It was probably your post on the Hockey thing I was thinking of to be honest. It could do with an experiment to see how it affected the modern game.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
It was probably your post on the Hockey thing I was thinking of to be honest. It could do with an experiment to see how it affected the modern game.
I think it's worth a trial for an extended period, but my personal feeling is that high presses will be dead and teams will have to sit deeper to negate a long ball over the top to the big lad hanging around at the edge of the box.
Wouldn't that leave more space to play football? I wouldn't exactly be mourning the death of high pressing.
In 1972 in a couple of minor knockout trophy called the Watney Cup and anglo-italian cup, an attacker couldn't be off side in the opposition penalty area. The competitions ran all season, the trial was abandoned by Christmas a a "Flop"
Not in the areas that matter. I wouldn't have thought.
Taking City vs Sheffield United as an example, I'd still expect City to dominate and play the majority of the match in the opposition half, except now, Sheffield United can just park a player on the edge of City's box and hope to lump one up to him, so City are probably going to have to keep at least one defender deep to mark him, if not two.
Quick google reveals they have experimented with this in the past. Seems as though it worked out ok too?
If you bother to read my post above, you will note that it was tried in England in 1972, it failed miserably over a long period of time.
I (unfortunately) can remember it, it does not result in one player hanging around in the "not off side" area, and results in a game that is boring to watch as soon as coaches learn how to play the system, a team like Man City would totally dominate every game even more.
A trial was propsed in the London Metropolitan League for one season, it was abandoned at Christmas in the same season, no one liked it, not the Ref's, the players, fans or coaches.
Why was it boring?
I wouldn't bin it entirely but alter the rule so that it is something like there needs to be daylight between the offensive and defensive player, no more offside because of your toe.
From what I remember in Watney Cup, and Anglo-Italian cup games it resutlted in little or no midfield play, the ball just ended up being booted from end to end, it resembled more of a tennis match than a football game.
I've tried searching for a whole game on YT, but it was that boring, a lot of games went to penalty shoot outs
That's been tried too, and failed due to TV being able to rewind and prove there was or wasn't daylight, so undermining the decision on the pitch.
So it was boring because evidently nobody learned “how to play the system”. I seriously doubt you’d see the ball being hoofed from one end of the pitch to the other when a coach likes Pep gets his teeth into it.
The competitions were a close season cup, and played on a straight knockout basis, extra time then penalties, the "top" clubs never really took it seriously, they were nothing cups, so the top coaches of he day never really got their teeth into it.
Entry into the cup was decided by which teams had scored the most goals in the season from each division.
It very rarely produced the high scoring football spectacle it promised.
But you're still going to have VAR trying to decide if there is daylight - it will vary slightly depending on the camera angle. Is there a shaft of daylight showing between someone's nose and the other player's heel? So I'm not really sure we would be any further ahead.
Love the scrapping offside idea.
Why not scrap fouls too, that'd take loads of issues out.
Or just stop the ball ever being dead, no fouls, no offsides, and you'd really get home advantage when the crowd just keep the ball and a player has to go into the crowd and battle some goon for it.
Why not scrap fouls too, that'd take loads of issues out.
Or just stop the ball ever being dead, no fouls, no offsides, and you'd really get home advantage when the crowd just keep the ball and a player has to go into the crowd and battle some goon for it.
That's quite interesting. Also the kick-in instead of a throw in would keep the game moving. I've never really understood the point of throw-ins to be honest. Why is it possible to have a foul throw? It's just seems like they've arbitrarily made restarting the game slightly difficult to no benefit.
Well from your description none of that seems all that relevant. Some friendly tournament nobody cared about where they lumped the ball from one end to the other to little attacking effect.
I'm not sure it says a lot about removing off-side from the modern game. You'd expect teams would very quickly ditch tactics that weren't resulting in goals.
Agree with the red on Aruajo?
Really harsh, IMO.
The problem with offside is that all you are defining is where a line must be drawn. Where that line is drawn is essentially arbitrary. So by moving it back and forth you don’t really make any material difference once the defenders have adjusted their game to it.
Red is 100% correct. The question is whether it is a foul in the first place. I don't think so
Only in a completely abstract thought experiment. I can never get my head around this line of thinking. It absolutely matters where you decide the line is and the margin for error you build into it.
If you're timing your run you only have the other player as a frame of reference so it definitely matters if you decide it's the foot or armpit or that you have to have your whole body ahead of the other player.
Then there's the fairness angle. If you've a big head which means your head is a few mm ahead of the defender beside you then that goal shouldn't be disallowed as far as I'm concerned. Where you decide to put the line and the margin for error determines which situations do and don't get given as goals so it does matter.
It really doesn't. The only thing you can fix, is the appearance. As long as there is a certain measure of precision, it will always come down to centimeters. You can only move around this "margin" so as to hide this fact from the naked eye, but that's all you'll be doing. The decision making process remains exactly the same as it was. And you can still be offside with your armpits, it just wont look as tight. It's absolutely mind blowing how easily this cosmetic change placated some people. Whatever margin of error you build into it, the offside calls will be measured on the edges of it. You can make the margin of error 5 meters if you want (no one will ever look offside), but the decision on whether someone was 1 cm over or behind the 5 meter margin will still have to be made, and the calls will be made in exactly the same way as before.
You're just repeating the argument based on the decision making process. Obviously there will be edge cases. However, in reality you could put the 'edge' at a point that's objectively unfair along with minimal margin for error and what would reasonably considered a good goal would be disallowed but apparently that wouldn't matter according to your logic.
I have no idea what you are even talking about. How does fairness factor into it? Objective, no less.
You should probably read the post you replied to and the one before it again so.
The discussion was around where the line should be drawn and if this is important or even worth arguing about.
You're beyond help, I'm just gonna move along.
You replied to me and were having a different conversation. That's on you.
would've been scandalous if red hadn't been given.
Last man, denying goal scoring chance, doesn't play for ball, clipping leg.
Referee in the Barca vs PSG tie was very good I thought, maybe could have awarded a penalty on that Araujo clear red but overall ? A very solid performance
Could he?? The foul was clearly outside the penalty area and just continued in to the penalty area. Fairly similar to the one United had on Saturday with Kambwala.
Correct decision in my eyes. Definite red. Definite free kick.
I think it was. He was being sly about it by putting his weight on the PSG player and falling forward to cause a reasonable measure of doubt.
Several referees seem to think it should have been awarded.
I wouldn't mind a rule change so that a ball is not considered to have gone out of play until the ball has actually touched the ground. It's almost impossible for the refereeing team to actually judge whether a ball is out or not when it's in the air anyway.
The best thing about this rule change would mean the micro managers like Arteta would have to sit down or risk getting clattered by wingers or full backs stretching to keep balls in on the sidelines.
It is an opinion after all. Wenger thought so too for what it's worth
Fair enough.
Can’t say I agree or see how anyone does.
If that’s a foul, you have to give it the point of the first contact. I don’t think you should be looking at it and deciding to ignore the first part of the foul to then allow further travel and then give a penalty.
Not sure there would have been any different an outcome. I don’t think there is an honest attempt at playing the ball and therefore I think the rules state it is still a red card
Nothing will be said about 115 getting away with the handball. The media will just continue to rim them.
How wasn’t that handball? Unreal.
Got to earn the hospitalities they are afforded at the Etihad
Add it to the catalogue for when there is a documentary made in years to come. Its absolutely shocking stuff. Think of the penalties given against us this season 
almost every single one was softer than what city get away with weekly, or at least in every big game. If Michael Oliver isnt genuinely being looked at behind the scenes, then something is very off
almost every single one was softer than what city get away with weekly, or at least in every big game. If Michael Oliver isnt genuinely being looked at behind the scenes, then something is very off