Jim Geissman posted a link to a BBC report on a recent match, which linked
to a page <http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4679881.stm> that tried
to explain the offside law. The English barely get it. The article asserts
> An amendment to the rule was introduced
> at the start of the 2003/04 season, which
> allows a player to be in an offside position
> provided he or she is not "actively involved in play".
I guess they didn't notice Brazil's goal vs Holland in World Cup '94, scored
with Ronaldo in very much offside position and clearly uninvolved.
Or maybe the English didn't want to get it -- Did they oppose the IFAB's
shift from passive to active offside involvement, and did they choose not to
implement something that was adopted over their objections? Or are the IFAB
delegates either stupid or badly instructed by their federations?
The BBC also erred by writing:
> You can't be offside if:
# the ball comes off a defender
The writer doesn't understand that an involuntary touch by a defender
doesn't extinguish the offside position.
BTW, rereading Law 11, I wonder if we're mistaken in penalizing an
"over-and-back" offside when the player comes from offside position and
becomes involved in his defensive half of the field. (Wait for a change in
official interpretation before changing -- At present, we're supposed to
blow the whistle.)