Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Welcome changes to offside rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any part if the whole goalscoring body behind the defender eh? Does this include the whole of the defender or just the part nearest the goal, and is ut a gialscoring part of the defender? If not I can see defenders with tiny feet coming to the fore for VAR. Either way there'll still be arguments and VAR awarding a penalty to the rs.
 

Is this 'daylight'?

Always felt if you could shine a light through, then offside. if not, give benefit to the attacker.

Officials at one stage used that unofficially.

No brainer to me.
I feel the same way, and that's coming from someone who spent much of his time either playing at the back, or tracking back.

Benefit of the doubt should always accrue to the attacking player. It makes the game a better watch, rewards good play and punishes trapping.
 
Dont know why they have to make it so complicated.

Should just be if the part of your body that scores a goal was ahead of the defender then its offside.
 
Is it even worth it when they use a system that dials the decision down to square pixels from a strange angle which don’t remotely account for nature having a complete absence of perfectly straight lines?
 
Why do they feel the need to convolute the description of what this is? If it's the 'daylight' rule then why don't they just state that?

"If no part of the striker is in line or behind the defender, then the striker is onside".
 
Is this 'daylight'?

Always felt if you could shine a light through, then offside. if not, give benefit to the attacker.

Officials at one stage used that unofficially.

No brainer to me.
Also; VARs not going away, it just needs adjusting - again.
No more of this getting the microscope out to check toenail lengths.

If the microscope is needed = automatic benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
 

This brings in line with the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line to be out. The whole of the attacker must be beyond the whole of the defender to be off.

Not sure if I like it or not.

Everyone that calls out that it just changes the point at which the toenail makes you offside is correct...there will still be decisions based on millimeters, right or wrong.

At first, this will cause a rise in scoring, then tactical adjustments will be made by defenses.

Time to invest in a young sweeper, I would think.
 
Regardless of rule changes the actual line will still be there. People will still be scrawling MSPaint lines of varying thickness on screencaps showing daylight or the absence of.

The ultimate problem is cry-arse fans who base their take on who it goes against or in favour of rather than whether the decision is correct or could arguably be correct given the vagaries of the laws which will always exist once you put every little nuance of the game under the microscope.

If you want a completely mistake free game then football really isn't for you. Sometimes you just need to take the 'seen 'em given/not given' approach.
 
This won’t change anything as far as “dubious” VAR offside calls go. It just means that the lines that are going to be argued about by fans will be drawn from a different position
this, it is just moveing the problem around to a different part of the body, same clowns drawing lines, nothing changes to the crap decisions.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Back
Top