The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 18588]

However offside is defined there will always be controversial decisions.

What would be the definition of clear space between the attackers and defender?

The body(trunk) may be past the defender but the trailing leg may still be overlapping.

Offside or not?

I realise that it may be a forlorn hope due to the involvement of television broadcasters and their endless slo-mo replays but a return to the pre-VAR days would, for me, be best.

Research showed that linesmen got more than 95% of calls right just relying upon the naked eye.

95% success rate for a COVID-19 vaccine is considered to be fantastic but is apparently not acceptable for something as trivial as offside in football.

 

[YandaB]

Scrap offside, they did for hockey:

The aims of this change were:​

• to transfer the balance of power towards the offense,
• to create more space around the circle and mid-field,
• to help the flow of play, more goals and fewer whistles, and
• to make the game more exciting and appealing to spectators.
  
  New tactics were developed by many teams to exploit this new rule.

Maybe LT can comment on the outcomes.

 

[Liverbirdie]

However offside is defined there will always be controversial decisions.

What would be the definition of clear space between the attackers and defender?

The body(trunk) may be past the defender but the trailing leg may still be overlapping.

Offside or not?

I realise that it may be a forlorn hope due to the involvement of television broadcasters and their endless slo-mo replays but a return to the pre-VAR days would, for me, be best.

Research showed that linesmen got more than 95% of calls right just relying upon the naked eye.

95% success rate for a COVID-19 vaccine is considered to be fantastic but is apparently not acceptable for something as trivial as offside in football.

Well said.

I love people who quote the daylight argument as if its measurable or a defined thing, instead of coming up with something actually tangible. 1 inch, 1 foot, 2 foot, 1 yard???????? Then it will become an even bigger joke.

Simplicity is the answer.

If an attacker scores with the part that was offside, it's offside. However, if he scores with another part of his body that was onside, its okay. So when a forward slightly leans forward, hes hot given offside for his shoulder, when his feet were onside. Last nights goal would have stood and so would many more of the ones that have been disallowed by VAR for a part of the body that wasnt leaning forward, or worn (T shirt). It gives the attacker a slight advantage, as well.

If the lines touch on VAR, they can also make that count as a goal.

Have we actually seen two lines dead in line yet? Surely it must have happened by now, or is it based on the slight roll of a mouse by a VAR official?

Either that or we'll go back to "daylight" and issue the officials with light meters, and be talking about Lux in the VAR arguments. Sunglasses on.

 

[Orikoru]

However offside is defined there will always be controversial decisions.

What would be the definition of clear space between the attackers and defender?

The body(trunk) may be past the defender but the trailing leg may still be overlapping.

Offside or not?

I realise that it may be a forlorn hope due to the involvement of television broadcasters and their endless slo-mo replays but a return to the pre-VAR days would, for me, be best.

Research showed that linesmen got more than 95% of calls right just relying upon the naked eye.

95% success rate for a COVID-19 vaccine is considered to be fantastic but is apparently not acceptable for something as trivial as offside in football.

I've said it before but my favoured solution would not be drawing any lines on it all, just let the ref watch the replay back and use his eye to decide if they are level or not - just as a linesman would in real time, but with the simple benefit of being able to slow it down. This would definitely be satisfactory in removing any blatant offside goals, it would mean attackers can still be level and not be given offside, plus it would not take 2 and a half minutes like the Ollie Watkins decision last night. But they are dead set on drawing lines on it and making it far more clinical than it needs to be. It is so frustrating as a fan watching the authorities make such a mess of it and not being able to have our feedback heard at all.

Scrap offside, they did for hockey:

The aims of this change were:​

• to transfer the balance of power towards the offense,
• to create more space around the circle and mid-field,
• to help the flow of play, more goals and fewer whistles, and
• to make the game more exciting and appealing to spectators.
  
  New tactics were developed by many teams to exploit this new rule.

Maybe LT can comment on the outcomes.

What on earth?? Surely you're not proposing that for football, that would be absolutely mental. For a start in hockey it's a lot harder to just lob the ball over everyone's heads to the guy you've got goal-hanging in the opposing box.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Scrap offside, they did for hockey:

The aims of this change were:​

• to transfer the balance of power towards the offense,
• to create more space around the circle and mid-field,
• to help the flow of play, more goals and fewer whistles, and
• to make the game more exciting and appealing to spectators.
  
  New tactics were developed by many teams to exploit this new rule.

Maybe LT can comment on the outcomes.

It’s a totally different game unfortunately - in most levels of hockey the ability to fire the ball all the way down the pitch is risky and also takes a lot of skill where as in football it’s just a quick boot - also you can only score from within a specific area and the goal is a lot smaller with the GK covering a significant amount of the goal - as opposed to football where you can ping it from everywhere

But removing offsides did improve hockey greatly

 

[clubchamp98]

View attachment 33800
How would we all feel?

The limos keep the flags down now anyway until the balls out of play.
At least this would make more sense.
If a player thinks he is staying onside but his toenail ( or quiff) is off how is he supposed to judge that it’s stupid atm.
But any change has to be thought through and not make it worse.
This has happened with all the rules they have been tinkering with.
This looks a bit more sensible.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Scrap offside, they did for hockey:

The aims of this change were:​

• to transfer the balance of power towards the offense,
• to create more space around the circle and mid-field,
• to help the flow of play, more goals and fewer whistles, and
• to make the game more exciting and appealing to spectators.
  
  New tactics were developed by many teams to exploit this new rule.

Maybe LT can comment on the outcomes.

LP has covered this really. It worked brilliantly in hockey. In the first few matches teams tried to leave a player up high but it was pretty easy to cut passes out over distance and so that soon stopped. Teams started to play normally, just without offside. It worked exactly how they hoped, more goals were scored, teams played with more freedom and you didn't come off the pitch knowing you had been robbed by an official making a wrong call on an offside .

In football there is always the danger of Wimbledon tactics all over again except further up the pitch. Any lump can whack a ball, I'm not sure it would be a positive. On the whole I don't think the lump it tactic would work that well, the gaps would be too large between players and teams would be picked apart, but that would have to be seen. I think a compromise can be reached but that would involve adding another line on the pitch. Make it so that you can only be offisde within a certain area, 25 yards from goal for example. I think that would be a good compromise and an experiment worth trialling at U23 level for example to see how it went. Football however is as slow as golf in terms of rule changes so I think this would be too radical for them.

 

[clubchamp98]

LP has covered this really. It worked brilliantly in hockey. In the first few matches teams tried to leave a player up high but it was pretty easy to cut passes out over distance and so that soon stopped. Teams started to play normally, just without offside. It worked exactly how they hoped, more goals were scored, teams played with more freedom and you didn't come off the pitch knowing you had been robbed by an official making a wrong call on an offside .

In football there is always the danger of Wimbledon tactics all over again except further up the pitch. Any lump can whack a ball, I'm not sure it would be a positive. On the whole I don't think the lump it tactic would work that well, the gaps would be too large between players and teams would be picked apart, but that would have to be seen. I think a compromise can be reached but that would involve adding another line on the pitch. Make it so that you can only be offisde within a certain area, 25 yards from goal for example. I think that would be a good compromise and an experiment worth trialling at U23 level for example to see how it went. Football however is as slow as golf in terms of rule changes so I think this would be too radical for them.

It would make a 6’4” CF worth a fortune overnight if teams were able to go route one and pick up second balls with no offside.
But is that what we want to see.
Goal hanging is an art but no offside you could play into your fourties if you could finish.
It’s ott for a simple problem just stop giving offside for toenails.
My solution is simple if any part of the strikers body is level with the last defender then he is level and therefore onside it’s easy but made very complicated by VAR refs not the technology.

 

[clubchamp98]

Hartson had more hair, less beard in them days.

So your picking your team and you just have to pick your CF who do you pick?
The PL top goalscorer of all time,or John Hartson.
Tough one.!

 

[clubchamp98]

Would it seem terribly 'big club' to suggest that villa are winding up the ref and he's lost sight of what actually constitutes a foul??

Not just this ref it’s all of them.
I don’t know myself now.
If I was still playing I would be off after 10 mins.
It’s not a contact sport anymore.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Why are we discussing Watkins goal for Offside last night when it should of been a penalty? As Neville rightly said that’s not an issue with VAR, that’s Stockley Park not reviewing the whole passage of play, it was a foul before he was offside.

As for level is onside, it is now, it’s only offside if the attacker is ahead of the defender and if his toe or his head is 1mm or 1cm ahead of the defender then they are not level.

 

[Orikoru]

Why are we discussing Watkins goal for Offside last night when it should of been a penalty? As Neville rightly said that’s not an issue with VAR, that’s Stockley Park not reviewing the whole passage of play, it was a foul before he was offside.

As for level is onside, it is now, it’s only offside if the attacker is ahead of the defender and if his toe or his head is 1mm or 1cm ahead of the defender then they are not level.

That's completely wrong. If you're running side by side with a player, totally level, depending on what frame you pause it, your toe might be a fraction ahead of theirs or vice versa - unless you have completely identical stride pattern. And you cannot legislate for that as a player in real time can you? Basically if their torso and head are level with the defender's they should be deemed level, irrespective of their toe being forward because of random chance of their stride pattern in that frame where they've paused it.

Think about what a forward can reasonable be expected to do to keep himself onside. He'll be looking along the line keeping his body level with the defender, he cannot be reasonably expected to check his stride pattern to keep his toes back from the defender's toes, that would be insane.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Why are we discussing Watkins goal for Offside last night when it should of been a penalty? As Neville rightly said that’s not an issue with VAR, that’s Stockley Park not reviewing the whole passage of play, it was a foul before he was offside.

As for level is onside, it is now, it’s only offside if the attacker is ahead of the defender and if his toe or his head is 1mm or 1cm ahead of the defender then they are not level.

For 3 reasons

One offside . So can't be a pen

Two he scored so if the goal had stood it wouldn't have been pulled back for a pen it would have stood

Three wasn't it outside the box the contact started?

So because the goal was deemed offside it can't be a pen.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Right, I'm now officially dead set against VAR.

There is some great debate, suggestions etc, but when we have to take suggestions from Hockey-ists, I'm drawing a line.









PS the line may be a squiggly one.

 

[Orikoru]

For 3 reasons

One offside . So can't be a pen

Two he scored so if the goal had stood it wouldn't have been pulled back for a pen it would have stood

Three wasn't it outside the box the contact started?

So because the goal was deemed offside it can't be a pen.

The foul was before the offside, he threw his arms around Watkins' neck as he was about to run past him. So yes, I think penalty to Villa should have been the outcome. The timeline is foul > offside > goal. Can't be a goal because he was offside, but he was fouled prior to being offside so you'd pull it back to the foul which occurred first, and therefore it's a pen. Regarding the contact being outside, I believe the rule is contact that continues into the box is given as a penalty.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That's completely wrong. If you're running side by side with a player, totally level, depending on what frame you pause it, your toe might be a fraction ahead of theirs or vice versa - unless you have completely identical stride pattern. And you cannot legislate for that as a player in real time can you? Basically if their torso and head are level with the defender's they should be deemed level, irrespective of their toe being forward because of random chance of their stride pattern in that frame where they've paused it.

Think about what a forward can reasonable be expected to do to keep himself onside. He'll be looking along the line keeping his body level with the defender, he cannot be reasonably expected to check his stride pattern to keep his toes back from the defender's toes, that would be insane.

You’re missing it! If one toe is ahead of the other, regardless of when they freeze the frame they ARE NOT level.

What you are asking for is a margin of error and anything within that margin is deemed onside.

But remember, if that margin of error is for example 2cm then 2.01cm would be offside.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

For 3 reasons

One offside . So can't be a pen

Two he scored so if the goal had stood it wouldn't have been pulled back for a pen it would have stood

Three wasn't it outside the box the contact started?

So because the goal was deemed offside it can't be a pen.

You’re contradicting yourself, what was the first offence? It was the foul (we may disagree whether it was inside or outside the box) so everything after that is irrelevant.

Just like the VVD/Pickford incident, the first offence was the offside and whether we agree or not on the subsequent action, it was deemed irrelevant.

That is not VAR’s fault, they are incompetent Officials.

 

[Liverbirdie]

You’re contradicting yourself, what was the first offence? It was the foul (we may disagree whether it was inside or outside the box) so everything after that is irrelevant.

Just like the VVD/Pickford incident, the first offence was the offside and whether we agree or not on the subsequent action, it was deemed irrelevant.

That is not VAR’s fault, they are incompetent Officials.

As said elsewhere, if a foul carries on into the box, a penalty can be awarded over a free kick, only.

Nothing like the VVD/trex incident. The first offence was offside, the second offence was GBH, m'lud.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

You’re missing it! If one toe is ahead of the other, regardless of when they freeze the frame they ARE NOT level.

What you are asking for is a margin of error and anything within that margin is deemed onside.

But remember, if that margin of error is for example 2cm then 2.01cm would be offside.

Not quite. The margin of error means that if the computer / ref etc says offside then they definitely were offside. Not by a hair or a little toe as those margins are too tight to call. It means a little toe and a bit

I get what you are saying, there will always be a border, a line etc but the margin of error makes it a non argument

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As said elsewhere, if a foul carries on into the box, a penalty can be awarded over a free kick, only.

Nothing like the VVD/trex incident. The first offence was offside, the second offence was GBH, m'lud.

Pray tell us what action was taken by the Referee after VVD was given offside?

Sits and waits quietly while the tumbleweed blows by...........