My sentiments exactly.
New Offside Rule Proposed
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Hate defenders? No. But the game is entertaining due to goals. Historically, pre VAR, in a "50/50" off side ball the officials were supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
This change would be about giving further advantage to the attacker. It does nothing whatsoever to change/improve the experience of VAR. It will still require the checking after the fact and the drawing of lines to identify even very marginal offsides. Those lines will just be drawn in a different place.
'But any marginal call will look clearly offside so fans will be less unhappy.' Fans of the attacking team less likely to be unhappy. Fans of the defending team more likely to be unhappy. Overall, same experience.
In terms of using VAR for offsides, there's only really one choice you have to make in your head. Either you want fluid football where once a goal is given it is given but human error is an acceptable part of the game. Or you want interrupted football where some goals may be ruled out after the fact but human error will be eliminated. There are no variants and there is no middle ground.
'But any marginal call will look clearly offside so fans will be less unhappy.' Fans of the attacking team less likely to be unhappy. Fans of the defending team more likely to be unhappy. Overall, same experience.
In terms of using VAR for offsides, there's only really one choice you have to make in your head. Either you want fluid football where once a goal is given it is given but human error is an acceptable part of the game. Or you want interrupted football where some goals may be ruled out after the fact but human error will be eliminated. There are no variants and there is no middle ground.
But that never happened. Tight calls were given offside all the time to the point they were flagged off when clearly on.
The benefit of the doubt was never given to an attacker
I remember the days when rule changes were made to benefit the game. Now they’re made to benefit VAR.
I don't really see another point in changing it. We're just starting to get used to it to be honest, I don't mind the fact of "offside is offside" as long as it's done consistently.
It's not the rule that's the problem. Scrap VAR, accept the assistant and ref's decision, right or wrong, get on with the fecking game and stop crying and whingeing about it.
Correct.
People say the rules have been changed to suit VAR but more often the problem is that they haven't considered VAR's impact when changing the rules.
Handball being a prime example. The rule that any handball in the build up to a goal would see it disallowed was developed pre-VAR. The problem is that they continued with its introduction once VAR had been introduced, apparently without thought to the difference VAR would make to its application.
Similarly this season they changed the handball rule to allow people to play the ball with their upper arm and reduce the number of goals disallowed for handball. But that has the knock-on effect of forcing VAR to use imaginary lines on the arm to judge offside, making it less accurate and more subjective.
Handball being a prime example. The rule that any handball in the build up to a goal would see it disallowed was developed pre-VAR. The problem is that they continued with its introduction once VAR had been introduced, apparently without thought to the difference VAR would make to its application.
Similarly this season they changed the handball rule to allow people to play the ball with their upper arm and reduce the number of goals disallowed for handball. But that has the knock-on effect of forcing VAR to use imaginary lines on the arm to judge offside, making it less accurate and more subjective.
Not being funny but this post can be used to support VAR as well
Except VAR is not about 'getting on with the game' is it? VAR is about stopping the game while everyone rewinds their videos, and the players and the guys in the crowd have to stand around waiting like spare pricks at a wedding.
A lot of VAR is reviewed during play though.
Edit would it not be better if you could score with arms and knees but not be offside from them? Theyre parts of the body that strikers cant take advantage from in terms of making runs and creates a buffer zone where if your torso etc is offside then its clear offside.
Last edited:
I really don't have much of an issue with the offside rule as it stands.
The line decisions are working fine with VAR - just like they do with other sports. We're only seeing goals ruled out that were offside - no matter how tight - and goals that were wrongly ruled out are now being rightly given. And that's more goals than people seem to realise - as the official is now keeping their flag down and letting VAR decide, whereas previously they'd have flagged and denied the goal - so those are bonus goals that people aren't taking into consideration and only acting like VAR is denying goals.
As regards those tight calls that people object to, saying it's not advantageous or deliberate to be just ahead. Of course it is. That's the whole point of the long established 'play on the shoulder of the last defender'. Attacking players could easily almost always be onside, by prioritising that, but by doing so they'd get to the ball less often in a foot race.
So they're usually looking to play on the shoulder of the defence - by getting as close to offside as possible - in order to get in behind the defenders and to the ball first. When they get that wrong and they're actually ahead of the defender, even by a small amount, then of course that's offside. If they're going to push the offside possibility to its max in order to get in behind the defence, then they run that risk and need to time their runs well.
For me, it's the subjective rulings for 'deliberate' handballs, red cards, etc, that are problematic and impossible to get conclusively 'correct'. The line decisions work fine with technology in all sports.
The line decisions are working fine with VAR - just like they do with other sports. We're only seeing goals ruled out that were offside - no matter how tight - and goals that were wrongly ruled out are now being rightly given. And that's more goals than people seem to realise - as the official is now keeping their flag down and letting VAR decide, whereas previously they'd have flagged and denied the goal - so those are bonus goals that people aren't taking into consideration and only acting like VAR is denying goals.
As regards those tight calls that people object to, saying it's not advantageous or deliberate to be just ahead. Of course it is. That's the whole point of the long established 'play on the shoulder of the last defender'. Attacking players could easily almost always be onside, by prioritising that, but by doing so they'd get to the ball less often in a foot race.
So they're usually looking to play on the shoulder of the defence - by getting as close to offside as possible - in order to get in behind the defenders and to the ball first. When they get that wrong and they're actually ahead of the defender, even by a small amount, then of course that's offside. If they're going to push the offside possibility to its max in order to get in behind the defence, then they run that risk and need to time their runs well.
For me, it's the subjective rulings for 'deliberate' handballs, red cards, etc, that are problematic and impossible to get conclusively 'correct'. The line decisions work fine with technology in all sports.
Maybe the problem pre-dates var. But I would like to see it implemented properly.
Just fecking do away with all visual checks.
Make every player wear a bluetooth transmitter on their chest and let technology decide that way. It'll ignore foot placement and all that nonsense context. Let computers make the calls based on hard cold data and nothing else.
Make every player wear a bluetooth transmitter on their chest and let technology decide that way. It'll ignore foot placement and all that nonsense context. Let computers make the calls based on hard cold data and nothing else.
Draw the lines basis the foot and only the foot (unless the player is lying flat on the ground). In 99% of the extremely narrow offside cases, looking at the foot (or drawing the line) would clarify the situation as well. It would make for a quicker decision and a viewer would also be able to see a discernable difference. It would also reduce the "is it really a goal or would VAR rule it out?" anxiety most of us feel as soon as a goal is scored today.
An argument against this would be that other body parts such as the head could be further offside and not be flagged using this. But we need to understand that principally, offside rule is meant for a situation that the attacker isn't loitering well ahead of the last defender. A centimeter worth of advantage, that too not from the foot, isn't what was targeted to be shut down.
I hope that in a few years, we would look back on these couple of years, and realize the inherent stupidity of drawing lines on armpits of players and then flagging them offside when you it isn't visible on repeated viewings.
An argument against this would be that other body parts such as the head could be further offside and not be flagged using this. But we need to understand that principally, offside rule is meant for a situation that the attacker isn't loitering well ahead of the last defender. A centimeter worth of advantage, that too not from the foot, isn't what was targeted to be shut down.
I hope that in a few years, we would look back on these couple of years, and realize the inherent stupidity of drawing lines on armpits of players and then flagging them offside when you it isn't visible on repeated viewings.
I don't think people here understand what Arsene is trying to propose.
Currently, the VAR checks are trying to catch and prove that players offside. You have Rashford seemingly onside when he receives the ball and goes on to score a goal. You celebrate! Only for the goal to be reviewed and be found that the tip of Rashford's pinky finger was offside. The goal is now disallowed! What a bummer. Seems stupid and unfair because surely a pinky gives no advantage whatsoever, and Rashford surely can't control his body to be that precise?
With Arsene's proposal, VAR checks are now here to prove that a player is not offside! Rashford receives a cross and it looks he is completely offside as his body is well ahead of the defender. He traps the ball and proceeds to slot it into the net. Nobody really celebrates, because everyone knows he is most likely offside here. After the VAR checks it is found that his heel is actually in line with the defender's armpit! The goal stands! Now everyone is pleasantly surprised and celebrates!
The defending team might have a moan that they are screwed by a VAR millimeter decision, but who asked you to stop playing defense when there is no whistle? You keep playing your best football until the game is stopped, so no excuses there. You have failed to stop Rashford from scoring from a perfectly legal position when you have the perfect awareness that he can score there.
Currently, the VAR checks are trying to catch and prove that players offside. You have Rashford seemingly onside when he receives the ball and goes on to score a goal. You celebrate! Only for the goal to be reviewed and be found that the tip of Rashford's pinky finger was offside. The goal is now disallowed! What a bummer. Seems stupid and unfair because surely a pinky gives no advantage whatsoever, and Rashford surely can't control his body to be that precise?
With Arsene's proposal, VAR checks are now here to prove that a player is not offside! Rashford receives a cross and it looks he is completely offside as his body is well ahead of the defender. He traps the ball and proceeds to slot it into the net. Nobody really celebrates, because everyone knows he is most likely offside here. After the VAR checks it is found that his heel is actually in line with the defender's armpit! The goal stands! Now everyone is pleasantly surprised and celebrates!
The defending team might have a moan that they are screwed by a VAR millimeter decision, but who asked you to stop playing defense when there is no whistle? You keep playing your best football until the game is stopped, so no excuses there. You have failed to stop Rashford from scoring from a perfectly legal position when you have the perfect awareness that he can score there.
This would be yet another fecking stuipd idea if it were implemented. They are slowly making the game worse and worse.
If they don't scrap VAR (They should). I think the best way to deal with offside is for the the ref to see it on the monitor, no lines (or the one straight line) and they get a pre-defined amount of views from set angles before he makes his mind up.
Best way IMO.
If they don't scrap VAR (They should). I think the best way to deal with offside is for the the ref to see it on the monitor, no lines (or the one straight line) and they get a pre-defined amount of views from set angles before he makes his mind up.
Best way IMO.
Good thing I never suggested it was a rule then.
The clear daylight for offsides has been around for 15-20 years possibly more. No idea if Fifa/Uefa ever officially trialled it.
At one point linesmen were instructed to favour the attacker if in doubt whether or not they were offside. Though I doubt many ever did.
Just heard about the porentional change to the offside rule based on Wengers idea. What a terrible suggestion. This reminds me of how American sports constantly thinker with sports to make it more viewable and “attractive” with more goals/touchdowns/3-pointers whatever. Only thing that happens is that they water down the sport making it less diverse and complex.
It sounds attractive on paper but solves nothing really. The same mm problems will exist with this rule as well. Only change is that it will make life easier for teams who like to play the Wenger way with a striker hugging the defensive line.
The football public should oppose this vehemently.
It sounds attractive on paper but solves nothing really. The same mm problems will exist with this rule as well. Only change is that it will make life easier for teams who like to play the Wenger way with a striker hugging the defensive line.
The football public should oppose this vehemently.
Change the offside to the players boot only. Solves everything . Easy to comprehend , no need for lines to check where a players jersey ends 
Advantage to attacker if there’s anything borderline.
Advantage to attacker if there’s anything borderline.It will completely break a defender's ability to accurately play offside. Will impact the game more than one might think.
What's the point of having linesmen anymore ?
Yeah, I agree that the same debates will obviously happen as players, managers, fans, the media - they all love to debate refs decisions, look for controversies or conspiracies towards clubs, look for excuses if their team lost, etc.
This ruling gives more scope to attackers so less goals will be ruled out. Which is what many have been calling for. But there'll still be as many moans and debates. Especially when a goal is ruled out for a really tight call - because the back heel is deemed to be just in front - everyone will say 'how can the smallest amount of heel make the difference between a goal or not? '
And, conversely, there'll also be loud complaints when a goal is allowed to stand when a player is entirely in front of the defenders bar the tiniest part of a heel being deemed level. Many will now grumble 'how's that not offside? How does claiming the tiniest part of his heel might be level make him onside?' And the media will play clips of very tight calls that were ruled out and ask how the tiniest part of a heel allows the latest one to be a goal, etc.
Debating officials decisions, and looking for controversy, is an intrinsic part of football that the fans enjoy and the media therefore push / manufacture, so it'll never go away. Technology should reduce it, and it does in other sports. But there's so many 50-50 / judgement calls in football that debate and controversy will always remain. And even line decisions like offsides, which can be proved conclusively, can stlll be debated by discussing if the current rules are wrong and that we should change them again, etc.
This latest tweak may slightly change the debate again, but it won't stop them (nothing will) - and it won't be long before there's calls for yet another change to 'improve' it, and then another...
What does this mean? VAR can't give 'advantage'. It calculates exactly whether the defender or the attacker is further ahead, or claims to anyway. If you introduce a 'margin of advantage' or something like that it will just be drawing the same infinitesimal lines in a different place.Change the offside to the players boot only. Solves everything . Easy to comprehend , no need for lines to check where a players jersey ends
It’s calculator has been off a few times this season.
What I mean is if their boots are level advantage is given to the forward.
It’s foolproof compared to the rubbish we have to go through pretty much every game with a line been drawn on a players arm .
Huge fan of wenger proposal. People will say it still comes down to millimetres but its still way less harsh as attacker being given advantage anyway. If you can't keep yourself on despite this advantage then absolutely tough shit
What is 'level'? Presumably it's something the machine is going to have to decide by drawing lines.
I'm honestly not trying to have a go. I agree completely that the current system is total nonsense. I'm just saying that it's the inevitable consequence of having VAR on offsides. There is no way you can get around it by trying to give advantage or whatever. If you have a system of video-based review, that entails using footage to ascertain exactly whether the player was offside or not. Which involves the drawing of ridiculous, to-the-nearest-centimetre lines.
Football tried to respond to the increasing quality of coverage with high-definition super slow-motion replays etc by matching technology with technology. 'You use video to criticise our refereeing, we will use video to make our refereeing perfect.' It was the wrong decision. You are never going to be able to escape the subjectivity of officiating football matches, only displace it and in the process slow everything down. They should have leant in the other direction, the 'rugby' direction, of 'forget objectivity, what the referee says goes.' Offer technological tools to the referee if he wants them - goal-line technology, for example, is an obvious win which has worked really well. Otherwise, simply respond to criticism based on after-the-fact replays etc with the brick wall line of 'what the referee says goes, deal with it.'
The rule should be that as long as any part of the leg or foot is in line with the defender then its Onside.
Hands and body dont influence the decision.
Hands and body dont influence the decision.
Just remove the bloody offside rule already, its archaic.
Tactics will adjust
Tactics will adjust
This was a good read. Small rule change but with it comes significant tactical implications.
Giroud could win the Ballon D'or if that happened.
Why is this bumped? Don't tell me it's getting traction?
They can't be that stupid.
The easiest fix is attackers most forward foot against defenders furthest back foot (bear in mind the defender plays the opposite direction). Simple, easy understood, easy to see, easy easy easy.
They can't be that stupid.
The easiest fix is attackers most forward foot against defenders furthest back foot (bear in mind the defender plays the opposite direction). Simple, easy understood, easy to see, easy easy easy.
Just make the attackers line wider by 50% and then anything that sticks out past this is offside, simples and gives the benefit of doubt to the attacker and no dispute
It's there for a reason. Attackers would just park in the six yard box, causing defenders to do the same. Games would be played almost entirely in the 18 yard boxes of each team eliminating buildup from midfield. Worst suggestion in this thread to date.
I seen one proposed which would only work with leagues with VAR whereas if the goal is reviewed and is ridiculously close, the goal would only be disallowed if the player scored with the body part which is deemed offside.
Therefore, if the players nipple was slightly offside and he scored with his foot which was inside, the goal would stand. However if it deflected in off said nipple, goal disallowed.
It was obviously explained a lot better however it sounded a lot easier to follow than the current rule and Wenger’s idiotic proposal.Although it should be easier, the current referees would no doubt manage to mess it up anyway.
Therefore, if the players nipple was slightly offside and he scored with his foot which was inside, the goal would stand. However if it deflected in off said nipple, goal disallowed.
It was obviously explained a lot better however it sounded a lot easier to follow than the current rule and Wenger’s idiotic proposal.Although it should be easier, the current referees would no doubt manage to mess it up anyway.
This will be abused to another level by the offensive team. I can forsee teams will have their strikers stand in an offside position and spam long balls while the strikers test the trap by leaving a trailing arm or leg out. Teams will be terrified of playing the offside trap and defend deeper.
Just an all round bad idea.
Just an all round bad idea.
FIFA can’t change the offside law
I find this so pointless. Makes it more complicated but changes nothing to improve the game.
There is always going to be a point the line needs to be drawn from. There will always be a millimetre either side of the line which is either onside or offside. It’s the same regardless of where you draw it from.
The only thing that changes is this actually makes it slightly more advantageous for tall strikers like Haaland who have a bigger taller frame. They just need some part of their foot onside and the rest of their body is onside. Their reach is naturally higher than any player shorter than them.
Are people against this just because any change is bad? Football could do with more goals.