Sounds like they’re thinking of implementing the “Wenger Rule” i.e instead of the attacker needing to be fully behind the defender to stay onside he can stay onside if he’s all but fully in front of the defender.
The idea is to give more an advantage to the attacker and disallow less goals.
To me it makes absolutely no sense, and I don’t understand how people buy into this kind of rule change not understanding that all it does is move the boundary for offside.
Those people who incessantly complain about “toenail calls” would still be whining with this new rule as an attacker has his heel keeping him onside by a cm.
The other thing I see with it, is it only makes it worse for an attacker to stay onside. Why? Because, with the current rule he can look down the line to time his run perfectly. With the new rule change, you can’t see what’s behind you and where your body is in relation to the defenders, so it’s only going to be more frustrating and luck based at times from the attacker’s perspective.
All in all, I don’t really see the point of this rule change. All it serves to do is move the margin slightly while potentially making things more confusing.
The current rule is perfectly fine. What we really need is automated offsides. We have the same concept when it comes to goal line calls and no one has an issue with the close calls there because they’re called correctly 99.99% of the time, so what’s the issue with having the same for offline calls? Get the technology in now and be done with it.
Yours is a popular opinion but I disagree with some of the logic and think you’re misunderstanding the argument for.
I agree completely that you can’t remove marginal calls by moving the line. There will always be a line that you can be 1cm either side of. However, I don’t think most people are arguing this. They’re arguing tha being an inch ahead isn’t a really an advantage. And if they aren’t, I am.
At the moment, if an attacker tries to keep themselves exactly level they’ll be offside half the time because they can’t do it perfectly. Even leaning forward to look along the line past the defender puts you offside. To be sure they’re onside they have to actively disadvantage themselves by being a little behind the defender.
If instead you had a daylight rule - any part of the attacker must be level or behind some part of the defender - then the attacker can try to be genuinely level. Of course you can still be offside by an inch but if so it’s more obvious that you’re gaining an advantage. Like you say, it makes no difference to accuracy where the line is drawn so why not give attackers more leeway?
The only argument I get is that making it harder for defenders to play offside will last to more defensive tactics. I still think the daylight rule would outweigh this by stopping offsides that are virtually level but I accept that’s just a matter of opinion.
There was a “clear air” offside rule in the 90s if memory serves…
My view would be that the attackers feet have to be in line or behind the last defender. No other body part should matter. This would allow attackers to play ‘off the shoulder’, and anticipate a run without being offside by a nipple, armpit, or any other nonsense.
Again, it’s all a matter of measurement though; if it’s about being ‘stood’ offside, why not measure solely from what the player is stood on, that being their feet?
There definitely was a clear air rule. The problem, as always, is that it was enforced inconsistently. Now we’ve got the tech to do it right.
I’d also much prefer to go by feet rather than drawing lines up. That’s the next step of the argument.
Agree
But what if the line was 5cm wide, and if you are in that line you go to the onfield decision with VAR saying “too close to call” and instead focusing on the clear and obvious ones?
But why? You could still be in or out of this 5cm line by 1cm so it would still take just as long to measure. And if you’re measuring, why not go with the correct result?
Because it’s not the correct result. All technology has a margin of error. That line you are drawing is a guess based on the angle of the pitch, where you judge the exact point where a shoulder ends and an arm begins, and so on. It’s also not ever the right frame. Nobody knows the exact point when a ball is played forward because that has not even been defined, and even if it was measuring is near impossible even with a chip in the ball. VAR cameras, even the high speed ones, have a frame rate too low (check the Chelsea Spurs VAR commentary and you can see that the ball is even blurry that’s how bad it is).
All of these add up. A player running at 8m/s with a frame rate of 100Hz cameras (much better than the ones used) leaves a margin of error of 8cm. Add that players could be going in opposite directions and the margin of error is over 1ft.
Everyone here saying it is either on or off is not recognising the limits of technology. Margins of error have to be baked into the system. We’re treating the tech as perfect and just the use that has failed. That’s just not right.
I fully agree with all of this. It’s not accurate so you’re right, I shouldn’t be talking about correct results.
I disagree though about reverting back to the onfield decision as this just adds an extra unnecessary layer of uncertainty. While var lines aren’t accurate, they’re much closer than the linesman’s view if its down to individual frames. You might as well toss a coin. Any buffer zone needs checking the same as a definite line so once you do that, go with the var decision and accept that while it may not be right it’s the best available data.
This is why my actual preference would be to go by feet - easiest and quickest to measure with the most accuracy - and by daylight, so having either foot level would mean onside. That way you accept that you can’t be 100% certain but it gives the benefit of doubt to the attacker, as originally intended. Trying to argue this all in one go is difficult though. The first step is convincing people that where you take your measurement from does actually matter.