And for us old football purists,VAR is absolutely no part of the beautiful game.An utterly ridiculous idea pushed by people who blatantly do not understand the sport.
This. The game is all about goals, no goals, game dies.The game is all about goals and the offside law should be ammended to allow the benefit of the doubt to be with the attacking side.
Easier said than done, I accept.
But there would still be lines getting drawn on VAR, they’d just be looking at a different point on the pitch.The offside rule just needs changed a little bit maybe have it so there needs to be daylight between the attacker and defender for it to be offside
Hi Dessers , Cracking goals you scored at the weekend,Obviously the Man Utd v Coventry is the most recently high profile example of VAR and offside being a controversial issue in the game
The main reason is:
- the nature of 'clear and obvious error'
- the thickness of the lines
- the moment to draw the lines when the ball was struck (20millisecond difference in frames can be the difference between on and offside)
Wengers suggestion of giving advantage to the striker is interesting but just moves the 'fault line' and makes things just as confusing
Other suggestions I have read is change the rule so that it's only offside if 2 attacking players are in an 'offside' position. This happens less regularly meaning fewer goals being chalked off. It would change the way the game is played if 1 player is allowed further up the pitch
Another suggestion is scrap offside completely
They scrapped the away goals rule which has proven to increase goals in European ties
Is it worth doing the same with offside?
Rethinking Football: Offside – Is It Time To Get Rid? | The Stacey West
I did a couple of articles in this series, one on discipline and another on cup competitions. Today, it’s time to look at a law [...]staceywest.net
Discuss
EPL bringing in the semi-automated stuff used in the Champions Legaue next season. Far superior.The law is fine as it is, hopefully with the Premier League and La Liga bringing in the semi-automated offside technology - which is already used in Serie A and the Champions League - we’ll start to see an end to the moaning over the rule.
I suppose folk will always find something to complain about though
'Clear and obvious error' is not a part of the offside VAR interventions though. It never has been, otherwise the VAR would be intervening for every offside decision. So I'm not sure why folk keep bringing 'clear and obvious error' into the equation. It has no relevance here. The offside check is part of the review of any match changing situation, such as a goal. Nothing more. It is also an objective, rather than subjective, decision. It is a factual decision, effectively, rather than a matter of judgement.
As for 'moving the line' that won't work either. If you say, for example, there has to be daylight between the attacker and the defender then you simply shift the point of debate to whether there actually IS 1mm of clear space between the two of whether there is, in fact, a 1mm overlap.
We are currently trusting technology to come up with the answers after more than a hundred years of trusting someone's eyeballs. I know which of the two my money is on to be more likely to get it right - and its not the human running the line.
If we are to have an offside law I think most would be happy with the technology if it were timely. The EPL are addressing that next season with the introduction of the semi-automated stuff we saw in action for our Play-Off against PSV when Dessers looked to be offside before playing that exquisite pass into Matondo for his goal. We got a quick decision, with the AI graphics, showing he was actually onside by a wafer-thin margin. We are unlikely to see that technology introduced in Scotland any time soon though.
I'm sure I read a report that VAR has increased 'correct' decisions from circa 95% to something like 99%. Small margins, but every correct decision has to be welcomed. The reaction because 'David', metaphorically, didn't get to beat 'Goliath' at the weekend is bollocks.
Refereed by Martin O'Neill?If there was no offside football would be about teams putting three big guys in the box and the other players punting it long to them to fight for it. Plus a couple of divers to win free kicks to punt even more balls into the box.
Every game would be like watching a Martin O'Neill team play a Martin O'Neill team.
The game is all about goals and the offside law should be ammended to allow the benefit of the doubt to be with the attacking side.
Easier said than done, I accept.
Arguably already happens though, with the Linesmen instructed to keep their flag down if there is an element of doubt over the offside. Back in my day, it was more likely that the flag would be raised if there was any doubt and play halted immediately.This. The game is all about goals, no goals, game dies.
We all want to see attacking football and the attacking side really should get the benefit of the doubt.
One of the best changes brought in was to stop the passback to the goalie, to keep the game moving. We're going to end up with forwards hanging back further than they need to, if this keeps going the way it is.
A well articulated post. Football seems almost unique in it's aversion to accept factual decisions, ''he was only JUST offside''. No one in tennis bemoans a hawkeye call which deems a serve at match point to be millimetres out, or a similar LBW call in cricket or sports such as athletics or swimming which can be decided by hundreds of a second. VAR can and will be tweaked and fine tuned, personally I would put a time limit on subjective calls like penalty decisions etc, but off side is the least of it's problems.'Clear and obvious error' is not a part of the offside VAR interventions though. It never has been, otherwise the VAR would be intervening for every offside decision. So I'm not sure why folk keep bringing 'clear and obvious error' into the equation. It has no relevance here. The offside check is part of the review of any match changing situation, such as a goal. Nothing more. It is also an objective, rather than subjective, decision. It is a factual decision, effectively, rather than a matter of judgement.
As for 'moving the line' that won't work either. If you say, for example, there has to be daylight between the attacker and the defender then you simply shift the point of debate to whether there actually IS 1mm of clear space between the two of whether there is, in fact, a 1mm overlap.
We are currently trusting technology to come up with the answers after more than a hundred years of trusting someone's eyeballs. I know which of the two my money is on to be more likely to get it right - and its not the human running the line.
If we are to have an offside law I think most would be happy with the technology if it were timely. The EPL are addressing that next season with the introduction of the semi-automated stuff we saw in action for our Play-Off against PSV when Dessers looked to be offside before playing that exquisite pass into Matondo for his goal. We got a quick decision, with the AI graphics, showing he was actually onside by a wafer-thin margin. We are unlikely to see that technology introduced in Scotland any time soon though.
I'm sure I read a report that VAR has increased 'correct' decisions from circa 95% to something like 99%. Small margins, but every correct decision has to be welcomed. The reaction because 'David', metaphorically, didn't get to beat 'Goliath' at the weekend is bollocks.
Arguably already happens though, with the Linesmen instructed to keep their flag down if there is an element of doubt over the offside. Back in my day, it was more likely that the flag would be raised if there was any doubt and play halted immediately.
The attacker is allowed to go on and score his 'goal' - if he does - and then the technology assesses whether he was, in fact (not opinion) offside.
The speed of decision is the biggest bugbear here and, in the EPL at least, that will be addressed next season with the semi-automated technology.
To be fair, van Basten is a nut-job as well .I think Wenger gets paid ridiculous sums of money to come up with ideas. I don't think he genuinely believes it will improve football.
This would be the logical answer, it would make it easier for on field officials but then VAR would take an age to verify and we would be back to square one.if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then onside imo. any clear daylight, offside.
I've never heard of this.EPL bringing in the semi-automated stuff used in the Champions Legaue next season. Far superior.
I always thought Var was sold on the premise it would help referees and ultimately get more decisions correct but not all decisions.VAR was sold to the public as almost a panacea for disputed decisions, especially offside. Imo, it has just made things worse.
Used in Champions League. You may remember it from our Play-Off against PSV. Dessers looked offside when he received the ball before playing that exquisite pass for Matondo to score. We had the 'not offside' decision very quickly complete with AI generated imagery to support it. Uses player-tracking tech and has a chip in the ball itself - assuming they go for the same as UEFA.I've never heard of this.
What is the new technology?
Bit late for that , it's currently being ruined by the offside rules not VAR.Would absolutely ruin the game imo
Then we'd be down to arguing if it actually was his full body or if there was a 1mm overlap.Bit late for that , it's currently being ruined by the offside rules not VAR.
Post 19 wins it for me ...only offside if it's the offenders full body. Offside is presently being given even in some cases when the deemed offender isn't even gaining any advantage, which contends with the reason why it was introduced in the first place..The rule definitely needs amending.
Not "fact" at all.Arguably already happens though, with the Linesmen instructed to keep their flag down if there is an element of doubt over the offside. Back in my day, it was more likely that the flag would be raised if there was any doubt and play halted immediately.
The attacker is allowed to go on and score his 'goal' - if he does - and then the technology assesses whether he was, in fact (not opinion) offside.
The speed of decision is the biggest bugbear here and, in the EPL at least, that will be addressed next season with the semi-automated technology.
It is better than relying on a Linesman with his peripheral vision trying to see the attacking player, the defender and the man making the pass all at the same time. Something we relied upon for over a hundred years despite its 'clear and obvious' flaws. I know which I think is more 'derogatory' to ensuring the correct outcome - and its not the tech.Not "fact" at all.
The time it takes a toe to go offside must be identical to the time a toe travels the same distance to make contact with the ball.
A camera in direct line with the "offside" player can't possibly guarantee that the two events are precisely simultaneous when we're talking about tiny fractions of a second.
A ludicrous, spoiler of a rule which is derogatory to football.
Simple as that. Although I like the proposed change. It only moves the point of reference but interesting nonethelessJust keep it the way it is. People just cry about correct decisions that go against them.
If they are just offside then they are offside. It doesn't change because you don't want it to happen. Clear and obvious error and all that bollocks people go on about is just to find a way to moan about the right decision.
Semi-automated VAR, to be introduced to the EPL next season, as used in the Champions League addresses your latter point.If there’s daylight between the attacker and defender offside if not inside , scrap it completely is not on imop , as a aside I would also put a time on VAR decisions 2 mins max
Still leaves a judgement to be made which could be with the same degree of difficulty, but just in a slightly different area. The full body could be millimetres onside or offside, leading to the same arguments.scrapping offside would kill the game. It would turn into Basketball. It would be a joke.
We need to change it. I think the full body idea is the best idea. This millimetre of a toe being ahead, something that is far from clear to the naked eye is not really working for everyone.
I think the " unfairness " of the offside rule is when they decide to go back as much as 2/3 minutes in some cases , even though the deemed offender hasn't gained any advantage in the said passage of play.Just keep it the way it is. People just cry about correct decisions that go against them.
If they are just offside then they are offside. It doesn't change because you don't want it to happen. Clear and obvious error and all that bollocks people go on about is just to find a way to moan about the right decision.
That is something which would also to be looked at if it were introduced. I'm sure , given the importance of getting it correct the erudites in our game could come up with something to prevent that situation .I don't have the answer , do you ? One thing for sure is the current set up in the offside ruling isn't helping the game and time it was looked at.Then we'd be down to arguing if it actually was his full body or if there was a 1mm overlap.
Any line, any where is going to be debated down to the last 1mm. Shifting the line resolves nothing. Wherever the line is, wherever the player is, there comes a point where you say his is, or isn't, offside. Its factual rather than a matter of opinion.
The attacker gains his advantage through the Linesman, as he's instructed, keeping his flag down for close decisions and allowing him to go on and score his 'goal'. Subject to it then being reviewed. In my day the flag would have gone up straight away and you'd be goosed.I think the " unfairness " of the offside rule is when they decide to go back as much as 2/3 minutes in some cases , even though the deemed offender hasn't gained any advantage in the said passage of play.
That is something which would also to be looked at if it were introduced. I'm sure , given the importance of getting it correct the erudites in our game could come up with something to prevent that situation .I don't have the answer , do you ? One thing for sure is the current set up in the offside ruling isn't helping the game and time it was looked at.
Trialled for three years -72,73 and 74. Was a waste of time so got binned..Apologies in advance if this has already been mentioned.
They trialed something similar in the 70s in a tournament called the Drybrough Cup..
You couldn’t be offside up to the 18 yard line.
If my memory serves me well it only lasted a couple of years.
If Rangers get a "Coventry" decision that costs us a win at Hampden or the San Giro, I think you might waver a wee bit on that.It is better than relying on a Linesman with his peripheral vision trying to see the attacking player, the defender and the man making the pass all at the same time. Something we relied upon for over a hundred years despite its 'clear and obvious' flaws. I know which I think is more 'derogatory' to ensuring the correct outcome - and its not the tech.
Of course I would. On the other hand, if a 'Coventry' decision sees a Dhims goal disallowed it would reinforce my view.If Rangers get a "Coventry" decision that costs us a win at Hampden or the San Giro, I think you might waver a wee bit on that.
It's been tried before, and was a shambles. Also, Wenger is a silly prick.Obviously the Man Utd v Coventry is the most recently high profile example of VAR and offside being a controversial issue in the game
The main reason is:
- the nature of 'clear and obvious error'
- the thickness of the lines
- the moment to draw the lines when the ball was struck (20millisecond difference in frames can be the difference between on and offside)
Wengers suggestion of giving advantage to the striker is interesting but just moves the 'fault line' and makes things just as confusing
Other suggestions I have read is change the rule so that it's only offside if 2 attacking players are in an 'offside' position. This happens less regularly meaning fewer goals being chalked off. It would change the way the game is played if 1 player is allowed further up the pitch
Another suggestion is scrap offside completely
They scrapped the away goals rule which has proven to increase goals in European ties
Is it worth doing the same with offside?
Rethinking Football: Offside – Is It Time To Get Rid? | The Stacey West
I did a couple of articles in this series, one on discipline and another on cup competitions. Today, it’s time to look at a law [...]staceywest.net
Discuss
Tbf 'unicorse' I remember you going completely 'studs up' on one of my posts without reference to what I was trying to get across.Annoyed?
I haven't given my opinion
What annoys me is when people go studs up into a discussion claiming anyone who contemplates changing the rule 'blatently doesn't understand the sport'
The offside rule have changed several times in the last 15 years, it's worthy of conversation