The Offside Rule

[Bjornebye]

Van Basten wants rid apparently. Would that be good for the game or just encourage more fat Sam tactics that ruin the way teams play. I personally think it should be kept but their needs to be better policing of it. Far too many wrong decisions are given. It would take a second for a video ref to review and would stop teams playing the offside trap all the time. Sturridge infuriates me as much as Balotelli used too for getting caught offside so much.

[Captain Turdseye]

Get rid of it. Imagine how many more of us could be professional footballers if 'goal hanger' was a legitimate position.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Van Basten's been sniffing glue.

 

However, I'd like to see a stricter stance on what was considered interfering with play. Too often a keeper dives late because someone's in an offside position - even if only in his peripheral vision - but because they don't stick their leg out they're considered to be not interfering with play.

 

The problem is, the keeper has to make a split second decision when to dive, and doesn't have time to consider whether someone at the back post behind him may be playing them onside, or if the player will actually make that movement to the ball. So they hesitate for a fraction, dive late, and concede.

 

The same goes for defenders, who can man mark someone perfectly, and spring an offside trap to catch out a runner, only to be left standing with their arms in the air as someone else lazily jogs onto it. Their play has been affected by the actions of someone who's offside, so that - to me at least - could be construed as interfering with play.

 

No one cares though, the rule makers don't want perfection, they want goals and controversy as that's what helps sell advertising. Much like refs being praised for not carding people and "letting games flow"; if they deserve a card and 4 players should be sent off then do it, apply the rules, don't pander to some nebulous notion of the spectacle of the occasion.

[jimmycase]

Didnt the Conference or some other lower league experiment some years ago with this doing away with offside and found it didnt lead to more goals?

 

Problem with the current offside rule is they've fucked about with it you dont know if a player is on, off, interferring, not interferring, active or not active. And they're supposed to favour the striker but if his toe is offside in an attack, they give offside!

 

Come on, it cant be hard, can it? Make a player offside if there's clear daylight between him and the defender. If a player is offside, he's offside whether he's interferring, active or not. Just stop fucking around with the rule and making it more complicated.

[SasaS]

The rule should be if you're offside, you're offside, you are interfering with the play by being on the pitch.

[Russ Atmosphere]

I think there was a paper in Nature showing, probably what everybody already knew, that it's very difficult to officiate because you can't look in two different places at the same time *insert Aquilani joke here*

[Guest]

If video technology comes in the offside rule should stay in place. The linesman can raise a flag if offside is given but play should continue until the ball is no longer in play (goal, corner, throw in, goal kick) and if the video shows offside the ref can either bring it back or continue as they were, depending on how the ball ended out of play.

 

If the opposition regain possession they can either stop play (send the ball out) or continue play if they so wish and the flag can go down.

 

It could work but I am sure it won't happen that way, simply because it could work.

[Strontium]

The rule is perfect as it is.

[Guest]

The rule is perfect as it is.

Maybe but the way that's officiated is a thousand light years away from perfect.

 

And if you know your space and time, a thousand light years is a long way.

[Red House]

I would disagree about taking the interfering part out of the offside personally. It would just lead to the Arrigo Sacchi exploit again. Too many offside calls which would just break the continuity of the game.

 

[Bjornebye]

If video technology comes in the offside rule should stay in place. The linesman can raise a flag if offside is given but play should continue until the ball is no longer in play (goal, corner, throw in, goal kick) and if the video shows offside the ref can either bring it back or continue as they were, depending on how the ball ended out of play.

 

If the opposition regain possession they can either stop play (send the ball out) or continue play if they so wish and the flag can go down.

 

It could work but I am sure it won't happen that way, simply because it could work.

Spot on

[Funkasy]

Thats where any player inside is outside? No matter where the ball is played?

[Red House]

I think video evidence is the right way forward. The problem is if you start using it for offside calls, you can make a case for it to be used for just about every other decision. And, given that footballers whine about pretty much everything (even mere throw-in decisions when they clearly have had the last-touch), it could make the game too stop-start.

My personal suggestion would be to make it like tennis. Give each manager three chances to call for video evidence to challenge whatever decision they want to dispute, whether that be an offside call, penalty, red card or even throw-in decision. Would not harm the flow of the play too much, would keep referees in the game and would shift some of the blame away from them and onto the managers for not/mis-using their challenges.

[Trumo]

Get rid of the active/inactive aspect of the rule at the very least.

[Strontium]

Get rid of the active/inactive aspect of the rule at the very least.

 

Why?

 

It was ridiculous when we had a situation where unsaveable pearlers from outside the box were being disallowed because someone was standing slightly ahead of the defence near the touchline.

 

Changing that rule was one of the sanest things FIFA has ever done.

[Captain]

Getting rid of offside would kill the game as we know it.

 

Let it stay as it is.

[jimmycase]

Why?

 

It was ridiculous when we had a situation where unsaveable pearlers from outside the box were being disallowed because someone was standing slightly ahead of the defence near the touchline.

 

Changing that rule was one of the sanest things FIFA has ever done.

 

Why? Because offside needs an absolute. If he's offside, he's offside. When you start saying 'yeah he was but not interferring with play' you have the stupid situation we have now where a player is offside in phase one of play but isnt in phase two and another player who wasnt offside is now because he's made an attempt to go for the ball.

 

Fucking ludicrous.

[Captain]

Why? Because offside needs an absolute. 

 

No, it doesn't. Been there, done that.

[jimmycase]

No, it doesn't. Been there, done that.

 

So you're completely happy with this phase one and two of play and an offside player in front of the keeper not interferring with play yet an offside player in front of the keeper making an attempt to go for the ball but not connecting is offside.

 

Im not. No wonder refs and linos get it wrong.

[Strontium]

Why? Because offside needs an absolute.

 

Oh well, that settles that then.

 

In future, do try to supply an actual argument.

[Strontium]

So you're completely happy with this phase one and two of play and an offside player in front of the keeper not interferring with play yet an offside player in front of the keeper making an attempt to go for the ball but not connecting is offside.

 

Im not. No wonder refs and linos get it wrong.

 

An offside player in front of the keeper would be interfering with play.

 

If you're going to comment on the rule, it might be a good idea if you understood it.

[Captain]

So you're completely happy with this phase one and two of play and an offside player in front of the keeper not interferring with play yet an offside player in front of the keeper making an attempt to go for the ball but not connecting is offside.

 

Im not. No wonder refs and linos get it wrong.

 

We will imo never, ever be completely happy with the refereeing of the offside rule.

 

So no, that's not what I said.

[SasaS]

Alternatively, they could make it even more complicated and introduce not interfering with play for defenders too, so a defender cannot play somebody onside if he is on the opposite side of the pitch and not directly interfering with the attacking play.

[jimmycase]

An offside player in front of the keeper would be interfering with play.

 

If you're going to comment on the rule, it might be a good idea if you understood it.

 

ha, the smug superiority approach is the last resort of the weak of mind. Im fully au fait with the offside rule. It is the current interpretation that the law makers have foistered on the refs and linos that we see so many offside decisions debated and open to interpretation that is the concern.

 

The original law makers of offside had the rule quite simple and straightforward. So straightforward in fact that the only change to the offside rule since it was introduced in the second half of the 19th Century was to reduce the number of defenders from 3 to 2 some 60 years later.

 

Lawmakers then started pissing around with the rule from the 1990s to the current abortion we have now.

[G Richards]

Keep the offside rule, but go back to a simpler offside rule. All this stuff about active, inactive, first phase, second phase and all the rest of it is too confusing. Go back to an earlier and simpler form of offside.

 

Also, make sure any doubt goes in the favour of the attacker. We want to see goals. Clear daylight and call it, but if level, or even slightly leaning forward, leave it alone.