Rule Changes

ljs said:
I think it would just move the decision point, you would still have the same arguments.
Click to expand...

This is it. The line in the sand has to be somewhere. But by moving it further forward you will get more goals and that is a good thing.
To be honest it's incredible that linos get it right as often as they do they need two pairs of eyes and split second timing. Dont help themselves by being 10 yards behind play of course.
 
I thought a rule was brought sometime in the last 3/4 years stating only the captain and the offending player were supposed to talking with the ref and the linesman was out of bounds?
 
bazzer9461 said:
I thought a rule was brought sometime in the last 3/4 years stating only the captain and the offending player were supposed to talking with the ref and the linesman was out of bounds?
Click to expand...
Like most of these initiatives, it seems to have fallen by the wayside. Mostly because players ignore it and refs won't punish them for doing so.
 
Jerome'SAle said:
This is it. The line in the sand has to be somewhere. But by moving it further forward you will get more goals and that is a good thing.
To be honest it's incredible that linos get it right as often as they do they need two pairs of eyes and split second timing. Dont help themselves by being 10 yards behind play of course.
Click to expand...
A player has to be able to judge whether he is committing an offence.
Under the traditional system, a player who is deemed 'level' is onside, and players can normally judge whether they are more or less 'level' (in other words, a visually acceptable position) themselves, so in general, the rule works.
Under VAR, 'more or less level' isn't accurate enough any more, so to be relatively confident of being onside, the attacker now has to stand partially behind the defender to ensure that his shirt label isnt a millimetre into an offside position. This therefore works against the attacker, when the law is meant to actually give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
So, in order to use VAR, but in a way that upholds the tradition and spirit of the law, there should be a certain lee-way introduced into the comparison of the two lines used - I would suggest that a player is onside as long as 'his' line is less than say 6 inches or a foot ahead of the defender's 'line'.
That way, the technology could still be used, but being visually 'more or less level' would remain as being onside....

I have a secondary issue with this rule in that there is now an imbalance in accuracy in the information used. While we can measure the receiver's position exactly, there is no clarity in at what exact point that measurement should be taken - because when kicking a ball, the foot is in contact with the ball for a significant fraction of a second, during which the attacker and defender will inevitably change position (and therefore potentially change from being on or offside). So, should the measurement be taken when the foot first touches the ball, or when that contact eventually breaks?
 
The problem again, is that if you say '6 inches offside is OK' (and I can see where you are coming from with it) then you still have the 'were they six inches or seven inches off' debate - and that is potentially even more difficult to 'measure' visually (even on VAR - and even worse in the rest of football without it!) than a simple 'are they level' line.
It must be when the ball leaves the foot, or a player could potentially balance the ball on their foot, their team mates rush goalwards and into offside positions and then the ball be flicked off the foot to them and the flag wouldn't go up. (I think!)
 
Rather than looking at toes, hands, forehead, shoelaces, etc etc, would it be better to base the decision on the torso of both bodies and say only offside if there is a clear gap between the torso of the attacker and defender.
 
Also need to go back to the underlying purpose of the offside rule … to prevent the forward player gaining an advantage.
It is not for a defender to gain a free kick by his movement. therefore, if the defender suddenly moves forward as the ball is being kicked, with the intention of making the forward offside, then the attacker should not be penalised and he is onside.
 
NottsYellow said:
Rather than looking at toes, hands, forehead, shoelaces, etc etc, would it be better to base the decision on the torso of both bodies and say only offside if there is a clear gap between the torso of the attacker and defender.
Click to expand...

Still not clear enough - players should were pennants on the centre of their forehead. S**nderland and S**ndon players would wear plastic penises instead.
 
NottsYellow said:
Rather than looking at toes, hands, forehead, shoelaces, etc etc, would it be better to base the decision on the torso of both bodies and say only offside if there is a clear gap between the torso of the attacker and defender.
Click to expand...
Surely it should be judged on feet or head, not other body parts?
 
Substitutions - At break in play board goes indicating player to come off. However, the player coming on has to wait to next break in play. This enables play to restart/continue immediately without waiting for the formalities of the substitution to take place, or even the player coming off to leave the field of play, he is not allowed to touch the ball when leaving the field. The sub can come on at next break in play.
So, yes the team has to play with 10 men for a short period.
This will stop the daft substitutions towards end of game, especially in injury time, the slow walk off the pitch which slows down the exciting end of a game.
 
For VAR offside, it appears that the decision is made from an imaginary line from the furthest forward point of the attacker being in front of the rear most point of the defender. Surely it should be the rearmost point of both and in that way there would always be clear daylight between the two bodies for a clear offside - anything else signifies that a part of the attacker was level with some part of the defender and therefore onside.
 
Oxymoron said:
For VAR offside, it appears that the decision is made from an imaginary line from the furthest forward point of the attacker being in front of the rear most point of the defender. Surely it should be the rearmost point of both and in that way there would always be clear daylight between the two bodies for a clear offside - anything else signifies that a part of the attacker was level with some part of the defender and therefore onside.
Click to expand...

All of the attacker has to be level or behind.
 
Sarge said:
as demonstrated in the Womens World cup opener... close on 5 mins wait to decide French 'goal' was offside (by the tip of a toenail!!!)
Click to expand...

Hi Sarge, it maybe a tip of a toenail, but I would hate it if it resulted in say losing a chance of promotion, winning the world cup or any other competition that would help sustain a teams survival in a league or competition especially for clubs that struggle with finances that may or may not have been caused by an ex owner of said club. ??
 
Sarge said:
only problem with the above is how the likes of Kettle and similar interpret and apply rules like those ?

there should be some sort of standardised approach followed by all match officials bringing with it (hopefully) some much-needed consistency
Click to expand...

Referees should have been educated before each season and tested on the changes to make certain of consistency between each other. If a decision is made by an official that is proven to be blindingly wrong then the official has to redo the tests and pass before being able to referee a game. Also, if the discission is in a critical game (effecting, promotion, relegation or a club/clubs survival ) then the guilty club forits the game.
 
Last edited:
Bue Guado said:
There are a lot of rules from rugby that I think are needed in football, most importantly time stoppages, sin bins and "blood subs".

Sadly VAR is the one we have adopted, and I'm yet to see the benefits of that within this sport. 6 matches into the WWC, and each has been subject to at least one disallowed goal, insanely miniscule offside call or highly debateable hand-ball decision, which could arguably have gone either way. I only see this as something to aid the billion-dollar betting industry (as you can bet on absolutely anything these days, not just the final score) and serve as some sort of dramatic entertainment for people watching at home. Serves nothing but disruption to the people actually at the game.
Click to expand...

But, the. Supporters on the correct decision would be more appreciative of the VAR?
 
Last edited:
ZeroTheHero said:
Reduce matches to 80 minutes, but stop the clock when the ball goes dead. We'd get a hell of a lot more actual play, timewasting would be a thing of the past, and everyone (crowd, managers, officials, players) can see exactly how much time is left. No more 'Fergie-time', no more managers who seem to not understand the word 'minimum'!
If a player 'steals a few yards' at a throw, rule it a foul throw and award a throw to the opposition.
Click to expand...

Have the linesperson mark the point of where the throw in is to be taken and stand one meter in front of the mark.
 
Let’s face it, VAR wouldn’t have been introduced if the media didn’t replay every contentious decision again and again.

Referees decision is final and put money into more training for the refs so it is standardised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Northstandboy
  • Poll Poll
General BBC Oxford South Today ended + radio changes
4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
25K
m
m
Foley
Changes made by KR
Replies
0
Views
1K
Foley
Foley
Back
Top Bottom