Offside rule

[Nobody]

4 hours ago, El Prontonise said:

 

It's a 3d generated still now with the semi automated system.  It's actually always been a still of some sort as it's when it leaves the player making the forward passes body.

 

 

 

Make the lines the computer draws 1 foot thick for both players. If they overlap, go with the on field decision, that removes the ridiculously close decisions we've got now and make sure that only really bad calls gets reviewed. It will basically be a couple of times a season where it'll be applied. 

[Yorkie]

13 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

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.

 

Relieved to see someone else say this. There's fewer people in life I have less time for than the "there's got to be a line somewhere" offside pervs. 

[Superior Acuña]

2 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

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.

 

Yeah same. I'm not a total luddite and am not in theory in opposition to all technology in the game - I'm fine with the goalline tech. But I'm against anything that takes away from the greatest thing about football - the visceral joy when the net ripples (which has been replaced by a flow chart in my head. Could that have been offside? Or in the build up? Could it have hit a hand? Could there have been another foul?). 

 

I'd probably limit it to the first of those two, as I think the second opens the can of worms more. We accept the referee makes mistakes, video can only be used in the case of violent/dangerous instances because then it's not just a matter of rules but player safety.

 

Or just none at all, that's fine too.

 

 

Edited February 11 by Superior Acuña

[bobbydazzla]

Simple question: In your opinion, was football better to watch either live or on telly, before VAR was introduced for offside ?

 

For me it's like night and day. I would go back to no VAR in a heartbeat, whilst accepting that some decisions might be made incorrectly but it's worth it to be able to live in the moment again and not have decisions made on micro-analysis of micro-distances.

 

I'd only use in-game video for off the ball serious foul play, where the ref or lino's couldn't possibly be expected to see the incident.

 

The early cup rounds, when we're free of the VAR shackles, are like a taste of a glorious past.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Earp]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Simple question: In your opinion, was football better to watch either live or on telly, before VAR was introduced for offside ?

 

For me it's like night and day. I would go back to no VAR in a heartbeat, whilst accepting that some decisions might be made incorrectly but it's worth it to be able to live in the moment again and not have decisions made on micro-analysis of micro-distances.

 

I'd only use in-game video for off the ball serious foul play, where the ref or lino's couldn't possibly be expected to see the incident.

 

The early cup rounds, when we're free of the VAR shackles, are how I want football to be.

 

 

 

 

 

no VAR - no brainer.

[Kid Icarus]

20 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Relieved to see someone else say this. There's fewer people in life I have less time for than the "there's got to be a line somewhere" offside pervs. 

I thought we were friends. 

 

Offside might have been brought in for one subjective reason over 100 years ago, but while I get that there's a school of thought that says that's fine, where there's subjectivity there's inconsistency and where there's inconsistency there's unfairness, or corruption masquerading as subjectivity.

 

All fine and unsolvable with something that can only ever be subjective, but like it or not, offside is now one of the few things in football that can be measured objectively as a binary thing. You're either offside or you're not, to a pedantic level admittedly, but true nonetheless. 

 

Going back to some individual and arbitrary definition of what is and isn't an advantage, with lots of room for error and corruption to manoeuvre might give us game flow as a nice side effect, but I'd much rather we just get real-time automated offsides, get the best of both worlds, and not even have to think about it tbh.

 

 

Edited February 11 by Kid Icarus

[joeyt]

5 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

If either of the Willock or City goals are awarded I doubt the opposition would complain. My point has always been what's the point in a law where it's literal guesswork? Those are impossible for the linesmen to call, so just make it onside.

 

Daylight you'll still have the lines and tight calls, but you can accept a call going against you more if it's half an inch of the back of his foot in it, you can accept he was trying to gain an "unfair" advantage there. That last night, though. Haaland last month. Nah. 

 

We had the backpass law changed after 100+ years in the early 90s and it's one of the best law changes the game has had. Offside should be next. 

.

 

 

 

 

The offside law has been fine for decades though,  it's the use of humans using technology that is the problem

 

Bringing in a "daylight" rule just moves the problem to another place. You'll still have it taking ages to decide decisions 

[joeyt]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

 

If Tiote's shoulder is in line with Aguero's left foot here you're happy for this to be a goal?

[El Prontonise]

The issue with bringing in technology to create 3d images then it's offside or not, binary as KI says.

 

Last night's offside was technically correct in how the system works and it being automated.

 

 

However before VAR, would've they looked at the hair /skin of willock being offside in replays etc, of course not.  That's the system I prefer and you would not people complaining for me.

 

 

Edited February 11 by El Prontonise

[Yorkie]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I thought we were friends. 

 

Offside might have been brought in for one subjective reason over 100 years ago, but while I get that there's a school of thought that says that's fine, where there's subjectivity there's inconsistency and where there's inconsistency there's unfairness, or corruption masquerading as subjectivity.

 

All fine and unsolvable with something that can only ever be subjective, but like it or not, offside is now one of the few things in football that can be measured objectively as a binary thing. You're either offside or you're not, to a pedantic level admittedly, but true nonetheless. 

 

Going back to some individual and arbitrary definition of what is and isn't an advantage, with lots of room for error and corruption to manoeuvre might give us game flow as a nice side effect, but I'd much rather we just get real-time automated offsides, get the best of both worlds, and not even have to think about it tbh.

 

That's where we differ because personally I don't really accept that and believe it's only true - in that most binary sense - in a VAR world. And video games. 

 

I won't use last night's as an example because it's so contentious, but the one I always go back to is Schär vs Brighton in the cup last season. Offside in the VAR world but not the real one imo. If the lino calls it on his own, you begrudgingly accept it because technically he isn't wrong, but in all likelihood he doesn't spot it because it's so fine and so inconsequential, and no one complains.

[Kid Icarus]

33 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

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. 

 

I dunno, I think football's too tribalistic for that. All it would take is a bit of inconsistency between decisions and everyone would hate it. 

[Mike]

Get some people that have actually played football to determine what a competitive advantage is, then leave it to the linesman to flag IF HE SEES IT. Go to VAR and weigh what the lino flagged vs the new definition of a competitive advantage. Legs and heads can be off, the rest cannot. Bin that fucking nonces in the box looking at microns of hair follicles.

[FLUMPO235]

I think the only way to make the technology acceptable is to add a facility to the managers. The managers have a giant buzzer, during the game the manager can press the buzzer only once per game, after a VAR decision has been made. Pressing the buzzer delivers a significant, but non lethal electric shock to the VAR operations team. 
 

not only will this make fans and managers feel better, but the Japanese market will love it. 

 

 

Edited February 11 by FLUMPO235

[bobbydazzla]

11 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I thought we were friends. 

 

Offside might have been brought in for one subjective reason over 100 years ago, but while I get that there's a school of thought that says that's fine, where there's subjectivity there's inconsistency and where there's inconsistency there's unfairness, or corruption masquerading as subjectivity.

 

All fine and unsolvable with something that can only ever be subjective, but like it or not, offside is now one of the few things in football that can be measured objectively as a binary thing. You're either offside or you're not, to a pedantic level admittedly, but true nonetheless. 

 

Going back to some individual and arbitrary definition of what is and isn't an advantage, with lots of room for error and corruption to manoeuvre might give us game flow as a nice side effect, but I'd much rather we just get real-time automated offsides, get the best of both worlds, and not even have to think about it tbh.

 

 

 

 

 

Nah.

 

Football's supposed to be a game played by 22 blokes or lasses on a field of grass and enjoyed by the people watching it. With rules in place that maintain the flow and consistency of the game, even if those rules are fallible at times.

 

It's not science. It's sport. It's emotion. 

 

There's human errors without VAR. There's human errors with VAR. There's bias without VAR. There's bias with VAR.

The rigid interpretation of the minutia of the rules isn't doing anyone any favours other than the boffins.

 

It's turning the game into a farce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Mike]

Because we're headed to 16k cameras checking to see if someone's fucking beard is offside while ads play in 3/4th of the screen.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

That's where we differ because personally I don't really accept that and believe it's only true - in that most binary sense - in a VAR world. And video games. 

 

I won't use last night's as an example because it's so contentious, but the one I always go back to is Schär vs Brighton in the cup last season. Offside in the VAR world but not the real one imo. If the lino calls it on his own, you begrudgingly accept it because technically he isn't wrong, but in all likelihood he doesn't spot it because it's so fine and so inconsequential, and no one complains.

 

The VAR world and video games are part of the world we live in though, the technology is there to make it a reality and it's not something that only exists in the abstract.  

[TheEntertainer]

33 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Make the lines the computer draws 1 foot thick for both players. If they overlap, go with the on field decision, that removes the ridiculously close decisions we've got now and make sure that only really bad calls gets reviewed. It will basically be a couple of times a season where it'll be applied. 

This is the answer, VAR should just be used to correct clear and obvious errors

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

Nah.

 

Football's supposed to be a game played by 22 blokes or lasses on a field of grass and enjoyed by the people watching it. With rules in place that maintain the flow and consistency of the game, even if those rules are fallible at times.

 

It's not science. It's sport. It's emotion. 

 

There's human errors without VAR. There's human errors with VAR. There's bias without VAR. There's bias with VAR.

The rigid interpretation of the minutia of the rules isn't doing anyone any favours other than the boffins.

 

It's turning the game into a farce.

 

We're talking about offsides, not VAR. 

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

We're talking about offsides, not VAR. 

 

Fucksakes man, everyone knows what I mean when I say VAR.

 

Using screen based technology to review decisions on a football pitch during a football game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[TheEntertainer]

I came up with a wild conspiracy theory yesterday when talking with my brother, that they actually want VAR to cause all of this uncertainty every time a goal is scored because it adds jeopardy which excites the neutral and fair weather fans and drives engagement as it gets people talking about it. It's incredibly frustrating when it's your team playing, but it definitely adds an element of uncertainty outside of that. I'm pretty sure I've gone full tinfoil hat but it might explain why they seem incapable of just applying common sense. 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

 

Fucksakes man, everyone knows what I mean when I say VAR.

 

Using screen based technology to review decisions on a football pitch.

 

 

 

Yeah but you're replying to me and disagreeing with my point when I'm only talking about offsides. Where VAR should and shouldn't be involved is another thing I think. VAR imo shouldn't even be involved in offsides partly because it isn't fit for purpose and partly because it takes far too long. In my mind VAR being involved in offsides is as daft as if VAR was involved in goal line decisions in a world where goal line technology already exists. 

[ikri]

I generally don't have a problem with the offside rules.  Offside is usually pretty binary, a player is either onside or they're not.  Having said that, I don't believe that a player's eyebrows being offside 30 yards away from the goal gives them much of an advantage.  

I'd be in favour of a minor rule change to keep the current rules for measurements inside the box but measure the attacker's feet against any part of the defender when outside the box.  

[Yorkie]

The thing is, the first bullet point on a linesman's job description isn't to 'spot unfair advantages.' The first bullet point is to spot incidents where an attacker is ahead of the last defender. And if they - with a human eye, 30 yards away - have spotted such an incident, the chances are it's because the attacker is far enough ahead for it to A; be visible to the naked eye and B; be considered an unfair advantage. There's an acceptable margin for error there, imo.

 

But applying the rule at the atomic scale unnecessarily removes that margin for error and, in turn, applies too draconian a stance on how an attacker can behave. At the cost of all the things listed numerous times.

[Novocastrian]

27 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Simple question: In your opinion, was football better to watch either live or on telly, before VAR was introduced for offside ?

 

For me it's like night and day. I would go back to no VAR in a heartbeat, whilst accepting that some decisions might be made incorrectly but it's worth it to be able to live in the moment again and not have decisions made on micro-analysis of micro-distances.

 

I'd only use in-game video for off the ball serious foul play, where the ref or lino's couldn't possibly be expected to see the incident.

 

The early cup rounds, when we're free of the VAR shackles, are like a taste of a glorious past.

 

 

 

 

 

I’m sure I’m massively out but it seems like around 50% of all goals get flagged by VAR and about a third get ruled out.

 

I didn’t even celebrate the Willock goal even though I didn’t initially see his run. I just presumed it would get flagged by VAR and he’d be offside. Once I saw the replay I celebrated as he was obviously on……,

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

The thing is, the first bullet point on a linesman's job description isn't to 'spot unfair advantages.' The first bullet point is to spot incidents where an attacker is ahead of the last defender. And if they - with a human eye, 30 yards away - have spotted such an incident, the chances are it's because the attacker is far enough ahead for it to A; be visible to the naked eye and B; be considered an unfair advantage. There's an acceptable margin for error there, imo.

 

But applying the rule at the atomic scale unnecessarily removes that margin for error and, in turn, applies too draconian a stance on how an attacker can behave. At the cost of all the things listed numerous times.

 

Do you really think Linesmen are working with that in mind? To my mind they're attempting to be just as draconianly accurate as any automated offside system is.