This is not the type of thread we'd usually allow on the main Referee forum because it's actually not about refereeing at all--it's about a wholesale, hypothetical change to the game that's never going to happen (that's the key part--expected or possible Law change discussions are necessary and welcome on the Referee forum). But, the WC is over, people seem to be having some fun engaging and this forum will die eventually... so, carry on.
1. Change the rule from "2 defending players" to "1 field player." 2. Change the rule to the players' hips being the determining factor. 3. Institute a "daylight between" standard. 4. Have assessors at the highest level start treating a false positive as just as bad of a call as a false negative. Have Sepp and Michel and all the rest of the grand poobahs make this plain. Browbeat journos and pundits who treat a false positive as worse than a false negative. Problem solved. I agree that THIS particular play is a strange one to use as a starting point.
I'm going with equipping the AR's with Google glass that shots a line (like the one on TV!) right across the field with sensors built into the boots of the players. I'm looking for that to be implemented by Qatar in 2022 only to break down in high heat leaving the AR's to resort to the "old fashioned" method of "looking". And I agree, this one is so far off it defies explanation as a starting point.
How about having a drone fly over the stadium and anyone in an offside position gets zapped with a lazer and is frozen in place for five minutes. Would definitely make the game more interesting.
The rule is not impossible to call. Infact it is very easy to call if as an AR you can keep pace with the level of play and have an understanding if the game commensurate with the level of play (that is you can read and anticipate the movements of both attackers and defenders). Are there mistakes? Yes, an AR can lose focus or his eyes can be tricked (especially in stadiums where there is a lot of background distraction and changing digital signboards), but I would argue that there is not much more beautiful in the game of soccer than an attacker slipping through on a beautifully timed run and sending one past the keeper. As for noses and every other body part that you mention, perhaps there are ARs at the level you play who flag this, but at the highest levels, ARs are instructed to flag only 100% obvious offside and that for all intents and purposes means daylight. Perhaps if we are going to overlook Higuains mistimed run, we should also give him a goal for mishitting his wide open gifted shot.
I wonder what the rate of 'false-positive' versus 'false-negative' calls were made with respect to a 'close' offside decision. If the bias is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt with the attackers, you would expect significantly more 'false-negatives' to 'false-positives'.
Not sure where you got the bolded part from, and I believe you are a ref, but that's flat out wrong. The directive is simple, if you are not 100% sure, don't flag it. If you are 100% sure the tip of a leaning body is off there's no daylight, he's still off. Like I said before ANY decision based on a line from your eyes to the player is going to be skewed if you are not EXACTLY lined up. That is the first weakness in offside, the second is you can't watch that line, and watch for the play on the ball when they are 50 yards apart, and see them both at the same instant. The rule itself is fine, simple and clear. enforcing it is hard at a high level with fast players who are good at running right on that line (and yes, this play is not an example of that, he's a mile off at this level and something any semi-experienced AR would have gotten right)
Hasn't everyone thought, at one time or another: Why do they even have offside? Or maybe the more sophisticated version: "I wonder if getting rid of offside wouldn't solve more problems than it would create..."? I know I have. AS a fan, I would love to see what would happen. Especially if the 'test' were given enough time to have tactics evolve over time. It would probably increase scoring--which most Americans think would be a good thing. I don't buy the "cherry picking would ruin the game" argument, either. Just put a defender back. There is no offside in Ultimate, and there is plenty of back and forth attacking... As a ref, I don't really care. Just give me a rule book and we will go with that.
Yes, but think about what this turns into. So one attacker cherry picks, causing one defender to hang back. But then another attacker will cherry pick, and another defender will have to hang back. Seems to me that this would lead to a very stretched out game, and the emphasis of the game will change from beautiful ball movement and dribbling skills in tight quarters to a game of long balls and through balls. To me, that changes soccer from a game of skill to a game of athleticism. The challenge will no longer be to move the ball around skillfully; instead it would become "who is faster, attackers or defenders". It might be an interesting experiment, but I doubt it would be a better game.
While we're at it, let's make the goals the entire length of the goal line, that way Higuain would have actually hit something on his one-on-one.
Do not compare a frisbee game to football. The game are vastly different and a ball flys MUCH different than a disk. Please look into the history of football and why offside was invented. The game was unorganized chaos way back when, and did have constant long balls and cherry pickers.
OP here... Just for the record, the reason I selected this play (Higuain's "goal") for the starting point of the thread was because it was one of the most beautiful passing sequences of the knockout rounds. In my first sentence I acknowledged that Higuain was offside and that it was obviously the correct call. The reason I started the thread was to pose the question of whether we want the offside law to be stopping this kind of beautiful play given that this is not the type of "goal-hanging" that the offside rule was originally intended to prevent. Or in other words, is an attacker being slightly behind a defender such an "unfair" advantage that it needs to be prohibited by rule? Maybe it's just me, but given the way defending has evolved (to the point that teams often pack the midfield with eight men behind the ball), maybe it time to think about evolving the rules a little too...because in my opinion, the offside rule as currently written gives too much protection to the defense. I think most people would agree that soccer is more exciting with more attacking play and scoring chances. And in my opinion, the offside rule as currently written reduces attacking play uneccessarily (by allowing defenders to step up and play an attacker offside). Or to frame the issue another way, it is "fair" to the attacker that the offside line is constantly in motion? I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I think it's at least a topic worth discussing...
@NHRef I am pretty sure that I am a referee too and that the dozen or so national assessors who have assessed me have never said anything about me not being a referee... Granted, when referencing daylight, I was not thinking of a static play where a defender and attacker are standing next to one another, but rather dynamic play at a high pace where you are trying to decide whether an attacker beats that defender on a run while the defender is stepping. Some referees - particularly less experienced referees - get too tripped up on whether a small fraction (a knee, a shoulder blade, a toe) of a player's body is past the defender. These referees are often the ones who raise these hypotheticals at re-cert clinics, discuss them ad nauseum and then demonstrate their wisdom in their local youth or low level adult match. At high level match pace, certainty for offside comes when there is daylight - anything less and your likelihood of flagging an onside player increases. There is a difference between knowing the law and applying the law and to bring this back to the OP's comments, at the higher levels applying the law means that we generally give a benefit of the doubt to the attacker
On your first example about Higuain, if he times his run and if the ball is played to him a split second earlier, you have a goal. That's the beauty of the game and not a flaw in the current offside rule. In the second example, with Muller by the crossbar, the onus is on him to know where the second-to-last defender is. Otherwise, the game goes back to the early 1900's when guys would just "chippy-hang". Lastly, about "attacking play and scoring chances". Ways to promote attacking soccer are many such as actually calling a foul when a fistful of jersey prevents a player from jumping on a corner kick, free kick or cross in the penalty area, which would be called anywhere else on the field. Rules that are already in the LOTG aren't enforced. Soccer is way behind the other sports in terms of evolution in this regards, but the offside rule isn't one of them.
Mmm, I agree. We should give everyone in the stands a voting device and if an offside play is "beautiful" enough we allow it, LOTG be damned.
Hey OP. Just wanted to apologize for being snarky earlier. Nothing wrong with wanting to test out alternative ways to play the sport. I do believe the modern offside rule is as good as we will have it for some years to come. Thing may change in the future though.
No disrespect intended, I don't know you personally or your referee background (nor you mine). We are not in the referee forum, but I do recall your name there. You don't need to "name drop" with a "dozen or so national assessors". I agree 100% with "knowing vs applying", what I don't agree with is the daylight comment. There are many times no daylight is seen, at high levels, and you still KNOW, 100% it's offside. Yes in dynamic, well timed runs you have to be more conservative, especially as the ball comes from further away. I simply don't want the "daylight" to be seen as the new line. It's not.
IMO, what you are missing in your analysis is that without the OS rule, that beautful passing sequence and teh run would not have occurred because the defense would have been playing differently. The defenders were where they were, leaving space behind them because of Law 11. Law 11 has been being tweaked in favor of the attackers for decades. Just the last cycle, the meaning of IMO, Law 11 is in the best state it has been since I started reffing back in the days when even-was-off and when "seeking to gain an advantage" came close to making being in OSP enough for a call.interfering with an opponent was limited in favor of attackers. There are likely to be more tweaks. But tweaks that improve the game without blowing up the balance that creates the current flow are often easier to want than to describe in a meaningful way.
A similarly beautiful passing sequence of the group phase would be Ronaldo's cross into the area to a beautifully timed run by the Portuguese forward which resulted in game tying goal against the US in the waning minutes of the match. Both forwards had similar views of the ball and the defenders. One was smart and chose to wait and did a perfect diagonal run towards the ball. The other elected a more direct, north to south route. First one scored and received the accolades associated with such a goal. The latter was excoriated for his second numbskull act of the game. Nothing wrong with Law 11 as it relates to either of these situations. IMO.
I know attackers and home run hitters make the big bucks, but for me the play of Mascherano throughout the tournament was the highlight. He very well could have had the best tournament of anyone. But, everyone will remember Messi misfiring in the knockout stages more than Mascherano keeping them in there to the very end.
I kind like the offside as is just if we could keep the flag down when in doubt or wait a bit to be sure. In about the 27 37 of the first half Muller reached for the ball, but could not get there, did not appear to impair vision of keeper and was flagged for offside as the rebound off the keeper went to another German player Klose I think far left who was onside. Is this not an example of the new interpretation where the flag should have stayed down?? I was thinking no flag necessary! The announcer claims once he stuck out the leg it was automatic. Is that an over eager AR or him thinking , simply line of vision might have been affected?