Football and the offside rule

[Deleted member 30522]

Whatever happened to having daylight between the attacker and defender? If we went back to that it would save all the drawing of lines and working out who is wearing the bigger boots!

That was never how offside worked

 

[Orikoru]

I understand what you are saying. However try writing that as a rule. The rules now are clear, your implementation is in effect saying "every now and then a little offside is okay".
We could/would achieve the same result you are proposing but saying we should use VAR as we do now but after the conclusion the captain on the wrong side of the decision roles a dice - if it's a 6 we rule in his favour. I will bring back some of the fun of linesmans' error. As stupid as this sounds it's not far off what happens in cricket with umpires call. The ball is either hitting or not.
Joking aside I would take issue with your use of "practically impossible" cause it really isn't. In athletics we though it was practically impossible to eliminate false starts in sprinting. Then they decided that any false start = disqualification. Turns out false starts aren't a massive problem anymore.

I'm not really. Here's a diagram I made earlier that makes it easier to explain what I'm saying:



Let's say red is the attacker. Pre-VAR he'd have been onside, because he's level with the defender - their bodies are level, if anything, he's behind the player. Even if you look at a video replay, without the silly lines they draw on, most people would look at that and say he's onside. But now with VAR, you pause it and look at that one frame, and he'd be ruled offside just because his stride pattern puts one foot ahead of the defender in the exact frame where they paused it. That's why I don't like it. In real time that attacker has timed his run perfectly but he's still given offside.

If you would look at this example and say the attacker is offside, then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

 

[PJ87]

I'm not really. Here's a diagram I made earlier that makes it easier to explain what I'm saying:

View attachment 45096

Let's say red is the attacker. Pre-VAR he'd have been onside, because he's level with the defender - their bodies are level, if anything, he's behind the player. Even if you look at a video replay, without the silly lines they draw on, most people would look at that and say he's onside. But now with VAR, you pause it and look at that one frame, and he'd be ruled offside just because his stride pattern puts one foot ahead of the defender in the exact frame where they paused it. That's why I don't like it. In real time that attacker has timed his run perfectly but he's still given offside.

If you would look at this example and say the attacker is offside, then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

Pre var he wouldn't be onside. By letter of the law it's any part of the body that can score a goal

So his foot would be offside and it would be a great call if a lino got it.

 

[WGCRider]

I'm not really. Here's a diagram I made earlier that makes it easier to explain what I'm saying:

View attachment 45096

Let's say red is the attacker. Pre-VAR he'd have been onside, because he's level with the defender - their bodies are level, if anything, he's behind the player. Even if you look at a video replay, without the silly lines they draw on, most people would look at that and say he's onside. But now with VAR, you pause it and look at that one frame, and he'd be ruled offside just because his stride pattern puts one foot ahead of the defender in the exact frame where they paused it. That's why I don't like it. In real time that attacker has timed his run perfectly but he's still given offside.

If you would look at this example and say the attacker is offside, then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

As Paul says above - pre VAR he would have been offside, the linesman would just have guessed and sometimes raised his flag and sometimes not. So again, you are saying a little bit of offside sometimes is okay. Offside is a line you have to draw a somewhere so you could write a law that allows for your drawing by saying "limbs" don't count for example. But then you need to be prepared for an attacker being onside due to the way an untucked shirt billows in the wind. Or you could have "umpires call" like in cricket but the same problem arises where is the line for umpires call? In cricket they make this half the ball width.

 

[Orikoru]

Pre var he wouldn't be onside. By letter of the law it's any part of the body that can score a goal

So his foot would be offside and it would be a great call if a lino got it.

But a linesman in pre-VAR days would never give it offside because he doesn't have the freeze frame. You're just proving my point that it's impossible to be level now because of stride patterns and stopping it on one frame of a video.

As Paul says above - pre VAR he would have been offside, the linesman would just have guessed and sometimes raised his flag and sometimes not. So again, you are saying a little bit of offside sometimes is okay. Offside is a line you have to draw a somewhere so you could write a law that allows for your drawing by saying "limbs" don't count for example. But then you need to be prepared for an attacker being onside due to the way an untucked shirt billows in the wind. Or you could have "umpires call" like in cricket but the same problem arises where is the line for umpires call? In cricket they make this half the ball width.

I suppose I am saying I don't like the law itself, yes, but before VAR it wasn't a problem. I wouldn't scrap VAR completely for offsides, I would just scrap the way they use it with those ridiculous lines drawn on. I'd just have the feller who's watching VAR review the video once or twice, in slow motion, and then advise the ref if the linesman has missed a blatant offside. By which I mean the player's body is clearly goalside of the defender's body, and thus gaining an advantage. Not that his toe was just behind the defender's knee.

 

[Bdill93]

I actually think offsides are one of the best things VAR does.

They do need to sort out inconsistent flagging from Linos, some let it play out, some still flag quickly - but overall id prefer 100% accurate offsides

 

[PJ87]

But a linesman in pre-VAR days would never give it offside because he doesn't have the freeze frame. You're just proving my point that it's impossible to be level now because of stride patterns and stopping it on one frame of a video.


I suppose I am saying I don't like the law itself, yes, but before VAR it wasn't a problem. I wouldn't scrap VAR completely for offsides, I would just scrap the way they use it with those ridiculous lines drawn on. I'd just have the feller who's watching VAR review the video once or twice, in slow motion, and then advise the ref if the linesman has missed a blatant offside. By which I mean the player's body is clearly goalside of the defender's body, and thus gaining an advantage. Not that his toe was just behind the defender's knee.

We still did see offsides given rightly and wrongly for the above picture. Even some incorrectly ruled onside

I actually think offsides are one of the best things VAR does.

They do need to sort out inconsistent flagging from Linos, some let it play out, some still flag quickly - but overall id prefer 100% accurate offsides

Var is fine for offside, it's pretty spot on now . Just need to speed up

The foul in build up takes too long

 

[WGCRider]

I would just scrap the way they use it with those ridiculous lines drawn on.

But that's not VAR, as you say, that's the law. You can change the law and say "If it's so close you can't see it with the naked eye - it's onside". This posses the question what does "with the naked eye" mean? So we say anything closer than 30 cm offside is in fact onside. Now you have someone that is 31cm (or 1cm in out new rule) offside. So VAR gets it's lines out to prove it to people watching at home and we are back where we started!

Also, back to your sketch and the striker could just ensure that he was 30cm further back rather than trying to steal a yard and it wouldn't just be practically impossible for him to be offside it would be entirely impossible.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Reading these replies just convinces me more that offside should be scrapped and turn games into goal fests ?

 

[clubchamp98]

I understand what you are saying. However try writing that as a rule. The rules now are clear, your implementation is in effect saying "every now and then a little offside is okay".
We could/would achieve the same result you are proposing but saying we should use VAR as we do now but after the conclusion the captain on the wrong side of the decision roles a dice - if it's a 6 we rule in his favour. I will bring back some of the fun of linesmans' error. As stupid as this sounds it's not far off what happens in cricket with umpires call. The ball is either hitting or not.
Joking aside I would take issue with your use of "practically impossible" cause it really isn't. In athletics we though it was practically impossible to eliminate false starts in sprinting. Then they decided that any false start = disqualification. Turns out false starts aren't a massive problem anymore.

the only other way is your level if any part of your body is level with the defender.
Your offside if there is clear daylight between you and the defender.
This would give the attacking team an advantage and we would see more goals.

 

[Orikoru]

But that's not VAR, as you say, that's the law. You can change the law and say "If it's so close you can't see it with the naked eye - it's onside". This posses the question what does "with the naked eye" mean? So we say anything closer than 30 cm offside is in fact onside. Now you have someone that is 31cm (or 1cm in out new rule) offside. So VAR gets it's lines out to prove it to people watching at home and we are back where we started!

Also, back to your sketch and the striker could just ensure that he was 30cm further back rather than trying to steal a yard and it wouldn't just be practically impossible for him to be offside it would be entirely impossible.

If that's the case why did they change it to allow a bigger margin of error on the lines for this season then? After people were complaining it was far too clinical before? It used to be stated that benefit of the doubt goes with the forward, remember. Nowadays there's no doubt so no benefit for the forward at all.

I just don't believe in categorising it by measurements and whatnot. For years we relied on a linesman, in real time, using his eyes to see if someone is offside or level. Now we give them a video where they can replay it, but we no longer trust their judgement even with the video help? In my opinion we've gone from one extreme to the other and completely skipped over the happy medium in the middle. Technology was brought in to help, but they've jumped the shark and overblown it with too much reliance on the tech, it needs to be dialled back a notch.

 

[Ian_George]

I hate the passive offside rule with a passion. An offside player drags a defender back, and suddenly another guy is onside, an offside player at the last moment let’s a ball slip by and is passive, 3 players are reaching forward ball and luckily the guy who wasn’t offside headed it in but the other 2 don’t count, …

Make the rule black and white. Anyone offside? No goal.
VAR is fine, the rules are stupid.

Can't agree with this! But 'anyone offside and deemed to be influencing play'? No goal. VAR could get involved as now.
And, imo, VAR should be called for all cases where it could be offside! That would (hopefully) eliminate the issue that hasn't been eliminated - where the linesman has to be watching 2 things at once (the position of the 2nd last defender AND the position of the possibly offside player). The linesman's flag could simply be an indicator that VAR is to be consulted!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Reading these replies just convinces me more that offside should be scrapped and turn games into goal fests ?

Nah keep offside but Get rid of VAR, Ban TV companies from analysing every offside decision from every angle possible.

 

[Mudball]

Last week, had the joy of listening to Arsene Wenger at a conference. Apparently Qatar will see football with microchips and tracking cameras in stadiums. So offside rules can be resolved in less than 30 sec. Another decision now being done by off-pitch umpires
A bit like no-ball in cricket ...

 

[theoneandonly]

If that's the case why did they change it to allow a bigger margin of error on the lines for this season then? After people were complaining it was far too clinical before? It used to be stated that benefit of the doubt goes with the forward, remember. Nowadays there's no doubt so no benefit for the forward at all.

I just don't believe in categorising it by measurements and whatnot. For years we relied on a linesman, in real time, using his eyes to see if someone is offside or level. Now we give them a video where they can replay it, but we no longer trust their judgement even with the video help? In my opinion we've gone from one extreme to the other and completely skipped over the happy medium in the middle. Technology was brought in to help, but they've jumped the shark and overblown it with too much reliance on the tech, it needs to be dialled back a notch.

Surely you're either offside or not. I don't see how you can allow someone to be a little bit offside.

 

[Orikoru]

Surely you're either offside or not. I don't see how you can allow someone to be a little bit offside.

It's about how you define it though. I disagree that someone's toe being offside due to stride pattern, when their body is actually behind the defender, should be defined as offside. But it is, so.. ??‍ I would prefer it's decided by someone looking at the replay and judging if the player's body as a whole is offside and thus gaining an advantage by generally being closer to the goal than the defender when the pass was played. Not by zooming in and drawing lines to see if any minor part of them is 'offside'.

 

[theoneandonly]

It's about how you define it though. I disagree that someone's toe being offside due to stride pattern, when their body is actually behind the defender, should be defined as offside. But it is, so.. ??‍ I would prefer it's decided by someone looking at the replay and judging if the player's body as a whole is offside and thus gaining an advantage by generally being closer to the goal than the defender when the pass was played. Not by zooming in and drawing lines to see if any minor part of them is 'offside'.

I'd happily see the back of VAR, I don't think it's added to the game. As long as it's around you'll get these lines.

 

[Orikoru]

I'd happily see the back of VAR, I don't think it's added to the game. As long as it's around you'll get these lines.

Yeah, it's a shame really. When VAR was just talk I was in favour of it, because it never occurred to me that they would jump the shark completely and ruin the game with it. I envisioned as a much simpler thing, where the screens are installed at the ground and the referee given a chance to review an incident if he felt he needed to. It could have been so simple and effective.

 

[Bdill93]

Yeah, it's a shame really. When VAR was just talk I was in favour of it, because it never occurred to me that they would jump the shark completely and ruin the game with it. I envisioned as a much simpler thing, where the screens are installed at the ground and the referee given a chance to review an incident if he felt he needed to. It could have been so simple and effective.

I dont dislike the accurate decisions - but and its a big but - the fact VAR is sometimes used and sometimes not does my head in.

Yesterday Brighton got a corner when the ball actually didn't touch a villa player but the lino got it wrong as his view was blocked. Had they scored from that corner it would have been gaining an advantage from a wrong decision. When guys with screens could have corrected it in seconds, every commentator saw it in seconds and made comments that it didn't touch Digne....

But had a players arm and sleeve been involved we would have had microscopes out.

Strange implementation.

 

[Orikoru]

I dont dislike the accurate decisions - but and its a big but - the fact VAR is sometimes used and sometimes not does my head in.

Yesterday Brighton got a corner when the ball actually didn't touch a villa player but the lino got it wrong as his view was blocked. Had they scored from that corner it would have been gaining an advantage from a wrong decision. When guys with screens could have corrected it in seconds, every commentator saw it in seconds and made comments that it didn't touch Digne....

But had a players arm and sleeve been involved we would have had microscopes out.

Strange implementation.

It is daft that they have ruled not to use it in certain situations - presumably that can only be to avoid delaying the game too much, yet they'll happily take up 4 minutes reviewing a stonewall penalty.