Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Mr Anon 4:33 Sun Nov 8
Solving the offside issue.

Safe to say VAR has caused as many issues as it's solved, while ending up even more controversial.

Rather than scrapping it completely was thinking could they not chip player's boots like they have the ball already, and adjust the rule so that if player's feet are onside then all good?

Would take away all the ambiguousness and allow for almost instant decisions.

Either they need to go all in and throw more technology into solving the issue, it it needs to be reversed entirely, can't go on like this surely

Mr Anon 4:39 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Obviously the whole interfering with play issue remains but at least it gets rid of the 5 minute drawing multiple lines thing

Lee Trundle 4:43 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

I'll never be interested in changes that can't be implemented throughout all the leagues, including youth level.

We're soon going to have 2 versions of football at this rate.

Or we can sack of VAR and pretend this dirty thing never happened.

Cheezey Bell-End 4:43 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

It should be clear and obvious that it was missed. If you need multiple views and extra technology to determine minute measurements that a person couldn't accurately make in real time, it's not offside.

Dandy Lyon 4:45 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

It’s a modern day problem where people are unable to admit they were wrong.

The powers that be thought VAR would be black and white and solve many different issues.

The only correct course now would be to say, we tried, it made things worse, so we’re scrapping it, but that would involve someone admitting they got it wrong, and it just won’t happen.

White Pony 4:48 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

I think it’s more the offside rule itself that is the problem, not VAR.

The whole interfering with play part is flawed.

To me, Haller was offside, whether or not he jumped for the ball or not. The ball was played to him, he was off. Simple as that.

Mr Anon 4:56 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Yeah indeed, that's another issue entirely, was more thinking about the ridiculous line drawing and the Bamford issue yesterday. In terms of interfering with play, they should rule if you're inside the 6 yard then you're interfering with play because that's absolutely the case.

Alfs 5:01 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Chipping to boots wouldn't help as VAR is working on such small margins that the head can be offside even if the boots aren't.

Alfs 5:03 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Bamford's disallowed goal is a good example. His upper arm/shoulder was deemed offside.

Mr Anon 5:05 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Alfs,

As I said in OP, chip the boots AND rework the rule so as long as your feet are onside then all good

Mr Anon 5:06 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

That's pretty much what the rule was originally anyway wasn't it? arms and head were ignored

Far Cough 5:08 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

go back to the old offside rule you premier league cunts

Woodford Green 5:13 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Anon, if it gets to the point of having to draw lines they should just give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Its too close to call and the positioning of the line could be open to interpretation.

Iron Duke 5:14 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

If you draw a line, and it isn’t clear, instead of drawing dots and trying to determine if someone’s armpit or ballsack is offside, call it onside. It’s that fucking simple and most rational people have been saying this.

Swiss. 5:14 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Mr Anon 4:56 Sun Nov 8
"if you're inside the 6 yard then you're interfering with play"

Totally agree.

Mike Oxsaw 6:03 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

TV companies would never agree to ditching it as it creates far too many "talking points" that pundits can pour over, filling up many minutes and making programs more attractive to advertisers.

Even it the football authorities were to see sense and drop it, you can be sure the media won't.

Sven Roeder 6:52 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

As I and several others have said go back to the rule that requires daylight between the last point of the attacker & the furtherest forward point of the defender to be offside.
If a line has you a cm offside you can’t really complain has you have had a whole body width to keep behind the defender

zico 6:58 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Which manager said that if you were on the pitch you were interfering with play, Clough? Shankly?

Bamford's goal/no goal will make it difficult for a striker to point where he wants it without being deemed offside now. Whilst "technically correct" it's a decision that is ridiculous. I am sure that with VAR there is a case for the "daylight" rule they tried a few years ago or if a decision by VAR can't be reached within 30 seconds the original decision stands.

You could of course really complicate matters and only look at an offside depending on which part of the body scores the goal. So if say a players scores with his right foot but it's a tight decision, VAR can only look at whether his right foot was offside. Same with left foot, head, buttock, whatever. If he scores with his left foot but his shoulder and head are offside but his left foot is onside the goal stands. Told you it was complicated!

Sven Roeder 7:07 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Penalty against Liverpool
FMOB
Never a pen
Except under the current nonsense rules where you can’t run unless with your arms by your sides

Should have used a Panenka , Kev

Far Cough 7:46 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

How can tennis, cricket, NFL and Rugby get the technology right but not fucking football?

Alfs 9:49 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.

Sorry, Anon. Indeed you did.

Yes, I think that could work.

Page 1 - Next