Santa Cruz had the ball in the back of the net and the linesman flagged for offside, which it wasn't. After speaking to the ref the goal was then given, never seen that happen in a game before like. Commentators reckoned he flagged as he thought a different player who was in an offside position was going to head the ball.

the problem is lino's are flagging too early and are not adapted to the knew rules. They should wait until the attacking player has touched the ball in that phase.

Crowds and commentators chunter about late flags but that is the actual correct way to organise offside decisions.

Early in the second half yesterday a Pools player 9can't remember who) was given offside when a long ball was played cross field from the right back to left wing area. Someone was offside in the middle (Barker, i think but the ball sailed over his head and the player who would of recieved the ball was at least 5 yards onside but the lino flagged way too early instead of waiting......

It is a bollox rule but it is here and it is about time the officials got to grips with it. Maybe professional referee's would improve things.? if they were recieving a decent wage and able to train on a full time basis then they might not be as rubbish as they are....

Was he the same linesmen as the one on the Millhouse side vs Leeds, he put his flag up when the leeds players shouted offside . Obviously he had some sort of lobotomy as he couldnt think for himself .

No it was not

Whether it's the old or new interpretation, offside in association football is still a shite rule and the offside trap is a lame tactic. In what other sport can you abandon your own territory thereby winning a free kick?
They should have a good think about what the offside rule is really intended to achieve and come up with a more sensible and fair implementation than the "gridiron" concept, rather than trying to adapt a concept that is bollocks to start with. That implies a radical redefinition.

I thought he was very brave to admit he raised his flag in error. The active inactive thing is bollox though, and needs sorting out.

If you don't touch the ball you are not offside, simple isn't it?

Also, the referee's need to stop protecting keepers so much, you can't jump with a keeper these days without the referee panicing and giving a free kick.

I agree with MJ, offside = offside, end of.

Easy to apply, no silly active / inactive rules,
and if he's in an offside position and not interfering with play,
then he shouldn't be on the pitch.

i actually think the active / in active rule is simple. The refs are just too stupid to work it out.

Sometimes players have to go into an offside posistion to quicken the game up...

Would you have classed Dunn as being active or inactive then Jonny?

In the current climate I would say active even though he didn't touch the ball but he did jump in front of the defender which may have obscured his view for a short time.

I do agree with John though if you are behind the last man you are offside simple as that.

When Van Nistelrooy played for Manure he played the rule to suit himself, he would be a good 3-4 yards offside when the ball was played wide, but once it went wide he would turn and go back towards goal and have a 3 yard start on any defender trying to get back

Dunn was inactive as he didn't touch the ball or effect anything in the move......

Van Nistleroy was very clever in the goals he used to score but he was ina passive posistion when his wingers got the ball so as long as he gets behing play when a square ball is played he can not be given offside......