offside reform

I'm all in favor of experimenting with various forms of a modified offside law. There should be one in place for obvious reasons but my stance has long been that in clear attacking situations it gets in the way of scoring more than help keeping players from cheating.

Unfortunately it's somewhat difficult to discuss how changes might impact the game, but your idea is certainly one suggestion amongst many that others have wondered about as well.

For what it's worth, I also had the idea of adding two more lines to divide the field into thirds with the stipulation that there would be no offside from any attacking pass originating ahead of those lines. In other words, once your team pushes the ball into the attacking third there is no more offside.

 

I disagree. Playing offside trap is an art for the defence. It requires the most communication among the defenders than any other system, like zone, man to man, or whatever. It is not easy to play the offside trap either, lots of teams will play kickball and well it requires the defense to sprint with the attacker, if he wasn't offsides due to the fact that sometime the defense will move up to the whole field. In my opinion, the offside trap system helps some not-so-great teams win more games, assuming they employ it

 

Cool idea.

 

Hockey player? hockey fan? lol sorry. I like it but I would add one change, in the attacking third you can be offside if you are interfering with the goaltender. This would prevent teams from just sticking one guy in front of the keeper and making it impossible for him to stop a shot.

 

I think that this is the right solution. The problem is that most refs (ARs and CRs) are more afraid to allow a goal to a player who might have been offside than to keep one from happening because a player might be offside.

It's simple: In the first scenario, a goal occurs, and that is game-changing. In the latter scenario, a goal never happens and the game goes merrily along. Therefore, ARs raise the flag when they have doubt. This is wrong for the game.

I always give the benefit of the doubt to the offense. Always. (Of course, I always call it when I see it.) And a lot of defenders don't like me. But the fact is, most traps are a split second late because unless the D is brilliantly coordinated, they are reacting to the played ball rather than anticipating it.

I had a coach get in my face recently because his team kept running traps that were a split second late on the played ball, but when the forward received the ball, he'd be behind the defense by two or three steps. I finally told him, calmly, "I'm sorry, sir, I'm not here to be your fifth defender."

 

IMHO, the offside rule is fine as it. I understand it, so does every other referee I've spoke to, all it needs, is for FIFA, UEFA, CONCACAF and national associations to explain it properly to clubs, rather than through the jargon and FIFA-directives that clubs and players are currently expected to understand without help. Fact is they don't, and it's left to the referee to explain it to them, and this shouldnt be happening.

It's a very simple law when you understand it, which tbh, I don't think is that hard to understand, and it works fine 99.9% of the time. You'll never completely eradicate controversy (and most controversial offside decisions aren't because of the new interpretation, but rather just because the lino flagged offside when the player wasn't nearer to his opponents goal line than the second last opponent, or the other way round), but it's fine as it is at present, so IMO, there's no need to experiment with new variations.

 

I don't think the reason we want to change it is due to lack of understanding...it is that it is stupid . Well that is a blanket statement...lets just say in my view, it takes away from the skill of the players and their ability to show it (attacking players that is).

 

I like the way it is, however one change I wouldn't mind seeing is no offside once the attack, both players and ball are inside the penalty area or the goal area. I have called goals back on crosses from the side where an attacker had gotten in behind everyone about 2 yards off the goal line.

There are so many bodies down there at that time, that I doubt the offside was a trap, just a result of hectic and crowded play.

I do like the way offside keeps attackers honest on through balls which is, IMHO, what it is designed for.

 

I tried an experiment this year. I had a U-15 boys game where one team did not have enough players to make an official game, but the other team had more than enough, so rather than everyone just going home, they split up into two teams and played. I stayed to ref...I had been paid, so I felt they deserved to keep me. After calling about 30 offside calls in what was a fairly high scoring game, I announced the suspension of the offside rule for the last three minutes (at the request of the players). Both teams immediately parked attackers deep in the offensive end; the opposing teams sent a defender to mark them, and the net effect was just to uncompress the field. Although there was not a lot of tension in the game to start with, I thought that the result was to remove some of the exitement and tension without really increasing the scoring opportunities.
On the whole, as an official, I like the offside rule, particularly the way it is presently interpreted. I believe that it actually leads to more scoring because is pushes defenders away from their goal and opens up space for a well timed run to get through and score.

 

Eliminating offside in the last 30 yards is not a bad idea. I also think it would be a good idea to eliminate offside if the ball is already past the 2nd to last defender. IOW, if it's 2 attackers against the GK, there's no offside. It doesn't come up very often, but really, if you break down the defense that badly, you shouldn't lose a goal because a player is a half-stride in front of the ball. Plus, the point of the rule is to make teams play the whole field; once you've got two attackers past the last non-GK defender, you've done that.

But before doing something so radical (and if y'all have seen me rant about this, you know what's coming ), let's eliminate the egregious number of false positives on offside.

Offside is just a call that in many leagues, is horribly, horribly called.

Do that, support CRs who crack down on cynical fouling, and start calling all the shirtpulls, and the game will be better, and boring bunkering will be less successful, and therefore less prevalent.

 

No it doesn't. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that people have. The rule is designed to allow for more attractive and attacking soccer.

Take away the rule and you've got a bunch of giant brutes parked in front of the opponents goal waiting for the ball.

With the rule, however, you are forced to time runs, move forward from defense to offense, play through balls and over-the-top balls, etc. This is exactly where the strikers' skills come in.

 

Exactly. Even if you eliminate offsides in the last 30 yards you're still going to have three strikers parking themselves in front of the goal waiting for the ball to be lobbed to them.

It's a good rule as is.

 

Interesting. In our recent recert class for 2005, the instructors repeatedly told us to: "Wait, Wait, Wait and Think" when calling offside. They, like you, had seen way too many quick and incorrect offside calls thru 2004. New refs (like me) are jumping the gun, and if we aren't taught how to call it correctly, we will continue to be too fast and wrong. It gave me something to think about for 2005....

 

I'd put MLS' ARs up against any in the world. I'm totally serious. We teach offside right here.

The problem in MLS, IMO, is that there's too much cynical fouling, and it's not properly punished. If our CRs were as good as our ARs, we'd have the most beautiful soccer in the world.

 

[deep breath]

The only problem withe the current offside rule is that fans and parents don't understand it.

I don't see a need to make any change.

 

I think many opponents of the current Offside rule simply don't appreciate what it brings to the game. Reread Stan's posting, and you'll see what the likely effect of changing the rule is likely to be: teams will simply post players at either end the field, and play long ball; there will be little, if any, build-up to active play; and there will be a premium placed upon finding big, bulky cherry-pickers to stand in front of the goal, rather than fast, agile players to bring the ball down the field.

I think the current rule is a reasonable blend of all elements needed to make the game exciting and fun: it eliminates cherry-picking...but doesn't penalize players for being temporarily offside if they take themselves out of the play; it compresses the play...and encourages teams to use the entire field, not just the middle; and while it doesn't eliminate the tendency of weaker teams to play kickball, it does place a premium on passing and dribbling, rather than simply banging the ball downfield, and keeps more players in more of the action.

 

Jumping the gun. Yes, I still do it. It's something I'm working on though.

Watching a couple Premiership matches this weekend I saw ARs jumping the gun consistently. Who do they take direction from?

 

If you have 2 attackers versus a goalie, and you can't stay onsides, that's jus terrible. 1 guy goes a the keep and shoots or drops a pass to another attacker who's following closely behind. easy. Well jus becuase the refs in some leagues don't understand the rule doesn't mean it should be modified. Last 30 yards is about 1/4th of a field. So there's no offsided on half the field. Also, i'd say the last 30 yards is where 75% of offside occurs. And offisde teaches awareness, while no offside would be like 3 people standing at the other team's 18 for most of the game. That'd be terrible

 

I agree with you 100%... it IS part of the game to pull the offside trap or anything to help in their defensive half... also, part of the game is to move the ball as a team up the field... if the team is trying to move the ball down the field with the whole team, well in your rule change, stick the player a little ahead of the defender to take advantage... UNFAIR...

Edited: and you cant just totally take away offside in the last 30 yards either because then you still have a player in front of the goalie all day and once you get right past that line you can kick it to him... that means the field would be spread way to much... next topic

 

That's right, but that's beside the point. The purpose of the offside rule is to bring movement into the game. In the situation I described, getting rid of offside doesn't eliminate movement; if anything, it adds to it.

My suggestion wouldn't come up very often, but it would uphold the spirit behind the rule.