How the offside law reads, why it is confusing, and how to clear up the mess

Manchester City’s opener against Aston Villa on Wednesday provoked confusion and even outrage, and saw Villa manager Dean Smith sent off. But while it felt like the goal should have been ruled out, there is a growing feeling the laws were correctly applied, raising major questions.

What the law says

The law allowing City’s opener to stand is the first one in the Offside section of the Laws of the Game: “It is not an offence to be in an offside position.” This is crucial to understanding why Rodri was not penalised for dispossessing Tyrone Mings in the build-up to City’s goal. Under the law, an offside offence only occurs in a limited number of scenarios and – this is important – they do not include those in which a pass to a player in an offside position is intercepted.

Why it is so confusing

A famous example of a goal being allowed under this law has already been cited in the wake of Wednesday’s game, a penalty by Harry Kane in Tottenham Hotspur’s 2-2 draw at Liverpool almost two years ago. In that incident, Dele Alli played the ball forward while Kane was in an offside position. But Dejan Lovren made contact with the ball – deliberately – before it reached Kane, who was then brought down in the box.

But Smith’s sense of injustice at the City goal, scored by Bernardo Silva (right), would have been compounded had he watched the Supercoppa Italiana final between Juventus and Napoli, also on Wednesday, which included a similar incident. This time, offside was given when Cristiano Ronaldo jogged back from an offside position to regain possession. Had either Rodri or Ronaldo challenged for the ball before their opponent had gained possession, then they would have committed an offence.

What law could say

There have been calls for the Laws of the Game to be changed to prevent a repeat of the City goal.

That is easier said than done due to the law of unintended consequences that has seen a can of worms opened on offside following the handball law change.

Drafting a law that would see Rodri penalised the moment he challenges Mings for the ball would create a major issue. For how long would Rodri be prevented from challenging Mings?

Even drafting a law that would result in Rodri committing an offence simply by being stood in an offside position could create the same dilemma about exactly when he would next be able to challenge Mings. Were such an offence to result in an automatic free-kick to Villa, that would give the offending team the chance to reset their defence.

Another approach could be to extend the law prohibiting players in offside positions challenging for the ball to make it clear they not only cannot do so before an opponent receives possession, but also until he or she is deemed to have the ball fully under control.