New offside rule (Canadian Premiership trial)

It'll still be decided on a body part, they're just moving the line forward a few inches
 
In principle it makes sense. How much advantage does an attacker have if his toe or nose or elbow is ahead of the defender? Absolutely none.

But in practice, it will be the same issue with VAR that we have currently. Now lines will be drawn from whether the last bit of the ankle of the forward is ahead of the defender or not.
 
There’s still a line that has to be drawn. Pointless moving it and seems it will give way more advantage to attackers.
 
It is one of the stupidest ideas to get real traction in a while
 
Just go to automated offsides or scrap it altogether. Either have it scientifically undeniable, or embrace the analogue charm of a linesman's decision being final.

Can't be doing with them taking 5 hours drawing lines that end up being way too open to interpretation anyway
 
The principle doesn't change. They'll still be looking at millimeters. What if, in that second image, the attackers heel is a millimeter behind the knee of the defender?
 
I don't have any strong opinions on this really but it is very 'make the goals bigger'.
 
2 man midfield said:
Just go to automated offsides or scrap it altogether. Either have it scientifically undeniable, or embrace the analogue charm of a linesman's decision being final.

Can't be doing with them taking 5 hours drawing lines that end up being way too open to interpretation anyway
Click to expand...

I happened to rewatch the United v arsenal 99 fa cup semi final this weekend (the first match, not the replay), in which the useless linesman ruled our goal offside because someone was standing offside when Giggs was running past an opponent. I'm not sure we want to go back to trusting refs alone, when the officials are the problem.
 
The whole of the ball has to go over the whole of the line for a goal to stand, or for a throw-in or corner kick to be given. Therefore, by the same token, offside is now the whole of the attacker has to be past the whole of the defender to be judged offside. I'm 100% fine with this and want to see it given a go. It's a trial, so if it turns out to be complete shit, we have the option of just not doing it.
 
It doesn't change the problem with offsides. It just means fewer goals will get chalked off because strikers have more margin for error.
 
Globule said:
I happened to rewatch the United v arsenal 99 fa cup semi final this weekend (the first match, not the replay), in which the useless linesman ruled our goal offside because someone was standing offside when Giggs was running past an opponent. I'm not sure we want to go back to trusting refs alone, when the officials are the problem.
Click to expand...
There's always the odd howler, but everybody had them equally. I'm also willing to bet that by the same token, a fair few of the 7 goals we've had ruled out for offside since Carrick came in would've stood if there wasn't var. In other words, you take the rough with the smooth. I think I'm willing to sacrifice that just to speed the game back up again. Can't stand 4-5 minutes waiting around.
 
It will also make teams sit a lot deeper because now the attacker has more of an advantage. It’s a stupid idea.
 
This will be abused in set-pieces, attacking team will screen and body check defenders and still be onside to score
 
2 man midfield said:
It'll still be decided on a body part, they're just moving the line forward a few inches
Click to expand...

Exactly, they'll still be there drawing lines and taking forever to decide.

Not that it helps, I actually liked Jay Bothroyd's idea of the offside rule only kicking in when the attackers foot is in front of the defenders, and not some random leaning shoulder, or slightly more angled knee.

But until they can somehow chip each player to have it work like the goal line tech does then it's always going to be a joy killer for the game.
 
I think it's giving the attacker too much of an advantage. Basically you just need the back of your heel to be in line with the big toe of the defender. Which means your front foot could be 3/4 feet in front of the play.

Not for me personally
 
that's how the offside rule was back 20-30 years ago....if any part of you was in line with the defender you were considered onside
 
Have to laugh at any opinion saying there’s no difference, when the new rule is a far better argument for an offsides player having an actual unfair advantage—the real argument behind the rule change. Being offside by a millimeter is not an unfair advantage in any universe.

Also not having it with the “but teams will just sit back” as if that doesn’t already happen too frequently. Pair up air Šeško with another class option like Osimhen and spam crosses into the box from anyone who isn’t Dalot, and watch us score for fun.
 
But they will still be offside or not by a millimeter? They've just moved it and so now the attacker has more leeway. What advantage is gained by being 1mm further away with daylight than not? It's the same argument surely. It'll still come down to pixels (or pixels plus a few inches for you know who).
 
I think it should be based on judgement. All that means is the refs will be drawing it based on a line that strictly means on/off

If the player had a genuine advantage being ahead of the defender, which is probably more so the entire body part (rather than body) being offside, then call it. If it’s an arse hair offside then that’s hardly an advantage

That’s the sort of shit we need to stop seeing. Where a player has bent his run pretty much to perfection, a ball is played through at the death and they score just for the offside imagery to be a fecking joke toe nail off
 
Think that's a great idea, should lead to more goals.
 
It's just a case of drawing the line in a different place. It will still result in marginal decisions that come down to millimetres that seem to get people upset for some reason
 
A line doesn't have to be drawn though. Keep it as it is and look at a still image. If it isn't immediately obvious someone is offside give them the advantage and let the goal stand. If 30 minutes later someone draws lines on the screen to show that actually their shoulder blade might have been in an offside position - so what?

In the past it was major decisions that were talking points. Now it's "We've zoomed in and we think this pixel is his nose, therefore it's disgusting the goal was allowed to stand"

We're having to change rules because of problems VAR creates. We might as well stop the game every time a goalkeeper picks up the ball and releases it just to check it's released within 8 seconds. Not 8:00:00:001 seconds because "yay accuracy".

Nobody asked for or wanted offside calls to be this anal and it's annoying we're now inventing new rules because someone decided it should be. Why not just defer all offside decisions until the advent of 16k television monitors and we can decide in 2029 who won all these football matches?
 
Last edited:
Globule said:
The principle doesn't change. They'll still be looking at millimeters. What if, in that second image, the attackers heel is a millimeter behind the knee of the defender?
Click to expand...
Just think of it as giving a very big margin for error against the actual rule - that you have to be level. Very good change in my view.
 
I expect this will be terrible.

Firstly, it doesn't solve the issue of a player being a millimeter offside which people complain about, it's just moving the line of where you're measuring from.

Secondly, it kills the high defensive line and offside trap as it's now too easy for the attackers to get a run in behind the defence whilst remaining onside, so teams have to defend deeper so there's not as much space in behind.
 
VAR offside isn't actually mm accurate because of the frame rate of the video. This corrects it to a degree. Probably bad news for managers who like very aggressive high line like Flick if this comes in.
 
The idea you can be onside when you're entire body less the back of your trailing heel is in line with a retreating defenders stooped hairline, does seem to be going too far in the other direction. There's a middle ground between analysing something for 8 minutes and deciding the eight of an inch of someone's forehead is offside and ruling out a goal as a result - and this. I don't get how we go automatically from one position to the other without trying anything else in between.

We go from lengthy delay and review to determine whether or not someone's untrimmed nose hair is protruding enough to rule out a goal to saying that if a defender exists within the same postcode area as the advancing player then it's onside

These both feel like unnecessary extremes and quite schizophrenic answers to a question absolutely nobody asked before VAR came along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dargonk
It's an absolute khazi of an idea.

Imagine allowing this to be Onside?!

The games will descend in to a farce in no time. Attackers will spend the whole time basically goal-hanging, and defenders will have a near impossible job.

HCZ4dAQb0AAeu-x
 
Offside traps will become non-viable, since attackers always get a headstart. Free kicks in particular will be a mess. Dreadful idea.
 
That's just one extreme to another. The answer is a compromise between the two with larger margins for error.

It should return to the linesman's decision stands although they keep the flag down if unsure and raise after the goal: VAR then checks and if it's within a "margin of error", no overruling occurs - this happens silently in the background. The margin of error can be a few inches rather than millimetres. This way it can be argued that there is an advantage. Someone's toe being offside slightly should never be considered an advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.