|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Sun 5 Jul 14:24
Is it time for a change to the Offside Rule?
With the introduction of VAR into the footballing world and the measurement for Offside sometimes splitting the width of a hair at the precise moment the ball is struck.
In some cases you can clearly see that the attacking players upper torso leaning forward in attack mode whilst his feet are firmly behind the Offside split line of the defensive player and this prompted my question, "Is this fair"?
Align that with the controversy surrounding the disallowed Iranian goal against Egypt - Should the goalkeepers positioning be relevant?
Can this somehow be simplified to protect the sanctity of the game?
To get away from the marginal calls with examples of, "part of your big toe one millimetre offside" to be replaced with an "entire foot"?
Additionally, it could be left to each team to appeal for VAR and in similarity to tennis be restricted to a specific number of appeals per game which can be restored if succesfull.
It will no doubtedly be a sensitive subject but worthy of debate and discussion 🙏
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: purekozma
Date: Sun 5 Jul 14:38
I had similar thoughts on the precise offsides, for me the game should always lean towards forwards and goals as that is the main entertainment factor and seems overly harsh on the really close decisions beyond human eye and those that are not exploiting the offside rule. Controversial subject off course.
Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 14:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sun 5 Jul 15:46
Offside is a factual decision though, it’s not subject to interpretation - you’re either offside or onside. Doesn’t matter if it’s a yard a toenail.
Whats needed is technology to advance to a stage where decisions are made within a few seconds and not minutes, which I think at the top level they are getting much closer to.
Can only think of 2/3 times at the World Cup where its taken extremely long to determined and one of those was the “snicko” moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BlackLight
Date: Sun 5 Jul 15:47
Just switch the emphasis.
If any part of the attacker is in line with the defender then they are onside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: USMac
Date: Sun 5 Jul 15:48
Why are we worrying about parts of the body that can play the ball being offside? The analysis really should be limited to the feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Sun 5 Jul 15:48
Arsene Wenger is, I believe, trying to change the ruling so the the whole body must be offside. There will be as many tight calls no doubt but having a goal chalked off for being a bawhair offside feels harsh, a body and a bawhair much less so.
It is no longer enough for a striker to look along the line to ensure he is level. “ level “ no longer exists as VAR will detect if the player is a millimetre either side of the line.
Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 15:53)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 5 Jul 16:16
Davie Dodds would have had a nightmare with VAR technology
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JnrB
Date: Sun 5 Jul 17:49
Doesn’t matter what they do there will always be a cut off point. There’s no problem with the current offside law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Livingston Par
Date: Sun 5 Jul 17:54
Would Davie Dodds have broken the camera?
Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 17:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Leamington_sPAR
Date: Sun 5 Jul 18:09
I don’t see the logic of using any part of the body when its your feet that moves the body forward. Front of the forward foot should be the only criteria used for adjudication. Make the damn criteria simple, let’s not complicate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pars4life1
Date: Sun 5 Jul 19:34
A lot of people seem to forget that the very existence of the offside rule is to make the game more attacking, letting attackers get away with being a full body width or ahead with their body(say so they can header the ball in) will only encourage defenders to sit ever deeper to try cover off the advantage the proposed law changes. Is that what those proposing the law change want? Doubt it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Sun 5 Jul 19:37
Quote:
BlackLight, Sun 5 Jul 15:47
Just switch the emphasis.
If any part of the attacker is in line with the defender then they are onside.
^^^ This
Dave1885 does have a point, the facts remain that any part (hair folicle or not) that is offside is factually offside as per rules but with the introduction of VAR it has become a tad controversial.
How accurate is the pin-pointing of when the ball is struck versus the attacker making his move.
I do like Blacklights input into shifting emphasis and perhaps measuring either the feet only OR any part of the attacker in-line with the defender = Not Offside
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsdaft21346327964
Date: Mon 6 Jul 09:55
To be fair tho no matter how you change the law unless you just scrap offsides completely which would be the worst decision you have to draw a line somewhere so no matter what there will be minuscule decisions always made like even the daylight option when does daylight start well that would be 0.00…..1mm after the player so that would always need checked there not an answer that will ever answer it all that will happen is new technology will come in to make it more accurate and quicker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 6 Jul 13:59
The basic principle of the offside law was introduced way back in Victorian times to stop opportunists, popularly known as "poachers", from hanging around opponents goal areas in order to circumvent build up team play - in essence the original route one approach.
Of course, over the following decades it was refined and developed into what became the recognised standards right up until FIFA rightly had to clarify imprecise guidelines moving forward in the 21st century.
They have since (in my opinion) constructed prescriptive criteria which make offside calls using levels of scientific measurements that require minute engineering tolerance standards.
That`s appropriate for horse races or top level athletics photo finishes - but is it the way forward for football ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Mon 6 Jul 16:15
Struggle with the application of the rules, used. Any small part of the body, nose bumps etc makes it offside.
I would make it the furthest foot forward at the point of kicking, on the ground
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Tue 7 Jul 08:54
Moving the line to the other side of the foot or other side of the player is just moving the line. You`ll still have bawhair decisions.
Margin of error is the only way to avoid that, imo.
Linesman makes the decision and it is only overturned if it`s out by a specific margin (something based on typical human error, bigger than a bawhair).
Brings back the human element.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Geordiepar
Date: Tue 7 Jul 09:40
Put a sensor in the heel of the football boots and use that to automatically determine offsides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsdaft21346327964
Date: Tue 7 Jul 09:44
Fcda all that would do is then move the line so you’ll have calls that are a bawhair either side of the margin of error the thing about absolutes are it’s either right or wrong there’s no grey area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Tue 7 Jul 10:50
We should just ask Trump 😡
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Tue 7 Jul 12:05
Quote:
DunfyDave, Tue 7 Jul 10:50
We should just ask Trump 😡
God is infallible, but Trump is better than that. I am sure he believes it.
I genuinely wonder what actually goes on in his world. Suppose it is like the mind or a serial killer. People want to try to understand it, but never want to go near it as it is too frightening to even think about. This would be normal for Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 7 Jul 12:19
Quote:
parsmad68, Tue 7 Jul 12:05
Quote:
DunfyDave, Tue 7 Jul 10:50
We should just ask Trump 😡
God is infallible, but Trump is better than that. I am sure he believes it.
I genuinely wonder what actually goes on in his world. Suppose it is like the mind or a serial killer. People want to try to understand it, but never want to go near it as it is too frightening to even think about. This would be normal for Trump.
What Trump has is relatively well researched and understood. It`s malignant narcissism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: arpar
Date: Wed 8 Jul 21:10
I would change it to the whole player being offside as it would more align with the benefit of the doubt approach used previously. You would still have tight calls, but would look more offside than players having bigger feet or leaning offside.
One other thing which would be simple to implement is to remove the Goal Keeper from the law. Just one Defender and irrelevant where the Goal Keeper is positioned. Really doesn`t make sense to factor them into an offside call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pars4life1
Date: Wed 8 Jul 21:17
The goalkeeper has the best ability to prevent a goal, of course their positioning is very important in offside calls.
The `attackers should get benefit` argument is complete bullshit, anyone making it can be quickly dismissed. The entire point of the game is the battle between attack and defence, neither side should get an advantage and allowing attackers to be several feet ahead of defenders but dragging their back foot is utter insanity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 8 Jul 21:47
Quote:
arpar, Wed 8 Jul 21:10
I would change it to the whole player being offside as it would more align with the benefit of the doubt approach used previously. You would still have tight calls, but would look more offside than players having bigger feet or leaning offside.
One other thing which would be simple to implement is to remove the Goal Keeper from the law. Just one Defender and irrelevant where the Goal Keeper is positioned. Really doesn`t make sense to factor them into an offside call.
The goalkeeper is not referenced or specifically “ factored into
“ the existing offside laws.
Post Edited (Wed 08 Jul 21:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: arpar
Date: Wed 8 Jul 22:45
Quote:
veteraneastender, Wed 8 Jul 21:47
Quote:
arpar, Wed 8 Jul 21:10
I would change it to the whole player being offside as it would more align with the benefit of the doubt approach used previously. You would still have tight calls, but would look more offside than players having bigger feet or leaning offside.
One other thing which would be simple to implement is to remove the Goal Keeper from the law. Just one Defender and irrelevant where the Goal Keeper is positioned. Really doesn`t make sense to factor them into an offside call.
The goalkeeper is not referenced or specifically “ factored into
“ the existing offside laws.
Exactly. That`s what I would change. 2 opposition players, to 1 opposition outfield player. 99% of decisions would not be impacted and where no VAR is present, it`s very difficult for an assistant to monitor 2 players in the 1% of cases that the GK comes into play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: arpar
Date: Wed 8 Jul 22:48
Quote:
pars4life1, Wed 8 Jul 21:17
The goalkeeper has the best ability to prevent a goal, of course their positioning is very important in offside calls.
The `attackers should get benefit` argument is complete bullshit, anyone making it can be quickly dismissed. The entire point of the game is the battle between attack and defence, neither side should get an advantage and allowing attackers to be several feet ahead of defenders but dragging their back foot is utter insanity
Why should the GK be able to abandon their goal to play someone offside? I also think it`s bullshit that someone can lean offside with their shoulder or be offside because they have bigger feet than a defender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 9 Jul 12:39
"Exactly. That`s what I would change. 2 opposition players, to 1 opposition outfield player. 99% of decisions would not be impacted and where no VAR is present, it`s very difficult for an assistant to monitor 2 players in the 1% of cases that the GK comes into play."
I`m not following the reasoning here - in practice the vast majority of offside scenarios always involve a minimum of 1 OUTFIELD opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsdaft21346327964
Date: Thu 9 Jul 13:02
I don’t think people understand that football is played to the laws that are given take example when there was no offsides it’s not like everyone just let a striker just sit in oppositions box unmarked you change the rule then all that happens is players change the way they defend and the line still gets drawn and it goes down to millimetres of a decision
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 9 Jul 13:36
That`s exactly why the offside rule was introduced in 1863 - but was way too restrictive on attacking play and had to revised a couple or so years later - that prescribed a minimum of 3 defenders involved.
That was again tweaked in the 1920s to 2 defenders.
In the 1970s the short lived Dryborough Cup introduced a line 30 yards from the goal line with offside only within that area - in practice it turned out to be a invitation to fast movers like Bobby Lennox to move to a more forward threatening position.
It was soon binned.
Post Edited (Thu 09 Jul 13:37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: arpar
Date: Thu 9 Jul 16:11
Quote:
veteraneastender, Thu 9 Jul 12:39
"Exactly. That`s what I would change. 2 opposition players, to 1 opposition outfield player. 99% of decisions would not be impacted and where no VAR is present, it`s very difficult for an assistant to monitor 2 players in the 1% of cases that the GK comes into play."
I`m not following the reasoning here - in practice the vast majority of offside scenarios always involve a minimum of 1 OUTFIELD opponent.
All I`m saying is disregard the GK for offside decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 9 Jul 16:26
That won`t eliminate the potential for close scrutiny VAR issues where a "last defender" outfield player is involved in the judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Thu 9 Jul 17:40
If the Keeper moves above the attacker, as in the Iran game, then there must be 2 defenders behind the attacker to play them On-Side.
This should be eliminated from the rule book and it should be between one defender v one attacker.
I think the emphasis should be shifted away from penalising the attacker and moved onto the defender.
If any part of the attacker`s body is in line with the defenders then he should be played On-Side.
This will make the defender more wary of quick runs from an attacker whilst promoting more potential goals
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
