"Wenger's Offside Rule"

[ozleicester]

So apparently Wenger has proposed a change to the offside rule, his new rule is...

 

“A player will be deemed ONSIDE if any part of the head, body or feet is level or behind the second-last opponent — even if other parts are in front.

 

The existing rule is....

“A player is in an OFFSIDE position if: Any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.”

 

Now, im not necessarily opposed to the rule change but, if the aim is to remove the fvcking absurd VAR "millimetre decisions, this is NOT going to do that...it just moves the contentious area from in front of the defender, to behind them. It will certainly change our game and perhaps swing strongly in favour of attacking sides... anyway.. Thoughts?

 

 

 

*note - information/quotes taken from the Sun. So...

 

[Guest]

I prefer this rule but agree with what you are saying. Of course no rule change is going to stop the mm decisions. Even if they say you can be 5 yards ahread of a player the final mm will put you offside. Not sure why people are up in arms about mm offsides. If it's offside , it's offside. We just need a very quick decision by VAR - one that can be sent quickly to the linesman. 

 

People should be accepting that this VAR action is good for the fairness in the game. They need to look at the ridiculous "clear and obvious" rulings that are being used to **** teams and football. If the ref missed it, call it. Refs need to understand that they are not perfect.

[Finnegan]

I wouldn't hate this completely because it's still objective, there's still a measurable and definitive cut off but it'd much harder to prove a negative (you need to look across the line for a part of the body essentially being blocked by another player instead of being ahead. It'll be trickier, not impossible but less clear than now.)

 

But it won't stop you having players offside by a millimeter. 

 

This is what people need to stop being ****ing retarded and get their head around. The "problem" isn't a problem, however you decide to write the offside rule there will always be a point where a player stops being onside and starts being offside, there will always be a threshold and three will always be times where that player is offside only by a pixel. 

 

For me, the problem isn't offside the problem is the media bias that every single outlet going has created against VAR since the season began. Everyone's ready to be angry about VAR before the game has even started because the media have successfully assassinated it in the minds of fans. For whatever reason, they never wanted it and they've made sure nobody else does either. 

 

Gary Neville is right, offside is just offside, why the furore? You either are or you're not. 

[Guest MattP]

54 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I wouldn't hate this completely because it's still objective, there's still a measurable and definitive cut off but it'd much harder to prove a negative (you need to look across the line for a part of the body essentially being blocked by another player instead of being ahead. It'll be trickier, not impossible but less clear than now.)

 

But it won't stop you having players offside by a millimeter. 

 

This is what people need to stop being ****ing retarded and get their head around. The "problem" isn't a problem, however you decide to write the offside rule there will always be a point where a player stops being onside and starts being offside, there will always be a threshold and three will always be times where that player is offside only by a pixel. 

 

For me, the problem isn't offside the problem is the media bias that every single outlet going has created against VAR since the season began. Everyone's ready to be angry about VAR before the game has even started because the media have successfully assassinated it in the minds of fans. For whatever reason, they never wanted it and they've made sure nobody else does either. 

 

Gary Neville is right, offside is just offside, why the furore? You either are or you're not. 

But we still can't be 100% sure, this is the problem.

 

How we solve this I don't know, because until we are able to get definitive proof as to when a ball is kicked instead of some bloke just pausing a camera hoping he's got the correct point at the time they did it they'll be a margin for error. (Upto 30cm as well according to one report)

 

It's almost certain this season we've had omside goals chalked off and vice versa.

 

There is going to have to be some sort of margin of error until they have the technology available to grab a screenshot at the point of impact but I'd imagine that's not going to be here for a while as it would need to be inside the ball.

[Finnegan]

The current application, even if the accuracy isn't right down to the pixel, is consistent across the board to near minute levels of detail. 

 

It is objectively, infinitely better than having a linesman make decisions in real time to the naked eye. 

 

Last year we were crying over decisions gone wrong by literal feet, sometimes tens of feet. Now we're splitting hairs over centimetres. It is, in every way, superior and more accurate.

 

Should we continue to try and refine it and make it even more accurate? Yes. Will that stop everyone crying about it? No, not until the media stop telling everyone it's awful every match. Right now you have fans literally getting upset and saying it's shit just because their goal was ruled out for a completely legitimate offside just because that offside was only by a boot or forehead. It's absurd. 

 

The law is the law. 

 

The one argument I can appreciate is whether its better for entertainment value, currently it probably isn't and I get some of the frustration but you cannot write a subjective offside law just to falsely manufacture more goals. 

Edited 19 February 2020 by Finnegan

[ealingfox]

Your Dad will still moan that the part of the body is only offside by a centimetre and that he cAnT eNjOy ThE gAmE aNyMoRe

[Guest]

Alternately they could just scrap offsides and allow drop back goalies too.

[yorkie1999]

Moving the point of offside isn't going to make any diference. The problem isn't with the technology, as it's correct, it has to be or it wouldn't be fit for purpose in the first place. The whole problem is that no one, well the majority of people, want offsides being scrutenised in such detail as it's partly destroying  what footballs all about, the excitement off the goal. If you go to a football match and it's 0-0, it's boring, most fans would say it was a boring 0-0, the anal fans wouldn't, they'd say it was interesting, much in the same way steve davis would comment on getting a good snooker. If you went to a football match and it was 5 all, the majority of fans would say it was exciting, even though the result is ultimatly the same. What's the difference, goals, because it's the goal that's exciting, end of, it's the whole point of football. VAR is now taking away that excitement and no-one likes it, apart from a few nerds who see statistics and percentages of play etc, as interesting. The only way to solve what we perceive as being a problem, is to get rid of it.

[fleckneymike]

I'd make the offside rule that any part of a player that is in front of the second last defender cannot be used to touch the ball and gain an advantage. Simple.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Says the one who never used to see anything when he was a manager 

[lcfcsnow]

It needs to be changed because goals like this should never be disallowed or even need a check

 

[KrefelderFox666]

18 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

It needs to be changed because goals like this should never be disallowed or even need a check

 

In Wenger's suggestion, this would be onside so problem solved.

 

There will always be tight calls, "forensic" calls. I also dislike that when a player is caught offside running back onside (see Wolves goal on the weekend). If a player makes the effort to get back in front of the offside line or behind the ball, then allow it to carry on. Similar to rugby where the kicker can run past offside players and put them onside, or players can run back onside. A mix of that and what Wenger is suggesting.

 

Or you stop the line drawing and just view a still image. Goals like Pukki above would still stand.

[ealingfox]

Under this proposal, the below would be onside - it's just as absurd as the current situation

 

[yorkie1999]

31 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Under this proposal, the below would be onside - it's just as absurd as the current situation

 

Yes, but he wouldnt score any way, the player wouldn't be able see the ball cos he's got no head. 

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

Under this proposal, the below would be onside - it's just as absurd as the current situation

 

its the introduction of quicksand that really worries me

[Nalis]

So in a few words, he's proposing the daylight rule. 

[Xen]

I don't understand the need to complicate it.

 

Keep the current rule and get rid of the VAR ref completely; any decision that needs to get referred can be done by the on-pitch referee at the monitor at the side of the pitch. Stop drawing on any lines to find out if its millimeters offside and let the referee make his decision on sight alone. If its not clear and obvious, favour the attacking side.

 

One of the frustrating things about VAR is how key moments in matches are being decided by someone sat hundreds of miles away in front of a monitor. Bring the entire decision-making process back inside the stadium and let the referee do their job themselves, and people would be a lot more sympathetic to VAR in my honest opinion.

[bovril]

55 minutes ago, Nalis said:

So in a few words, he's proposing the daylight rule. 

That's what I thought.

 

Whatever happened to daylight? 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes, but he wouldnt score any way, the player wouldn't be able see the ball cos he's got no head. 

Dismembered and beheaded but still playing on - who says Raheem is a diver?

[StanSP]

Apparently there never was a 'daylight' rule in the past.

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, Xen said:

I don't understand the need to complicate it.

 

Keep the current rule and get rid of the VAR ref completely; any decision that needs to get referred can be done by the on-pitch referee at the monitor at the side of the pitch. Stop drawing on any lines to find out if its millimeters offside and let the referee make his decision on sight alone. If its not clear and obvious, favour the attacking side.

 

One of the frustrating things about VAR is how key moments in matches are being decided by someone sat hundreds of miles away in front of a monitor. Bring the entire decision-making process back inside the stadium and let the referee do their job themselves, and people would be a lot more sympathetic to VAR in my honest opinion.

It's all about angles though.

[Xen]

31 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's all about angles though.

It's not perfect, granted. Still a lot better than either the current VAR system or the old 'manual' system, though. 

[KrefelderFox666]

2 hours ago, Xen said:

I don't understand the need to complicate it.

 

Keep the current rule and get rid of the VAR ref completely; any decision that needs to get referred can be done by the on-pitch referee at the monitor at the side of the pitch. Stop drawing on any lines to find out if its millimeters offside and let the referee make his decision on sight alone. If its not clear and obvious, favour the attacking side.

 

One of the frustrating things about VAR is how key moments in matches are being decided by someone sat hundreds of miles away in front of a monitor. Bring the entire decision-making process back inside the stadium and let the referee do their job themselves, and people would be a lot more sympathetic to VAR in my honest opinion.

I think this is key, if there is any doubt from the referee or linesman (or even a VAR ref sat miles away) - signal immediately for a review (if the ball is dead, otherwise I guess you need to let the game flow on). But essentially, the referee needs a chance to review the action themselves, not rely on someone and then have no idea what is going on.

[Manwell Pablo]

9 hours ago, Finnegan said:

I wouldn't hate this completely because it's still objective, there's still a measurable and definitive cut off but it'd much harder to prove a negative (you need to look across the line for a part of the body essentially being blocked by another player instead of being ahead. It'll be trickier, not impossible but less clear than now.)

 

But it won't stop you having players offside by a millimeter. 

 

This is what people need to stop being ****ing retarded and get their head around. The "problem" isn't a problem, however you decide to write the offside rule there will always be a point where a player stops being onside and starts being offside, there will always be a threshold and three will always be times where that player is offside only by a pixel. 

 

For me, the problem isn't offside the problem is the media bias that every single outlet going has created against VAR since the season began. Everyone's ready to be angry about VAR before the game has even started because the media have successfully assassinated it in the minds of fans. For whatever reason, they never wanted it and they've made sure nobody else does either. 

 

Gary Neville is right, offside is just offside, why the furore? You either are or you're not. 

There is but we have to do something about it in its current state. 
 

This proposed change would be much better than how it is now, it at least gets back to benefit of the doubt to the attacker and doesn’t stop goals that no one would of even questioned before being chalked off. If they want to give a number of pixel thresholds or do something with the thickness of the line that works for but I don’t like how it is now and that’s nothing to do with having a threshold in general it’s just where that threshold currently is.

 

At the end of the day offside was bought in to stop goal hanging not forensically analyse if one blokes size 12’s are just ahead of another blokes size 11’s.

Edited 19 February 2020 by Manwell Pablo

[coolhandfox]

I would prefer the part you score with has to be onside.

Edited 19 February 2020 by coolhandfox