Offside

[1 Mcnamara]

This is kinda linked to the thread “ the end of the beautiful game” and how stale, predictable and boring football can be in the modern era.
One easy change for me, and I’m surprised people with influence ( pundits, club owners, official supporters clubs etc) don’t drive it more, in fact, it’s very rarely mentioned.
Offside , I would think, is there to stop two or three forwards spending the whole match in the opposition box, and the ball just getting lumped up to them, negating any need for midfielders , wingers, passing and tactical nous to be needed. It’s not there to punish a player who goes a fraction before the ball is released after a period of passing and moving to get higher up the pitch.
The main aim of football is ( or was , and should be) scoring more goals than the opposition. The attraction of the game, was never to come away from a nil nil draw, and chat excitedly about how great both defences were, and how disciplined the off side traps were. Goals are everything in football. Now I’m not talking about an American style of sport where there is a score every 2 minutes, but football needs, and must get back to its core objective.
A very simple solution , especially now with VAR , would be , if any part of the attacker is in line with the defender, he is onside. Basically , the exact opposite of what we have now.
It seems so simple. It would discourage teams from being mainly defensive, it would encourage free flowing football, and without doubt it would produce more goals. Defending teams would have to keep going back, creating so much more room in midfield, and the discipline of offside would still be a rule. It’s a no brainer for me.
I suspect the fact that the suggestion dosent get much air time, is because the big teams stadiums around the world are full, because we live in an era of uber glory hunters. But as Yogi would say “ real fitba folk ken “
Have I missed a glaringly open negative to this theory? Of course , I’m not the first person to mention it by any means, but it dosent really get talked about on radio, TV or the media in general. Or if it does , I keep missing it.

 

[Hammi]

I think it's Collina and Wenger who are in charge of this and they're actively trying to change the rule.
Sure it's being trialled in some competitions.

Basically there will need to be daylight between the players.

They know this isn't supposed to be scientifically examined and want to do away with the millimeters involved.

 

[Purple & Green]

Don’t think shifting the lines will make much difference, but happy to try it.

Learned this week that the ball doesn’t have to travel forward for you to be offside. That just seems overkill to me.

 

[Hibees-Mad]

Don’t think shifting the lines will make much difference, but happy to try it.

Learned this week that the ball doesn’t have to travel forward for you to be offside. That just seems overkill to me.

I didn't know that. That is indeed overkill

 

[joethehibby]

Yip daylight between the attacker and the defender would get rid of bawhair syndrome, except in scotland obviously they just draw the lines to suit the rangers

 

[Hammi]

Don’t think shifting the lines will make much difference, but happy to try it.

Learned this week that the ball doesn’t have to travel forward for you to be offside. That just seems overkill to me.

While they're still in front of the ball, and an interfering player? That's okay I think?

Wasn't there a season back when Arsenal were pretty much the invincibles, that they changed a rule and Henry exploited the life out of it and they had to change back.

I was pretty young, but I have a memory of it being a thing.

 

[Hammi]

Yip daylight between the attacker and the defender would get rid of bawhair syndrome, except in scotland obviously they just draw the lines to suit the rangers

Adjust the lighting angle

 

[1 Mcnamara]

Don’t think shifting the lines will make much difference, but happy to try it.

Learned this week that the ball doesn’t have to travel forward for you to be offside. That just seems overkill to me.

Not so sure I’m following you on this one.
How would shifting the line not make any difference?

 

[Purple & Green]

Not so sure I’m following you on this one.
How would shifting the line not make any difference?

The drawing of lines will still be contentious, the difference between on and offside will still be millimetres.

It might change some of the decisions, but the decision making process will still be the same.

I’ll not explain this well but offside is a fact, and the clearest way to see it is side on at the point it happens.

Camera angles aren’t side on and often elevated, so lines are estimates.

I’d be happy to try it, but I don’t think the number of contentious decisions will change, just they will be different positions.

 

[Bangkokhibby]

Not so sure I’m following you on this one.
How would shifting the line not make any difference?

I wasn't sure how checking if the back heel of an attackers boot was in line with a defender was any different to checking if the front of his boot was ahead of defender. Clear daylight would help here but is that what's proposed?
I think I'm with P&G here but I'm just confusing myself

 

[Hammi]

The drawing of lines will still be contentious, the difference between on and offside will still be millimetres.

It might change some of the decisions, but the decision making process will still be the same.

I’ll not explain this well but offside is a fact, and the clearest way to see it is side on at the point it happens.

Camera angles aren’t side on and often elevated, so lines are estimates.

I’d be happy to try it, but I don’t think the number of contentious decisions will change, just they will be different positions.

Those millimeters will be measured when players are a full body behind the last man though. Offside will be a lot less contentious when 99% of the player is clearly beyond the play.

We're not measuring foot size and wind effects on clothing anymore (if changes go ahead)

 

[Hammi]

So what's the latest on the new offsides rule set by FIFA?​

So what's the latest on the new offsides rule set by FIFA?In the previous offside rules, a player is considered to be offside if any part of the body with which they can legally play the ball is closer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent (usually the last player) when the ball is played to them.
This new offside rule change suggests that the whole body of the attacking player must be ahead (closer to the goal line) of the defender for an offside to be called. This means that if any part of the attacker's body that can play the ball is level with the last defender, the attacker is considered onside.
This would be a significant shift from the current interpretation of the offside law. This change would lead to fewer offside calls, as more leeway would be given to attacking players, thus potentially leading to more goals in matches. The thinking behind such a change might be to promote more offensive play and make the game more exciting for spectators. However, it could also make the game harder to referee accurately and may tilt the balance of the game more in favor of attacking players.

 

[Hammi]

So basically if any part of your body is on. You're on.

More goals, or deeper defenders.

 

[1 Mcnamara]

So basically if any part of your body is on. You're on.

More goals, or deeper defenders.

Well that’s my take it on. As far as I’m aware , level is meant to be onside anyway, so if any of a players body part is level , they are onside.
Coming to think of it , Kris Boyd would never have been offside if he had kept his back to goal

 

[Young porty]

A few years ago was it not to be the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the attacker when it's tight. Then var came in and made it a pile of crap.