that the laws do not indicate what each law is intended to achieve.

So the offside law should state something like "The law is to prevent teams benefitting from having a player or players in an offside position."

in determining whether the player(s) is/are in an offside position and gaining an advantage to their team the referee should consider the following guidelines but the overriding consideration is whether the team gains a material advantage.

The content of the current law could then be given as guidelines only. I would personally add that to be offside a player would need to be in an offside position both when the ball was played and when the player became active

(Mind you some referees would need both intensive and extensive training in what constitutes an advantage)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Hows the corruption work? Do “they” get directly involved in VARs in game decisions?
Or are they told pre match ensure certain decisions go against city ?

Genuinely interested

Here is a thought.

As far as I am aware, there are meetings before games, especially important games, to determine how the referee will manage the game - easy on the physical side or strict, for example, or let more go because we "don't want to spoil the game". Nothing easier than allowing physicality on a possession-based team to get a desired result. No-one has to say anything specific, it's implied.

Remember the Forest game when Rodri snapped and was sent off? Easy as pie. Want lots of Arsenal goals? No problem - allow pushing, shoving and obstruction at corners (btw, it seems Arsenal had meeting with PGMOL to agree with them how far they could push the rules. That's very normal ...). Nothing conspiratorial has to be said, but it can be easily understood anyway.

And then remove any remaining risk of exposure with retirement NDAs in return for a pension.

 

[lasereyes]

The Offside Law was introduced to counter players gaining an advantage by goal-hanging. The irony is that your toe or buttock can now be offside but goal-hanging is now permissible.

Imagine a team has a corner but the opposition leave two players upfield, one just in their half who is the quickest runner, and the other on the edge of the opposition penalty area. The ball breaks to the first player, who sprints upfield and at the moment the second player is behind the ball, passes to him and he scores. That, as far as I'm aware, would not be called offside under the current interpretation of the law.

That's how stupid the law has become under the morons who decide these things.

That pretty much assumes all the opposition players are kamikaze style in the attacking half. If that is their tactics then they yes any team with a brain would leave 1 or 2 up for a breakaway.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

He has never been a linesman obviously ... you can't ask a linesman to judge feet.

Any linesman uses the torso in the split second he has. So you would be disallowing goals because of laws that can only be applied to VARred matches - something they are trying to avoid, quite rightly.

Anyway, using feet is fine when players are standing still but when they are running the feet move twice as fast as the rest of the body. It's ridiculous to judge offside from body parts that may be offside or onside depending on where an attacker is in his stride pattern at an inaccurately determined kick point.

IFAB should just admit that offside decisions are subjective, not factual, and only changed for "clear and obvious" errors - errors that can be determined on first replay at full speed.

Imho.

But they do have to judge feet, as well as everything else, as well as when the ball was kicked.
As for the laws being applied differently in matches with VAR, I’m afraid that cat is not only out of the bag, but is now on the other side of the world.
Not only that, as VAR is applied differently in Scotland, England and the rest of Europe, as well as in UEFA competitions, even VAR matches are wholly inconsistent. When you then add a layer of seniority either to the VAR or the referee and the lack of willingness to go against the most senior one, you’ve got absolutely no chance.