Offside law change (1 Viewer)

[wingy]

Agreed, although if you limit it to the chest of the player being offside, it becomes less ambiguous as it's focussed on one place.

Yes wherever the trunk is


Not a euphemism!!

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yes wherever the trunk is


Not a euphemism!!

Akinfenwa would have no chance

 

[Speedies_Chips]

Akinfenwa would have no chance

Your tits are offside, your tits are offside, Akinfenwa, your tits are offside.

 

[Paxman II]

With such fine margins its difficult to accept a mm offside or should we say your toenail was offside? Common sense must rule. Simply stretch the offside distance to be enough to clearly and visably see 6 inches beyond the last man as the ball is kicked. That is visable to the naked eye in real time movement, but still extremely close to call. VAR would then confirm it was within this tolerance.
The current system is absurd where an elbow is shown to be offside while his feet remain onside? Come on lets have some common sense.

 

[covcity4life]

At end of day whats worse? More goals and art of defence suffers

Or goals dissalowes for a heel offside 3 passes in build up before a goal?

I know which i think is worse

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

With such fine margins its difficult to accept a mm offside or should we say your toenail was offside? Common sense must rule. Simply stretch the offside distance to be enough to clearly and visably see 6 inches beyond the last man as the ball is kicked. That is visable to the naked eye in real time movement, but still extremely close to call. VAR would then confirm it was within this tolerance.
The current system is absurd where an elbow is shown to be offside while his feet remain onside? Come on lets have some common sense.

Well an elbow wouldn’t be offside

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

At end of day whats worse? More goals and art of defence suffers

Or goals dissalowes for a heel offside 3 passes in build up before a goal?

I know which i think is worse

Laws is laws though

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I still think the 'deliberate handball' rule is stupid. A ball hitting a hand accidentally can have a monumental effect on whether a goal is scored or not. Most handballs I see given don't appear to be deliberate. 'Unnatural position' is also stupid - if you slide in the unnatural position is having your arm locked by your side or across your chest. The natural position is away from the body as a stabiliser.

 

[Otis]

VAR should check and if not immediately obvious to the eye then play on/give the goal.

Exactly what I have said too. That Wolves one the other night should clearly have stood.

No-one in the entire stadium thought that was offside. That would have taken 5 seconds tops. One look, no clear and obvious error, goal given.

 

[Gazolba]

Just bin the offside rule completely...

Then you would just have a couple of strikers hanging around the opponents goal waiting for a big hoof up field.
That's why the offside rule was introduced in the first place.

 

[covcity4life]

Laws is laws though

So should never be changed?

Shall we stop backpass rule?

 

[capel & collindridge]

Agreed, although if you limit it to the chest of the player being offside, it becomes less ambiguous as it's focussed on one place.

What about women's football. The focus then could be binary?

 

[Otis]

Then you would just have a couple of strikers hanging around the opponents goal waiting for a big hoof up field.
That's why the offside rule was introduced in the first place.

Wycombe would win the Premier League and be playing in Europe.

 

[King of the Lesbians]

Then you would just have a couple of strikers hanging around the opponents goal waiting for a big hoof up field.
That's why the offside rule was introduced in the first place.

Yeah, it would change the game a bit but I'd rather that than listening to a couple of bald fuckers endlessly bitching about 'clear and obvious' on MOTD every week.

 

[wingy]

So should never be changed?

Shall we stop backpass rule?

Let's get back to 1981
We'd already be top by 2 points.

 

[wingy]

Yeah, it would change the game a bit but I'd rather that than listening to a couple of bald fuckers endlessly bitching about 'clear and obvious' on MOTD every week.

Have you seen the follicles on ex footballers lately, even Joe Cole has reverted.

 

[wingy]

What about women's football. The focus then could be binary?

Two points for this.
A good sports bra the solution!

 

[wingy]

Let's get back to 1981
We'd already be top by 2 points.

I think this point should be emphasized on the Sunderland forum,might soften their opinion.

 

[standupforcity]

I've always maintained it should be a back foot rule...that way upper body parts can't be Offside!

 

[shmmeee]

Then you would just have a couple of strikers hanging around the opponents goal waiting for a big hoof up field.
That's why the offside rule was introduced in the first place.

Just do what we did at primary and institute a “beats for goalhangers” rule.

 

[lifeskyblue]

No need to change...it’s by far the easiest for Lino’s at all levels (public parks to Wembley). It’s VAR DECIDING OT THATS THE PROBLEM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

Remove the lines from the VAR analysis.
If it's not clearly offside then the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.

Job done and no need to change any of the footballing laws.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

 

[DionDublinsJockstrap]

It’s very simple. It has to be a clear and obvious mistake. Way to do this is - one review in real time by the video ref. If he can’t immediately conclude then stay with on field decision.
I would go with this for offside and penalties. Over the line calls still subject to detailed review.
Everything else falls into you win some you lose some.

 

[Otis]

Remove the lines from the VAR analysis.
If it's not clearly offside then the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.

Job done and no need to change any of the footballing laws.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

I like this idea a lot. Sounds the perfect solution.

 

[robbiekeane]

VAR should check and if not immediately obvious to the eye then play on/give the goal.

Exactly this.

VAR has a place - these stupid lines and dots don't. Quick check...if there's something obvious to the analysts visually then intervene. If not, then don't intervene, simple. Parts of the game and refereeing are not a science, they are judgement calls.

Is a ball over the line - science
Is someone offside - judgement call IMO. Someones left testicle being more advanced does not make them offside. Analyst checks, and uses technology to help his/her judgement (they can quickly pause, freeze a frame, have a quick look and make a call).

Maybe if they can't decide in 15 seconds then the on field decision stands or something?