New Offside Rule begins testing this weekend

[Ohnonotagain]

Offside rule only in the 18yd box.

 

[AC Mack]

And you’re changing my argument slightly.

The irony.

 

[Lucky1985]

The irony.

I’m not sure I follow your insinuation. The discussion I had with you was that the rules changing would result in fewer disallowed goals. You disagreed with me. I still don’t understand what your logic for that is, but nonetheless I haven’t changed my argument at any point.

 

[AC Mack]

I’m not sure I follow your insinuation. The discussion I had with you was that the rules changing would result in fewer disallowed goals. You disagreed with me. I still don’t understand what your logic for that is, but nonetheless I haven’t changed my argument at any point.

I asked you how you know there would be more goals, you decided you'd compare me to teaching your 2 year old son counting blocks or chocolate bars.

I mean, f***ing hell mate.

 

[Lucky1985]

I asked you how you know there would be more goals, you decided you'd compare me to teaching your 2 year old son counting blocks or chocolate bars.

I mean, f***ing hell mate.

Not this again.

1.If a team score 3 goals and one is chalked off for a marginal offside, how many goals are they left with?

2.Now if we change the rules so that the goal is no longer offside, how many goals are we left with?

3. So by changing the rules to make fewer goals offside, do we have more or fewer goals?





Answers:
1) 2 goals. 3-1=2
2) 3 goals, 3-0=3
3) More goals. 3 is a larger number than 2.

 

[AC Mack]

Not this again.

1.If a team score 3 goals and one is chalked off for a marginal offside, how many goals are they left with?

2.Now if we change the rules so that the goal is no longer offside, how many goals are we left with?

3. So by changing the rules to make fewer goals offside, do we have more or fewer goals?





Answers:
1) 2 goals. 3-1=2
2) 3 goals, 3-0=3
3) More goals. 3 is a larger number than 2.

Fuck me you've done it again.

My question was about how you know there will be more goals. Your invented and patronising scenario assumes that the defenders and managers and coaches don't know the rules and haven't adapted accordingly - you've just decided to change the rule yet keep every other variable exactly the same. A straw-man argument, if you will.

I'm sure there's someone at home who can explain this to you - not naming any names mind.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

Not this again.

1.If a team score 3 goals and one is chalked off for a marginal offside, how many goals are they left with?

2.Now if we change the rules so that the goal is no longer offside, how many goals are we left with?

3. So by changing the rules to make fewer goals offside, do we have more or fewer goals?





Answers:
1) 2 goals. 3-1=2
2) 3 goals, 3-0=3
3) More goals. 3 is a larger number than 2.

If the defending team changes the way it plays, would the 3 goals still scored? The answer is, nobody knows.

You think there will be as you're assuming that all teams playing a low block means more goals as teams playing the low block now concede more. Yet this is disregarding that teams may well change tactics to become even more defensive given the clear advantage an attacker has.

One thing is for sure is that defending teams won't play the way they do now so you can't assume that it will mean more goals as easily as that.

If they're then more defensive then it leaves less for an attacking threat. I've seen a suggestion in some article that we may well end up with hoof ball from the back to front and I can see how it could happen.

Fuck me you've done it again.

My question was about how you know there will be more goals. Your invented and patronising scenario assumes that the defenders and managers and coaches don't know the rules and haven't adapted accordingly - you've just decided to change the rule yet keep every other variable exactly the same. A straw-man argument, if you will.

I'm sure there's someone at home who can explain this to you - not naming any names mind.

This! If I'd seen this before I posted it would have saved me stating the obvious.

 

[AC Mack]

If the defending team changes the way it plays, would the 3 goals still scored? The answer is, nobody knows.

You think there will be as you're assuming that all teams playing a low block means more goals as teams playing the low block now concede more. Yet this is disregarding that teams may well change tactics to become even more defensive given the clear advantage an attacker has.

One thing is for sure is that when defending teams won't play the way they do now so you can't assume that it will mean more goals as easily as that.

This! If I'd seen this before I posted it would have saved me stating the obvious.

Expect a reply about his two year old son and his building blocks

 

[Matnab]

If the defensive line pushes up, then both the defenders and the attackers are running towards the goal as soon as the ball is played. The defenders job is much easier: make sure the ball doesn’t go in the net. They can do this either by kicking/heading it themselves, or by blocking the attackers effort, or by not touching the cross if they know the striker also won’t. Whereas the striker must connect with the ball, send it towards the goal, not get stopped by a defender or the gogoalkeeper.i

If the defense plays a high line, they are then having to defend against attackers who are stood goal side of them and with potentially a yard head start on the defenders as the ball is played in. You're basically watching the ball sail over your head knowing there is an attacker stood behind you. You'll certainly get more goals to the point where you may as well just do away with offside.

 

[Korra]

Maybe I’m being naive, but I say get rid of this overcomplicating crap. After seeing one of the goals West Ham had disallowed where the strikers planted foot was well behind the defenders but he was leaning forward angling his run so his shoulder was offside, there has to be some sort of change. I reckon the offside lines should be drawn on the planted foot. Keep it simple, etc.

Easier on the lino, easier for VAR to draw lines, and it’s not exactly a brand new concept.

Interesting to see the results of this Wenger trial.

 

[SAFCOldie]

It's quite amazing how they've managed to over complicate the offside rule over the years, often spoiling fans experience. It was never ever supposed to be about millimetres and toe nails.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

They should just leave it with linesmen to make the decision. Give the team captain some responsibility to challenge the decision at the next break in play if they think there’s a clear and obvious error. If the replay shows the decision was within a margin of error, the decision stays the same. One or two (max) unsuccessful challenges.

Or just get rid of the bastard altogether and just keep goal line technology

 

[Smartin]

Bring back Sweepers.

 

[safcforever]

Such a change could fundamentally change the game in a couple of ways..... a need for defenders to be the fastest on the pitch (which would likely reduce the size/strength seen in CBs today) and teams playing waaaaaaay deeper, creating a lot more space encouraging a full pitch passing and pressing game.
I doubt you will see the full effects over a trial period in a relatively low level league.

Aye, because my team aren’t in it anymore

 

[CraigyWatt]

FIFA has chosen the Canadian Premier league to test a new offside law, one that Wegner has been pushing. The season begins this weekend.

It would change the current ruling so that:

"The new rule states that rather than determining the offside line by drawing a line through the last part of a defender’s body, offside will now simply be a question of whether there is any gap between an attacker and a defender when you look across the pitch.

A striker can be sprinting past a defender, be almost entirely past that defender, when the pass is struck in their direction, but if even a portion of the attacker’s heel is overlapping a defender’s foot, the attacker will remain onside."

FIFA will see how the season goes in Canada, what issues it might raise, before deciding if this should be rolled out across the world.

Just moves the line. Pointless.

 

[Bacchus]

FIFA has chosen the Canadian Premier league to test a new offside law, one that Wegner has been pushing. The season begins this weekend.

It would change the current ruling so that:

"The new rule states that rather than determining the offside line by drawing a line through the last part of a defender’s body, offside will now simply be a question of whether there is any gap between an attacker and a defender when you look across the pitch.

A striker can be sprinting past a defender, be almost entirely past that defender, when the pass is struck in their direction, but if even a portion of the attacker’s heel is overlapping a defender’s foot, the attacker will remain onside."

FIFA will see how the season goes in Canada, what issues it might raise, before deciding if this should be rolled out across the world.

Tremendous, bring it on.

 

[Smiler]

They should just leave it with linesmen to make the decision. Give the team captain some responsibility to challenge the decision at the next break in play if they think there’s a clear and obvious error. If the replay shows the decision was within a margin of error, the decision stays the same. One or two (max) unsuccessful challenges.

Or just get rid of the bastard altogether and just keep goal line technology

Where do you draw that error line? And the captain will challenge every single attack doing that

 

[Marcosplace]

A load of shite.

Going to make defences sit deeper, negative set up and we will still be arguing over 1mm.

f***ing Wenger man

I am in the presence of the Master.....

 

[Stella Spark]

Makes nee odds to the current VAR nightmare we're in. We'll just be checking half an hour to prove the forward was onside by his bootlace instead

 

[PoolsMackem123]

It's not a nonsensical comment at all.

When it's a close decision, it rare that a linesman incorrectly flags an offside after a goal which is then corrected by VAR. Yet there's loads of decisions where no flag is raised and it's been down to VAR to give the offside.

This is why people moan about offside decision cancelling out goals. If it was 50/50 either way (as supposedly mistakes level themselves out during a season) then people would also be saying "but VAR is also allowing goals that would be ruled out by the linesman". Yet nobody at all says this as my simple point is, it's more VAR giving an offside correction than an onside correction and the linesman doesn't get as much of the blame/vitriol etc.

:edit: I just did a quick google and I found this and I recall his comments and it's probably why I've said what I did.

You must be logged on to see external links

Pierluigi Collina, the chairman of Fifa’s referees committee, said the problems with lengthy delays during trials had been ironed out. The Italian also said assistant referees had been advised to keep their flag down for tight offside calls and to leave it to VAR to decide.

“If you see some assistant referee not raising the flag, it’s not because he’s making mistakes,” Collina said. “It’s because he’s respected the instruction to keep the flag down. They were told to keep the flag down when there is a tight offside incident and there could be a very promising attack or a goal-scoring opportunity because, if the assistant referee raises the flag, then everything is finished.”

You aren’t making any sense at all. Linesman are told to keep their flag down, so yes in its current form VAR is correcting more. But that’s not reflective of linesman accuracy, as you’re deliberately influencing their performance. Only fair way is to compare what would be VAR interference in a non-VAR setting such as the championship. And linesmen get very little wrong in reality - and certainly very rarely nothing by more than a few inches. If you just added a reasonable umpires call of say a foot orso (could work it out mathematically to connect to actual error in the VAR system, which I’d wager is a few foot at least) then you’d very rarely get VAR interference and get a true “clear and obvious” system