If you think about what the actual point of the offside rule is, then yeh it's better this new way. An attacker isn't gaining an unfair advantage if their toe or shoulder is a couple millimeters ahead of a defender.
New Rules
- Thread starter trevor newnham
- Start date
If you think about what the actual point of the offside rule is, then yeh it's better this new way. An attacker isn't gaining an unfair advantage if their toe or shoulder is a couple millimeters ahead of a defender.
That's fair enough.
Yeah I think they will need to do any change to full stop clock in incremental measures, so this seems a good way to start it. Not sure I understand where the concerns about ads come from. American sports can do it because it is very stop start, going to benches for timeouts, switch offensive and defensive teams over, etc. you couldn't do an ad-break before a free kick because you can't guarantee how long until the free kick is taken and if they started manipulating that to fit ads then that completely disregards the stated reasoning - cutting down on time wasting....but maybe I am being naive.
That's a lot of valid points.
Defending definitely isn't 'hard enough as it is'. It's much harder to score than it is to defend. Just look at all the minnows in international football. Any improvements they make is generally in making themselves more solid and tougher to score against and keeping scores down to a more respectable level. But how many actually score many goals? That's by far the hardest part of the game, and the part they pretty much all struggle to improve.
And new managers pretty much always come in to struggling teams and, first and foremost, look to start from the defence first - making themselves tougher score against and more solid. Before looking to be more adventurous and attacking. The reason? It's the easiest part of the game to get sorted out. Attacking, by far the hardest. Hence why elite attacking players are the most expensive and sought after.
I've always been very wary of the first one of these. Firstly, it doesnt get rid of tiresome, micro-offside decisions, it just changes where the line gets drawn.
However I suspect it will also have an unintended consequence. If it works, it means that in every potential offside situation, the attacker has a full yard start on the defender. At the moment, they're being asked to cover the same ground, but with this rule change, the defender now literally has further to run than the attacker. I think that fundamentally changes the value of high lines and maybe even makes them untenable for many teams, especially mid-table teams and below that can't afford lightning quick centre backs.
I think this rewards teams that sit back, defend deep and try and hit teams on the counter even more than the current rule. Not that I have some moral high horse about teams that do that, but I think its the opposite of what is intended here.
However I suspect it will also have an unintended consequence. If it works, it means that in every potential offside situation, the attacker has a full yard start on the defender. At the moment, they're being asked to cover the same ground, but with this rule change, the defender now literally has further to run than the attacker. I think that fundamentally changes the value of high lines and maybe even makes them untenable for many teams, especially mid-table teams and below that can't afford lightning quick centre backs.
I think this rewards teams that sit back, defend deep and try and hit teams on the counter even more than the current rule. Not that I have some moral high horse about teams that do that, but I think its the opposite of what is intended here.
Defending has already been made harder by daft handball rules and pretty much any mis-timed slide tackle being a booking.
With that offside rule you're basically asking defenders to re-learn how to defend. It's too big a change in my opinion. A better idea would be for offside to be based on feet... I don't think it really matters if an attackers head/shoulder/arse is ahead of the last man.
With that offside rule you're basically asking defenders to re-learn how to defend. It's too big a change in my opinion. A better idea would be for offside to be based on feet... I don't think it really matters if an attackers head/shoulder/arse is ahead of the last man.
I feel like I am going mad. No matter what you base the offside decision on, you will always be measuring something. It doesn't matter if you say the attacker can be 5m past the last defender, there will be times he is 5.1m past him and you will still have people whinging about marginal offsides. The system is fine as it is. Attackers are already faster in general than defenders. They already have an advantage.
Even ignoring the fact there will still be very very marginal offsides, its just going to encourage teams not to play a high line because any remotely respectable attacker will find it so easy to be onside now. You are potentially given them 1m+ headstart. Thats absolutely unassailable for most defenders. There will be more red cards for last man tackles and there will be more goals until teams decide to just not defend high and we will get more boring games.
Even ignoring the fact there will still be very very marginal offsides, its just going to encourage teams not to play a high line because any remotely respectable attacker will find it so easy to be onside now. You are potentially given them 1m+ headstart. Thats absolutely unassailable for most defenders. There will be more red cards for last man tackles and there will be more goals until teams decide to just not defend high and we will get more boring games.
You're right that the whinging about offsides and tight margins won't change. But you're wrong that it's only since var was introduced. Why do you think technology was finally introduced? Because of all the whinging from managers, fans, media about all the wrong calls being made by officials and how 'technology can see that, and works in other sports, so it's mad that it's not used in the richest sport', etc.
The whinging will always go on. People seem to enjoy doing it, and the media certainly love to fuel it as it helps keep up interest and debate long after the games have finished.
This new rule wouldn't change that, as you say. And I don't think it would be getting introduced if it did as I think the sport knows full well that keeping the rules quite subjective helps fuel the kind of controversy and debate that actually plays a huge part of the package - especially in the media. I'm sure many would find it a lot more dull and less dramatic if much of the controversy and debate was removed.
I'd say the handball rules are weighted more in favour of the defending sides.
When it hits a defenders arm, it still remains that it has to be either intentional or the arm in an unnatural positional (subjectively!)
Whereas any contact of the arm with the ball by an attacking side is ruled handball and the goal disallowed - even if it's hammered against them from a yard away and is 100% accidental and the arm in a natural position. Which is wrong in my view. They should have just kept it as intentional for both, rather than have it so a goal can be ruled out for the kind of thing that would no way lead to a penalty the other way round.
Last edited:
Are you new around here? That's not how the caf works mate. We need to vehemently disagree to the point we both end up making ridiculous extreme points and tie ourselves to a particular "side" for the rest of our lives.
You're bring naive.
In principle, NHL is also constantly in motion. Sure, there are lots of face-offs, but they can start within seconds after the ref has blown the whistle. But the TV contract stipulates that there will be an ad break at the first interruption after minute x each period (I forgot the moment: maybe it's halfway through or maybe it's actually more than one ad break). It could be the same in football: after 15 and 30 min each half, the next interruption (free kick, throw-in - whatever) gets an ad break.
Wildly annoying, but easy to implement once you got a stop clock. Although - there's not really anything stopping football from doing that now. Ref blows, clock stops, ads come. Same idea.
I'm edgy like that. I'm so contrarian I have the gall to agree with people online.
Offside was brought in to stop unfair advantages, correct?
If so, who really cares about someone who is offside by a tiny fraction? There's no advantage if someone has their foot slightly in front of a defender.
If so, who really cares about someone who is offside by a tiny fraction? There's no advantage if someone has their foot slightly in front of a defender.
I get what you're saying - but that sort of incident is almost always totally accidental - as in it's not even something the striker is even thinking about, it usually just hits their hand by total fluke.
Where as defenders constantly have to be aware of where there arms are when closing people down/blocking shots/jumping for headers. As soon as they're in the box they have to always make sure their hands are in "natural positions" ... and even when they are in natural positions they still might be seen as handball!
The latter would happen without question, but it would also mean that players who are creative and good passers become more valuable
The ad thing, as far as I know, is essentially a North American thing, rugby has a stop clock and in matches I've seen there's never been an ad break, cricket has a natural break after every over yet they don't show ads every time, I don't see football going down that route myselfYou're bring naive.
In principle, NHL is also constantly in motion. Sure, there are lots of face-offs, but they can start within seconds after the ref has blown the whistle. But the TV contract stipulates that there will be an ad break at the first interruption after minute x each period (I forgot the moment: maybe it's halfway through or maybe it's actually more than one ad break). It could be the same in football: after 15 and 30 min each half, the next interruption (free kick, throw-in - whatever) gets an ad break.
Wildly annoying, but easy to implement once you got a stop clock. Although - there's not really anything stopping football from doing that now. Ref blows, clock stops, ads come. Same idea.
Too much fan opposition possibly. Like with that super league idea.
You only paid for the five minute argument, if you want to carry on you need to pay for another five minutes
Your point is valid in regard to the super close ones. But I also still think the proposed rule is far better as I don't think there are that many I've seen that VAR has looked at where the player would have been more than a few millimeters ahead of the defender. I think also, perception wise, it is easier to accept a contentious decision where you can see that the player is between 99% and 100% past the player, than whether the player is 0-1% past the player - if that makes sense?
I don’t get the issue with the millimetre thing regarding offside decisions at all. Surely we all do understand that we do need a clear rule that defines when someone is offside. That’s transparency and fair to everyone involved. So of course it should be offside if someone is offside by a millimetre. How else would we do it? If a millimetre is too small and we chose a different amount of space, the situation would be the same as before. We’d have to measure if a player is only offside by two centimetres. Or ten. Or whatever number we choose.
I really don’t see the issue, with the rule as it is. At least not from this perspective.
I really don’t see the issue, with the rule as it is. At least not from this perspective.
Maybe but NA sports has had this kind of advertising since day 1 has it not? Indeed not just sports, regular TV as well, I can only speak to the UK but that's never been the case and advertisment rules are much stricter
But on the other hand, would an attacker *not* have an unfair advantage if a part of their toe was overlapping the defender’s body by a couple of millimetres? It will come down to fine margins wherever you draw the line
Exactly. The whole discussion doesn’t make sense, because the issue will always remain the same.
When the ref tells the crowd what the decision is, it should be said with an American accent. They forgot the implementation of little coloured rags being thrown in the air when a perceived foul is committed.
Couldn't disagree with you more. How can you talk about defenders going down under a slight touch and not comment on how attackers are doing it even more and getting penalties for it, rather than just free kicks? Or even how the handball rules have changed recently to favor the offense? These penalties would never have been given 15-20 years ago.
It is true that defenders will eventually adapt though we don't know how yet, could be that they start to sit back more.
If wearing red with white shorts, then offside.
Attackers don't do it more though, not by many orders of magnitude. Attackers do it every so often and get absolute slammed for it. Most of the time they get waved away and occasionally even booked for it. Very rarely does it result in the ref being fooled and actually awarding a penalty or attacking free kick.
Now pick any game of football you like from the last 3 years. Pick any 10 minute spell from any part of that match. Watch all 10 minutes and count how many times a fullback or centre back inside his own half flops to the ground under the tiniest bit of pressure and is immediately awarded a soft free kick. It's a stain on the game - just like legalised obstruction (shielding outside the natural running line) and choreographed offside lines are stains on the game.
I'm going to games or watching TV to watch football, not 90 minutes of whistle blowing and playacting. I appreciate great defending as much as I do a great pass or beautiful goal, but being good at winning ever more free kicks isn't great defending and it's deeply annoying that it's become such an important part of the game.
We'll go around in circles with this because we're in completely opposite ends of this debate then, not even like close to any middle ground
We can just agree to disagree.
We'll go around in circles with this because we're in completely opposite ends of this debate then, not even like close to any middle ground
We can just agree to disagree.
Yeah fair enough.
The issue is that the technology isn't there to make quick and inarguable decisions. They're pissing around drawing lines not knowing which frames to use etc. If it was 100% foolproof and quick there can be no arguments.
Easy.
Currently the lines are drawn along the point that is closest to the goal on both the attacker and defender.
Instead the line on the attacker will be drawn on the part of his body that is furthest away from the goal, keeping it the same for the defender as it is now.
Not saying it's a good idea or bad idea in that, but it's easily doable with tech.
Blue player at the bottom right of the picture here would be onside because his back foot is behind the line. He's currently offside because part of him (well nearly all of him) is ahead of it. He'd only become offside if his back foot was past the line too.
Last edited:
Easy.
Currently the lines are drawn along the point that is closest to the goal on both the attacker and defender.
Instead the line on the attacker will be drawn on the part of his body that is furthest away from the goal, keeping it the same for the defender as it is now.
Not saying it's a good idea or bad idea in that, but it's easily doable with tech.
Blue player at the bottom right of the picture here would be onside because his back foot is behind the line. He's currently offside because part of him (well nearly all of him) is ahead of it. He'd only become offside if his back foot was past the line too.
Yes! A good explanation, but I wondered what difference it will make for the use of VAR for offsides. Either it’ll be like today where you can be an inch offside (but with the new rule). Or will it be more lenient, and if so, what will count as clear daylight?
It would be just like it is today as far as I'm aware, the 'clear daylight' wording that some have used is a bit of a red herring. It would be any daylight and it often wouldn't be clear to most people without using the tech, 1mm of daylight would be enough to make it offside.
Last edited:
Hopefully automated offside will be in place to supplement
I think like a lot of others on here, we'll get teams trying to play offside less often and defending deeper more often if this were to happen.
Won't necessarily result in fewer goals as there'll still be times where the defence weren't even trying to play offside and an attacker would have been under the current rules but won't be if these rules come in.
Not sure I really like it though. Might be an odd gripe, and I know they're all checked now so the technology is still the arbiter but there are ones like the image below, I like to think I can see many of those in real time and just know it's offside with my eyes before the tech even got used. It's kind of close but not so close that I don't think someone with a keen eye can't see it be that a fan, assistant referee or player.
No idea if that was called correctly by the way. Random image online that might be there to argue why we needed VAR because they got it wrong.
Under the new proposal he would be onside but that's not really the point. I'd need the tech and would be a lot less confident in forming any opinion before we saw what it said.
So many offsides are like that, torso leaning beyond the defender and it's rare for a torso to be beyond the defence but a defender's random leg to be playing someone on. I like that you can spot them reasonably accurately with the eye rather than having no clue what the decision is going to be.
Think the human eye can pick up if any part of someone is beyond a certain point easier than if absolutely all of someone is beyond a certain point. It's why we can tell who won a 100m race with the eye often, even if there's 0.02 seconds in it. If we had to look for the back leg completely crossing the finishing line it would be a lot harder. It's also why nobody had a clue if the whole of the ball had crossed the whole of the line before they put a chip in the ball and that was always contentious, would have been easier although still not flawless to see if any of it had crossed the line from the way our eyes work.
Won't necessarily result in fewer goals as there'll still be times where the defence weren't even trying to play offside and an attacker would have been under the current rules but won't be if these rules come in.
Not sure I really like it though. Might be an odd gripe, and I know they're all checked now so the technology is still the arbiter but there are ones like the image below, I like to think I can see many of those in real time and just know it's offside with my eyes before the tech even got used. It's kind of close but not so close that I don't think someone with a keen eye can't see it be that a fan, assistant referee or player.
No idea if that was called correctly by the way. Random image online that might be there to argue why we needed VAR because they got it wrong.
Under the new proposal he would be onside but that's not really the point. I'd need the tech and would be a lot less confident in forming any opinion before we saw what it said.
So many offsides are like that, torso leaning beyond the defender and it's rare for a torso to be beyond the defence but a defender's random leg to be playing someone on. I like that you can spot them reasonably accurately with the eye rather than having no clue what the decision is going to be.
Think the human eye can pick up if any part of someone is beyond a certain point easier than if absolutely all of someone is beyond a certain point. It's why we can tell who won a 100m race with the eye often, even if there's 0.02 seconds in it. If we had to look for the back leg completely crossing the finishing line it would be a lot harder. It's also why nobody had a clue if the whole of the ball had crossed the whole of the line before they put a chip in the ball and that was always contentious, would have been easier although still not flawless to see if any of it had crossed the line from the way our eyes work.
Last edited:
Bet you will hear feck all anyway, especially with out of puff Simon Hooper explaining some shite decision he has just made.
So they bring in VAR which stops the game for minutes at time, as well as devalues the experience of seeing (or not seeing) every goal and decide the problem is goalkeepers holding the ball.
Presumably the ref decides if it's 7 seconds or 9, but what if it's 8.1? I reckon the best thing is to let the manager call for a VAR stop then they can all run the tape together and decide if the ref was right or wrong, after which the ref can announce to the crowd what is was all about. Which might wake them up again at least.
Presumably the ref decides if it's 7 seconds or 9, but what if it's 8.1? I reckon the best thing is to let the manager call for a VAR stop then they can all run the tape together and decide if the ref was right or wrong, after which the ref can announce to the crowd what is was all about. Which might wake them up again at least.
You're a bit confused there or you're just trying to bend anything into hating on VAR. There already was a rule about this, it just only got enforced rarely and more arbitrarily, but it was actually more severe than this new version. With the rule change the time the goalkeeper is allowed to hold the ball went up from six to eight seconds, and the punishment for a violation went down from an indirect freekick from the place of the offense to a corner kick.
Olympic semi-final (iirc) women's football - Canada v USA. Canadian keeper penalised for holding the ball too long. Free kick awarded and taken. The ball hits the defender's arm and a penalty is awarded and scored. Never seen it before or since despite some very prolonged holding of the ball.