Offside rule

[bobbydazzla]

23 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Also, go have a look at what was fundamentally wrong with the backpass rule that had been used for over a century that needed changing 34 years ago.

 

 

 

That was perfectly acceptable, should we have kept that?

 

 

Changing the backpass rule doesnt suddenly mean that no-one could be sure if a goal would stand until a computer or VAR operator had decided in the goal should stand. With everyone waiting for ages for a decision to be made. 

[bobbydazzla]

2 hours ago, El Prontonise said:

 

That did change the sport a lot.  It was a very positive rule change.

 

You know what I meant.

 

Changing the backpass rule doesnt suddenly mean that no-one could be sure if a goal would stand until a computer or VAR operator had decided in the goal should stand. With everyone waiting for ages for a decision to be made. 

[bobbydazzla]

Fucking backpass rule getting compared to the seismic changes in the game VAR has created.

 

You backpass nonces are off your tits man. 
 

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[Optimistic Nut]

20 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

You know what I meant.

 

Changing the backpass rule doesnt suddenly mean that no-one could be sure if a goal would stand until a computer or VAR operator had decided in the goal should stand. With everyone waiting for ages for a decision to be made. 

 

I'd think this even without VAR, and it's how most took the law before that anyway. I don't see why it'd be a big deal just making that the law and be done with it.

 

I bet if we could go back and watch any match in the 90s/00s where there was a contentious offside, the commentators and pundits would look for daylight and the managers and players would in the post-match interview. 

[bobbydazzla]

8 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

I'd think this even without VAR, and it's how most took the law before that anyway. I don't see why it'd be a big deal just making that the law and be done with it.

 

I bet if we could go back and watch any match in the 90s/00s where there was a contentious offside, the commentators and pundits would look for daylight and the managers and players would in the post-match interview. 

Simple solution.

 

Tie heavy weights to VAR and all screen based in-game decision making and then drop them into the Mariana Trench so they can be sunk to the bottom forever and just accept it’s a fucking dogshit system that once upon a time ruined the game for a few years. 

 

 

Edited February 11 by bobbydazzla

[joeyt]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Also, go have a look at what was fundamentally wrong with the backpass rule that had been used for over a century that needed changing 34 years ago.

 

 

 

That was perfectly acceptable, should we have kept that?

 

 

 

Surely you can see the difference between the back pass rule changing and overhauling the offside rule because we've brought technology into a human game?

 

It's like me saying all handball should be penalties and then using the new rule that goalkeepers concede a corner if they don't release the ball as justification for a rule change

 

They don't compare

 

 

Edited February 11 by joeyt

[stozo]

Football is so much more enjoyable when you don’t have VAR interfering, eh…

[bobbydazzla]

Can I just shock you, I like VAR.

 

[Mike]

 

They need their fucking ass beat. One ref gets his ass beat and all this goes away.

[geordie_b]

1 minute ago, stozo said:

Football is so much more enjoyable when you don’t have VAR interfering, eh…

 

Counter argument to that is that wasnt even close, a 5 second review sees thats offside. Not checking with Willocks barber to see if he had a number 1 or number 2 buzz cut earlier that week.

[joeyt]

That Abraham goal would have been onside in your rules @Optimistic Nut

 

Thoughts?

[Optimistic Nut]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

That Abraham goal would have been onside in your rules @Optimistic Nut

 

Thoughts?

 

Happy for that to be a goal if the law is changed. As it stands though, awful decision. 

[TheBrownBottle]

39 minutes ago, stozo said:

Football is so much more enjoyable when you don’t have VAR interfering, eh…

Or when a linesman can do his job from a free kick and look down the fucking line 

[Loki679]

On 12/02/2026 at 01:49, loki679 said:

 

It doesn't really matter where or how you draw the lines, the problem is in the interpretation and implementation.  You're still gonna get cases where it's right on the edge so some primary school prowler is going to spend 5 minutes meticulously examining the replay before making whichever decision is best for Cartel Utd.

 

Just take VAR off offsides and let the lino make the call.  Limit VAR to serious foul play or, even better, scrap the whole stupid idea.

 

I would just like to say that the person who said this is a complete nob and I rescind everything he said.  Long live our VAR overlords.

[Poon Raccoon]

The Cartel get enough favours WITH VAR (Wirtz), they would froth at the mouth if it was abolished!

[TRon]

14 hours ago, joeyt said:

That Abraham goal would have been onside in your rules @Optimistic Nut

 

Thoughts?

 

It's arguable that if the law was different then the Newcastle defenders would probably not have pushed out that far. 

 

I still think that Arsene Wenger's proposed rule change made the best sense. You'd still get pundits waffling about poor decisions but at least perfectly good goals like Willock's last week wouldn't get ruled out. 

[Heron]

14 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Or when a linesman can do his job from a free kick and look down the fucking line 

I actually felt it was as obvious as it could be tbh. Obviously, I'm a tad biased.

 

The defenders were not only stood in a line but on the line of the 18 yard box. One or two players looked to have body parts offside for Villa and weren't "interfering with play" which is a nonsense in itself but Abraham had his full body offside.

 

The fact that the line acted as guidance and it was from a dead-ball situation rather than when the game was in flow made it even worse.

 

 

Edited February 15 by Heron

[The College Dropout]

Yep.

[Yorkie]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

 

This demonstrates the fact it's 1-1 in terms of the Have VAR vs. Don't have VAR argument. Both are wretched decisions and provide an argument for doing things the other way.

 

The most compelling case all night was the Digne foul imo. Those are the situations where VAR is most justified.

 

I include the non-pen in that too. If they get it right the first time, fine, good for us, it's the correct decision and it's a moment of good fortune. A hopeful cross which could have gone anywhere has been upgraded to an unbelievable scoring opportunity.

 

But ultimately, the incorrect call has delivered a punishment far more befitting of the crime. It's frustrating because we've been denied our disproportionate goalscoring opportunity allowed by the rulebook, but it doesn't justify VAR for me.

[Kid Icarus]

15 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

This demonstrates the fact it's 1-1 in terms of the Have VAR vs. Don't have VAR argument. Both are wretched decisions and provide an argument for doing things the other way.

 

The most compelling case all night was the Digne foul imo. Those are the situations where VAR is most justified.

 

I include the non-pen in that too. If they get it right the first time, fine, good for us, it's the correct decision and it's a moment of good fortune. A hopeful cross which could have gone anywhere has been upgraded to an unbelievable scoring opportunity.

 

But ultimately, the incorrect call has delivered a punishment far more befitting of the crime. It's frustrating because we've been denied our disproportionate goalscoring opportunity allowed by the rulebook, but it doesn't justify VAR for me.

 

Can't help but chirp on this one like.

 

Technically it's 2-0 VAR. Romantically it might be a 2-0 for anti-VAR though if you both hate the Willock decision and are willing to live with decisions like the Abraham one.

 

Last night is the type of decision (along with the others) that imo a few days ago wasn't being considered as a regular occurrence in the pre-VAR days by the people who are vehemently anti-VAR. 

 

The Willock one is an extremely unlucky, some might say pedantic decision, but ultimately it's still been called correctly.

 

 

Edited February 15 by Kid Icarus

[Yorkie]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Can't help but chirp on this one like.

 

Technically it's 2-0 VAR. Romantically it might be a 2-0 for anti-VAR though if you both hate the Willock decision and are willing to live with decisions like the Abraham one.

 

Last night is the type of decision (along with the others) that imo a few days ago wasn't being considered as a regular occurrence in the pre-VAR days by the people who are vehemently anti-VAR. 

 

The Willock one is an extremely unlucky, some might say pedantic decision, but ultimately it's still been called correctly.

 

My read is:

 

Willock is 1-0 to non-VAR because it's a hideously pedantic call only achievable with a digital linesman which is entirely not in the spirit of the game. A perfectly good goal chalked off.

 

Abraham makes it 1-1 because he's offside. A totally illegitimate goal chalked on.

[Mike]

Realistically it's 2-0 beat these fucking pedantic selectively competent useless bent motherfucking piece of shit referees with a rubber hose on their bare ass the fucking twats. They hate having their authority digitally questioned so they use it to suck the fun out of the game and then hey, here's a game with no VAR and immediately we remember why we needed the god damn robots in the first place because they can't see THREE MOTHERFUCKERS offside in real time. 

[Mike]

Two motherfuckers can't see a guy playing volleyball in the fucking box. They can see the handball but Four eyeballs couldn't see where he jumped from or where he landed. 

 

They can't see a studs up challenge. They see the challenge, yeah but not the severity. Nope.

They're fucking useless cunts and the fact that Kavanagh is probably gonna work another prem match next week means that performance means nothing.

 

The argument is a distraction. Why is the English FA incapable of hiring competent referees? We're always stunned when we play in Europe and the refereeing is unobtrusive and efficient (aside from Paris ofc). Then in the international games the WORST decisions are always the English cunts. Why are they specifically the most shit fucks. Why are cokehead nonces the best your league can provide.

[Mike]

The teams that get in the refs face (anecdotally) don't have to put up with this shit because they know from jump there's going to be scrutiny. It's the mugs like us that respect the referee that spend the entire match waiting form the dipshit with the whistle to ruin the match.

[Mike]

 I fucking hate referees god damn. Every sport same cunts.