Theres’s Only Wan Chope 1,315 Posted Monday at 20:49 Share Posted Monday at 20:49 Idea- change the offside law. If any part of an attacker that can play the ball is ONSIDE, the player is onside. Benefit of doubt to the attacker and could reduce contentious decisions involving lines on screen. Could be very tricky for defenders but could sort out this issue....unless I am missing something! Link to post Share on other sites
rynny 13,033 Posted Monday at 20:56 Share Posted Monday at 20:56 5 minutes ago, Theres’s Only Wan Chope said: Idea- change the offside law. If any part of an attacker that can play the ball is ONSIDE, the player is onside. Benefit of doubt to the attacker and could reduce contentious decisions involving lines on screen. Could be very tricky for defenders but could sort out this issue....unless I am missing something! All you will be doing is drawing the lines the other way around. Millenniumram and Rammy03 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Theres’s Only Wan Chope 1,315 Posted Monday at 21:03 Author Share Posted Monday at 21:03 6 minutes ago, rynny said: All you will be doing is drawing the lines the other way around. Not as much, think it will be much easier to see, the benefit of the doubt would be with the attacker, unless there is daylight they will be onside. Link to post Share on other sites
Millenniumram 12,759 Posted Monday at 22:05 Share Posted Monday at 22:05 Nah, that just reverses the problem, it doesn’t get rid of it. I’d scrap the lines altogether. Just make the call based on the replay, most of the time it’s blindingly obvious really. When it’s too close to make a call, i.e. level, then benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. Simple. Rammy03 and Farmy army 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Clough 8,960 Posted Monday at 22:10 Share Posted Monday at 22:10 3 minutes ago, Millenniumram said: Nah, that just reverses the problem, it doesn’t get rid of it. I’d scrap the lines altogether. Just make the call based on the replay, most of the time it’s blindingly obvious really. When it’s too close to make a call, i.e. level, then benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. Simple. Just a time limit on VAR decisions. If a VAR decision can't be reached within a specified time then it's not obvious, and the ref's decision stands? TimRam, dabber and Rammy03 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Millenniumram 12,759 Posted Monday at 22:12 Share Posted Monday at 22:12 1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said: Just a time limit on VAR decisions. If a VAR decision can't be reached within a specified time then it's not obvious, and the ref's decision stands? Wouldn’t be totally against it, but I think sometimes you need more time to make a decision. I don’t have enough faith in the original referee calls to really back the idea. Link to post Share on other sites
ramit 4,281 Posted Monday at 22:27 Share Posted Monday at 22:27 Would suggest scrapping the "not interfering with play" rule. Anyone behind the line affects play, the rule is ridiculous IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
BondJovi 3,084 Posted Monday at 22:33 Share Posted Monday at 22:33 Make the rule simpler. Base it on the feet, none of this armpit nonsense. Use thicker lines, if the lines touch, onside. Increase the margin for error. If not clear after a set time limit, benefit goes to attacker/original decision stands. They are trying to be incredibly precise based on three moving points, attacker, defender, ball player. This level of scrutiny is far harder to do than something passing a fixed point, and we don't use humans for that! Rammy03 and QuitYourJibbaJivin 2 Link to post Share on other sites
rynny 13,033 Posted Monday at 23:09 Share Posted Monday at 23:09 I think the best thing to do is use 1 line across the pitch to cover the width of the pitch, if the assistant is obviously incorrect then overrule the assistant, if it isn't obvious then the decision stays with the officials. It speeds up VAR and we keep the human element of the officiating. Rammy03 1 Link to post Share on other sites
old ilkestonian 36 Posted Tuesday at 10:45 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:45 Why not just scrap offside altogether?! Link to post Share on other sites
QuitYourJibbaJivin 1,633 Posted Tuesday at 11:05 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:05 12 hours ago, BondJovi said: Make the rule simpler. Base it on the feet, none of this armpit nonsense. Use thicker lines, if the lines touch, onside. Increase the margin for error. If not clear after a set time limit, benefit goes to attacker/original decision stands. They are trying to be incredibly precise based on three moving points, attacker, defender, ball player. This level of scrutiny is far harder to do than something passing a fixed point, and we don't use humans for that! I’d go for this, if any part of the foot is on or behind the line then you’re onside. Yes granted you’d still got the close calls with players judging onside by a toe nail, but we want goals right? That’s why we pay our money. It feels like the current VAR system is weighted towards searching for any reason no matter how minuscule to eradicate goals. Link to post Share on other sites
Mostyn6 12,447 Posted Tuesday at 11:38 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:38 Souness’ idea of the back foot being the measure was an interesting concept. Link to post Share on other sites
Philmycock 6,213 Posted Tuesday at 11:50 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:50 It's the arm/shoulder/chest grey area that's the issue Link to post Share on other sites
TimRam 1,377 Posted Wednesday at 09:56 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:56 23 hours ago, old ilkestonian said: Why not just scrap offside altogether?! You'd get shouts of "GOAL HANGER!!!!" like we did as kids when playing our games! That would be funny though if the fans joined in. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now