New Offside Rule Proposed

[Lynty]

The thing is, the only thing i hear from the people who don't like how offside rule is currently implemented in conjunction with VAR, is not that they're getting the decisions wrong, but they think that millimetres shouldn't matter. So they acknowledge that it's offside, but they want the goal given anyway. I mean, he's either offside who he isn't. Does it matter if it's millimetre or and foot. He's off.

I've seen goals given by goal line technology where you can't even see with the human eye if the ball is over the line the margin is that small. Should the goal be given then. Do we need to change the rules so there has to be 2 millimetre's of the ball over the line. I get that it's different due to goal line technology being triggered by sensors so there's absolutely no errors. If we could get something like that for offsides that would be great.

Goal line tech: Two objects, ball and line. The line is fixed, the ball is either in or out

Offside VAR: There are four moving objects, all heading in slightly different directions: two attackers, one defender and the ball.

As shown on the frame I posted above, we can't even accurately say when the ball is kicked with absolute exactness - it's over a series of frames.

 

[BusbyMalone]

Who cares. That’s not what the rule is for.

We’ve picked it up and ran away with it into a place of ridiculous exactness.

I mean, there's a huge advantage if the part of his body that he can score with is clearly offside. As for the bolded part, if that's true then i have no idea what the offside rule is anymore

 

[cyberman]

I'm sorry but I call bull on that.

Pre-VAR this would have been an incredibly lucky spot by the linesman and i've not seen linesman make tighter calls this season. Remove the lines and i'd argue its way too tight to call with the human eye at real speed.

VAR has distorted our view of the offside rule, what it was intended for and how it was meant to be enforced. A new rule is 100% required given the new technology.

Thats not the frame rates that they use. Thats the rates that Sky can only show us

 

[BusbyMalone]

Goal line tech: Two objects, ball and line. The line is fixed, the ball is either in or out

Offside VAR: There are four moving objects, all heading in slightly different directions: two attackers, one defender and the ball.

As shown on the frame I posted above, we can't even accurately say when the ball is kicked with absolute exactness - it's over a series of frames.

As i said, it's not perfect comparison. But if we could get something like that for offside that would be great. But would people still like the fact that it could accurately call an offside even if it was millimetres.

 

[sullydnl]

I'm sorry but I call bull on that.

Pre-VAR this would have been an incredibly lucky spot by the linesman and i've not seen linesman make tighter calls this season. Remove the lines and i'd argue its way too tight to call with the human eye at real speed.

VAR has distorted our view of the offside rule, what it was intended for and how it was meant to be enforced. A new rule is 100% required given the new technology.

Here's just one example of a tighter offside call by a linesman this season:



The only difference VAR made in that Firmino offside was backing up the linesman's call. Pre-VAR the exact same decision would have been made, just with less clarity as to whether the linesman was correct. Yet despite having zero effect on the outcome, people still used that Firmino offside to criticise VAR because that's the new narrative around offsides.

VAR didn't invent narrow offside calls, or attackers being punished by them. Tight calls were still being made pre-VAR, just with less accuracy and less fan awareness. There was also less of a safeguard against linesmen incorrectly punishing attackers on those sort of calls, which require quite a deal of luck to get right.

 

[BusbyMalone]

Was just reading an interesting article on how offsides have been decreasing over the last couple of seasons, to where they're now a relatively small part of the game. A rule like the one Wenger is proposing could actually have a detrimental impact on the rest if the game.

 

[Shaw Mee Tah Mané]

Best idea: If VAR can't decide it's an offside within X seconds (Let's say 10?) then let refs decision stand.

This will prevent those damn armpit millimeter rulings, because they often take a long time.

 

[Lynty]

Thats not the frame rates that they use. Thats the rates that Sky can only show us

I did think as much, unfortunately that didn't help my argument

As i said, it's not perfect comparison. But if we could get something like that for offside that would be great. But would people still like the fact that it could accurately call an offside even if it was millimetres.

Personally I still wouldn't like millimeters being called.

I don't propose a change to VAR, I'm quite happy with the tech. I propose a change to the rule, to benefit the spirit of the game. You shouldn't be penalised for anticipating a cross by 5mm's. It's not like Giroud started in a clear advantageous position, which the rule is designed to prevent (goal hanging).

Here's just one example of a tighter offside call by a linesman this season:



The only difference VAR made in that Firmino offside was backing up the linesman's call. Pre-VAR the exact same decision would have been made, just with less clarity as to whether the linesman was correct. Yet despite having zero effect on the outcome, people still used that Firmino offside to criticise VAR because that's the new narrative around offsides.

VAR didn't invent narrow offside calls, or attackers being punished by them. Tight calls were still being made pre-VAR, just with less accuracy and less fan awareness. There was also less of a safeguard against linesmen incorrectly punishing attackers on those sort of calls, which require quite a deal of luck to get right.

Ridiculous call.

 

[Berbaclass]

I agree with Rafa on this one

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Not sure how that will prevent decisions about millimeters

Simple....because now we will be saying he was onside by a toe rather than he was offside by a toe

 

[Dancfc]

Should have been this way in the first place.

 

[redshaw]

Could be a 2 yard advantage for Haaland with his stride.

I like the idea of allowing a bit more leeway but the last part of your boot inline with a defender is perhaps too much.

I feel if most of your body is inline with a defender you're holding your inline with that player and you'll be fractions off and fractions on at any given moment while you're judging your position, you're essentially keeping yourself inline best you can.

As always the problem comes with where do you draw the line, with technology you can get it more accurate but it's not enough to evaluate yet if say 75% of your body is inline for example.

Any part of your ball playing body being a fraction offside seems harsh, like Mata's kneecap last year while his body and feet are in line and having the tip of your boot from your trailing leg just inline with the defender seems too much in favour of the attacker and a real issue and unfair for defenders and pushing for a high line. Could even have defenders retreating too much.

I like the idea of a daylight rule with your torso if that can be applied, gives a bit more room but still it's down to fractions in that spot.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

VAR is supposed to get rid of clear and obvious errors. If that's the case then get rid of the line in measuring offside. If a toenail is offside then it isn't a clear and obvious error. It's an error that needed technology to get right. So if you can't tell whether it not it's offside with the naked eye then let the goal stand

 

[Nick7]

But the tech takes camera angle into account. Before this we had Spurs score a goal in the FA cup against Chelsea which wwas given as on only for Chelsea to have an angle of their own which showed he was off.
Eyeballing brings us back to that

Why not make all those viewing angles available? There has to be a solution in there somewhere.

 

[Nick7]

Should have been this way in the first place.

I can't fathom why anyone would want this. The current rule gives no advantage to either the defence or attack. Wenger's proposed rule gives a HUGE advantage to attackers.

 

[Green_Red]

The impact that would have on the game is massive. Makes defending a lot harder and makes it almost impossible for a linesman to call offsides.

Wenger is saying that a players heel could me a millimetre onside and the player would be onside. Would never work, but at least he is proposing solutions. I'd rather listen to one person proposing a solution than a 1000 dickheads all pointing out the problem.

 

[giorno]

It would radically change the game. No offside traps anymore and teams defending deeper. It will bring football back to the 80s/90s

 

[cian68]

Seeing people, including professional Sky broadcasters, banging on about how the game was better with the daylight rule. Did such a rule ever exist?

 

[limerickcitykid]

Seeing people, including professional Sky broadcasters, banging on about how the game was better with the daylight rule. Did such a rule ever exist?

No it didn’t.

 

[sullydnl]

VAR is supposed to get rid of clear and obvious errors. If that's the case then get rid of the line in measuring offside. If a toenail is offside then it isn't a clear and obvious error. It's an error that needed technology to get right. So if you can't tell whether it not it's offside with the naked eye then let the goal stand

This has been tried. The problems were:

1) It's much harder for VAR to call correctly as so much then depends on the camera angle, so you get more wrong and inaccurate decisions.

2) Clubs release their own camera angles contradicting the VAR decision, prompting complaints and criticism from fans.

3) Broadcasters use their own lines (which won't be as accurate as the official ones) to highlight VAR "errors", prompting complaints and criticism from fans.

As with most of the solutions being proposed, it swaps one set of problems and complaints for another. Which is fine if you can settle on which problems you prefer but I suspect most can't.

 

[arthurka]

Well the rule of football is that any game should be played by the same rules.
So any amateur league should be capable of playing the same game as the big pro leagues.
We need to wind this back a bit, just go with the daylight rule it is far easier to ref and will make the work of the VAR refs pretty quick and easy.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

This has been tried. The problems were:

1) It's much harder for VAR to call correctly as so much then depends on the camera angle, so you get more wrong and inaccurate decisions.

2) Clubs release their own camera angles contradicting the VAR decision, prompting complaints and criticism from fans.

3) Broadcasters use their own lines (which won't be as accurate as the official ones) to highlight VAR "errors", prompting complaints and criticism from fans.

As with most of the solutions being proposed, it swaps one set of problems and complaints for another. Which is fine if you can settle on which problems you prefer but I suspect most can't.

I don't need it to be exact. Technically a toe nail is offside but for me, if you can't see it without the lines then I say let it stand because of it can't be seen with the naked eye then it is not a clear and obvious error. Clear and obvious errors can be seen with the naked eye...

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

A random thought - under the current rules, is a player deemed offside if their hair only is offside? If not, how does VAR decide where the actual head begins for footballers such as Fellaini?

 

[Bebestation]

This is what I thought too.

Initially it was as long as any part of the attacker is in line with the defender but it seemed unfair if the attackers finger was in line with the defender.

However if his head and chest and legs or any part of that is in line with the defender - then that should be a goal.

Would be a good new boost to the game in my opinion. More goals with a new defensive tactic better than the offside trap to be utelised to get the better of it.

 

[Dante]

The solution is easy.

Make every player wear one of those sports bra tracker thingies during matches.

Rather than trying to eyeball who's ahead of the other on an offside call, let technology do the work for you. Then once the decision has been made, put a birds-eye view image up on the big screen to appease the fans. Maybe something that looks like a Sensible Soccer screenshot.

It'll also get rid of all those close calls where a toe or a shoulder makes a mockery of the spirit of the law.

GPS wouldn't be accurate enough, but some kind of triangulated radio signal would work fine. Bluetooth 5.1 can measure to the nearest centimetre.

 

[Withnail]

Thats not the frame rates that they use. Thats the rates that Sky can only show us

Does anyone know if VAR have access to a higher frame rate?

This whole margin of error thing is based on that Jonathan Wilson tweet and he was basing his rudimentary calculations on Sky HDs 50 Frames per second.

Either way I think the Wenger suggestion should make things fairer but has he gone a bit too far the other way?

My thoughts are that it's not in the spirit of the off-side rule to disallow goals due to a toe nail of the attacker being ahead of the defender.

However, will Wenger's rule just mean goals will now be given because said toenail is in line with a part of the defenders body leading to more wailing and gnashing of teeth?

 

[James Ward]

I think if the two feet are onside and its only a shoulder, arm or head that's offside then it should be allowed.

It should be dictated by both feet in my opinion. A bit ridiculous if its just an arm thats offside.

 

[Dancfc]

I can't fathom why anyone would want this. The current rule gives no advantage to either the defence or attack. Wenger's proposed rule gives a HUGE advantage to attackers.

If I had it completely my own way I wouldn't make a fuss over marginal offsides anyway, the whole context of offside in the first place was to prevent goal hanging, these fecking about over millimetres is just too much, and I say that as a fan of a team who would have got knocked out of the CL without the millimetre offside thing in play.

I've watched Chelsea games from previous years on and off this season and at (deliberate) closer inspection some goals we have conceded (some vital) have had the tiniest part of a body offside, did I notice at the time? No, Do I even care in hindsight? No.

However they won't be scraping scrutinizing these offsides so the next best thing will be to only give it if you can draw a clear line between last defender and attacker, a strikers getting a hard on that's snuck marginally offside? Who cares?

 

[bleedred]

So to accomodate VAR we have already changed the handball rule and now messing with offside rule.

 

[sullydnl]

@Withnail

There are conflicting reports on what cameras VAR have available. That maths is based on 50fps cameras, which is what broadcasters use. Although VAR certainly have access to better cameras than the broadcasters do, some sources have said that the offside decisions in particular are still based on 50fps cameras.

Hawkeye use much higher frame rate cameras elsewhere (340fps+ cameras in cricket, tennis and their goal-line tech) so I have no idea why they'd have to be so limited when it comes to offsides, unless there's some weird technical issue we're unaware of.

 

[dal]

I think we should make the game more attacking.

You can’t be offside from a ball played in the opponents half.

 

[sullydnl]

So to accomodate VAR we have already changed the handball rule and now messing with offside rule.

Nope.



For a further example, Neymar's handball in the CL final.

Spoiler

IFAB technical director David Elleray told Press Association Sport: “This is a case where the law is catching up with what football expects to happen.
“When Neymar’s goal in the 2015 Champions League final was disallowed because he headed the ball on to his arm, everyone agreed that that was the right decision.
“Everybody that is apart from about 100 referees, who were correct in claiming the goal should not have been ruled out because it was accidental handball.
“The previous ruling said handball was a deliberate action and the law has been rewritten to reflect what is already happening in football.”

 

[reddevil702]

You'd still have the endless debating and interpretation by VAR. Just looking at the example with the Kane picture, it's hard to tell if he is onside or not under the proposed rule. If there's going to be a change it should be to clear and obvious. If it's down to mm then it's not a significant enough advantage to call off the goal, let these type of goals stand and move on.

 

[Godfather]

Simple....because now we will be saying he was onside by a toe rather than he was offside by a toe

It's a bit ridiculous. With that rule offside decisions could be overruled because the heel of one foot was in line with the last defender?

 

[cyberman]

@Withnail

There are conflicting reports on what cameras VAR have available. That maths is based on 50fps cameras, which is what broadcasters use. Although VAR certainly have access to better cameras than the broadcasters do, some sources have said that the offside decisions in particular are still based on 50fps cameras.

Hawkeye use much higher frame rate cameras elsewhere (340fps+ cameras in cricket, tennis and their goal-line tech) so I have no idea why they'd have to be so limited when it comes to offsides, unless there's some weird technical issue we're unaware of.

Theres a discussion here


Apparently the only sources for 50 frame rate are the Mail who just made a shit load of assumptions

 

[laughtersassassin]

That new proposed rule will still involve the same margins and make it way too hard for defensive teams.

It's hard to be a whole man ahead of the defender.

 

[Eckers99]

Massive advantage for footballers with leprosy.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

I might be in the minority but I like the rule as it is for offside. It’s incredibly clear any part of your body ahead of the defender you’re off. Nice and simple and less likely to result in erroneous dissallowances/allowances.

It’s the actual process of VAR that just needs speeding up or improving not the rule. Keep the stadiums informed. Show them the replays and encourage refs to look at the monitor when appropriate.

 

[sullydnl]

Theres a discussion here


Apparently the only sources for 50 frame rate are the Mail who just made a shit load of assumptions

Wilson said on twitter that he had confirmed those were the cameras they used, though who he confirmed it with I have no idea.

It would be weird if they were that limited though so I'm inclined to think he got it wrong.

 

[Water Melon]

They should just do what Michael Oliver has been doing his entire career and give the decision in favour of the team he thinks the TV audience would prefer.