Arsene Wenger's proposed changes to the offside rule

LOL 133 said:
The best thing about VAR is it shows how ridiculous the offside rule is. Its pointless and should be scrapped completely. No more bullshit about who stands where or who is interferring with play. Time is up for offside.

Please dont bother with the argument about 6ft centre forwards standing next to the opposition goalie waiting on a big punt up the park. Just like Killie and Livi did albeit they had to run for the ball.

Think of how much more open the game would be. Think about all those chopped off goals that would have counted.
Click to expand...

Would completely change the game for the worse. No more would you have to have any form of guile to cut through a defence, football would be played essentially without a midfield and be a territory based game like rugby.
 
bob1873 said:
VAR on Monday gave Man U 3 points. McGuire should have been off so couldn’t have scored later on and Chelsea’s first goal should have stood. The crazy bit where the referee won’t look at the monitor makes VAR much less relevant.
Click to expand...

I also don't get why folk are so keen to have the ref that is on the pitch look at a monitor. That only slows it down and he's then subject to influence by players on the park and the crowd as opposed to leaving it to another official who can see the same footage, faster and without the same level of pressure from the ground.
 
I like the daylight proposal. You would would still have tight calls , but the criteria for being offside would be clear.

Today's situation , where you have 2 very overlapping bodies ,and choose armpits and knees to determine offside is weird.
 
JCDarcheville said:
I also don't get why folk are so keen to have the ref that is on the pitch look at a monitor. That only slows it down and he's then subject to influence by players on the park and the crowd as opposed to leaving it to another official who can see the same footage, faster and without the same level of pressure from the ground.
Click to expand...
Well I’ve seen it work well in the MLS and in European Leagues. If the referee had looked at the 2 incidents I highlighted he’d have sent off McGuire and let the Chelsea goal stand.
 
bob1873 said:
Well I’ve seen it work well in the MLS and in European Leagues. If the referee had looked at the 2 incidents I highlighted he’d have sent off McGuire and let the Chelsea goal stand.
Click to expand...

Why would he have been any more likely to make the decisions that way than the referee watching the footage who’s not standing in the middle?
 
Billiericky said:
Go back to the original rule. There was never anything wrong with it.

OR, offside is a form of cheating and should be treated as trying to gain an unfair advantage. Book players for being persistently offside. That'll fix it.

OR, use 4 linesmen, two have to flag offside or play continues.

OR, only players inside the penalty box can be offside.

OR, do away with linesmen altogether - they're bigger cheats than the refs. And get rid of the bloody 4th official. And the CO while I'm at it.

OR, retrospectively dock points for clubs that win by an offside goal.

OR, retrospectively award points to clubs that have lost out due to incompetent / cheating officials.

OR, ask a panel of sports writers to re-referee matches within 2 days and award points based on their views.

edit: multiple options can be used.
Click to expand...
You forgot, run a thin computerised tape through the strips that knows automatically where it is.
One on heel and toe of each foot and around the socks at the knee.
Inside the ball and round the park.
Top leagues and CL could have this no bother.
Kettle of hawks eyes. If you will. ;)
 
Davieblue said:
Good idea. Also if we are talking millimetres and you are off it will also depend on the correct precise moment of the VAR ref pausing the footage would it not.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this in the other VAR thread, The footage doesn't record fast enough so it uses the frame as the ball is moving away from the player who is 'passing', and not the frame/time when the ball was actually played because it doesn't know when that was.

So the actual margin of error is the amount of the time the var image is out (max 0.02s) multiplied by the speed the player is moving (Usain Bolt's fastest of 1250cm/s) gives you 25cm, even if your average footballer only runs at ~1/3rd of that speed (11mph/500cm/s) thats still a max of 8cm difference between when the ball was played & where the VAR image stops. Meaning that the majority ruled as single figures cm offside by VAR is the wrong decision, purely because the technology isn't accurate
 
Uddy Gers said:
It is a fair point.

With everything else in football if the ball is not completely over the touch line, by line etc it’s not a throw in or goal kick.

Same could apply to offside rule. The whole body has to be offside. It also encourages attacking football and would give us a major advantage domestically.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was about to post.

If any part of the ball is not over the line, then the ball is not considered to be over the line.

So if any part of the attacker's body is not offside, then the attacker should not be considered to be offside.

If the entire body is offside, then he's offside. And if this is somehow missed by the referee, then this is exactly the type of clear and obvious error that VAR can correct, which of course is what VAR was brought in for in the first place.
 
I agree with Wenger.
If any part of the attackers body is in line with any part of the defenders body then the attacker should be onside.
We want more attacking football and fewer goals chopped off.
That is clearly the simplest way to achieve it.
 
I think that there needs to be a margin of error built into the system in favour of the attacker. Seeing goals being chopped off due to a big toe or a ballhair is ruining the fluidity of games and discouraging attacking football.
 
It’s not the rule that needs changing, it’s the way they use VAR. Stop using lines to get it millimetre precise, instead use what we always have, our eyes. If the VAR watch it back and it’s a clear offside then it’s off, if it’s hard to tell from looking then you give the attacker the benefit of doubt. Just like it always was.
 
arnietac1 said:
How


How is it ridiculous? It easy to make this change as it is so simple: as long as any part of the attacker is onside the goal stands.
Easy to change and no more goals off by a bawhair.
I have been discussing this with my brothers for weeks. So simple to implement.
Click to expand...
The bawhair scenario would still be there, just the bawhair is the other way round.
 
Graemeh89 said:
Ridiculous idea , for the exact reason you said. Just Don’t see the reason to change the rule , they brought in VAR to get offside calls correct , and whether it’s 10 yards or 1 inch off , it’s still offside.
Click to expand...

You are correct that VAR was brought in to get offside calls correct and it does. What it has highlighted is how the current rule punishes the attacking team because a player is 1 inch offside. The majority of people I have spoken to would prefer to see a rule change.
 
Jack Flash said:
The bawhair scenario would still be there, just the bawhair is the other way round.
Click to expand...

When watching games as a neutral, I'd prefer a bawhair onside as opposed to a bawhair offside. As a Rangers supporter, I'd also prefer that as we do most of the attacking in our league and would benefit from this change. We need VAR though.
 
The situation is that the presence of VAR has changed the game. Before, a linesman, unaided , could not possibly have determined that a forward was offside due to small body parts. Now VAR can do that. So VAR is more punitive than a standalone linesman.

The benefit of the daylight rule, both a standalone linesman, and VAR , could come to same conclusion since its visually easier to judge.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
www.football.london

Wenger eyes changes to offside law to end VAR controversy

Arsenal's former manager Arsene Wenger became FIFA's head of global football development in November and is proposing radical changes to the offside law to end VAR controversies
www.football.london www.football.london

In his role at FIFA Wenger has been involved in conversations about changing the offside rule. He's proposing a form of the "daylight" rule, suggesting:

"you will not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender - even if other parts of the attacker's body are in front."

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrongly, but would this not present the scenario whereby an attacking player could be back to front with a defending player, facing the goal in which he's trying to score, and as long as his foot is behind or in line, he's not offside?
Click to expand...
Its a difficult one but with the advent of VAR (which isnt going to go away) and given the game is called football, it might help if it is clearly evident a whole foot is ahead of the feet of the last outfield defender. Shoulders, heads, elbows can be dismissed.
 
ICA_86 said:
Nah, the rules are too tight for VAR. I’m amazed that anyone would argue with that.

Not getting a goal because your armpit is offside is ridiculous.

I don’t mind VAR but the current rules don’t suit it.
Click to expand...
No matter what the rule potentially changes too will always be tight calls.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
www.football.london

Wenger eyes changes to offside law to end VAR controversy

Arsenal's former manager Arsene Wenger became FIFA's head of global football development in November and is proposing radical changes to the offside law to end VAR controversies
www.football.london www.football.london

In his role at FIFA Wenger has been involved in conversations about changing the offside rule. He's proposing a form of the "daylight" rule, suggesting:

"you will not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender - even if other parts of the attacker's body are in front."

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrongly, but would this not present the scenario whereby an attacking player could be back to front with a defending player, facing the goal in which he's trying to score, and as long as his foot is behind or in line, he's not offside?
Click to expand...
I thought Souness had the best and simplest idea, if any part of the attacking player's body is onside at the time the ball is played to him, he is onside.
 
JCDarcheville said:
How can you do that though? At the moment it is a matter of fact situation, onside or offside. By saying if you can tell by looking at it, you're adding subjectivity as one person may say they can see its on or off, whilst another disagrees. Also, what happens if the ball goes in, the linesman raises the flag and it's really tight (i.e. a toe is offside), do we overturn the correct offside call?

I've seen it suggested that for VAR, the players should have some sort of tracking system in the vests they wear which allows immediate offside calls to be made based on their chest position. That probably aligns it more to how it's always been looked at with the naked eye and could work if the technology is there.
Click to expand...
As it stands, offside is subjective.
You're asking one guy to make a call on something he physically can't tell.
If the ball is played 50 yards, he can't make a correct call without adding his own subjectivity.

You simply view the moment along the line and require agreement on the decision.
As you've asked, one man might say off, the other says on.
It isn't clear and obvious then, so the advantage goes to the attacker as is the rule.

I'm not dead against technology aiding the call I should add, I am overall in favour of VAR.
I just think right now it is going against what it was meant to achieve, and that was eradicating the clear and obvious errors.
 
GazzaG said:
As it stands, offside is subjective.
You're asking one guy to make a call on something he physically can't tell.
If the ball is played 50 yards, he can't make a correct call without adding his own subjectivity.

You simply view the moment along the line and require agreement on the decision.
As you've asked, one man might say off, the other says on.
It isn't clear and obvious then, so the advantage goes to the attacker as is the rule.

I'm not dead against technology aiding the call I should add, I am overall in favour of VAR.
I just think right now it is going against what it was meant to achieve, and that was eradicating the clear and obvious errors.
Click to expand...

No it’s not, it’s matter of fact but difficult to see. That’s like saying the ball being inside out outside the box is subjective to a referee standing on the half way line. With the benefit of technology it’s a decision that can be applied with near 100% accuracy. I agree it’s frustrating to see goals that would have stood called offside but you can’t start allowing some and not others. As I said, what if the linesman raised his flag against Giroud the other night, do we overturn a correct decision because he wasn’t that much off?
 
Sebo23 said:
Because like I said before, people feel a more sense of injustice at goals not given when 99% of your body is onside. Most agree the benefit should go to the attacker. That wasn't happening in the old system. It is in this new system.
Click to expand...
The fact your giving strikers a head start probably contributes to more goals. Which in my view would make it a good idea.
I just don't feel it changes the amount of VAR calls and the fact that for each one so close, someone will be raging.
 
the forward should always get the benefit of decisions
whole body offside or no offside
whole ball out of play, whole ball over line etc
apply same rule
 
People just need to stop whinging because their goals were chopped off for being OFFSIDE. Toenal, armpit or whatever. Simples.

I hear these players and managers go on and on about how its not working but when asked the question, so you want offside goals to count then? It's eh eh no but... It's becoming an embarressment. Just fn deal with it and stay onside.

Even people using the 'armpit' nonsense are just being deliberately obnoxious. If your armpit is offside so is your shoulder. And if your shoulder is offside then you are flipping offside. People need to get a grip.
 
JCDarcheville said:
Would completely change the game for the worse. No more would you have to have any form of guile to cut through a defence, football would be played essentially without a midfield and be a territory based game like rugby.
Click to expand...

"Guile"? Is that what we pay to watch? 11 men behind the ball with Rangers passing it side to side hoping against hope that we can break down the 11 man defence. Sorry to say but for me the game's a bogey.
 
MightyGersLand! said:
The fact your giving strikers a head start probably contributes to more goals. Which in my view would make it a good idea.
I just don't feel it changes the amount of VAR calls and the fact that for each one so close, someone will be raging.
Click to expand...
There would be loads more shirt pulling and bookings but its up to defenders to adapt.

Bottom line is there would be a trophy sitting in Ibrox instead of the Piggery, had VAR been available at the LGF.
 
Let’s be honest
We all watch footy to see goals. English var is drastically reducing goals by a shoelace/big toe or a hairdoo which is utterly ridiculous. A daylight option might be the way fwd
 
Mbear said:
Let’s be honest
We all watch footy to see goals. English var is drastically reducing goals by a shoelace/big toe or a hairdoo which is utterly ridiculous. A daylight option might be the way fwd
Click to expand...
Exactly. We want to see goals and for clear and obvious errors like armpits being offside need to be scrapped. If VAR can't clear up a situation within 15 seconds then it isn't clear and obvious
 
JCDarcheville said:
No it’s not, it’s matter of fact but difficult to see. That’s like saying the ball being inside out outside the box is subjective to a referee standing on the half way line. With the benefit of technology it’s a decision that can be applied with near 100% accuracy. I agree it’s frustrating to see goals that would have stood called offside but you can’t start allowing some and not others. As I said, what if the linesman raised his flag against Giroud the other night, do we overturn a correct decision because he wasn’t that much off?
Click to expand...
I never saw Girouds goal.
Was he clearly offside or did they require a computer to tell them?

If he's clearly offside then they can tell and apply the rule.
If not, then it isn't a clear and obvious error so they are going against the direction of using VAR.

If they come out and tell us it's tough shit, we'll take however long we want and apply whatever measures necessary to arrive at a 100% accurate decision, that's fair enough.

Until then, they should be using the clear and obvious guideline that they told fans would be used.
 
Brady84 said:
I mentioned this in the other VAR thread, The footage doesn't record fast enough so it uses the frame as the ball is moving away from the player who is 'passing', and not the frame/time when the ball was actually played because it doesn't know when that was.

So the actual margin of error is the amount of the time the var image is out (max 0.02s) multiplied by the speed the player is moving (Usain Bolt's fastest of 1250cm/s) gives you 25cm, even if your average footballer only runs at ~1/3rd of that speed (11mph/500cm/s) thats still a max of 8cm difference between when the ball was played & where the VAR image stops. Meaning that the majority ruled as single figures cm offside by VAR is the wrong decision, purely because the technology isn't accurate
Click to expand...
This is why we need a margin of error, ie. a fuzy line, I said earlier at 3cm, but that could maybe be 5cm and within this zone the benefit of the doubt goes with the attacker, and only clear and obvious decisions will be made using VAR. This will drastically reduce the number of shitty VAR offsides.
 
Graemeh89 said:
Ridiculous idea , for the exact reason you said. Just Don’t see the reason to change the rule , they brought in VAR to get offside calls correct , and whether it’s 10 yards or 1 inch off , it’s still offside.
Click to expand...

Bring it back to the old days, when football was a proper man's game.It's a bloody joke now.
I played 45 mins at glesga green, with my knee split open and full of black ash.
And had to make my way up to the Royal Infirmany on the tram myself, with blood everywhere.
To this day ive still got the black ash scars on my knee.And im 80 yrs old. All wimps now worried about their silly haircuts, and there bank ballance's.
We enjoyed the hustle & Bustle of our fitba; when you could tackle from the back & slide tackle, those were the days.⚽️
 
arnietac1 said:
How


How is it ridiculous? It easy to make this change as it is so simple: as long as any part of the attacker is onside the goal stands.
Easy to change and no more goals off by a bawhair.
I have been discussing this with my brothers for weeks. So simple to implement.
Click to expand...
Whilst VAR is being used, players will still be offside by a bawhair, regardless of the rule.
 
BatterBlatterPatter said:
What they need to do is realise the limitations of the technology and introduce a small margin of error of say 1.5cm either side of the defenders last point nearest the goal line.

Then there is a 3cm buffer area in which the call goes with the attacking player (ie benefit of the doubt).

Sorted.
Click to expand...
What if it is a millimetre (or armpit or toenail as we've seen) inside/outside that 1.5cm?
 
cockney gers boy said:
just f-ucking leave it alone man! they have f-ucked it enough as it is and now literally no c-unt knows whats what. here arsene winger heres is what to do. go back to 1985 when offside was offside. none of this not interfering with play shit. or my cock is smaller than his so he was playing me on. offside is offside so change it back to that. then we all know where we stand and we can all be happy. modern football...shite.
Click to expand...
That's what I like, straight down the middle no nonsence, especially by people who seem to want absolute perfection. What a boring world it would be.

Football is at the end of the day about goals, not looking for someone who has just seen liz Hurley in the crowd and got a bit excited, then getting his goal chopped of because of his enlarged pecker.
 
Back to the old Dryburgh Cup I say, extend 18 yard box to touch line and make this the only area where offside applies.more goals and Games more exciting
 
GazzaG said:
I never saw Girouds goal.
Was he clearly offside or did they require a computer to tell them?

If he's clearly offside then they can tell and apply the rule.
If not, then it isn't a clear and obvious error so they are going against the direction of using VAR.

If they come out and tell us it's tough shit, we'll take however long we want and apply whatever measures necessary to arrive at a 100% accurate decision, that's fair enough.

Until then, they should be using the clear and obvious guideline that they told fans would be used.
Click to expand...

 
JCDarcheville said:
Why would he have been any more likely to make the decisions that way than the referee watching the footage who’s not standing in the middle?
Click to expand...
I guess it’s all about opinions but the on-field referee is involved in the game. Michael Oliver is the only EPL referee to use the monitor I’m pretty sure he was told to book a player over an incident he missed he went and had a look and sent the guy off.
I‘m not sure any of the RC cabal of referees in Scotland would do anything that gave us justice or prejudiced the scum.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
www.football.london

Wenger eyes changes to offside law to end VAR controversy

Arsenal's former manager Arsene Wenger became FIFA's head of global football development in November and is proposing radical changes to the offside law to end VAR controversies
www.football.london www.football.london

In his role at FIFA Wenger has been involved in conversations about changing the offside rule. He's proposing a form of the "daylight" rule, suggesting:

"you will not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender - even if other parts of the attacker's body are in front."

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrongly, but would this not present the scenario whereby an attacking player could be back to front with a defending player, facing the goal in which he's trying to score, and as long as his foot is behind or in line, he's not offside?
Click to expand...
I just posted something similar on another thread.I think it is the way to go.
 
GazzaG said:
I never saw Girouds goal.
Was he clearly offside or did they require a computer to tell them?

If he's clearly offside then they can tell and apply the rule.
If not, then it isn't a clear and obvious error so they are going against the direction of using VAR.

If they come out and tell us it's tough shit, we'll take however long we want and apply whatever measures necessary to arrive at a 100% accurate decision, that's fair enough.

Until then, they should be using the clear and obvious guideline that they told fans would be used.
Click to expand...

Problem is that offside is a matter of fact. We don’t have a clear and obvious for ball over the line or not. Having “clear and obvious” is subjective and would lead to inconsistency, unless you had an official margin of error, but how much offside is ok, and why do that when we can get it right? You’d still need to measure it to see if it was within the margin of error.
 
JCDarcheville said:
Problem is that offside is a matter of fact. We don’t have a clear and obvious for ball over the line or not. Having “clear and obvious” is subjective and would lead to inconsistency, unless you had an official margin of error, but how much offside is ok, and why do that when we can get it right? You’d still need to measure it to see if it was within the margin of error.
Click to expand...
We do have a clear and obvious for the ball being over the line, the ref gets a signal to his watch. Unless you mean over any line?

I get what you're saying by making sure the decision is right, and if it is it's hard to argue.
My argument is that we are supposed to be correcting 'clear and obvious' errors. If we need to use a computer then it is neither clear or obvious.
There is no question of it being subjective.

Like I said, I'd have it run on the screen and if the video assistants don't agree then the decision on the field stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cav
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top