New offside rule (Canadian Premiership trial)

SuperiorXI said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd just get rid of all of the drawing lines bollocks.

Get the best side on angle they've got, play the replay at real speed, and if the referee can't clock an obvious offside within something like five views, the goal stands.
 
SuperiorXI said:
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
Click to expand...
To borrow a forgotten expression, that's the clear and obvious solution. The whole concept of 'advantage' is lost in a world where the most important question is suddenly "But where to draw the lines?"

I remember when 'pretty much in-line' was fine. Were kneecaps sometimes ahead? Sure. If a player inhaled sharply when the ball was played could his chest have protruded in advance of the last defender? Sure could. Before VAR nobody cared.

Two step:

1) is the player visibly ahead?
No: Onside
Yes:
2) Is the player gaining a significant advantage from their position?
No: Onside
Yes: Offside

Zooming in and finding out someone's gentleman's luggage swung forward at an inopportune time isn't an advantage, even if a computer says so.

And we can all go to bed and put the toys away. We need to come to terms with the fact that offside should actually a subjective decision if it's to work properly and not destroy the game with delays or rule changes invented because of those delays.
 
Utterly pointless at best. All they've done is move the line, you can still be offside by the same amount as the current law and to be honest I'm fed up with pointing this incredibly obvious issue out everytime this poorly thought out nonsense is mentioned. How people can't see what a load of old bollocks this idea is is beyond me. fecking stupid.
 
I hate this idea and I have no idea how it's gained any traction. It would be so jarring to see something that would have clearly been offside for the last 50 years suddenly be allowed. If you really must make a change I'd do it differently.

As it currently is, only body parts the attacker can use to play the ball can be called offside. But I propose any part of the defender could play an attacker onside.

This would give a little more leeway to the attacker, and punish defenders for not being conscious about where their arms are.

Or just leave it how it is
 
Think this is a bad idea.

high-lines, offside traps etc are important approaches to the game. This would kill them.

Defending is already hard as it is, as more often than not attackers get the benefit of the doubt or protection from refs when it comes to contact. This would just give attackers another structural advantage.
 
quadrant said:
Offside traps will become non-viable, since attackers always get a headstart. Free kicks in particular will be a mess. Dreadful idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point on the free-kicks.

Any wide free-kick where the ball will be crossed in to the box, even from near the half-way line, will force the entire back line to basically stand way back on the 6 yard box to remove any space in behind - or else every one will be able to be easily lofted over the top for the attackers with the running head starts.

It will look ridiculous.
 
Carl said:
Exactly. I'm always for the attacking team having the advantage.
Click to expand...

It will also favor counter attacking teams. Makes it easier to park the bus and counter with less chance to be played offside.

Would be a shame if this change also makes attacking teams play with even more safety and using boring tiki taka sideways passing but keeping the ball at all times tactics.
 
So then we go from, "boooo he was only a toe ahead" to "boo he was only a toe not ahead".

Does seem like it favours defending and counterattacking more than teams that play a high line.
 
Stadjer said:
It will also favor counter attacking teams. Makes it easier to park the bus and counter with less chance to be played offside.

Would be a shame if this change also makes attacking teams play with even more safety and using boring tiki taka sideways passing but keeping the ball at all times tactics.
Click to expand...

It favours the attacking teams in pretty much all situations.
 
IrishRedDevil said:
Will result in more goals = more fun. It’s a game after all.
Click to expand...

Carl said:
Exactly. I'm always for the attacking team having the advantage.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I think it will make games less fun. Teams will have to sit deep and park the bus defensively in order to prevent any space in behind which the attackers can use the offside rule to exploit.

Matches will be like two Nuno Espirito Santo teams playing each other, unwilling to let games be open and stretched.

KirkDuyt said:
Does seem like it favours defending and counterattacking more than teams that play a high line.
Click to expand...

Teams will no longer be able to play high lines any more as they will all be hugely vulnerable to counters. Everyone will be forced to be more defensive.
 
Arsene was a great coach 20 years ago, the game has moves on. This is pretty bad idea and he shouldn't be listened to on it..

There has to be some sort of agreeable middle ground, this is just going from one extreme to the other.
 
They’ve missed what the issue is. The issue isn’t that someone’s toenail is offside, it’s the fact that it’s not noticeable in play so fans think their team has scored only for it to get taken away after 5 minutes of checking. People keep saying that it’s not the VAR that’s the issue but it is: the game’s passion and flow is being killed by technology. The only way I see it being solved is if they come up with technology where offside is completely automated, which to be fair is likely one day.
 
Will make the game a lot more interesting. People complain about football being boring today but are not okay with a positive change.
 
Can we stop changing rules when they can't even get the original rules correct in the first place.
 
The rule as it currently is is fine. Just set a limit of 60 seconds per VAR check for any and all decisions, and let's move the hell on already.
 
Scottynaldinho said:
Will make the game a lot more interesting. People complain about football being boring today but are not okay with a positive change.
Click to expand...

This isn't a "positive" change. It's simply a change that gives a structural advantage to strikers. The likelihood is that teams will adjust to compensate - and high lines, which have come to the forefront for attacking teams - will be less prevalent, and you'll see a lot more low blocks because of it.

I'm not even sure that if the occasional (current) offside goal/more goals as a byproduct of this change can be framed as "positive"
 
yumtum said:
Can we stop changing rules when they can't even get the original rules correct in the first place.
Click to expand...
What other rules have we changed that we can’t even get right in the first place
 
What does this change accomplish as a mm offside bullshit will still exist while giving attacker advantage leading to more conservative game so no thnx
 
Offside said:
They’ve missed what the issue is. The issue isn’t that someone’s toenail is offside, it’s the fact that it’s not noticeable in play so fans think their team has scored only for it to get taken away after 5 minutes of checking. People keep saying that it’s not the VAR that’s the issue but it is: the game’s passion and flow is being killed by technology. The only way I see it being solved is if they come up with technology where offside is completely automated, which to be fair is likely one day.
Click to expand...

All they have to do is put a chip in the ball and it's fully automated.
They had it at the world cup and a couple of years ago the PL were talking about putting a chip in the ball once the deal with Nike ran out as they were incompatible with the technology. The PL has switched to Puma and still nothing.

I agree on your first point though. This change will at least mean the player will look to be clearly offside if offside. The issue I had with the old rule was there was very often no material advantage gained by the attacker yet the goal would be chalked off.

It will be interesting to see if it changes tactics as much as those vehemently opposed to it seem to think.
 
Offside said:
They’ve missed what the issue is. The issue isn’t that someone’s toenail is offside, it’s the fact that it’s not noticeable in play so fans think their team has scored only for it to get taken away after 5 minutes of checking. People keep saying that it’s not the VAR that’s the issue but it is: the game’s passion and flow is being killed by technology. The only way I see it being solved is if they come up with technology where offside is completely automated, which to be fair is likely one day.
Click to expand...

That's why I feel there should be a set time limit or a limit on the number of replays. VAR should be there for something which is egregiously wrong, so if it takes more than 60 seconds or three replays to see whether a decision should be overturned, then it means it's time to accept the decision and move on. I feel like I'm taking Mugatu's crazy pills when the issue gets overly complicated.
 
It’s an interesting idea, will lead to a lot more goals but more importantly change how football is played. The high pres with defenders will become far riskier, which will lead to the defend dropping deep more often, which will create more space in midfield as well. Would not be surprised if open play goals 2x with this
 
Whats the point? More goals in football because more attackers will be onside and defenders wont get back to stop them? It doesnt make it any more clear than normal, it'll just be tight calls on the trailing leg instead of front leg or shoulder whichever is furthest forward.
 
Feels like it'll just encourage teams to sit deeper and deeper.

If they don't it'll result in too many goals. That might sound silly but the relative scarcity of goals compared to points in other sports is part of what makes the game so special. Goals feel like a massive moment.

Either way, don't fancy the idea
 
I can imagine the attacker staying close and parallel to a defender then starting a sprint as the ball is played.
To counter, the defense will pull all the way back to the box or even touchline and would need to face their own goal to stand a chance...or be Usain bolt.
Asinine meddling from the 'professor'.
 
I must have erroneously remembered that the Wenger rule was something that made more sense to me.

In my mind, if the part of the player's body that's past the last defender is not one they can legally score with (like a hand) then it shouldn't matter.

I don't think there's any way to win with offside, every way to work it will always be wrong to someone. I do think we should sack off VAR though, it's pointless, expensive, and we seem to get the wrong calls every week.
 
The beauty of the offside line is that it is an even contest between defender and attacker. They both must be the same distance from goal and therefore it is a fair competition. Fairness between attacker and defender is a key principle of the sport and what has placed it in good stead over the last 30 years.

This drastically changes that balance. So much so that it renders the conventional offside trap dead and fundamentally changes the shape of the game.

It is likely that it will be too difficult to hold a line from a set-piece and defences will need to drop off to a position where they can have an even contest. That will become right into the 6-yard box. As a result, the chaotic pinball we see in the Premier League now at corners will be the new standard for any set-piece scenario.

A good example of this are long throw-ins which don't have offside. Currently the frequency of the chaos they create is reduced as most teams can't throw it 35-40 yards. But they can kick it 60 yards from a dead ball.

Wenger needs to be put out to grass.
 
goldenboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Quick shove in the back of the defender when the ball is played and a massive advantage gained. Not sure how they're going to make this work, it won't help with the eternity it takes them to make decisions and it'll still be open to interpretation.
 
it sounds like the type of great idea which will inevitably contrive to make things worse
 
10-20 years ago, the off side rule used to be "when there is clear gap" between attack and defender. This to me is reverting to that. The current rules are really dumb, with good goals being ruled out when there is no advantage at all
 
If it ain't broke, just fecking leave it alone. The offside rule is fine.

One rule, I can think of, in my entire life that was worth changing: no pass-back to keeper.

That's the only one that made the game better. The rest is nonsense (I like the idea of var of course but it's all over the place right now).

This is just stupid.
 
Yep… just moving the mm line. Addresses nothing. Same problem, moved forward.

Shut up Arsene.
 
I fear this will make backlines default to Henry-2000-mindset, no matter who they meet. Because you have to catch up more ground, even if they are not quicker. It could have the same consequences as the away goals rule, just worse. Now, BOTH teams are slightly more worried about standing too high.

It also reminds me of how it was the first and third year playing on a bigger pitch. When you have to face players who are one year older and slightly faster. You have to be a bit deeper, not because they are always better, but they are always a bit quicker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.