New offside rule (Canadian Premiership trial)

Not sure what difference this makes. You'll still be judging it on a bod ypart to decide if its offside or not, surely? The only thing this changes is giving a big advantage to the attacker and it will probably be the end of the high line.

Terrible idea.
 
Last edited:
CatsOfUlthar said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's literally the current rule.
 
Lj82 said:
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
Click to expand...
It's not. It worked because it was being done by eye and not analysed to the degree it is now. Now with VAR the clear gap we are looking for is stopping the game for 5 minutes and zooming in to see if we can find a clear gap of 5 mm.
 
arthurka said:
More goals, so no it´s a brilliant idea.
Click to expand...

How do you conclude there'd be more goals?

As I mentioned before, it'll probably lead to both teams parking the bus and sitting deep to compensate for the huge risk of leaving any space in behind.
 
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...
This. What is funny about all this is; you still have comments how "finally goals will not be disallowed because of few cm".


Also, this rule is complete bullshit. It is giving strikers huge advantage now.
 
goldenboy said:
How do you conclude there'd be more goals?

As I mentioned before, it'll probably lead to both teams parking the bus and sitting deep to compensate for the huge risk of leaving any space in behind.
Click to expand...
For example United has had really tough luck with tight calls.
 
arthurka said:
More goals, so no it´s a brilliant idea.
Click to expand...

Very dubious assertion. If teams start shipping more goals, they will simply introduce new tactics to stop it happening. Those tactics will of course be to sit deep, since that's the only counter.

We might well get a short term burst of goals as teams adapt, but long term this just punishes teams that play full on attacking football and rewards teams that sit back and counter. That doesn't make the game better as far as I'm concerned.
 
bosskeano said:
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
Click to expand...

Lj82 said:
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
Click to expand...
This has never been the offside rule.

If anything previous offside rules went the other way, being level with the second last defender used to be considered offside.
 
Before VAR, this is a bit like how we used to judge offside... if there was just one part of the attacker that was in line with the defender, we'd have said "he's in line, therefore onside".
Think Javier Hernandez vs Chelsea in 2011 at OT.
So, I kind of like this...
 
It was an absolutely moronic idea back when it was conceived, and Wenger should have been laughed out of the room when he pushed for it. Yet here we are, and the idea hasn't gotten one iota better since back then.

As others have said, it's still the same millimeter-difference, line-drawing, game-delaying stuff as before, just in a different spot. One that gives way too much advantage to the attacker, which most likely will result in deeper defenses, more hoofball counterattacking gameplay, and more focus on free kicks. More pure speed merchants which can hang onto the the advantage that one step ahead gives them.

If I had my say, I'd chip all players. Either in the boots, shinguards, or waistband. If any attacker's chip is ahead of that of a defender at the moment the ball is played and they are not passive, then it's an offside, no matter what the rest of their bodyparts are doing. I most definitely do not want to go back to linesmen making atrociously wrong decisions on the regular, but neither do I want situations where it takes VAR five minutes to make a call that was obvious from the very first replay. Using tech which already exists to come to a speedy decision seemes like a good compromise.
 
I think offside should be judged by the alignment of the feet only. I think everyone hates the offsides where the attacker is making a forward run and the defender is moving in the opposite direction, so naturally there is a 'lean' advantage for the attacker, even if the starting position of his feet are behind those of the defender.

Problem is getting the tech sophisticated enough and automated to judge this, but it would remove those idiotic shoulder/armpit/knees offsides and result in more goals, yet still a fair way of judging it in my opinion.
 
limerickcitykid said:
This has never been the offside rule.

If anything previous offside rules went the other way, being level with the second last defender used to be considered offside.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's mostly a myth that emerged around the mid-90s when Andy Gray would talk about "daylight" on Sky Sports. It was nonsense then, never mind now.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Just scrap offside. Be done with it. Dunno why nobody will consider the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

The fear that it'll just mean ultra deep defenses, obviously.

However, it's probably worth a trial just as much as this idea.
 
Alex99 said:
The fear that it'll just mean ultra deep defenses, obviously.

However, it's probably worth a trial just as much as this idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah that was what happened when they tried no offsides outside the 18-yard box in 1991 at the u-17 championships. We can see in the footage below that the defensive line routinely became the edge of the box when the opposition were attacking.



It's probably more open and disorganised than it would be in the senior game.

Pogue Mahone said:
Just scrap offside. Be done with it. Dunno why nobody will consider the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

No offsides from set-pieces was tested in the 87/88 English conference season and abandoned because any free-kick within 60 yards of the goal became a 6-yard box stramash.
 
The balance of the game especially in the prem has shifted away from attacking play in recent years.

This could give coaches who are committed to attack with the ball vs set pieces etc a much needed advantage and create a more beautiful game. I am in favour of it.
 
Gio said:
Yeah that was what happened when they tried no offsides outside the 18-yard box in 1991 at the u-17 championships. We can see in the footage below that the defensive line routinely became the edge of the box when the opposition were attacking.



It's probably more open and disorganised than it would be in the senior game.



No offsides from set-pieces was tested in the 87/88 English conference season and abandoned because any free-kick within 60 yards of the goal became a 6-yard box stramash.
Click to expand...


I would definitely have no problem with open play being more open and disorganised. And that clip has me even more convinced it’s worth a try. Some incredible goals.

Although I hadn’t thought through set pieces. Although all the Arteta anti-football shit we’re enduring this season makes me think there should maybe a rule limiting the amount of players allowed in the six yard box for a set piece? Which would solve the stramash problem, offside rule or no offside rule.
 
Last edited:
matsdf said:
I don't think that's what they're trying to solve though? This is surely just for more "entertaining" football?
Click to expand...
I feel like it will make like 0.1% difference. Attackers can essentially go early but then they risk just being offside anyway and you can argue it gives defenders a reason to play a bit deeper if it is an advantage to the attacker after testing.
There's nothing wrong with automated offsides as they are now, it's not perfect but it's easily good enough. The issue the game has right now is reffing standards are poor + they need to think of how to change the corner camping we are seeing.
 
limerickcitykid said:
This has never been the offside rule.

If anything previous offside rules went the other way, being level with the second last defender used to be considered offside.
Click to expand...
not correct at all....the rule when i played in the 90's and 2000's was simple, if any part of you was level with the defender you are onside
 
Offside needs to become a judgement call not a technical one, then we can get rid of the lines. Unless someone is gaining a significant advantage from their starting position, then they're onside. The problem I have with this rule is that it'll keep onside players that clearly have obtained an advantage in their starting position. We see from the example pictures. It would be a nonsense if these were considered onside.
 
bosskeano said:
not correct at all....the rule when i played in the 90's and 2000's was simple, if any part of you was level with the defender you are onside
Click to expand...
Not correct at all…. that was never the rule.

There have been no changes to the offside rule in the 2000s. Only clarifications on arms/hands not being offside and players leaving the pitch without permission and being on the halfway line always being onside.

The last major change was in 1990 when being level with the second last defender became onside (the current rule), previously being adjudged as offside.
 
Annoying seeing people say the 'daylight' thing never existed. It absolutely did - not as a rule but as a directive around the turn of the century. Just because it wasn't written in law doesn't mean that linesmen weren't advised to interpret the existing law with that in mind. There are many ways that laws are interpreted differently without changing what's written down. Football is full of them. The whole thing about 'natural position' thing when it comes to handball isn't written down anywhere, but is a directive/interpretation. The clamp down on tackles from behind a few years ago where they'd be automatic red was never written as a rule. There are so many of them that don't alter the written rule but are given as guidance to officials and referees. VAR now means linesmen are told to keep flag down unless absolutely certain. We see them apply a significant delay before raising their flag. In five years time if that changes we can't pretend it never happened because we can find no law where it was written down for them to do so. We know it happened.

So the whole 'the daylight rule didn't exist' is technically true as in it was never written down, but it was absolutely applied by referees for a period.
 
G3079 said:
It was an absolutely moronic idea back when it was conceived, and Wenger should have been laughed out of the room when he pushed for it.
Click to expand...

If it was pushed for by anyone other than Wenger it probably would have been.
 
Nyland said:
Annoying seeing people say the 'daylight' thing never existed. It absolutely did - not as a rule but as a directive around the turn of the century. Just because it wasn't written in law doesn't mean that linesmen weren't advised to interpret the existing law with that in mind. There are many ways that laws are interpreted differently without changing what's written down. Football is full of them. The whole thing about 'natural position' thing when it comes to handball isn't written down anywhere, but is a directive/interpretation. The clamp down on tackles from behind a few years ago where they'd be automatic red was never written as a rule. There are so many of them that don't alter the written rule but are given as guidance to officials and referees. VAR now means linesmen are told to keep flag down unless absolutely certain. We see them apply a significant delay before raising their flag. In five years time if that changes we can't pretend it never happened because we can find no law where it was written down for them to do so. We know it happened.

So the whole 'the daylight rule didn't exist' is technically true as in it was never written down, but it was absolutely applied by referees for a period.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a rule, it wasn’t a directive and it was never applied by refs.


Straight from the FA’s head of refereeing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/3033085/FA-dismiss-offside-rule-change.html
 
Nyland said:
Annoying seeing people say the 'daylight' thing never existed. It absolutely did - not as a rule but as a directive around the turn of the century. Just because it wasn't written in law doesn't mean that linesmen weren't advised to interpret the existing law with that in mind. There are many ways that laws are interpreted differently without changing what's written down. Football is full of them. The whole thing about 'natural position' thing when it comes to handball isn't written down anywhere, but is a directive/interpretation. The clamp down on tackles from behind a few years ago where they'd be automatic red was never written as a rule. There are so many of them that don't alter the written rule but are given as guidance to officials and referees. VAR now means linesmen are told to keep flag down unless absolutely certain. We see them apply a significant delay before raising their flag. In five years time if that changes we can't pretend it never happened because we can find no law where it was written down for them to do so. We know it happened.

So the whole 'the daylight rule didn't exist' is technically true as in it was never written down, but it was absolutely applied by referees for a period.
Click to expand...
I have watched football since the early 90s. Naturally also over the turn of the century. From the level of regional youth clubs to the international men's teams. Never, not once, was there anything like a "daylight" rule. Not in writing, not inofficially in practice.

There were some horrendous refereeing mistakes where such offsides weren't given. But that's just it, they were seen as offside and refereeing mistakes. The rules were as @limerickcitykid explained, and they were adhered to.

Maybe there were regional differences, and it was different in whatever leagues you watched. Much like for the longest time things that were fouls in the rest of the continent were just ignored in the Premier League, leading to regular complaints from Brits about "soft refereeing" in the international games. But it most definitely was never an universally followed, if not written, rule.
 
Gio said:
No offsides from set-pieces was tested in the 87/88 English conference season and abandoned because any free-kick within 60 yards of the goal became a 6-yard box stramash.
Click to expand...
Yeah I dread to think what the coaches for this Arsenal side would come up with. Eurgh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.