Such nonsense. Just fix the offside by the position of the foot.
New offside rule (Canadian Premiership trial)
- Thread starter Ian Reus
- Start date
I've felt this for a while now.
GPS( or some other system) trackers in the ball, the boots and maybe the back of the shirt neck. Then have a simulation running at the same time to quickly determine positional data.
The problem we're having is still human error.
If we're going to have VAR, then there can be no room for bias or error.
Exactly. Worked perfectly fine when playing footy matches in the park, jumpers for goal posts.
How will this change with this new approach? The margin between being onside and offside will be exactly the same. So the “advantage” gained by having a body part a cm or two too close to the goal will remain exactly the same.
The advantage will be much more significant because the starting point is that anything beyond level is offside. Under this rule the attacker can basically be a full body length beyond the defender before they are considered offside. If you are then offside by millimetres, so be it - the reality is that you are miles offside anyway (because you are well past being level) and the benefit of any doubt correctly doesn’t go your way.
Come off it. You’re only “miles offside” according to a historical (and soon to be forgotten) definition of offside. Within weeks of this coming into force we’ll adjust to a new version of the offside rule and continue to get pissed off by goals being allowed/disallowed based on a body part being a couple of cm too close to the goal.We'll very quickly have the same prolonged checks to see if the defender's shoulder is in line with the striker's ankle.
Looking forward to pages on pages of people not understanding this
What a great idea Mr. Wenger. Encourage teams to deploy an even deeper lowblock when out of possession and give attacking teams an incentive to try and draw fouls on the slightest of contacts as soon as they enter the attacking third.
This solves nothing and makes negative setpiecefootball even more desirable for managers. Instead I would like to see dedicated VAR-referees that have to attend 2 week workshops every summer where all controversial scenes get discussed and analyzed and a common ruling on these kind of scenes established among the referees so VAR-decisions can get resolved in a timely manner. They could even create a VAR-referee testsimulator like we have it with drivingschools where they get to rule on a scene from 3 angles and have to decide within 60 seconds.
This solves nothing and makes negative setpiecefootball even more desirable for managers. Instead I would like to see dedicated VAR-referees that have to attend 2 week workshops every summer where all controversial scenes get discussed and analyzed and a common ruling on these kind of scenes established among the referees so VAR-decisions can get resolved in a timely manner. They could even create a VAR-referee testsimulator like we have it with drivingschools where they get to rule on a scene from 3 angles and have to decide within 60 seconds.
And with VAR, even though it's far too fecking slow and ought never be centre-stage, you see the art of the line battle (inches) between attacker and defender as never before. Why anyone wants to feck with an aspect of a game, very old, that isn't any-thing like broken (we'll see better football it is said -- what are you all talking about? I've lived through some of the best football ever over the last couple of decades and this wasn't a problem at all!), is stupid and beyond me. Some people just cannot leave a thing alone. The game, at its core, is fine. Leave it be. Always ideas like carding, or sinbin, and shit like that, but that's peripheral. I wasn't in favor of the 5 substitutes either fw.iw -- think it was a more difficult and better game at 3.
Why can they not simply keep the existing law but tie it directly to feet (this body parts non-sense has got to go). Your front foot for an attacker, back foot for a defender (if you want make it the "whole of the foot" has to beyond the last defender - which now that I think about it, isnt that far off what is being proposed). If people cant control where their feet are, that's on them.
Also... VAR refs are far too interested in stamping their opinion on the game ("oh look at me, I'm so clever I've seen something that no-one else noticed and I can have an impact on the game) and that is the biggest problem with the system... case in point that penalty against Rangers on the weekend. Minimal, insignificant, non-play altering contact at very close range - never a penalty. When they blew up for the VAR challenge, no one knew why they were doing it. VAR should be limited to egregious or "missed" calls that should be obvious (think Henry hand ball) not marginal ones that no one would even notice.
Also... VAR refs are far too interested in stamping their opinion on the game ("oh look at me, I'm so clever I've seen something that no-one else noticed and I can have an impact on the game) and that is the biggest problem with the system... case in point that penalty against Rangers on the weekend. Minimal, insignificant, non-play altering contact at very close range - never a penalty. When they blew up for the VAR challenge, no one knew why they were doing it. VAR should be limited to egregious or "missed" calls that should be obvious (think Henry hand ball) not marginal ones that no one would even notice.
The offside shit is what drives me mental re VAR. A mile offside but flag down and you know it's going to go up. But because VAR or whatever (other rules) they are told to keep it down. It's a waste of game-time. There's ten other reasons I despise VAR but you're right, it's there for "is this a goal or not" or maybe also "is this a penalty or not" -- it shouldn't be involved, constantly, in every on-game decision.
Well this is what I feel is the wrongheaded point trotted out all the time.
Oh the line here is the same as the line there. Well no it's not, the point is whether the placement of the line makes sense and whether there's actually a material advantage to the attacker in that position. At least if your whole body is ahead then I personally wouldn't be gripping about fingernails.
To be honest I think it's better but not ideal. The whole offside thing needs a complete rethink. There are plenty of instances where the attacker has a massive advantage over the defender due to the distance between them but neither are closer to the end line so it's fine. I don't find a huge amount of logic in the law personally.
Nope.