Offsides

[Mr Hanki's Throne]

I was just watching the linesman wipe a goal scoring opportunity off the board because of a bogus offsides call in the Pachuca - Chivas game.

This got me thinking about how to use replay on offsides calls. The only thing I could think of is what follows. At this point, I don't want to advocate the proposal, but to explore some of it implications.

Here's the idea: No linesmen. Offsides only matters and is only reviewed if a goal is scored. Every goal is reviewed for offsides by video replay.

Implications:

1) Fewer dead ball restarts, because offsides would only be called if the ball goes into the goal, which is already a dead ball situation.

2) Possibly more dead-ball time, because every goal would be reviewed by video. 2a) Gamesmanship might lead to players, late in the game, in obvious offsides positions putting the ball in the net to kil time. 2b) A dedicated TV official could speed the decision time.

3) Gamesmanship might lead to an attacking player lining up in obviously offsides positions. This player would try to receive the ball behind the defense and pass to players in an onside position to do the actual goalscoreing. 3a) This stretches the defense, which might open up space for the attack, but the character of the game might change in ways impossible to anticipate. 3b) I'd extend the definition of offsides. The assisting player must be onside. I may even go futher that the assisting player must be onside relative to the second defender (not just relative to the ball).

4) The offside trap as a defensive strategy would be diminished. Sure the trap might help in goal scoring situations, but not in the many situations where the offense's only objective is to establish better position.

5) 99% of soccer games aren't professional and do not have TV replays. If our concern is only for the professional game, the players entering the professional game might have to relearn the game.

[impalemeplz]

i think every goal being reviewed, for an offside, would definately take something away from the celebrations(crowd and player).

i have been to rugby league games and 40% of tries these days go to the video ref and it kills the excitement as everyone looks at a big screen with a logo to await the decision.

[MickeyMoney]

I've been thinking about changing the offsides rule also. I think the rule is now as it's stated is almost how the linesman feel on that day. I always thought if any part of the defender kept the last man onsides he was onsides. Kinda like giving the offense the benefit of the doubt. I would like to see the rule changed to a yard offside meaning the last man must be more than a yard off I think it get rid of the the offsides trap as we know it today and open up the game without really changing the game to much just the lines man decision to make the call because you would have to see a yard of space to raise your flag.

[NHRef]

I've been thinking about changing the offsides rule also. I think the rule is now as it's stated is almost how the linesman feel on that day. I always thought if any part of the defender kept the last man onsides he was onsides. Kinda like giving the offense the benefit of the doubt. I would like to see the rule changed to a yard offside meaning the last man must be more than a yard off I think it get rid of the the offsides trap as we know it today and open up the game without really changing the game to much just the lines man decision to make the call because you would have to see a yard of space to raise your flag.

The current rule is that if any "playable body part" of the attacker is beyond all playable body parts of the defender, he's in an offside position, so I believe your first point is right. Also ARs are instructed to give all benefit of the doubt to the attacker. How this works out in reality is a bit subjective and depends on positioning of all involved on close calls.

Your point about giving 1 yard makes it worse in my opinion. right now its easier to judge body parts to body parts, gives a definite line to look for, with a rule of "1 yard of space" it gets way more subjective.

It isn't perfect, but it is pretty good right now.

[Lovefutball]

Soccer is a fast, moving sport. Unlike football and others, the game is constantly going. To use video would definitely take away from the game...a lot.

I'm completely against it.

[MickeyMoney]

The current rule is that if any "playable body part" of the attacker is beyond all playable body parts of the defender, he's in an offside position, so I believe your first point is right. Also ARs are instructed to give all benefit of the doubt to the attacker. How this works out in reality is a bit subjective and depends on positioning of all involved on close calls.

Your point about giving 1 yard makes it worse in my opinion. right now its easier to judge body parts to body parts, gives a definite line to look for, with a rule of "1 yard of space" it gets way more subjective.

It isn't perfect, but it is pretty good right now.

Thanks for the explanation I wish the rule was enforced as such but to often I see refs quick to raise there flags in a scoring situation and a sport that lacks real scoring chances you should be for the offence at every opportunity. I like the 1 yard space rule because if you see lots of green between the attacker and the last defender then by all means make the call but to penalize the offence for what seems to be inches to me is just wrong. I know you may think it's subjective but 3 feet is quite some distance between two players.

[NHRef]

Thanks for the explanation I wish the rule was enforced as such but to often I see refs quick to raise there flags in a scoring situation and a sport that lacks real scoring chances you should be for the offence at every opportunity. I like the 1 yard space rule because if you see lots of green between the attacker and the last defender then by all means make the call but to penalize the offence for what seems to be inches to me is just wrong. I know you may think it's subjective but 3 feet is quite some distance between two players.

the subjective comes in at judging 3 feet between a defender on one side of the field and an attacker on the other side of the field, with the depth perception problem its a nightmare to judge. Also 3 feet vs 2 feet 6 inches while on the run, with distance between the players etc.

Either way, it can be a very tough call as the leve of soccer gets higher.

[Mr Hanki's Throne]

Soccer is a fast, moving sport. Unlike football and others, the game is constantly going. To use video would definitely take away from the game...a lot.

I'm completely against it.

OTOH, plentiful offsides calls, perhaps half of which are bogus, also stop the game.

[John Shuttleworth]

As it is now the off side rule doesn't work. All this phases of play nonsense, it's too complicated to judge properly.

Any talking of reviewing video evidence is gets an instant NO from me UNLESS it is post match. To me it's fine to look at instances of cheating and diving at that point and hand out fines and suspensions.

To allow video evidence during a game would immediately open the game up to the threat of TV time outs for commercials. This must be resisted at all costs.

For me, go back to the old rule. Offside is offside.

Or how about abandoning the rule altogether? I would be interested to see what would happen if forwards were allowed to goal lag in a top flight game. I'm sure there must resulting problems or the rule wouldn't have been introduced but I bet it's been so long since it was tried I just wonder if defences wouldn't just develop strategies to cope.

[Lovefutball]

OTOH, plentiful offsides calls, perhaps half of which are bogus, also stop the game.

Half offside calls are bogus? I disagree, the AR's usaully do a good job of calling them correctly.

[Caesar]

As it is now the off side rule doesn't work. All this phases of play nonsense, it's too complicated to judge properly.
:confused:

Phases of play makes it quite simple to judge offside. There is nothing complicated about the rule in the slightest, the only problem is with the physical mechanics of enforcing it.

[Lovefutball]

Has anyone here ever AR'd any soccer games? It really isn't to difficult, if your able to stand with the second to last defender, you can make the call...

[John Shuttleworth]

:confused:

Phases of play makes it quite simple to judge offside. There is nothing complicated about the rule in the slightest, the only problem is with the physical mechanics of enforcing it.

Yes it's all perfectly simple and everybody is happy with it.


Alan Hansen (ex Liverpool, BBC expert) - "The current offside rule is the worst in football."

Bolton boss Sam Allardyce - "I don't like it, I don't think it adds anything to the game whatsoever other than confusion." "It's not the referees fault, it's Fifa's. Hopefully they may change it back."

Steve Coppell Readig manager - "There is a grey area at the moment and a certain element distrust of officials because I'm not sure it is clear to them."

Paul Jewell Wigan manager - "'It was not the linesman's fault - he's just not very good. There is a lot of confusion over the offside rules but he is definitely confused more than most." " The offside rule needs to be made plain and simple, no grey areas."

Brian Clough, football genius - “.. if any of my players are not interfering with play, they won’t be playing for me again..”

[Caesar]

I notice you fail to quote any referees.

[SoccerScottWV]

There is nothing wrong with the offside rule, and I'd say that 90% of offside calls are correct. The only problem is with the perception that AR's are screwing up the calls. The fact is that most fans and many coaches/players don't understand the rule thoroughly, and are almost never in a position to actually see whether or not a player was really offside. Do AR's botch some of calls--absolutely. Do AR's botch 50% of the calls--hell no. Let the officials do the jobs that they are paid to do and get on with the game.

Scott

[John Shuttleworth]

Refs never say anything, they just follow the party line and to try and interpret the ruling as best they can.

Arsene Wenger and Glenn Roeder amongst others have others have called on head ref Kieth Hackett to clarify the rule. On at least one occasion he's had to concede there was an incorrect decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4544544.stm

I think it's interesting he let slip:

"Clearly we have a difficult law and interpretations of accuracy on this occasion; in a fraction of a second the assistant referee puts up his flag in the belief Henry becomes active from a passive position."

hmmmm "Clearly we have a difficult law"

[Caesar]

If you actually read the law, it is exceptionally clear and exceptionally simple, and the interpretation of it is spelled out exceptionally clearly. The problem in the Arsenal match was merely one of mechanics.

There is a reason you will not find very many referees complaining about the way the offside law is constructed. Those railing against it generally do so out of ignorance, and usually fail to offer any superior alternative. As I said, the main problem with the law is not the theory but the physical mechanics of enforcing it.

[John Shuttleworth]

If you actually read the law, it is exceptionally clear and exceptionally simple, and the interpretation of it is spelled out exceptionally clearly. The problem in the Arsenal match was merely one of mechanics.

There is a reason you will not find very many referees complaining about the way the offside law is constructed. Those railing against it generally do so out of ignorance, and usually fail to offer any superior alternative. As I said, the main problem with the law is not the theory but the physical mechanics of enforcing it.

By "physical mechanics" I take it you are talking about putting the rule into practice. Even if it is fine on paper, which I'm not sure it is... It's still flawed if it's not working in on the pitch.

The beauty of football is on the whole, it is easily understood by everyone. The rules are a just a framework around which the game can flow and develop in a very natural manner. In the great games the ref is barely noticed or required. This should always be the goal for the lawmakers of football as it is one of the ingredients that makes the game so compelling.

For me the offside rule has to be looked at again, we need a simple, concise and as you highlight, an easily implemented law.

[Mr Hanki's Throne]

For me the offside rule has to be looked at again, we need a simple, concise and as you highlight, an easily implemented law.

To jump in here, I might refer us again to Post #1, where basically I am accepting that offsides will still exist as a violation, just that it is only relevant when the ball enters the goal. By using video review of each case, we gain the "improved mechanics" of accuracy, but the mechanics lose out a bit in the extra time it'd take to get a decision on a goal.

My 50% wrong comment was meant to be provocative. And on a lack of understanding of the rule by coaches and fans, having the game pause for the television commentator to use a telestrator to clarify for viewers to exact moment of violation that was spotted by the TV official would certainly benefit understanding.

[lololol]

I think the NFL replay system would be good with a bit of tweaking. Give the managers two challenges each for the entire game. The challenge are only to used to dispute any calls or the lack of calls which leads to a goal. If the manager loses the challenge then two subsititutions is deducted from the team.