Trial of new offside rule

[PCozzie]

Brought over from the Tapsoba player thread.....

Fifa are set to trial new offside rule

Discuss, etc

FIFA set to trial new offside rule and fans have mixed thoughts

FIFA will be testing a new offside law in a number of European countries and fans have taken to social media to share their thoughts.

www.sportbible.com

 

[GutBucket]

Sounds like it will give huge advantage to attackers, but let's see. Most people thought 5 sub rule would give huge advantage to rich teams, that they would sub wing backs at half time, and it didn't change that much. This one is different though, and I bet VAR in Premiership will still screw up often.

 

[Bobby TwoShots]

Sounds like it will give huge advantage to attackers, but let's see. Most people thought 5 sub rule would give huge advantage to rich teams, that they would sub wing backs at half time, and it didn't change that much. This one is different though, and I bet VAR in Premiership will still screw up often.

Yep, all the 20-minute waits while they try to see if there's a millimeter of "daylight" between players.

 

[Yid-ol]

Doesn't this just move the problem from being is he millimeters past the furthest back part to now is he millimeters clear daylight past the last defender?

 

[mil1lion]

Don't like it , would prefer if they measure from waste down so if anywhere below the waste its offside. I don't think leaning offside should count against an attacker. Its the legs that get them the advantage over the defender.

 

[jpascavitz]

My initial thought of this was meh but then I thought of ice hockey in the NHL (American here)

There are two set blue lines which are the off-sides line for each attacking team. The rule is actually very similar to the Wenger rule when the attacker just needs one part of their body behind or equal to the blue line as the puck carrier enters the attacking zone.

The difference is just the "blue line" is variable in football, and follows the last defender rather than be set. I think it takes SOME of the subjectivity out of the offsides rule, which will help in terms of what part of the body is offsides or allowed to be offsides (currently set to any body part you can score with)

But what this new rule still fails to capture and the hardest issue is the exact moment when the ball is played and how the lines are drawn (still very manual)

 

[Annabel]

Hmm, we’re gonna need very, extremely, supersonically quick defenders if we play high. More teams will have to adopt a low block.

 

[wiggo24]

Suspect it will be the death of exciting, high-line footy. The debate will also just move to whether the attacker is a full body ahead of the defender so it won't solve the subjective element either.

Don't really understand the need for this. Just employ the current rule with more accurate VAR technology.

 

[Tucker]

I’ve always thought there should be daylight between the attacker and defender. So I think this is a good move, I’m glad it’s just a trial for now though and I’ll be interested to see how it plays out.

End of the day though this wont eliminate those close VAR calls because it’s just a different threshold and measurement point, so there will still be close calls. People just need to get used to those.

 

[JonnyBGood]

But the true test... Would it have been Defoe proof?

 

[EighteenEightyTwo]

So you can be two yards ahead but leave your leg back to stay onside? I don’t see how that’s better than what we have. Logically something like centre of gravity or hip position should be the determining factor.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Suspect it will be the death of exciting, high-line footy. The debate will also just move to whether the attacker is a full body ahead of the defender so it won't solve the subjective element either.

Don't really understand the need for this. Just employ the current rule with more accurate VAR technology.

Will it though? I'm not so sure, but giving the attacker a bit more benefit has been called for for a long time to be fair.

 

[Col_M]

Great news for Richarlason

 

[Yid-ol]

Will it though? I'm not so sure, but giving the attacker a bit more benefit has been called for for a long time to be fair.

But won't the 'give the attackers the benefit of the doubt' still be said if there is a millimeter of space between defender and attacker?

To me the issue we not the offside rule, but a better way for var to view it. E.g if the on field call is onside but it's easy to see its off, it's offside. But if it takes drawing lines and minimal gap for offside, you go with infield decision.

 

[Yid-ol]

But the true test... Would it have been Defoe proof?

He would still find a way to be offside. Even if it was in our own half!

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

But won't the 'give the attackers the benefit of the doubt' still be said if there is a millimeter of space between defender and attacker?

To me the issue we not the offside rule, but a better way for var to view it. E.g if the on field call is onside but it's easy to see its off, it's offside. But if it takes drawing lines and minimal gap for offside, you go with infield decision.

yea tricky one to be fair. Interested to see how the trial would go.

 

[McArchibald]

IMO it should be the torso of the player. So no offsides because of stray limbs etc, but daylight between the attacker's torso vs that of the defender.
This is too radical a solution, and it will have a big impact - while a simple tweak or clarification of the interpretation of the rule would suffice. Trust Wenger to get it all wrong...

 

[Japhet]

Didn't we have this years ago when there had to be 'clear daylight' between the attacker and the defender to be offside?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it looks like an attacker with a trailing leg and a defender with an extended leg whilst running means the attacker can be onside 5 feet (?) in front of the defender just purely down to the mechanics of running.

 

[Yid-ol]

Didn't we have this years ago when there had to be 'clear daylight' between the attacker and the defender to be offside?

Yeah, then changed back quickly I think.

 

[LannerSpurs]

Don't like this one bit purely down to the name 'The Wenger Rule'