Offside rule

[Groundhog63]

32 minutes ago, Drewboy74 said:

Won't be long before we start seeing adverts on the screen during VAR reviews. Whole thing should be binned. 

 

27 minutes ago, OpenC said:

That's a great shout   although I'm not sure who would want to associate themselves with shit that's ruining the game and pretty much everybody hates, but somebody will

 

 

 

[OpenC]

Yeah probably, or Marmite or some other edgy fuckers who make a virtue of a lot of people hating the product

 

 

Edited February 11 by OpenC

[Kilcline]

3 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

Is Specsavers still the Scottish refs sleeve sponsor? 

[RodneyCisse]

Let’s pray next season the Wirtz rule is implemented for everyone!

[OpenC]

5 minutes ago, Kilcline said:

Is Specsavers still the Scottish refs sleeve sponsor? 

 

Yeah they were last time I watched Berwick

[La Parka]

Just go back to the daylight rule 😂 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

26 minutes ago, OpenC said:

Yeah probably, or Marmite or some other edgy fuckers who make a virtue of a lot of people hating the product

 

 

 

Starmer might use it to announce U-Turns.

[morpeth mag]

10 minutes ago, La Parka said:

Just go back to the daylight rule 😂 

There never has been a daylight rule. The last change in 1990 said that an attacker was onside if he was level with the last defender rather than having to be behind. Of course in a technology driven system the attacker and defender will never be exactly level so it it is back to the law makers to redefine level or we accept that Willock was in fact in front of the last defender 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

2 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

It was about a centimetre of his heel? 

 he was feet behind Pope, where he was in relation to Thaiw was irrelevant. 

[El Prontonise]

2 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 he was feet behind Pope, where he was in relation to Thaiw was irrelevant. 

 

Yeap, this is the offside situation that confuses people constantly.

[Kid Icarus]

9 hours ago, Superior Acuña said:

I guarantee I wouldn’t hate the alternative more. I far preferred the VAR-less way, however shit decisions were sometimes. Nothing is worth what it’s done to the best part of football - celebrations. Absolutely blows my mind that it’s been allowed to happen.

 

If that was truly your view before VAR then that's fair enough, I'm just not convinced everyone's the same or that many wouldn't regret getting rid of it as soon as we get a taste of just how terrible it was. 

[Optimistic Nut]

Assuming even in a VAR world, it wouldn't be a faff to spot ones like this with the Wenger Law? One line from Tiote's closest point to goal. If all of Aguero is beyond that line, offside. Any part of Tiote closer to goal than Aguero. Goal. 

 

Without VAR, you're also more likely to accept that decision even if he was fractionally on, over ones like last night. 

 

 

[Yorkie]

6 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

If that was truly your view before VAR then that's fair enough, I'm just not convinced everyone's the same or that many wouldn't regret getting rid of it as soon as we get a taste of just how terrible it was. 

 

I could live happily in a world where VAR was limited to the following incidents: 

 

 -- upgrading/downgrading red card offences based on 'serious foul play'

 -- reversing unjust penalty calls 

 

And absolutely nothing else.

[Benwell Lad]

In principle VAR has to be a good thing, correcting wrong decisions which could theoretically change victory to defeat and vice versa and ultimately cost tens of millions at the highest end of football.

Changing the offside rule to make it clear (daylight please) would take a lot of the time consuming, opaque decision making out of the process and hopefully get them back to clear and obvious errors.

Would also eliminate a lot of the perceived bias towards towards the darlings of the PL.

[Andy]

The most frustrating incidents are ones like yesterday where the attacker is on the shoulder of the defender or wrestling with him and the margins are incredibly tight.

 

Daylight solves this problem as it gives some advantage to the striker and encourages running off the shoulder rather than discouraging it, which is what the current rules do. At least with daylight you're typically judging off the heel of the attacker when a goal is scored rather than an arbitrary part of their body.  

 

There will always be fine margins but it would be better for the sport and less frustrating if the attacker actually looked offside rather than as it is in the current state where you're so worried that the length of his eyebrows that you don't even bother celebrating. 

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Assuming even in a VAR world, it wouldn't be a faff to spot ones like this with the Wenger Law? One line from Tiote's closest point to goal. If all of Aguero is beyond that line, offside. Any part of Tiote closer to goal than Aguero. Goal. 

 

Without VAR, you're also more likely to accept that decision even if he was fractionally on, over ones like last night. 

 

 

 

It would be just as much of a faff, but the line would be there to decide where there was a miniscule goal-side overlap of bodies instead of now where it decides if there was a miniscule goal-side separation of bodies. 

[Benwell Lad]

5 minutes ago, Andy said:

The most frustrating incidents are ones like yesterday where the attacker is on the shoulder of the defender or wrestling with him and the margins are incredibly tight.

 

Daylight solves this problem as it gives some advantage to the striker and encourages running off the shoulder rather than discouraging it, which is what the current rules do. At least with daylight you're typically judging off the heel of the attacker when a goal is scored rather than an arbitrary part of their body.  

 

There will always be fine margins but it would be better for the sport and less frustrating if the attacker actually looked offside rather than as it is in the current state where you're so worried that the length of his eyebrows that you don't even bother celebrating. 

 

Centre forwards (as was) were always told and coached to play on the shoulder of the last defender.

Not sure how that works out anymore but it is how football was intended to be.

[bobbydazzla]

2 hours ago, OpenC said:

That's a great shout   although I'm not sure who would want to associate themselves with shit that's ruining the game and pretty much everybody hates, but somebody will

 

 

 

 

 

Be the same type of cunts who are happy to sizzle retinas by placing their fast moving brighter than the sun adverts on the jumbo LED's at the Etihad

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[healthyaddiction]

2 hours ago, OpenC said:

Yeah probably, or Marmite or some other edgy fuckers who make a virtue of a lot of people hating the product

 

 

 

Crypto type business probably.

[Nucasol]

4 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

Crypto type business probably.

John Terry’s CryptoGrifto Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT Collection. 
 

[ponsaelius]

4 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

Another annoyance that may have been covered already but how is it all about errors being "clear and obvious" except for offside where a small shaving of head is enough to overturn an on-field decision?

 

If you have to start drawing lines and spending 3+mins to work it out, it's not clear and obvious and you either go with the on-field decision or give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

 

Goal-line tech I don't have an argument with because it's almost instantaneous and while it can be a close call, it's black or white with essentially no room for human error. The offside stuff is none of those things.

 

You're right about the goal line tech but you wouldn't believe the amount of people who have said and genuinely think the same about offsides. 'Offside is offside'. 

 

The rule was brought in to stop goal hanging, it has always been fundamentally about preventing strikers gaining an advantage, not something which is scientifically or quantifiably measurable. Like almost every decision in football it is a subjective judgement call, probably less so than say a tackle in the box, but still so.

 

The fundamental problem with VAR is that the sport is extremely fast moving, fluid and full of micro-moments all open to subjective judgement (of which offsides are one of many during a game). The idea that they can actually successfully be broken down into black/white all the time is fundamentally flawed, and even after all the replays and delays, there is still numerous cases where many will disagree on the outcome. 

 

The introduction of VAR possibly has marginally reduced the volume of more clearly 'wrong' decisions (IE those where the vast majority, despite any partisan leanings, are in agreement). However for me personally the sacrifice in achieving this has simply been to far too great a detriment in the game. I barely even bother celebrating goals now because there is always some reason they could be ruled out, and that is really tragic in what it has done to the game.

 

Going to other football where there is no VAR (lower and non league, earlier rounds of the cup) is a breath of fresh air knowing the outcome is simply the outcome and can be enjoyed in the moment. 

[Optimistic Nut]

1 hour ago, Andy said:

The most frustrating incidents are ones like yesterday where the attacker is on the shoulder of the defender or wrestling with him and the margins are incredibly tight.

 

Daylight solves this problem as it gives some advantage to the striker and encourages running off the shoulder rather than discouraging it, which is what the current rules do. At least with daylight you're typically judging off the heel of the attacker when a goal is scored rather than an arbitrary part of their body.  

 

There will always be fine margins but it would be better for the sport and less frustrating if the attacker actually looked offside rather than as it is in the current state where you're so worried that the length of his eyebrows that you don't even bother celebrating. 

 

Up until about 10-15 years ago it used to be an art beating or setting the offside trap. It's just luck now. You were happy if the attacker was given the advantage as long as there wasn't clear daylight, even if technically it wasn't the law. Just adjust the law to have clear daylight and you save a lot of grey areas or quizzical offsides. 

[Optimistic Nut]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

It would be just as much of a faff, but the line would be there to decide where there was a miniscule goal-side overlap of bodies instead of now where it decides if there was a miniscule goal-side separation of bodies. 

 

Watching the game and as a player, you'd be far more accepting of having a goal disallowed if you were marginally off in the Aguero instance for example, than Willock last night surely? That's with VAR or without VAR. 

[Turnbull2000]

'Clear daylight' would still be contentious, would it not?

 

I think just using feet whilst actually applying the 5cm tolerance (where checking lines will just merge if within 5cm). Ignore arms, shoulders and heads. Just keep it fucking simple as you can. 

[huss9]

feet.