Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, gbandit said:

What are the rules, if part of the attacking player’s body is behind the defender’s body then they’re onside? I’m interested, we’ll see a lot more goals but a lot more VARs

a body part (not the arm) in line with the defender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lxsln said:

Lower divisions in Sweden, Holland and Italy will test a new variant of offside.

 

The left one is the new variant.

Screenshot_20220929_214939_Aftonbladet.jpg

 

Yes please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Stifler tbh. Changing what constitutes to offside means they'll just be drawing stupid lines between the attackers trailing foot as opposed to their front foot/shoulder. Doesnt change anything in that respect.  The offside law isnt the problem, its the woeful implementation of VAR, which you could argue is completely flawed anyway. 

 

Anyway the rule is fine as it is, if any part of your body that you can score with is offisde then you're offside. Nowt wrong with that. Stupid to now tell us that a player isnt offside because his trailing foot just so happens to be in line with a defenders knee when the ball is kicked. For all intents and purposes the attacker is offside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Agree with Stifler tbh. Changing what constitutes to offside means they'll just be drawing stupid lines between the attackers trailing foot as opposed to their front foot/shoulder. Doesnt change anything in that respect.  The offside law isnt the problem, its the woeful implementation of VAR, which you could argue is completely flawed anyway. 

 

Anyway the rule is fine as it is, if any part of your body that you can score with is offisde then you're offside. Nowt wrong with that. Stupid to now tell us that a player isnt offside because his trailing foot just so happens to be in line with a defenders knee when the ball is kicked. For all intents and purposes the attacker is offside. 

 

I know it wasn't officially the law, but wasn't the sort of accepted interpretation, 'unless there's daylight, he's onside'? VAR is hamstrung by a pathetic offside rule. If a player is caught offside with the new interpretation then it's easier to accept because the forward have more leeway and if they're still caught off then tough shit. This rule where you're offside just because you're leaning in a different direction is bollocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

:lol: eh? It will mean x number of disallowed goals will no longer be disallowed. Itll solve loads. 

 

Aye -there'll still be the same controversies when it's borderline, but it'll reduce the amount VAR can intervene and stop goals, so I'm for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Police were firing tear gas into the crowd which forced a stampede at the back as people were fleeing. In this day and age, with the knowledge of history and things that have happened before, that’s pretty much murder committed by them. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, another great day for cops using tear gas. I think in the future we’ll look back and wonder how it was ever seen as ok to use it on crowds of civilians.

 

 

Edited by Kimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/09/2022 at 11:59, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

:lol: eh? It will mean x number of disallowed goals will no longer be disallowed. Itll solve loads. 

He's not wrong that it just moves the line though, or that the margins are any less fine. It should make spotting offsides easier though I imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...