Passive offside chaos: confusion reigns as teams look to exploit | OneFootball

Gilardino's statements after Milan-Pisa reignite the debate on passive offside.

Passive offside, rule in chaos: confused interpretation and teams ready to exploit it

The Pisa coach raised doubts about the new interpretation of the rule after the two goals conceded at San Siro, opening a discussion involving referees, coaches, and analysts.

Gilardino: “If we can leave men in front of the goalkeeper, we will do it too”

At the end of Milan-Pisa, Alberto Gilardino analyzed the Rossoneri's goals as follows: “It's the rule of men in front of the goalkeeper, both on the first and second goals. We need to prepare strategies for these situations because if players can be left in front of the goalkeeper, we will try to exploit it.”

His words summarize the growing discontent among coaches: the new interpretation of passive offside seems to leave wide margins of discretion. In the San Siro match, in fact, in both decisive actions, more Milan players obstructed Semper's view, but the goals were still validated. A year ago, they would have been annulled for “active influence on the goalkeeper.”

An unclear rule and an increasingly blurred boundary

The AIA 2025 Regulations attempt to explain the case of passive offside, but the definition remains ambiguous:

“An attacker (A) in an offside position clearly obstructs the goalkeeper's line of vision. The player should be considered punishable because they prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.”

An apparently clear principle, but one that leaves room for many interpretations. In the AIA's official image, the case illustrated is that of a long-distance shot with a teammate positioned in front of the goalkeeper, in the line of vision. However, the text does not specify either the distance from the action or the exact position of the player in offside: it only talks about “preventing playing” or “clearly obstructing the line of vision.”

The result? A rule that risks becoming subjective and variable from referee to referee.

Previous cases in Serie A: Milan, Parma, and Inter the most discussed cases

The doubtful situations are not limited to Milan-Pisa. In this 2025/26 Serie A season, similar episodes have already been recorded:

Parma-Atalanta: Pasalic's goal with a teammate offside in front of the goalkeeper, goal validated.

Inter-Cremonese: Dimarco's goal with two players in advanced positions, but considered “non-influential.”

In both cases, the referee's decision left room for discussions and contrasting interpretations, with former referees and analysts divided on the correct application of the rule.

The domino effect: teams will adapt

Gilardino's words open an interesting tactical front: if it is indeed allowed to position men offside in front of the goalkeeper without being penalized, many coaches could study new offensive solutions aimed at disturbing the opposing goalkeeper's view. A scenario that risks distorting the very essence of passive offside, created to ensure balance and fairness in attacking situations.

Clarity needed: AIA called to intervene

The problem today is not only technical but also communicative. The official notes from the AIA do not clearly explain what the criteria for punishability are and when an offside player becomes truly influential. Without more precise guidelines, the risk is witnessing a championship where each similar episode generates controversies and opportunistic strategies.

Until there is a clear stance from the AIA or IFAB, passive offside will remain a gray area — and as Gilardino himself admitted, “if the rule allows it, you adapt.”

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇮🇹 here.