Captain... Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/former-referee-dermot-gallagher-backs-offside-rule-change Whilst I don't disagree with them I think they will be a nightmare to enforce especially the last example, at what point is the forward no longer offside and able to close down the defender.
Larry_LCFC Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 Does this not just over complicate what is a very simple rule? Try explaining it to your missus now!
davieG Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/former-referee-dermot-gallagher-backs-offside-rule-change Whilst I don't disagree with them I think they will be a nightmare to enforce especially the last example, at what point is the forward no longer offside and able to close down the defender. It's all very subjective and I don't get this not interfering or affecting the defender surely the defender will know a player is there and have to take account of it, he wont have time to determine whether the player is or might eventually be deemed on/off side. Over complicated rule. I would prefer it to be simply off-side no matter what but to move the offside line to the edge of the penalty area not the half way line.
Captain... Posted 3 August 2015 Author Posted 3 August 2015 i think it is going to cause a lot of confusion, I understand the Rojo example and anyone being offside in the box is clearly going to impact the play. What I don't get is the last example and the one they showed on SSN the attacker had been in offside position so didn't react to the ball over the top initially but then after the ball and defender passed him he went over to close him down. Apparently he was still offside despite being in front of the defender and the ball.
filbertway Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 I thought that was the rule anyway ha. If you're in an offside position and affect what the the opposition do, it's offside. Very simple
kingcarr21 Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 Just get rid of it completely. Absolute free for all
Dan Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 I thought that was pretty much the rule anyway? It's absolutely ridiculous either way. People are not telling me that an attacking player's position isn't influencing the opposition's defence regardless of what's actually happening? If you're offside you're offside.
Danizen Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 Just get rid of it completely. Absolute free for all That would suit us because the midfield would be abandoned.
Dan Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 Oh and as a side note - the last thing we need are more grey areas, more areas for the referee to get a decision wrong, where people can't even agree AFTER replays let alone during the split second they get to see it. I do criticise referees but they're given so little help it's a joke. It can't be just me who gets a bit bored of discussing these decisions all of the time rather than the actual football.
Danizen Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 This does seem to make sense in theory. No doubt our refs will find a number of creative ways to **** it up, though. I think they should bring back the daylight stipulation. It's crazy that a player that is in line with the defender can be called offside because his leg is stretching forward mid-sprint because in that situation, if the defender is doing his job, he will be side on with the goal.
Captain... Posted 3 August 2015 Author Posted 3 August 2015 This does seem to make sense in theory. No doubt our refs will find a number of creative ways to **** it up, though. I think they should bring back the daylight stipulation. It's crazy that a player that is in line with the defender can be called offside because his leg is stretching forward mid-sprint because in that situation, if the defender is doing his job, he will be side on with the goal. But daylight is such a ludicrous term, we are trying to create a clear rule and someone says well was there any daylight, how can a linesman judge that unless he is level with play all the time, which is impossible, and the sun is shining from that same angle, or what about if there is no daylight and it is a night match, etc... Rugby have clear definitions, you have to be behind the back foot of the last player in the maul, or ruck. So I think the current definition of offside is fine, if a little hard to measure, any scoring part of the body in front of any scoring part of the last defenders body, it's a little ambiguous and you could simplify it to just feet, then at least refs and their "assistants" only need to look at feet and not head and body. That becomes more difficult when people are jumping, but one solution would be to make boot colour part of the kit, then they can clearly see whose foot is further forward. I would also like to see it changed so that the attacker gets the advantage any part of the attacker must be behind or level with the last defender, so they can in theory be nearly a stride past the defender, but then you will get people just hanging around behind a defender with their leg stretched back looking to get an advantage. It just hate seeing good attacking moves cut short because they are a mm too quick with their run. Either way the definition of offside here is not the issue it is whether or not they are interfering with play. One way to switch the rule is instead of trying to define what they can and can't do, is just simply state that any team that has gained any advantage from a player being in an offside position will be penalised, but that then leaves a lot up to interpretation. What I would like to see from this is offsides being given before the attacking player has touched the ball, so ridiculous that player can be offside and chase the ball for 20 yards before the flag is raised. The other thing I would like to see is standing in an offside position whilst setting up for an attacking free kick, I hate that players can do that, refs should not allow a free kick to be taken while players are in an offside position, they are offside and only doing so to create an advantage.
Richard Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 If a player is on the pitch and isn't either interfering with play or with another player then quite frankly they shouldn't be on the pitch
filbertway Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 Don't see the problem to be honest, I can barely remember any decisions where there was uproar or mass disagreement last season. It's blatently obvious when someone is inteferring with play.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 3 August 2015 Posted 3 August 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9933613/former-referee-dermot-gallagher-backs-offside-rule-change Whilst I don't disagree with them I think they will be a nightmare to enforce especially the last example, at what point is the forward no longer offside and able to close down the defender. I think this will make things a whole lot easier... it makes it very difficult to gain a clear advantage from being in an offside position and will benefit the amateur game no end because you have club linesman making ludicrous calls based on what they've seen on the telly (they'll still try it on, but they're less for them to play with). Of course, the biggest problem with the offside rule, it is nigh on impossible for a human to enforce - you need to have simultaneous vision on two different parts of the pitch, the ball being played and the attacker running and this is what annoy's me by the wide view paused TV view - the linesman doesn't have this field of vision so it's an unfair representation of what he sees. Pundits also don't take into account the position of a player relevative to a defender - if the attacker is positioned closer to the linesman he is more likely to be given offside as the linesman will have a clearer view of his position, it's the first thing in their field of vision, where as when behind a defender, the fact that the attacker can be slightly disguised (especially if the linesman is looking on an angle) will be in their favour for being 'onside'.
ozleicester Posted 4 August 2015 Posted 4 August 2015 Still think we are making this more difficult than it needs to be. I know im old, but i stand by the statements made back in the day.. "If a player is on the pitch, he is interfering with play (and if he isnt, he fvcking should be!) As a defender im aware of where my opponents are, and my positioning on the pitch reflects that. Which means i may be 5 yards away from the player im marking, because i am covering another player. Just go back to.. when the ball is played you are offside unless the ball, or two opposition players, are between you and the goal line. now THATS EASY
Captain... Posted 4 August 2015 Author Posted 4 August 2015 You obviously don't remember pre "interfering with play" rule it would get a bit ridiculous when an injured player was deemed offside or a player would chase down the goalkeeper, the ball was cleared and as soon as the attacker's team played it forwards, even if it was only a one yard pass nowhere near the player it would get called offside. It is very possible to be on the pitch and not interfere with play, Junior Lewis made a whole career out of it, but it is in one of 2 ways one you are lying on the floor or two you are running back into an onside position. The only grey area with that is at what point you are onside. If you are jogging back from an offside position and the play comes to you and the last defender passes you are you then onside? In which case you have benefitted from being offside.
AyewJoking Posted 4 August 2015 Posted 4 August 2015 i think they just want the attackers to remain "onside" all the time so it makes their job easier and they can cut down on the ludicrous decisions they make.
ozleicester Posted 4 August 2015 Posted 4 August 2015 You obviously don't remember pre "interfering with play" rule it would get a bit ridiculous when an injured player was deemed offside or a player would chase down the goalkeeper, the ball was cleared and as soon as the attacker's team played it forwards, even if it was only a one yard pass nowhere near the player it would get called offside. It is very possible to be on the pitch and not interfere with play, Junior Lewis made a whole career out of it, but it is in one of 2 ways one you are lying on the floor or two you are running back into an onside position. The only grey area with that is at what point you are onside. If you are jogging back from an offside position and the play comes to you and the last defender passes you are you then onside? In which case you have benefitted from being offside. Junior What it does, is change the responsibility from the referee to the players, if they dont play it forward he isnt offside, its the team/players responsibility to get back onside. It eliminates "opinion" decisions from the ref and therefore reduces incorrect decisions.
Jattdogg Posted 4 August 2015 Posted 4 August 2015 If refs have a hard time applying offside rules now (which depends on the circumstance and refs decision/interpretation) i cant see how the above changes will make it any easier. There will always be grey areas with the current rules. I can appreciate the suggestions but i still feel we will have grey areas. If they arent willing to allow video replay for the 4th official (and managers of each team) then this is absolute bollocks. I know they are trying to increase goal opportunities but i think they only confuse things further which takes away from it all. Rules should always be concrete. We should go back to the old way. If you are in an offside position when the ball is played then too bad you are offside. Even then they will still cock it up from time to time but much less then now. What about implementing something like a blue line in hockey. Maybe 18 yards out from goal or something. Outside of this we should go back to the original way.
Staffs Fox Posted 5 August 2015 Posted 5 August 2015 Remember when offside was offside?? If an attacking player is in an advanced position of the opponents last two defenders when the ball is played forward in the defending team's half they're offside
Captain... Posted 5 August 2015 Author Posted 5 August 2015 Remember when offside was offside?? If an attacking player is in an advanced position of the opponents last two defenders when the ball is played forward in the defending team's half they're offside Yes and I remember some ludicrous decisions where an offside was given to an injured player.
Staffs Fox Posted 5 August 2015 Posted 5 August 2015 Yes and I remember some ludicrous decisions where an offside was given to an injured player. Didn't say whether it was right or wrong but it was what it was, Now it seems to be tweaked every other season
davieG Posted 5 August 2015 Posted 5 August 2015 Yes and I remember some ludicrous decisions where an offside was given to an injured player. ...and they still make ludicrous decisions because it's so complicated. With so many players feigning injury or at best making a meal of them perhaps it would be good to have it back and the same time they can stop the stupid going off the pitch after the trainers been on the pitch and make more effort to ensure players that aren't seriously injured go off for treatment and not hold the game up. Oh and while I'm on the moan allow quick freekicks near the penalty area.
Nalis Posted 5 August 2015 Posted 5 August 2015 The new rulings seems fair to me. Only surprise is why they havent been implemented sooner.
fazzyfox Posted 8 August 2015 Posted 8 August 2015 Graham Fenton a long way from the ball was flagged offside, someone shouts "Ref, he wasn't interfering with play", to which I add "...he never does".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.