Still not worthy of a thread

[Choppy Chop Chop]

Quote

31 minutes ago, ToonMonkey123 said:

Boro used to be a class Derby not just saying this to be different but I always thought it was bigger than Sunderland and a quite a couple people still properly hate them. Id love it if they came up me

 

Quote

Id love it if they came up me

You might want to rephrase that 

[ToonMonkey123]

Just now, Choppy Chop Chop said:

You might want to rephrase that 

🤣🤣🤣 honestly to do you not think it would be class

[ToonMonkey123]

Can we get a boro thread to shit on the smograts and reminisce to to fierce derby days back in the 90s miss them me. Id love to chase a smoggy back to smog land. 

[Choppy Chop Chop]

Just now, ToonMonkey123 said:

🤣🤣🤣 honestly to do you not think it would be class

OK how about I'd love it if they came up. Full stop 

[Checko]

 

4 hours ago, LFEE said:

 

One of the reason's football's one of the hardest sports for bookies to predict is because it's low scoring. The more you favour the attacking side and increase goals the more predictable it becomes as the stronger sides will be attacking more so in general will get more advantage.

 

Allowing attackers to just stand behind a defender in their blind spot and just wave a foot back at the right moment seems dumb to me. How can you expect defenders to watch the play ahead, the offside line beside and an attacker behind all at the same time?

 

I think the balance is absolutely fine now personally. 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Checko

[ToonMonkey123]

5 minutes ago, Choppy Chop Chop said:

OK how about I'd love it if they came up. Full stop 

Haha shit on the smoggies on derby day

[Optimistic Nut]

44 minutes ago, Checko said:

 

One of the reason's football's one of the hardest sports for bookies to predict is because it's low scoring. The more you favour the attacking side and increase goals the more predictable it becomes as the stronger sides will be attacking more so in general will get more advantage.

 

Allowing attackers to just stand behind a defender in their blind spot and just wave a foot back at the right moment seems dumb to me. How can you expect defenders to watch the play ahead, the offside line beside and an attacker behind all at the same time?

 

I think the balance is absolutely fine now personally. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were writing the laws of football from scratch, you wouldn't write one where this goes against it or should even be considered as being an offence, would you?

 

 

Daylight makes so much more sense. 

[Hanshithispantz]

You could say that about most laws of any sport though?

 

Offsides as they are make perfect sense to anyone who plays and watches football.

[Hanshithispantz]

Like in that image, if the player's offside, it's completely his own fault 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Hanshithispantz

[Optimistic Nut]

2 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

You could say that about most laws of any sport though?

 

Offsides as they are make perfect sense to anyone who plays and watches football.

 

I played and watch football and no it didn't. A law that you're literally guessing makes no sense. Daylight you're clearly pushing the laws of the game, plus you've more chance of seeing it. 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Optimistic Nut

[Hanshithispantz]

Offsides have been part of the game for over 150 years and used to be far more favourable to the defender, it makes as much sense as anything else in the game.

[Hanshithispantz]

FWIW, up until the early 90s, 3 players had to between the attacker and the goal. It then changed to 2, but even being level with the defender was considered offside. The current rules (having to be beyond the defender) came in around the start of the Premiership. 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Hanshithispantz

[Rod]

2 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

FWIW, up until the early 90s, 3 players had to between the attacker and the goal. It then changed to 2, but even being level with the defender was considered offside. The current rules (having to be beyond the defender) came in around the start of the Premiership. 

 

 

 

3 players? Are you sure?

[Hanshithispantz]

Just now, Rod said:

3 players? Are you sure?

In the 1800s

[Optimistic Nut]

Go back and watch any match on Sky in the 90s & early 00s. The commentators and pundits would normally ask, "was their clear daylight there?" when saying if it was on and off. That seemed to be the interpretation and it made perfect sense. 

[midds]

The Wenger thing just moves the line (in favour of the attacker obviously) to a different place. I can't see it making too much of an impact either way tbh, teams will either sit deeper to reduce the affect or play suicidal offside traps and cross their fingers they get it right. Struggling to see the benefits really - currently we're trying to see the overlap, it'll just change into looking for the gap, it's 6 and 2 threes

[LFEE]

1 minute ago, midds said:

The Wenger thing just moves the line (in favour of the attacker obviously) to a different place. I can't see it making too much of an impact either way tbh, teams will either sit deeper to reduce the affect or play suicidal offside traps and cross their fingers they get it right. Struggling to see the benefits really - currently we're trying to see the overlap, it'll just change into looking for the gap, it's 6 and 2 threes

Yes but moving the line means if mistake or guess is made it’s easier to swallow knowing 99% of the player was ahead of the defender. As opposed to them guessing at times with 1% of the attacker supposedly ahead of play.

 

I say supposedly because currently it’s hard to define which part of the body they are looking for and when they tell you and you look at it there’s still a lot of doubt and frustration. This looks like an all or nothing call.

 

Another benefit is they won’t need to draw the lines 99 out of a 100 as will be obvious to naked eye so goal celebrations will be more confident and decisions/reviews quicker.

 

Everyone assumes the defenders will sit deeper and maybe they will but a lot of the frustrating goals are ruled out from crosses and set pieces so that’s unrelated to defenders starting position as they’ll not want to keep boxing in their own GK.

 

Also if one defence sits deeper then people forget the other will. That will uncompress the game and allow more room for midfielders and 10’s along with more opportunities to shoot long range.

 

Let’s give it a try and find out as presently the current offside is an absolutely abomination and I’d seriously question anyone who is happy with it their love of the beautiful game.

[Hanshithispantz]

28 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Go back and watch any match on Sky in the 90s & early 00s. The commentators and pundits would normally ask, "was their clear daylight there?" when saying if it was on and off. That seemed to be the interpretation and it made perfect sense. 

Quick look suggests the law just stated "level" from 90 to 05 (then the foot/head stuff was added to the text) apparently so it might have been more open to interpretation back then. I cannot remember ever seeing a call when a player was like a full leg length past the defender and it not been an obvious offside though?

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Hanshithispantz

[midds]

4 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Yes but moving the line means if mistake or guess is made it’s easier to swallow knowing 99% of the player was ahead of the defender. As opposed to them guessing at times with 1% of the attacker supposedly ahead of play.

 

I say supposedly because currently it’s hard to define which part of the body they are looking for and when they tell you and you look at it there’s still a lot of doubt and frustration. This looks like an all or nothing call.

 

Another benefit is they won’t need to draw the lines 99 out of a 100 as will be obvious to naked eye so goal celebrations will be more confident and decisions/reviews quicker.

 

Everyone assumes the defenders will sit deeper and maybe they will but a lot of the frustrating goals are ruled out from crosses and set pieces so that’s unrelated to defenders starting position as they’ll not want to keep boxing in their own GK.

 

Also if one defence sits deeper then people forget the other will. That will uncompress the game and allow more room for midfielders and 10’s along with more opportunities to shoot long range.

 

Let’s give it a try and find out as presently the current offside is an absolutely abomination and I’d seriously question anyone who is happy with it their love of the beautiful game.

It's still going to come down to a few mm either way though, it'll change the emphasis from looking for a piece of body overlapping into looking for a gap but it'll still, essentially, be the same process driven by VAR - who I have zero faith or confidence in. They'll still draw the line and they'll still take ages and they'll still be accountable for stopping the footage at the correct time and using the correct body parts (arms) to draw the lines and make the decision. 

 

Happy to give it a go and see what happens but I think it's not going to be that different in practise. It's the people using and implementing VAR that are the issue for me - they're fucking useless

[Rod]

9 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Yes but moving the line means if mistake or guess is made it’s easier to swallow knowing 99% of the player was ahead of the defender. As opposed to them guessing at times with 1% of the attacker supposedly ahead of play.

 

I say supposedly because currently it’s hard to define which part of the body they are looking for and when they tell you and you look at it there’s still a lot of doubt and frustration. This looks like an all or nothing call.

 

Another benefit is they won’t need to draw the lines 99 out of a 100 as will be obvious to naked eye so goal celebrations will be more confident and decisions/reviews quicker.

 

Everyone assumes the defenders will sit deeper and maybe they will but a lot of the frustrating goals are ruled out from crosses and set pieces so that’s unrelated to defenders starting position as they’ll not want to keep boxing in their own GK.

 

Also if one defence sits deeper then people forget the other will. That will uncompress the game and allow more room for midfielders and 10’s along with more opportunities to shoot long range.

 

Let’s give it a try and find out as presently the current offside is an absolutely abomination and I’d seriously question anyone who is happy with it their love of the beautiful game.

Totally agree. The offside rule as it stands is ridiculous. Yes the Arsne Wenger offside rule gives an advantage to the attacker. I'm all for that.

[Optimistic Nut]

Shearer's volley v Villa in 2001 to the letter of the law would probably be offside. That's just bullshit, man.

[Hanshithispantz]

I'm giving him marginally onside there 

 

 

Should have diving style judges rating each goal out of 10, with 9s across the board and above being immune to offsides or fouls in the buildup.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Hanshithispantz

[Checko]

45 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If you were writing the laws of football from scratch, you wouldn't write one where this goes against it or should even be considered as being an offence, would you?

 

 

Daylight makes so much more sense. 

IMO absolutely no more illogical than saying the attacker is allowed to have basically their whole body closer to the goal than the defender and that's fine. You could set the offside line anywhere:

 

• If any part of the attacker is level with a defender itis offside. Like it was before the 90s.
• If any part of the attacker is beyond the defender itis offside. As it is now.
• If any part of the attacker is level with the defender it's onside. As is proposed. 

 

None of these is inherently illogical. And I don't mind them trialing it and if there's more goals I'm sure they'll go for it because more goals = better seemingly. That's ultimately what this is all about. But again, making football higher scoring makes it more predictable and favours the stronger teams, which given the already vast financial advantage stronger teams have, particularly since the globalisation of the game, I don't see as a good thing. 

 

It makes no sense to me to say either that this will make offside decisions clearer or more obvious: It's an infintesimally small border that's judged by an offical at the exact moment a ball is kicked somewhere else. They need to be looking at both places at the same time (which is usually impossible) & be able to judge the tiniest overlaps between 2 moving objects from up to 60 yards away. It's literally impossible for humans to reliably get these very tight calls correct because of that. This doesn't change that, just where that border is.

 

More than anything, this would allow attackers to just stand behind defenders & tap a toe back at the right time to be onside, while defenders have to be looking at what's happening ahead, beside and behind. That's not what I want to see I want a proper balance between attack and defence.  

 

Anyway, instincitvely I don't think football needs more goals or predicability. It became the world's most popular game as a low scoring sport, perhaps because it's a low scoring sport. I don't think this will do anything to make offsides clearer (I don't think it will make them less clear either) and I don't like how I could see it impacting play. But anyway, that's all based on my preferences, if you want to see more goals then that's your preference for the game and I can see why you'd want it.

[buzz]

Burnie shilling Rainbet got him perma banned from Twitter  bloke will be going apoplectic 

 

 

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, midds said:

It's still going to come down to a few mm either way though, it'll change the emphasis from looking for a piece of body overlapping into looking for a gap but it'll still, essentially, be the same process driven by VAR - who I have zero faith or confidence in. They'll still draw the line and they'll still take ages and they'll still be accountable for stopping the footage at the correct time and using the correct body parts (arms) to draw the lines and make the decision. 

 

Happy to give it a go and see what happens but I think it's not going to be that different in practise. It's the people using and implementing VAR that are the issue for me - they're fucking useless

Yes but the amount of times they have to scrutinise a decision is at the opposite end of the spectrum. You’ll definitely see a reduction in the need for VAR to draw lines. They’ll see majority with their own eyes.

 

Id bin it and just take your chances with a ref and 2 linesman with regards to VAR.

 

As for offsides my alternative is split pitch into 4 quarters and you can’t be offside in middle two. All for daylight though and see how it goes.