Valid Goal or Not?

[TeaCider]

I understand that part and that was always the rule. The bit I am getting stuck with is he was offside originally and joined in the attack and his original position gives him an advantage over the defending players. Surely that deems him to be offside.

I think we are going to have a split camp on this one.

He never challenges for the ball until he's onside again, the only possible offence he could have committed is

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The only time in that phase of play that his position impacts their ability to play the ball is when he's back onside anyway

 

[newusername]

...the only possible offence he could have committed is

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I agree he's onside, however I don't like the current interpretation of the law.

Running from an offside position towards the ball, would clearly have an impact on the defence. There'd be a brief pause in the reaction from the defence as the attacker's offside, and then the attacker stops & put their hands up and a teammate runs onto the ball past a slightly static defence gaining an advantage from the 1st player being offside.

 

[RedAsABeetroot]

He never challenges for the ball until he's onside again, the only possible offence he could have committed is

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The only time in that phase of play that his position impacts their ability to play the ball is when he's back onside anyway

If all the defenders had stood still and the attackers had played exactly as they did would the goal stand?
I hate this interpretation of the rules as he's clearly gaining a massive advantage by being offside. If they'd run at the same pace and the defender chasing him had been initially level then the defender would have easily intercepted the ball as it's played to him. The only reason he scores this goal is because of the head start he had by being offside.

 

[TheBoroBuzzard]

Bryan Clough - “If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch”

 

[Nano]

If he had been stood 30 yards offside, where he was when the final ball was played through, he would have been onside. He was only offside for the initial pass but he didn't touch the ball or impede a defender. Once the other attacker got the ball he was no longer offside.

 

[Zoophonic]

If he had been stood 30 yards offside, where he was when the final ball was played through, he would have been onside. He was only offside for the initial pass but he didn't touch the ball or impede a defender. Once the other attacker got the ball he was no longer offside.

I don’t know why attackers make more of this new offside interpretation. Stand miles offside to distract defenders while play is going on. As long as he doesn’t touch the ball. Chaos can ensue.