chriswallace85
Striker
This.
Tweak the offside rule?
- Thread starter Kid Galahad
- Start date
aupaalaves
Striker
Personally I think the offside rule should be the same as the ball over the line rule. If there isn't clear daylight between the players, it shouldn't be offside just like if the whole ball isn't over the line, it's not a goal, throw in, free kick, goal kick or corner.
Scotty 1978
Striker
On the city goal last night the ball was deflected off Silva through to Ageuro as well, it wasn’t a clear pass forward
TravellingMackem
Winger
Should be introducing a second line, and you’re only offside on VAR if you’re beyond the second line (say 0.25 yards ahead). Becomes the equivalent of a crickets umpires call and stops this farce of disallowing because a nose hair is offside
Confucius
Striker
It isn’t like, nowt like it, ridiculous trying to compare it to cricket. What would happen if Eriksen lifted it and it him in the midriff. Is that poor control as well? He didn’t try playing the ball, he was attempting to stop Eriksen playing it back. I am by no means saying it shouldn’t be offside, but I think there needs to be some leeway.
If he tried to play it with his midriff, yes. I genuinely thought you two were kidding at first so was happy to debate the deflection thing, but it only applies to deflections off 'opponents' anyway, so i'll give this up.
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...
- ...gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
- been deliberately saved by any opponent
- A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.
There is no way in this world Aguero was onside there.
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
They would still find a way of f***ing it up.
Napoleon Dynamite
Striker
Wasn’t an intentional pass and I honestly thought that wouldn’t have counted as offside
Glad I’m not a ref
Eeee had on should I be a ref now?
Glad I’m not a ref
Eeee had on should I be a ref now?
SShields84
Goalkeeper
This!
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
A lot of comments on here saying benefit of doubt should go to attacking team and/or lets make it easier for strikers who would normally be offside to get a call in their favour.
Can I just say: FUCK THAT.
Like cricket is a balance between bat and ball, football is a balance between attack and defence. And literally every recent tweak - on tackles obviously, but also on handballs, VAR (on balance), modifications to the balls, better boot technology, more action on set piece marking - has gone in favour of the attack. Offside is the only one that has moved towards skillful defenders.
All of the above are arguably for the better for the game (though tackle rules are too soft imo). But there is a precious balance here. Games that 4-3 are amazing in part because of their rarity, goals should be difficult to come by that's what makes them so special. The current offside rule is absolutely fine and VAR is a good thing because we'll get it right more often - like last night. Would have been criminal if Spurs were dumped out because of a bad call like that - and it was a tough one, so I don't blame the linesman. That's why we have VAR now.
That is not very helpful wording tbh and probably needs tightening up - so bear that in mind with what I'm about to say, because it isn't clear.
However, "deliberately plays the ball" is not equivalent to "passing the ball" and includes tackles or blocks - so he's offside. If it had twatted of his head, on the other hand, with him looking the other way and not trying to make a "play on the ball" then he would have been onside.
Can I just say: FUCK THAT.
Like cricket is a balance between bat and ball, football is a balance between attack and defence. And literally every recent tweak - on tackles obviously, but also on handballs, VAR (on balance), modifications to the balls, better boot technology, more action on set piece marking - has gone in favour of the attack. Offside is the only one that has moved towards skillful defenders.
All of the above are arguably for the better for the game (though tackle rules are too soft imo). But there is a precious balance here. Games that 4-3 are amazing in part because of their rarity, goals should be difficult to come by that's what makes them so special. The current offside rule is absolutely fine and VAR is a good thing because we'll get it right more often - like last night. Would have been criminal if Spurs were dumped out because of a bad call like that - and it was a tough one, so I don't blame the linesman. That's why we have VAR now.
That is not very helpful wording tbh and probably needs tightening up - so bear that in mind with what I'm about to say, because it isn't clear.
However, "deliberately plays the ball" is not equivalent to "passing the ball" and includes tackles or blocks - so he's offside. If it had twatted of his head, on the other hand, with him looking the other way and not trying to make a "play on the ball" then he would have been onside.
Last edited:
safccfas
Winger
It’s all about opinions mate. I have to disagree though. The refs nearly always now revert back to the TMO to check a try. Just give the bloody thing if it’s obviously a try. Seems like they are intent on trying to find a reason why not to give the try. This is already starting to happen in football.
Last edited:
Your explanation of deliberately playing the ball is correct.
However, it applies to opponents ie. when the defender last touches it. If the ball is last 'played or touched by a team-mate' the attacker is offside, deliberately or not.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
I agree they are too TMO happy, but there are a lot more variables in a rugby match and tbh a lot more deliberate law-breaking. The culture is different - in rugby its: if you can get away with it, get away with it. In football there is a moral outrage about some things that might fall into that category - e.g. diving.
I think people are getting overly worked up about this. For example, there were 12 goals scored in the Champions League last night and 3 VAR incidents (2 goals and 1 disallowed goal). In the interests of sporting justice, I think that's fine - and we're only early days and will find a better balance.
Not sure what you're saying - I think we agree, no?
Last edited:
Speedy1976
Midfield
Agreed. I thought in the quote below you were talking about the ball twatting Silva's (Kun's teammate) head last night rather than a general example. I think I misunderstood you, sorry.
"If it had twatted of his head, on the other hand, with him looking the other way and not trying to make a "play on the ball" then he would have been onside."
It is about opinions and I personally don't think it happens too often in rugby, but I would also say that when it does, the fans in the stadium can enjoy the moment because it's on the screen and you can listen to the ref's discussion with the TMO (if you have a fan radio, best £10 I've spent at a rugby match in recent times)
These 2 things would vastly improve the "VAR experience" for the fans in the stadium.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
Yes, I was using a counter-example. Silva made a play on the ball and therefore Aguero was offisde.
MunkyHeed
Striker
I still don’t see how a linesman can see the position of the attacker AND the moment the ball is kicked at the same time.
IMO offside should be dictated just by the position of the feet, if that makes it easier to call.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
I think in time linesman is a doomed profession for this reason. You might get assistant referees around to offer advice on fouls etc. But running the line and calling offside will surely be done purely by technology quite soon.
If you can use lasers for a static line - i.e. goal-line technology - with robotic/drone advances, it's really not beyond the wit of man to do for the moving line that would mean instant, technology-decided offside calls. With no delay.
VAR will end up being for subjective calls only... which may mean it becomes a redundant or temporary technology.
The problem with the feet rule would be set pieces. Lots of examples were you get a full yard or so offside with diving headers under current rules. That's why they have the current rule as "part of body that can score" - to include headers and conventional goals within the same rule.
Last edited:
