- cross-posted to:
- football@soccer.forum
- BBC@metawire.eu
- cross-posted to:
- football@soccer.forum
- BBC@metawire.eu
cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/26014933
You must log in or register to comment.
Could we stop tinkering with the rules for a few seasons please and try to improve VAR to a level where it’s actually consistently helpful? We saw that it was possible during the European Championship. Can we have that on a weekly basis before trying new stuff again, please?
This suggestion wildly favours the attackers, and doesn’t solve the problem of fine margins. I honestly think that teams would simply adapt to play far more defensively if this rule got adapted. Say goodbye to suicidal high lines that leads to crazy games, they wouldn’t be a viable option with this rule.
This is technology. You can make it do whatever you like in.
This tech should be reproducing a humans perception.
How about we throw some randomness in. The “amount” offside determines the probability of being found offside.
“Mbappe hits the back of the net, but the flag’s up! Half of the French team celebrate while the other half yell at the referee about an offside call. Remember, due to the Schroedinger’s offsides rule changes that Lemmy user akademy implemented, the goal is both scored and not scored until after the Progressive Insurance VAR review. Let’s see the replay… looks like about 90% offside to me… yeah, VAR has determined a 10% chance of a valid goal. The ref is reaching for his Prime Energy 10-sided die… IT’S A 10! Mbappe completes his unlikely hat trick with a third high-roll! France have surely won it now!”
This would finally open the door for Luck-specced Strikers.
I’m positive towards a change like this because I think current technology makes for some absolutely absurd offside rulings where a players nose, toe, or finger puts them offside in an otherwise perfectly executed run.
I feel the spirit of the offside rule is clear: You shouldn’t be able to just run in behind the defenders and wait to receive the ball. With a rule change like this, we’re moving from “anything even slightly offside is offside” to “offside is when you are passed the defender before the ball is released”, which aligns much better with the intent behind the rule.
Also, I think it’s a lot easier to accept a situation where you opponent scores a goal because of a perfectly executed run that was just onside, vs. having a goal you scored annulled because your nose was offside. A change like this will move the “just barely” situation such that an offside player will never be “just barely offside”, and I think it will feel more fair to receive an offside ruling against you when the player is actually completely passed the defender.
This doesn’t solve the fine margins issues, it simply moves it from the front of the defender to the back of the defender. You will always have to draw the line somewhere.
That was my initial thought as well, but I’ve concluded that I think it’s less dissatisfying to lose a goal because the player was actually “completely offside” than it is under the current “just barely offside” regime. Of course, you’ll still have players that are "just barely offside in the sense that they’re “just barely completely passed”, but you will remove all the offside rulings where the players are effectively side-by-side.
I guess that’s my point: The current rules put you in offside if you’re next to a defender but have a toe or nose a bit ahead. This effectively favours the defender, and forces attackers to hold more back to ensure a margin. The proposed change would move the line to favour aggressive runs, and not disallow being “next to” the defender.
I could even argue that it removes some ambiguity (not in the technical sense, the current rules are unambiguous), by clearly stating that an offside is when you are actually “completely passed” the defender. Thus, when someone is offside, you’ll never have a situation where they’re just a hair passed and still disallowed.
The proposed change would move the line to favour aggressive runs, and not disallow being “next to” the defender.
Which would force teams to make those runs not possible by playing in a low block. Defenders are not going to just accept that attackers have a huge advantage over them, you’ll have far more “boring” defence that completely shuts down that opportunity.
I honestly don’t think this would heavily defensive playstyle that heavily. Your major decisions to make as a defender stand between
- Deny an area using (threat of) an offside trap.
- Follow the running attacker
- Position yourself to deny the area by (threatening to) intercepting the ball
No defender is banking on a player with half a foot in offside being caught for it. They either commit to an offside trap, in which case the attacker is usually placed well in offside if they’re caught, or they follow the run and try to hinder/stay ahead of the attacker. Nobody is following a run while intentionally staying 15cm behind in the hopes that the attacker will be just slightly offside.
Barcelona has been the most proficient team when it comes to the offside trap this season, but I genuinely don’t think they would be able to pull it off with these rules. The offside trap as a tactic would mostly die out. It’s simply not feasible when you’re disadvantaged by a meter, and a single mistake will likely cost you a goal.
Threatening to intercept/positioning is something all good defenders already do, it’s not really an answer.
Following the attacker is a worse solution than already being in an organised low block. Speedy attackers like Haaland or Mbappé will simply outrun most defenders, especially when given a meter headstart, so your best solution would be to not give the space for the run to happen in the first place.
I honestly can’t see a way this rule won’t lead to teams sitting far deeper defensively, which is the opposite of what most people want. You would directly punish the kind of football Barcelona is currently playing.
I think my point is that, also with the current rules, you have to make the decision of whether to fall back or commit to an offside trap before the ball is passed. I don’t think this change would affect that choice significantly, you’re already likely to concede a goal if an offside trap fails.
Of course, most modern defence is built around area denial rather than directly following runs, but once you commit to following a run you don’t wait idly for the pass and pray for an offside. I think the game would be played very similarly, but with more hairline-decisions going in the attackers favour.
You shouldn’t be able to just run in behind the defenders and wait to receive the ball.
I don’t know much about this sport, and I don’t really belong here, but my genuine question (that I mean no ill will by) is this: why not?
Why should I be penalized for getting there first? Like, just be faster, losers.
(My son plays this game, and I don’t understand the offside rule at all. I don’t get upset by it, of course, they’re having fun so it’s all good.)
Good question! The point is to set a limit to when you can start running. The offside rule doesn’t penalise you for outrunning your opponent, but for starting to run too early.
The point is that, until the ball is played, you can’t go behind the defenders. Specially, this prevents attackers from just lurking around near the opponents goal.
Why do we want to prevent that you might ask? It turns out that if you’re allowed to just hang around the opponents goal and wait for the ball, it’s a superior tactic to do so. However, it also makes the game much less dynamic, and typically leads to teams just lugging the ball across the field, hoping their attacker gets it. This is a lot less fun to both watch (for obvious reasons) and play, because as a striker your forced to spend most of your time not being involved in the game, and as a defender your forced to spend most of your time just following around the striker way back in your own half.
In short, without the offside rule, the game becomes much less fun, because it forces you to spend a lot of time and energy on a tactic that amounts to “constantly run away from the defender/chase the attacker”. Having the offside rule means you actually have to outplay or outrun your opponent in order to score.
Oh I get it now. Thank you!
Using an extreme example I think they mean a striker shouldn’t be able to run straight to the opposition goal line when play starts and hang around there all match just waiting to pounce and/or disrupting the goal keeper. This is called goal-hanging and was very much a thing until the offside rule was brought in to stop it.
I doubt anyone would want to penalise displays of superior athleticism, that would be completely antithetical to sport in general.
I’m an American so take this for what it’s worth but I played and refereed soccer. I broke my arm once and could only be a line judge (or assistant referee) for a bit. It’s a challenge keeping up with the second to last defender and then sprinting and watching for other activity (like whether a ball crossed the line and was actually a goal).
Which is maybe fine at the professional level but I still kind of hate VAR. I wish the law was about where the feet are. You can stay with the second to last defender and watch who runs first and still make it down to ensure a goal crosses the line. We have technology at top levels now but most levels don’t.
Not to say assistant referees shouldn’t call fouls. You can be focused on the second to last defender and still notice if someone gets an elbow to the eye or if shenanigans go on. But the center ref is almost always able to make those decisions reasonably well.
Also, I’m a Tottenham fan so it’s possible I’m just disagreeing with Arsene Wenger. Center of mass is fine too. Something like that but a line judge can’t pay attention to every body part. Just make it feet.
Center of mass unfairly punishes players with flat butts
It’s a good idea, games need a lot of excitement and off-site, especially those that are extremely close, need to be more lenient for crazier and game winning plays. Honestly, I approve.
