New Offside Rule begins testing this weekend

[tynevalleyblackcat]

What people are missing here is that is significantly harder to check with the human eye making the linos task much more difficult. They don't just have to see who is in front but also whether that persons leg is in front of the last defender.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

What a nonsensical comment. Considering VAR only intervenes if the linesman makes an error, then yes the linesman is statistically likely to make more errors than VAR, since they’re involved in every single offside decision and VAR only a subset of those.

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.”

 

[Mowbray Boss Gilet]

This will be chaos for leagues initially for teams to adjust to, interested to see how it works in Canada, i.e. the average of goals scored in the Canadian league, will it be higher (I think so).

Do I think it a good thing to introduce? Not at all yet, but I will form an opinion after watching some of the Canada games.

 

[DrewC]

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 agree with this statement it’s all about breakaways scoring

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

This will be chaos for leagues initially for teams to adjust to, interested to see how it works in Canada, i.e. the average of goals scored in the Canadian league, will it be higher (I think so).

Do I think it a good thing to introduce? Not at all yet, but I will form an opinion after watching some of the Canada games.

I might watch a few as they're also doing this

To enhance match tempo and reduce time wasting, rules changes such as a five-second countdown on throw-ins and goal kicks, ten seconds to leave the field for a substitution, and a one minute holdout period to return from an injury, are also being implemented

 

[Lucky1985]

It’s your scenario

You still haven’t made a case for your own argument. This seems like a deflection tactic.

Whether the defender slips in possession, ceding possession in the process. Or whether the defender slips out of possession allowing an attacker through, doesn’t make any odds. The fact is that in one scenario with low defensive line, the attacker is within striking distance, and in the other he’s not, which gives the defensive team a chance to atone for their error.

Feel free now to enlighten us oh wise and learned sage with point to the contrary, instead of just saying “you’re wrong”

 

[Yeltas]

The back pass to the keeper and allow him to pick it up…………Bring it back please

 

[Matnab]

You still haven’t made a case for your own argument. This seems like a deflection tactic.

Whether the defender slips in possession, ceding possession in the process. Or whether the defender slips out of possession allowing an attacker through, doesn’t make any odds. The fact is that in one scenario with low defensive line, the attacker is within striking distance, and in the other he’s not, which gives the defensive team a chance to atone for their error.

Feel free now to enlighten us oh wise and learned sage with point to the contrary, instead of just saying “you’re wrong”

Genuinely interested in how you feel about a scenario where a team have a free kick 30 yards out just in from the touchline. You've got a right footer on the left looking to arc an inswinger into the area. The back 4 are lined up between the d and the penalty spot and the attackers are positioning themselves behind the defenders (goalside) and legally onside.

What are the defenders supposed to do? Stay where they are and basically give the attackers a free run to attack the cross or keep walking back to the goal line so that they can eventually get goal side. You make it literally impossible to defend.

I just don't understand how this scenario can possibly play out in any way that resembles football.

 

[viccarlton]

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.

So we’re still measuring forensically just using a different point?

 

[Diallo]

Scrap it for offsides all together. Keep it for penalties and red cards

 

[woodlebert]

You still haven’t made a case for your own argument. This seems like a deflection tactic.

Whether the defender slips in possession, ceding possession in the process. Or whether the defender slips out of possession allowing an attacker through, doesn’t make any odds. The fact is that in one scenario with low defensive line, the attacker is within striking distance, and in the other he’s not, which gives the defensive team a chance to atone for their error.

Feel free now to enlighten us oh wise and learned sage with point to the contrary, instead of just saying “you’re wrong”

In the deeper scenario there are more defenders closer to the ball and in the higher one there is a huge space to attack in behind

You’re describing things that happen in football and saying it proves something about a higher or lower line. There are way too many factors involved in football to say that higher lines = better defence

Like I said, if it was that simple all teams would play a high line and have wonderful defences. Many teams can’t play high lines due to in possession issues, or profile of centre halves. Defending low and compact in a 4-4-2 can be a fantastic way to defend. Just ask Mourinho & his defensively record breaking Chelsea team

 

[Kid Galahad]

It’s about time this was introduced.

The whole point in the offside rule it to prevent goal hanging, not goal scoring.

Allowing an attacker to advance by 50cm isn’t going to cause goal hanging. But it will result in a lot more goals being allowed I feel.

Definitely a good thing I've been on about this for ages, when the rules for the ball are all of the ball has to be over all of the line it's only right that all of the player should be offside for him to be infringeing imo. Much better for the paying fans in the stadiums too it's a lot clearer than a toenail being offside.

 

[Matnab]

Definitely a good thing I've been on about this for ages, when the rules for the ball are all of the ball has to be over all of the line it's only right that all of the player should be offside for him to be infringeing imo. Much better for the paying fans in the stadiums too it's a lot clearer than a toenail being offside.

Look at the image of Sterling on post 24 . It's absolutely mental. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good idea (I know, I know Wenger etc...) but come on the advantage it gives attackers is ridiculous.

 

[Kid Galahad]

Look at the image of Sterling on post 24 . It's absolutely mental. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good idea (I know, I know Wenger etc...) but come on the advantage it gives attackers is ridiculous.

So it's good the way it is now? For fans in the ground especially this is miles better to keep the joy and spontaneity of the game imo.

 

[Lucky1985]

Genuinely interested in how you feel about a scenario where a team have a free kick 30 yards out just in from the touchline. You've got a right footer on the left looking to arc an inswinger into the area. The back 4 are lined up between the d and the penalty spot and the attackers are positioning themselves behind the defenders (goalside) and legally onside.

What are the defenders supposed to do? Stay where they are and basically give the attackers a free run to attack the cross or keep walking back to the goal line so that they can eventually get goal side. You make it literally impossible to defend.

I just don't understand how this scenario can possibly play out in any way that resembles football.

Your scenario really isn’t articulated very clearly. But to put it another way (the way so many on this thread have been whinging about) if the defensive line is really deep, they give the attacking players carte blanch on what they want to do. They could sit on the keeper as though it’s a corner to put him off, or they could stay out of the box and get a run on the ball to attack it.

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 goalkeeper.

The high line is the safer option statistically. It’s why you never see people defending a free kick on the edge of their own 6 yard line.

There is an obvious point of diminishing returns, especially if you have a slower defensive line. But even if you do, you will always push up as far as you think you can safely get away with, because being deep is statistically more likely to result in conceding a goal.

 

[AC Mack]

This will be chaos for leagues initially for teams to adjust to, interested to see how it works in Canada, i.e. the average of goals scored in the Canadian league, will it be higher (I think so).

Do I think it a good thing to introduce? Not at all yet, but I will form an opinion after watching some of the Canada games.

Whilst we'll be able to glean certain things from the Canada trial, it's only once it's become universal and for a sustained period of time that we'll see the true impact.

Defenders are obviously going to be aware of the new rule and will need to adapt accordingly. Will they sit slightly deeper generally, will they focus more on adjusting their positioning at certain moments in the game, will they deploy other tactics?

Certain laws have been introduced which have drastically altered teams' approaches - the backpass rule being an obvious one, but even recently we've seen teams alter their build up due to the new goal kick rule. Other laws have come in and had a much smaller impact.

Time will show the true impact.

 

[Lucky1985]

In the deeper scenario there are more defenders closer to the ball and in the higher one there is a huge space to attack in behind

You’re describing things that happen in football and saying it proves something about a higher or lower line. There are way too many factors involved in football to say that higher lines = better defence

Like I said, if it was that simple all teams would play a high line and have wonderful defences. Many teams can’t play high lines due to in possession issues, or profile of centre halves. Defending low and compact in a 4-4-2 can be a fantastic way to defend. Just ask Mourinho & his defensively record breaking Chelsea team

The Chelsea example you gave is only successful where your defenders can physically dominate the attackers. Chelsea let them have it wide and cross it knowing that they would easily win the areal battle against a very short and physically weak Barca attack.

And you’re changing my argument slightly. I said that statistically, a deep line is more likely to result in a conceded goal. Yes there are variables such as the players attributes to take into account, and some players will naturally have a lower line than others. But statistically, a team with a low defensive line is more likely to concede.

 

[woodlebert]

But statistically, a team with a low defensive line is more likely to concede.

Yes and this is what I think is bad use of stats (I haven’t checked this but I assume it’s true)

It’s not because their line is low, it’s usually to do with multiple intersecting factors

It’s like saying “players who wear 9 score more goals” and trying to derive any meaning from it. It’s true but it’s not a good use of data

 

[Lucky1985]

Yes and this is what I think is bad use of stats (I haven’t checked this but I assume it’s true)

It’s not because their line is low, it’s usually to do with multiple intersecting factors

It’s like saying “players who wear 9 score more goals” and trying to derive any meaning from it. It’s true but it’s not a good use of data

Well respectfully I disagree, I think that there is a very clear causation, and I think that if you asked every team to play 10-15 yards deeper than they normal do, you would see them concede more goals over a season than they normally do. And if you disagree then you must also disagree with Xg as it awards a higher likelihood of a goal being scored the closer to goal a shot is taken.

 

[woodlebert]

Well respectfully I disagree

Yes we will have to agree to disagree!