Dogawful Officiating

[midds]

You'd be just moving the line 2 yards back towards goal. Goals would still be chalked off because they're 2cm offside but it's probably easier to live with as it would give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. I know it's the laws of the game but I still have massive issues with defenders playing attackers onside when they're 40 yards away on the opposite touchline - I know they're playing the same game but it's fucking miles away and they're never getting back and stopping the goal anyway 

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

Might be famous last words but I think the automated offsides solves the problem tbh. It's pedantic but with clear yes/no calls like that I don't mind too much, it's that it's done quickly that matters I think.

 

I can't get away with it all. The idea that an immaterial body part is helping an attacker gain an unfair advantage just doesn't sit right.

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I can't get away with it all. The idea that an immaterial body part is helping an attacker gain an unfair advantage just doesn't sit right.

I sympathise with that view like, I just think you have to draw the line somewhere and if we draw it somewhere else it'll change the way teams defend and make the game more boring. High pressing would become nigh on impossible for a start and it would probably stop attacking teams from being able to break the offside trap because defending teams just wouldn't risk it.

[duo]

20 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I don't think people have fully thought through what would happen with this tbh, teams dropping deep for example. And that the line that's drawn wouldn't be any less pedantic, it would just change location.

Lines would still be drawn but advantage would go back to the attacker so we'd see more goals.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, duo said:

Lines would still be drawn but advantage would go back to the attacker so we'd see more goals.

Not if defending teams sat back and allowed no space to beat the offside trap.

[duo]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Not if defending teams sat back and allowed no space to beat the offside trap.

I get your point but I can see more positives than negatives from the move.  It would be an improvement.

[Optimistic Nut]

Not saying anything. 

[Hanshithispantz]

To fix the annoyance of a toe being off they just need to use the frame before the ball is kicked, rather than the frame it's kicked. Means the attacker is getting a decent advantage already so tight calls would feel a lot better

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Hanshithispantz

[Pilko]

I kind of don't mind what they opt for in the end, so long as we can get virtually instant, correct decisions. No manual drawing of lines or five minutes delays, basically fully automated with a human to verify.

[nemtizz]

What is with the shaky camera? Vomit inducing.

 

Thought that was a goal. Arsenal playing better in 2 mins away from their library.

[El Prontonise]

Just now, nemtizz said:

What is with the shaky camera? Vomit inducing.

 

Thought that was a goal. Arsenal playing better in 2 mins away from their library.

 

Wrong thread.

[nemtizz]

Just now, El Prontonise said:

 

Wrong thread.

 

Cheers bert

[Optimistic Nut]

6 minutes ago, Pilko said:

I kind of don't mind what they opt for in the end, so long as we can get virtually instant, correct decisions. No manual drawing of lines or five minutes delays, basically fully automated with a human to verify.

 

I think it makes it better down the pyramid too. You've got a law at the moment which is nigh on impossible to call with the naked eye which seems pointless. At least "daylight" gives you a chance of seeing it properly. 

[Cf]

Obviously in terms of the tech it's just moving the line. 

 

And it would definitely have an effect on how the game is played. 

 

Hard to quantify but VAR probably has already changed how the game is played. 

 

Back in the day if a player was a toe ahead then offside probably wouldn't be flagged cos the linesman has to be sure and if not benefit of the doubt is given to the attacker. 

 

That's not the case now so it makes it easier for defenders and harder for attackers. 

[huss9]

should always be judged by where the feet are.

[Checko]

Instinctively I hate Wenger's idea. This could be due to a natural 'I don't like change' to be fair. But my worries are as follows:

 

1. It probably won't do anything to make offside more/less contentious. It'll still be decided by comparing the exact positions of two people at the precise moment another person kicks the ball in a completely different position. This whole 'clear daylight' bullshit seems a red herring. Officials will still just try and get it right as best they can. They'll never be perfect because that's impossible.

 

2. Stronger teams willl generally be attacking more than weaker teams. Favouring attackers more will favour stonger teams more and so presumably make football more predictable [tbf. it's possible it'll help weaker teams who just want to whack it over the top, given pojnt 3.] Football is the most popular sport in the world, and also the one the bookies find hardest to predict because it's so low scoring, which makes it more unpredictable on an individual game basis.

 

3. Thinking about how the game could practically play out. An attacker can stand in an offside position behind a defender and then just briefly move their foot level at the point a pass is made and be onside. That's not fucking football.  Defenders will have to be aware of what's going on in front of them to see the pass, know what's going on beside them to know the offside line and know what's going on behind them, all at the same time. That seems unbalanced. Like a good cricket pitch has a fair balance of bat and ball, a good football game should have a good balance of attack and defence.

 

4. Making it easier for attackers to get in behind defenders could result in even more low blockage, or a full on reliance of athleticism uber alles.

 

5. Ultimately I don't see what problem this solves. Offside is still decided by an infinitely small distance at a particular moment of time. Just saying it'll result in more scoring does not mean the game will be better. If we just wanted tons of scoring we'd all watch basketball or cricket.

 

It's perfectly possible I'm wrong about all this. Offside's been changed a number of times in the past [Bill McCracken represent!], and I don't mind it being tested. But the whole, 'it'll result in more goals therefore good' I would strongly dispute, and I don't actually think the current rule is a problem personally.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Checko
because has an 'e' in it.

[80]

4 hours ago, Lush Vlad said:

Proper fence sitting here. As I fucking despise what offside has become. But at the same time, the whole ‘daylight’ thing seems a bit too far the other way. 
 

No idea how to strike a balance.

[80]

3 hours ago, midds said:

You'd be just moving the line 2 yards back towards goal. Goals would still be chalked off because they're 2cm offside but it's probably easier to live with as it would give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. I know it's the laws of the game but I still have massive issues with defenders playing attackers onside when they're 40 yards away on the opposite touchline - I know they're playing the same game but it's fucking miles away and they're never getting back and stopping the goal anyway 

And conversely, attackers 'not affecting play'. Total horseshit.

[80]

3 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

I think it makes it better down the pyramid too. You've got a law at the moment which is nigh on impossible to call with the naked eye which seems pointless. At least "daylight" gives you a chance of seeing it properly. 

The bottom two characters - I'm struggling to see if the man in red is playing the woman in blue onside when they're frozen still, nevermind if they were in full motion. 

 

Obviously, no defence could risk a situation like that happening so in real life they'd just keep the attacker half a yard in front of them at all times.

 

There'll be a lot more battling so it'd probably fuck Isak's career

[Optimistic Nut]

I think that's more in-keeping with the spirit of what the offside law was originally intended for though? 

 

I just don't see the point in a law where this can be interpreted or given as offside. With or without VAR.

 

 

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

I don't agree that teams are just going to sit deeper either. Us, Villa, etc don't play a highline as an offside trap, it's to try and condense the play and win the ball back higher up the pitch. We're not going to suddenly drop deeper just because of an offside law change.

 

Teams who already play defensively will still play defensively.

[80]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I don't agree that teams are just going to sit deeper either. Us, Villa, etc don't play a highline as an offside trap, it's to try and condense the play and win the ball back higher up the pitch. We're not going to suddenly drop deeper just because of an offside law change.

 

Teams who already play defensively will still play defensively.

We don't play a high line as an offside trap, you're right, but a rule change as extreme as the example I posted would raise the risk and pain of getting your calculations wrong so high that it wouldn't be tolerable anymore. Get it wrong under the current rules and you've got a solid chance of recovering, which makes the risk acceptable.

 

I agree the example you've given there created by the current VAR-enforced rules is appalling, but I don't agree that either extreme is in keeping with the spirit of the original law. And I don't think the VAR issue can be dismissed. Offside as an idea was there to keep competitive tension in the game and prevent it being purely run by quarterbacks hoofing it from one end of the pitch to the other. It was done by the eye and it didn't really matter whether one instance was precisely the right decision or not either (so long as the referees were impartial) as the risk of the decision going against you, whether you were attacking or defending, was enough to generally keep players honest.

 

In de facto terms, offside used to mean 'does it look fair?'. It didn't really matter too much whether it was a nose or an arse past a defender, so long as it felt about right and kept the game fun. Which let tweaks like the 90s daylight rule be introduced. The newly suggested daylight rule in the world of VAR is way more extreme than the old version, though. Combine it with 'not interfering with play' and it's a recipe for disaster. 

 

I keep saying it as a joke, but I'm serious - if you want to choose the right body part to judge offside with, go with the perineum. It lets feet, heads and chests cause no problem, but doesn't put defenders at a game changing disadvantage.