Mex Martillo 8:24 Wed Jul 3
Should they change the offside rule?
|
|
Should they change the offside rule?
With humans taking the decision in the moment, mistakes apart, offside has always been pretty obvious and something you can also see when watching the game.
Now we have VAR offside has become so precise an out stretched foot or toe can be correctly judged even though the body of the attacker is largely onside.
It just does not look like offside. Yes technically it is and VAR can see that, but we can’t.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Heath Hammer
11:15 Fri Jul 5
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
No
The rules work. as others have said, all VAR has done is expose the fine margins.
I would prefer to Scrap VAR - but if not them maybe make it so the referee has a finite time 15/20 seconds to review - this would reinforce the rationale that VAR is there to help stop 'Clear and obvious mistakes' - if they can't do that in 15-20 seconds then to my mind, it was not clear and obvious. If still unclear, then original decision stands.
still think its gonna kill the excitement.
|
Mex Martillo
8:10 Fri Jul 5
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Thames, I agree, also what we are often comparing is two players going in opposite directions, an attacker leaning forward running towards the goal with obviously an out stretched leg as they run and a defender making an offside trap going in away from the goal, leaning away from the goal, leg stretched away from the goal. Obviously when “level” with the rule as it stands the attacker will always be off side by mm. That is not how we have been playing all these years. They need to change the rule to make “level” on side as you and others have been saying.
|
Thames Ironworks
10:42 Thu Jul 4
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
If a players acceleration, reflexes and vision makes them quicker to turn and move for a ball, then the offside rule should not penalise them.
Being as precise as it is now has removed the skill from the game.
The rule should change that if the player is not on the line by a whole body distance then there is cause for appeal. But a toe, forehead, arm, boob (Womens football) or a leaning of the torso puts a goal in question then we have lost what football is about.
|
Westside
8:38 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
If you assume that the technology is accurate then offside/LBW becomes a matter of fact, not opinion. If a player's toe is offside then they are offside. The system works perfectly as it consistently provides the correct decision.
The difference is, in cricket DRS is used to support the umpire and overturn obvious mistakes. A player can be given not out, on an lbw review even if the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps,as in umpire's call. Last night's disallowed England goal, is a great example of umpire's call.
|
The Stoat
8:31 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Hey but hang on STERILE FOOTBALL IS THE FUTURE
GO HAMMERS GO RA RA RA NOW WHERE'S ME POPCORN AND DOG?
|
Mike Oxsaw
8:15 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
They should play adverts while the decision is being assessed. That'll keep us occupied and stop us arguing.
Coffee coloured people rule.
|
-[Rasta]-
5:31 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
don't like it think it spoils the moment like England's second last night, its still not going to be perfect so leave it as it is....
|
WHU(Exeter)
5:30 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Could either change the offside rule or maybe get rid of VAR.
tough call.
|
zico
5:27 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
I'd back the torso (as per athletics) being the point of offside or back to the daylight rule because fingers and toes are a bit silly really to be judged upon.
|
angryprumphs
5:17 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
I actually like VAR for offsides, it allows you to play on and review the decision if required. Will also stop goals giving offside which werent.
|
Mex Martillo
5:04 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
I agree with the first to post on the thread.
Hammer and Pickle 8:31 Wed Jul 3
“Yes.
Most forward attacking player's body, who is actively receiving the ball, has to be entirely over the parallel line defined by the last defending player for offside to be given.”
In my ignorance I thought the rule was something like that. Never knew it was any part of the body that can legally touch the ball, head, leg, foot, toe (not hand and arms chaps) must not be in front of the defender. Changing it to just the body and not legs and head would bring it back to how we have been playing all these years.
I would definitely not get ride of the offside rule and never suggested that.
|
ludo21
4:28 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Iron Duke 10:30 Wed Jul 3
I'm not a great fan of VAR but at least with offside it is clear cut either way... if you change it to create uncertaintly then it becomes subjective again... obviously may be good if the decision favours us but, as we're West Ham, it rarely does! As long as 1mm offside is given as offside for all teams then that's fine.
Obviously this first season of VAR will have its issues but on the whole it should be for the better.
|
Bouncing Ludo
2:18 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
I always thought that athletics had it right in photo-finishes by checking the torso.
Surely you could be exactly level with the last defender, but your stride-length could be different or not synchronised with them and that could make you look offside (which is pretty much what it looked like with the England woman)
I'd prefer VAR to be used to catch out cheats like the american player who was holding on to the defender last night and then threw herself to the ground and won a free kick.
And why is there no technology to work out where the ball left the field of play so that players have to take the throw from the right place. Every player steals feet/yards at every throw-in and it boils my piss.
|
harold
2:00 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Didn't we have the 'daylight rule' some seasons ago?
|
Stubbo
12:27 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Personally I'd like to see them get rid of the 1st and 2nd phase.
Also redefine the 'interferring with play' so that anyone or thought to be in the penalty box is considered interfering.
Lastly, I'd make it so that it's only offside if there is daylight between the attacker and defender, so that an arm, or a leg or an outstretched boot don't count...player has to be clearly offside and beyond the last defender.
|
violator
12:15 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Get rid of 1st, 2nd phases etc etc , load of dog shit that rule
|
DJH
12:10 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
DRS is accepted to have a margin of error too which is one of the reasons given not to overturn an umpires decision if it is only clipping the stump.
Cricket uses snickomenter and hotspot too and does not rely solely on looking at 2D images which have been proved to be often unreliable when judging grounded catches or faint edges, football is relying on the human eye only and this approach is proven to be flawed on 2D images in other sports.
|
Brucies_Star_Prize
12:01 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
FFS.
This is the same stupid argument that old school cricket commentators have regarding DRS. If you assume that the technology is accurate then offside/LBW becomes a matter of fact, not opinion. If a player's toe is offside then they are offside. The system works perfectly as it consistently provides the correct decision.
It's because these decisions were previously subject to human error, that a margin of error appears to be tolerated. Classic examples such as:
"He was pretty much level with the last defender so right decision not to give offside"
"The ball was just clipping the leg stump so umpire correct not to give it out"
Wrong decisions were previously accepted as being "too close to call", now we're complaining about correct decisions!
Even if you did change the rule so that the whole of the attacking player had to be ahead of the last defender to be given offside, you'd still have the same complaints that a trailing leg was slightly behind a toe.
|
Northern Sold
11:54 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
I bet Simon Beck is gutted he can't fuck us over...
|
Grumpster
11:46 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
May as well get rid of linesman, pointless employing the cunts now.
|
The_Phantom
11:44 Wed Jul 3
Re: Should they change the offside rule?
|
Ideally I'd like it scrapped though a few have said this has been tried in practice matches and doesn't make for a better game.
I would change it so there has to be clear daylight between the offiside player and the last defender
|
| 
