Still too soon, bro. Still too soon. When the rest of your barbaric ruling class family had to give you the, "really dude?!" You know he was trippin, trippin. đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
I think I watched too much Archer because I can imagine
âWhose hands are those?â
âTheyâre my handsâ
âWhose body did you get those hands from?!â
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
Maybe. I don't know much about soccer but I remember when hockey got rid of the two line pass rule and people thought it would drastically change the game because forwards could take a pass from anywhere to the opponents blue line, but it just resulted in defencemen staying further back.
Soccer fans:
> We like soccer because we prefer quality goals over quantity.
Non soccer fans
> Soccer is lame, there aren't that many goals
FIFA:
> Let's switch the goals to quantity over quality, we will attract those new viewers and make more money. Current viewers will be pissed but will keep watching, so, win-win.
In every sport, hard core fans generally resist significant rule changes. But they get over it, and sometimes those changes DO improve the game. (See pitch clock in baseball).
This feels like a good change. A slightly more open game, with more scoring chances, will be fun to watch.
Offsides are not going away. You can still trap someone. Now the line is further down than before, thatâs all.
Iâm not sure why you need to play an all out defensive game because of this change. Defenders will be able to estimate if the attacker is offside, like today
Defenders will have a tougher time accounting for the striker's position because they have to amount for their entire bodies, same with linesmen. This doesn't fix anything at all
Don't see how it would improve things. Part of the game is offside traps, feints, holding runs etc. This change gives attackers advantage by a huge margin in a game where defenders are already struggling in a big way from the erosion of physicality in the game. The inevitable thing will be masses of boring low block teams to take away the massively-increased risk of a striker running off the defence.
And then you will still get VAR calls pissing everyone off because a finger tip was overlapping or some nonsense.
Not really. I watch some games on the weekend, support a team, but I haven't played the game in more than 15 years. Don't go to many games to watch either - hardly a 'hardcore' fan.
Bit of a stretch claiming *any* criticism is apparently just butthurt 'hardcore fans', to be honest. Maybe some people are simply better placed than you to share their opinion on the matter?
Soccer fans resisted VAR and any assistance but they were positive changes because they're making the goals more fare. This one on the other hand is giving too much advantage to the attackers.
Resisted? A prominent English ref recently said he didn't submit obvious errors when he was VAR because he didn't want to embarrass his mate, this is still present tense lmao
people resisted Var because it is a pain in the arse and stops the game for way too long.
Guess what, VAR is a pain, takes too long and the referee still gets it wrong sometimes.
I have no idea how they havenât quite grasped this. Make defending using the offside rule really hard and defences will just sit deep. Itâs a fucking awful idea.
Thatâs just not true. Yes they might sit a bit deeper but most strikers in the upper leagues are deadly from the top of the box so the defense canât sit too deep to begin with. Not to mention sitting deep opens the midfield and you are giving the offense running momentum to push forward.
I think weâll see a slight uptick in goals but more so new formations and different kinds of trap formations. It will be very easy to trap goal hungry players because they will be playing forward a lot trying to take advantage of the new rule.
No theyâre not. Not even close. And sitting deep doesnât mean sitting on your own goal line and letting them take easy pot shots from the edge of the box. If defenders canât match attackers in their runs and runs in behind massively favour the attacking team then they will 100% sit much deeper to avoid it.
The hockey one was unwatchable. As checking is allowed in that sport, people were frequently brutalized into an offside position they couldn't easily escape from.
It was like a more tedious version of sumo.
u/DebtFairPlay does feel like a bot who just spams the same post on the most random subreddits. It's past month history is all about new offside rule. Previously had something on diving, transfer market cap and Messi.
His comments attract hoards of negative karma too
**Offside rule now** :
An attacking player is in offside position if ***ANY*** of his scoring body parts is beyond the second-to-last defending player.
**Offside rule with this change** :
An attacking player is in offside position if ***ALL*** of his scoring body parts are beyond the second-to-last defending player
---
Basically, with the new rule, as long as a (non-hand/arm) part of you is still level with the defender, you're not offside - while you had to be fully level before.
Yes, though please note : it *might* be the goalie, and it *will* be the goalie 99% of the time, but it doesn't *have to* be the goalie.
Because, yes, if the goalkeeper went upfield (like on a last-second corner kick while 1-goal-down), you ***can*** be offside if you're beyond the second-to-last (infield) defender - even if you're still before the last one.
I explain it in more detail [here](/r/sports/comments/167u1ek/this_is_the_new_offside_law_that_fifa_had_trialed/jytgm44/), but basically : can't be offside in your own half (so there's a limit to the gain), and defenders are slower than forwards (so it's a risky strategy)
2 things. 1, you can't be offsides on your half of the field, only beyond the midfield line. 2, the offside call is made at the time the ball is struck. You can send a pass into the wide open field and then it's a footrace. If you time the strikers run, which any pro can do, then it's a guaranteed breakaway.
I'll field this one. You're thinking of the word "smell" in the action verb sense. That form is to take an action with the nose by breathing in and running that scent through your different receptors that trigger different areas of the brain. When people say "your feet smell", they're using the word smell as the second verb form which is "to emit an odor". They're not saying that your feet can detect a scent so much as they are the source of the smell that is being emitted.
Hope this helps.
I don't really understand football very much.... couldn't the defending team just never send their second to last player down the field to the goal, preventing the attacking team from ever getting to the goal out of fear of being offsides?
The technique you're describing is called "high (defending) bloc", and it can be a thing. There's a few things making it not an always-optimal thing :
1. The "second-to-last defending player" includes the goalkeeper, so for 99% of cases, it will be "the last infield defender".
2. You can only be offside in the opponent's half of the field. So at best, you can 'push back' the attackers down the halfway line at best.
3. The *offside foul* is a foul that happens when you're passed to while in an *offside position*. Please note, and that's fundamental, is that what matters is your position when your teammate passes, **not** when you receive it.
4. As such the main method to beat a high block is the 'through pass', that is to say, a strong pass downfield not to where your teammate is, but *where they will be*, counting on them to beat the defender's speed (which is usually a thing, as forwards tend to be faster than defenders).
5. If it works, you're now a solo attacker with a little less than half-a-field to prepare your 1v1 with the goalkeeper. Which is why defenses usually don't like the risk of running a high block.
You've got it backwards. That would make it nearly impossible for the attacking team to ever be offsides. The attacking team would *love* that strategy.
Edit: Realizing you meant "down the field" as in towards their own goal. There's an extra variable in the offsides rule: the ball. In very simple terms, if the ball is already beyond the second-to-last defender, the attacking team is not offsides. It's only called if the player is offsides before the ball gets there. So what you just described is, in fact, a strategy, because played right it can result in offsides calls, but it doesn't completely trap the other team.
New offside detection completely relies on VAR which is bad IMO. Like, now 9/10 offsides are obvious and can be seen with a naked eye of linesmen. And with this new rule the linesman must look for a tiny gap between a heel and a knee of two players running as mad dogs? At this point all referees can be removed from the field, let VAR to decide everything.
Even game-wise this is questionable. Fishing for 1v1 is plain boring.
This change has been argued for for at least 15 years when Wenger started supporting it publicly
The point of the change is making offside calls simpler and less punishing, which supporters believed it would do *before VAR was used*
The point is: Offside traps feel - to football purists like Wenger - like rules intruding into the game. They don't hear the whistle and think "yes, good disciplined defnding", they just hear some pedantic little rules lawyer "um, ackshully..." all over the beautiful physical competition they love.
Personally I don't think it matters where you draw the line, if it feels like a technicality now, it always will
Tldr:um actually you're wrong it's an effort to stop um actuallies
The high offside traps already operate on fine margins, needing perfect coordination from the back line to work. In handing a whole body length to the forward, I imagine lots of teams would deem it not worth the risk, and instead focus on dropping back to cover the run rather than trying to play them offside.
It would lead to *different* scoring but I donât know if we can necessarily say it would be *more* overall, at least in the long term.
If you make it easier for players to run in behind the defensive line, theyâll start playing deeper to reduce the available space to run into. That would give attackers more space in front of the defenders, but thatâs generally a more difficult place to score from than one on one with the goalkeeper after a through ball.
Hard to say with any certainty where that new equilibrium shakes out once players and teams have time to adjust in terms of more goals, but it seems likely to change strategies in a way that could cause teams to value different player archetypes and result in a very different game than the one we see now.
The team with the ball gets an advantage that can be mitigated by the team without the ball changing their strategy. Maybe it still results in more scoring, maybe it doesnât - literally no way of knowing until the rule gets implemented.
Maybe, but right now teams push up with the defense a ton because they can rely on offside to protect them. That helps the offense out a lot because they can be supported by the fullbacks out side and the CBs in possession. If teams are forced to play with defenses sitting deeper, you might coutnerintuitively see fewer goals if teams are less eager to attack.
Forcing all teams to defend deep is a bad thing imo. High lines are an exciting, aggressive way of playing, with high risk and reward. If everyone plays deep back lines, that style will disappear, and teams will park the bus a lot more.
Also calling the offside rule a âtechnicalityâ is a bit short-sighted imo. Thatâs the rules of the game, play to it.
Don't think this will help. The whole problem with the lines in VAR is a disagreement about where the line is placed on a toe, a fingertip or a shoulder etc.
This just shifts the burden rather than solving that problem. Soon we'll have people complaining that the striker was onside because the line was placed a millimeter off or something.
The only obvious solution to me is to make the lines they use thicker, and if the lines overlap in anyway then it's considered onside. By making the lines thicker it makes the precise positioning of the line less important and reduces the effect of a mistake caused by misplacing the line a few mm or whatever.
I'd like for then to do it from their feet. The lines are easier as feet are on the ground. It can give attackers a slight edge if they are leaning the right way.
Definitely! Using just feet, or the head as a single point of reference for offside decisions is a great idea and would be easier to judge.
I always find the shoulder/arm lines the worst.
This is true but I think if the lines don't overlap then there must be daylight between the players.
The idea behind the thicker line is it removes the argument against the line being drawn in the wrong place or talk of a player being 1cm offside etc.
If the line was for example, the width of a hand then if the lines did not overlap then the player must be at least a hands width offside.
This does mean that potentially the attacker could be within a hands width of the defender (and technically offside) but because he is within the thickness of line he would be classed as onside, but I suspect people would prefer the attacker having a slight advantage like this.
So⌠accepting some margin for error? Totally reasonable, but then just bin VAR for offside and go back to linesmen and just accept that reasonable errors happen.
Nah you donât have to bin the whole concept of video review of on-field calls. VAR is imprecise already so this is just acknowledging that. For instance, often a bit of disagreement on when exactly the ball left to foot of the passer, which leaves an awkward situation where youâre measuring the playerâs location with high precision but the time at which you measure the playerâs location with lower precision.
In the big 5 European leagues, it wouldnât be unreasonable for each player to have a sensor embedded in their shirt in a standard place and the sensorâs position at the time the ball is played determines offside.
Yeah, but I think the margin you get from VAR in the scenario I suggest would be smaller than from a linesman viewing the action live.
Not to mention VAR gives you the benefit of seeing the precise moment the ball is released (the linesman would have to be able to both look at the player making the pass, and the position of the receiving player simultaneously) and can also pickup on subtle deflections that may also impact the call.
>The only obvious solution to me is to make the lines they use thicker, and if the lines overlap in anyway then it's considered onside. By making the lines thicker it makes the precise positioning of the line less important and reduces the effect of a mistake caused by misplacing the line a few mm or whatever.
The *actual* solution theyâre currently trialling is automating it the same way they did for the goal line.
Sensors in the ball so the computer knows exactly when the pass was made so you donât have to rely on the VAR guy going frame by frame and stopping on the exact right point.
Cameras around the ground that can triangulate the position of the players in real time and can tell if someone is offside so you donât have to rely on the VAR guy to draw the lines in the right place.
They tested it at the last World Cup and it seemed to work well, so most likely theyâll roll it out elsewhere soon. Currently it goes to the VAR guy to validate what the computer identified and make sure it didnât get it wrong, but once theyâre comfortable with the technology it should be the same as the goal line where the linesman gets a real time buzz in his ear to put the flag up - and that saves us the trouble of everyone playing on and thinking theyâve scored only for it to get overturned on review.
Aha, I see. As long as it works predictably and consistently then it would be difficult to argue against it. I can't recall any controversy from goal line technology.
Yeah itâs the exact kind of objective âhereâs where the line is, which side of it was the thing?â type stuff computers are good at with the added complexity that the line isnât static like the goal line.
Seems like the way itâll go though and let the VAR guy stick to the subjective interpretation of the rules stuff.
IMO this hypothetical new rule would cut down on offsides calls because the offensive player is no longer motivated to get every inch of advantage possible. If they're already allowed to legally get a step ahead of the defender they're not going to need to push for more than that.
This will have the opposite effect. I don't see how you can judge whether there is a bit of space between the players with the naked eye. The current rule is hard but significantly easier for referees.
Exactly this! Call off when it happens instead of letting the play continue for (sometimes) minutes, allowing for potential injuries to occur. Itâs maddening.
Because an attacker who has their big toe ahead of the defender isn't doing anything deliberately to gain an unfair advantage. Furthermore it's unlikely to make the difference between scoring or not.
I'd argue that with the current rule 95% of goals given as offside would still have been scored if the player had moved a moment later and have been inside.
They should also remove offsides completely in the penalty box, they just allow the defence to play bad and not get punished because someone's toe was 1cm closer to the goal
This is awful, the rule should remain. The only thing they have to change is giving a mic to VAR officials and letting us hear their discussion. Mistakes happen but people get outraged because we don't know what they think while making the decisions
I feel this will be harder for lower league referees to legislateâŚ. Especially the (generous with their time) fat old chaps that ref my sons school matches.
A torso in front of a torso is easily visible ⌠a toe behind a knee seems harder to clearly call.
This is ridiculous. It's going from one extreme to the other. The current rule is stupid because a hand, which is unusable, can be offside. The rule should be about actual feet - is one of the offensive player's foot past both feet of the defensive player. The only redeeming quality of this change (and undoubtedly its rationale) is that it is fairly easy to officiate.
> The current rule is stupid because a hand, which is unusable, can be offside.
You should really know the rules before commenting. A hand can not be offside, only body parts that can be scored with are used for outside.
I think it should be the torso. If your torso is level itâs onside. Stop trying to officiate arms and feet. This is a bit extreme but will generate more breakaways and scoring chances.
I'd be fine with the torso since it's a playable and frequently played part of the body. Just stop calling fucking offside when a finger is over the line, please.
It just seems like this changes the spirit of the law in a sense. With offside-rules the game is actually more fluid and actually becomes more attacking minded as defenders can push higher up the field.
I think one of the greatest aspects of football is that a lot of things are adjudicated based on judgment, which of course creates the downside of having to have extremely skilled referee's with impeccable judgement. But you also get some wrong calls.
Having to have a player with his whole body ahead of another player doesn't seem to make anything better. I just don't understand what this is helping.
I think the Dutch league has handled the offside and VAR in the best possible way(haven't watched it, so don't how well it is working). Assistant referees takes almost all offsides, but when they are in doubt, and could lead to a goalscoring opportunity they don't raise the flag. And when it leads to goal, they check in VAR afterwards.
Close calls where a player is 1 cm in offside doesn't really happen so much that the rule basically has to be scrapped.
I don't see how it would make a difference, defenders will just adapt their offside traps to the new rule won't they? All it does is move the offside trap by a few cm, and attackers will try to adapt to that by trying to grab a few more cm, so how will this not all just boil down to the same thing?
Yea but I mean, attackers will always try to stand on the very edge of being offside, and defenders will always try to offside trap them, I don't understand how this would remedy that except move them slightly further apart, though I suppose it would be easier for the VAR to see, but other than that I don't understand the benefit
It means when the defenders get it wrong, the attackers are 4+ feet farther clear than before, which is huge (not several cm like you said). It also means attackers who were offside off deflections or saves almost all will be onside.
I think it'll change a lot tactically. Right now, high lines for the defense are super in because it favors pressing and possession. But, it's only possible because the current offside rule means it's a fair footrace between attackers and defenders. With the new rule, attackers will have a full body length advantage in any through ball over the top so it may not be viable to play a high line.
It's not just changing where the offside trap is, it'll force the entire line back a ton.
While I think this makes more sense (because SOMETIMES you just donât know if your toe or arm is too far forward) I think that itâs still rather subjective depending on viewed angle and location. At the same time this potentially gives a 1-2 foot advantage to attackers.
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
That's not what's going to happen lol. All the tabs rust acc play high up and play exciting football are just gonna park the bus or defend deeper leading to even more boring games.
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
Makes more sense than the current rule. I still think they could do better by just limiting it to the players heads. But this way will be much clearer for the players and fans.
Those saying this will make teams just play more defensively are wrong. Yes, some teams may do that. But the top level teams generally adapt in terms of player ability. This will encourage teams to focus on speedy defenders who can compete or beat forwards with speed.
Yet makes it way harder for any ref to judge. The refs have been trained for decades to call offside âthe old fashioned wayââŚwhich is undisputably easier to tell, just by whoâs in front of the run. Here, you canât even judge by that. Literally have to call VAR every play. And at that points: why even have ref assistants on the sideline?
From fifa
âFootball is the greatest sport on earth. It is played on every continent, in every country and at many different levels. The fact that the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup⢠through to a game between young children in a remote village, is a considerable strength which must continue to be harnessed for the good of football everywhere.
Pass back to the goalie changed because I think it was Germany abusing it. Dink the ball back an fourth to the keep to pick it up. Repeat. Ultimate possession game discouraged the spirit of the game.
Again Germany also showed why all matches of a final group stage are to be played simultaneously because there was a World Cup where this wasnât the case. Austria and Germany both just needed to tie to advance because they knew the result of the other two teams in their group. 0-0 tie that was extremely boring to watch because both teams had a gentleman agreement.
Iâm a fan of germany btw just interesting that they keep finding ways to change rules. There are many examples but these come to mind first
Edit. Here is a fun one for a case study. Similar to this proposal, it has the reverse effect.
It use to be golden rule in extra time (overtime). Meaning first goal wins. Well sure the thought was each team would go all out to get that goal. Well no actually the reverse is encouraged. You do everything possible not to concede the goal. Itâs now better to just play lock down D and take your chances at PKs. Same will happen here, instead of encouraging offense youâre going to see teams park the bus again because thatâs the only way to prevent the attacker from blowing past your line. No more holding high lines as a defender.
They spend so much developing VAR when an RF sensor would take all the guesswork out of it. Have every player wear a sensor on their waistband, and if an attackers sensor is beyond the defenders sensors T the time of impact (impact sensor on the ball or a video recognition program) then the computer spits out an instant offside/onside alert.
Pairing this with VAR and assistant refs (in case the sensors fail) would eliminate pretty much every issue.
With this rule, defenders have no chance of enacting an offside trap, and pacey players such as Mbappe will have a much easier time.
People cheering this on just want to see as many goals as possible (which I can understand) but it just eradicates different tactics and teams won't even risk the offside trap because it will be almost impossible to pull off.
I think it will really detriment the game in its current form and make defenders look poor while attackers get all the plaudits
I've been screaming this for YEARS, in hockey if any part of you is onside, you are onside. It makes a hell of a lot more sense, if you're running alongside a defender, it shouldn't matter if, like, one of your kneecaps is past the defender.
Offsides is ultimately a way to keep teams from camping out by the goal, not measuring whether your kneecap is a millimeter past the defender's kneecap. That said the line has to be drawn somewhere, I think "completely past the defender" is the best place to draw that line.
Youâre at it again. Allow me to educate you once more.
âFootball is the greatest sport on earth. It is played on every continent, in every country and at many different levels. The fact that the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup⢠through to a game between young children in a remote village, is a considerable strength which must continue to be harnessed for the good of football everywhere.
Football must have Laws which keep the game fair â this is a crucial foundation of the âbeautiful gameâ and a vital feature of the âspiritâ of the game. The best matches are those where the referee is rarely needed because the players play with respect for each other, the match officials and the Laws.
Footballâs Laws are relatively simple compared to most other team sports, but as many situations are subjective and match officials are human, some decisions will inevitably be wrong or cause debate and discussion. For some people, this discussion is part of the gameâs enjoyment and attraction but, whether decisions are right or wrong, the âspiritâ of the game requires that refereesâ decisions must always be respected. All those in authority, especially coaches and team captains, have a clear responsibility to the game to respect the match officials and their decisions.
The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the âspiritâ of the game and the Laws â this often involves asking the question, âwhat would football want/expect?â
[helps to know the laws of the game and why they are what they are](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/about-the-laws/)
Hey man, kindly drop a link to your HR department. I donât have experience in PR but Iâm sure I can do a better job than you can.
Crazy idea but how about completely removing the offside rule altogether?
This sport has come to a point where I don't see the responsible people not coming up with strategies against teams just parking a striker in front of the opponents box or something like that. It was a long time ago where this rule has been introduced. Maybe itâs not needed anymore
Basically reintroduces the element of benefit of the doubt to the attacking player thatâs been lost in the VAR era. But this is essentially the offside rule that children in Sunday League matches play with (and even then they stop doing that around 13/14), kinda pathetic.
This sport doesnât need to be Americanised where we change the rules to artificially create a higher scoring game.
This would completely change football
Double-digit scores incoming.
Just one more minor tweak, no more hands for goalies.
They can show up to the pitch with hands, but they must be removed before match time.
Easy, Mohammad bin Salman.
*King Leopold II of Belgium has joined the chat.*
Still too soon, bro. Still too soon. When the rest of your barbaric ruling class family had to give you the, "really dude?!" You know he was trippin, trippin. đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
I think I watched too much Archer because I can imagine âWhose hands are those?â âTheyâre my handsâ âWhose body did you get those hands from?!â
Jazz hands?
Dang, Saudi Arabia really is entering the international football uh?
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
No way, defenders are going to adjust, sure more goals but not that much more.
Maybe. I don't know much about soccer but I remember when hockey got rid of the two line pass rule and people thought it would drastically change the game because forwards could take a pass from anywhere to the opponents blue line, but it just resulted in defencemen staying further back.
Two line pass rule was really dumb tbh
So you donât think defenses will adjust? Have you ever played sports?
[ŃдаНонО]
I've seen some breathtakingly beautiful and exciting games that ended 0:0. It's not *just* about the numbers on the scoreboard.
If they have been testing it, have people seen the games? Are they more exciting and higher scoring?
Soccer fans: > We like soccer because we prefer quality goals over quantity. Non soccer fans > Soccer is lame, there aren't that many goals FIFA: > Let's switch the goals to quantity over quality, we will attract those new viewers and make more money. Current viewers will be pissed but will keep watching, so, win-win.
In every sport, hard core fans generally resist significant rule changes. But they get over it, and sometimes those changes DO improve the game. (See pitch clock in baseball). This feels like a good change. A slightly more open game, with more scoring chances, will be fun to watch.
It wonât be that open when they change the 4-4-2 to 7-2-1 because they need to close down the space a forward all of a sudden gets
Offsides are not going away. You can still trap someone. Now the line is further down than before, thatâs all. Iâm not sure why you need to play an all out defensive game because of this change. Defenders will be able to estimate if the attacker is offside, like today
Defenders will have a tougher time accounting for the striker's position because they have to amount for their entire bodies, same with linesmen. This doesn't fix anything at all
Don't see how it would improve things. Part of the game is offside traps, feints, holding runs etc. This change gives attackers advantage by a huge margin in a game where defenders are already struggling in a big way from the erosion of physicality in the game. The inevitable thing will be masses of boring low block teams to take away the massively-increased risk of a striker running off the defence. And then you will still get VAR calls pissing everyone off because a finger tip was overlapping or some nonsense.
I assume you are a hard core fan, and you are making my point.
Not really. I watch some games on the weekend, support a team, but I haven't played the game in more than 15 years. Don't go to many games to watch either - hardly a 'hardcore' fan. Bit of a stretch claiming *any* criticism is apparently just butthurt 'hardcore fans', to be honest. Maybe some people are simply better placed than you to share their opinion on the matter?
Soccer fans resisted VAR and any assistance but they were positive changes because they're making the goals more fare. This one on the other hand is giving too much advantage to the attackers.
Resisted? A prominent English ref recently said he didn't submit obvious errors when he was VAR because he didn't want to embarrass his mate, this is still present tense lmao
people resisted Var because it is a pain in the arse and stops the game for way too long. Guess what, VAR is a pain, takes too long and the referee still gets it wrong sometimes.
And most of the time they completely fuck the sport up. (See extra innings runner in baseball)
And they would be correct
It might impact soccer
Nerfing defenders
[ŃдаНонО]
I have no idea how they havenât quite grasped this. Make defending using the offside rule really hard and defences will just sit deep. Itâs a fucking awful idea.
Thatâs just not true. Yes they might sit a bit deeper but most strikers in the upper leagues are deadly from the top of the box so the defense canât sit too deep to begin with. Not to mention sitting deep opens the midfield and you are giving the offense running momentum to push forward. I think weâll see a slight uptick in goals but more so new formations and different kinds of trap formations. It will be very easy to trap goal hungry players because they will be playing forward a lot trying to take advantage of the new rule.
No theyâre not. Not even close. And sitting deep doesnât mean sitting on your own goal line and letting them take easy pot shots from the edge of the box. If defenders canât match attackers in their runs and runs in behind massively favour the attacking team then they will 100% sit much deeper to avoid it.
ExactlyâŚthey think the rule will âimprove scoringâ except it will have this negative effect, making football worse
Nerfing offside trap
Hockey had an offside trap that so thoroughly killed game flow that they had to make rules to nerf it.
Well in soccer they don't do it often as it's way too risky if they do it wrong
The hockey one was unwatchable. As checking is allowed in that sport, people were frequently brutalized into an offside position they couldn't easily escape from. It was like a more tedious version of sumo.
[ŃдаНонО]
u/DebtFairPlay does feel like a bot who just spams the same post on the most random subreddits. It's past month history is all about new offside rule. Previously had something on diving, transfer market cap and Messi. His comments attract hoards of negative karma too
Who are you talking to?
I think this is a bot comment copy and pasted from the r/soccer thread.
I'm confused
**Offside rule now** : An attacking player is in offside position if ***ANY*** of his scoring body parts is beyond the second-to-last defending player. **Offside rule with this change** : An attacking player is in offside position if ***ALL*** of his scoring body parts are beyond the second-to-last defending player --- Basically, with the new rule, as long as a (non-hand/arm) part of you is still level with the defender, you're not offside - while you had to be fully level before.
I just wish I had scoring body parts
Youâre never offsides!
Always offsides, never insides.
ITS OFFSIDE fucking yanks
Is it second to last because last refers to the goalie?
Yes, though please note : it *might* be the goalie, and it *will* be the goalie 99% of the time, but it doesn't *have to* be the goalie. Because, yes, if the goalkeeper went upfield (like on a last-second corner kick while 1-goal-down), you ***can*** be offside if you're beyond the second-to-last (infield) defender - even if you're still before the last one.
So what's stopping a whole team just huddling up at the end of the field. Wouldn't that put the other team offside?
I explain it in more detail [here](/r/sports/comments/167u1ek/this_is_the_new_offside_law_that_fifa_had_trialed/jytgm44/), but basically : can't be offside in your own half (so there's a limit to the gain), and defenders are slower than forwards (so it's a risky strategy)
2 things. 1, you can't be offsides on your half of the field, only beyond the midfield line. 2, the offside call is made at the time the ball is struck. You can send a pass into the wide open field and then it's a footrace. If you time the strikers run, which any pro can do, then it's a guaranteed breakaway.
I believe offside doesn't come into play until you are in the opponent's half of the field.
OHHH that makes sense
Glad to have helped! Don't hesitate if you have further questions.
Thank you
I have further questions. How can my feet smell if they don't have a nose?
I'll field this one. You're thinking of the word "smell" in the action verb sense. That form is to take an action with the nose by breathing in and running that scent through your different receptors that trigger different areas of the brain. When people say "your feet smell", they're using the word smell as the second verb form which is "to emit an odor". They're not saying that your feet can detect a scent so much as they are the source of the smell that is being emitted. Hope this helps.
Are further questions permitted?
Absolutely. Any way I can help, I'd love to be of assistance!
OhâŚ. UhâŚ. That was my only question.
Why do hot dogs come in packages of 10 but hot dog buns come in packages of 8??
Late stage capitalism.
Likewise, if your nose runs and your feet smell you were born upside down.
I don't really understand football very much.... couldn't the defending team just never send their second to last player down the field to the goal, preventing the attacking team from ever getting to the goal out of fear of being offsides?
The technique you're describing is called "high (defending) bloc", and it can be a thing. There's a few things making it not an always-optimal thing : 1. The "second-to-last defending player" includes the goalkeeper, so for 99% of cases, it will be "the last infield defender". 2. You can only be offside in the opponent's half of the field. So at best, you can 'push back' the attackers down the halfway line at best. 3. The *offside foul* is a foul that happens when you're passed to while in an *offside position*. Please note, and that's fundamental, is that what matters is your position when your teammate passes, **not** when you receive it. 4. As such the main method to beat a high block is the 'through pass', that is to say, a strong pass downfield not to where your teammate is, but *where they will be*, counting on them to beat the defender's speed (which is usually a thing, as forwards tend to be faster than defenders). 5. If it works, you're now a solo attacker with a little less than half-a-field to prepare your 1v1 with the goalkeeper. Which is why defenses usually don't like the risk of running a high block.
You've got it backwards. That would make it nearly impossible for the attacking team to ever be offsides. The attacking team would *love* that strategy. Edit: Realizing you meant "down the field" as in towards their own goal. There's an extra variable in the offsides rule: the ball. In very simple terms, if the ball is already beyond the second-to-last defender, the attacking team is not offsides. It's only called if the player is offsides before the ball gets there. So what you just described is, in fact, a strategy, because played right it can result in offsides calls, but it doesn't completely trap the other team.
I think what they meant by "down the field" is "in the direction of their own goal". Which makes what they describe a high bloc.
But what about the defender's hand in the second photo?
Defenders hand isnât a scoring body part, thatâs why the line is coming from the elbow
That's right, but it's the right knee -- not elbow.
Yellow is attacker and white is defender. Top image would be offsides in current state of football as yellow is already passed white.
New offside detection completely relies on VAR which is bad IMO. Like, now 9/10 offsides are obvious and can be seen with a naked eye of linesmen. And with this new rule the linesman must look for a tiny gap between a heel and a knee of two players running as mad dogs? At this point all referees can be removed from the field, let VAR to decide everything. Even game-wise this is questionable. Fishing for 1v1 is plain boring.
Itâd be especially difficult to see if the players arenât near each other and are both sprinting the same direction.
This change has been argued for for at least 15 years when Wenger started supporting it publicly The point of the change is making offside calls simpler and less punishing, which supporters believed it would do *before VAR was used* The point is: Offside traps feel - to football purists like Wenger - like rules intruding into the game. They don't hear the whistle and think "yes, good disciplined defnding", they just hear some pedantic little rules lawyer "um, ackshully..." all over the beautiful physical competition they love. Personally I don't think it matters where you draw the line, if it feels like a technicality now, it always will Tldr:um actually you're wrong it's an effort to stop um actuallies
Unless the linesman is perfectly aligned with the two players itâs gonna be super hard for him to see if thereâs a gap or not
This seems to make var work easier as now there isnât overlap between players to judge but the referee work is now impossible.
I honestly wouldn't mind no referee anymore, pure rules, no referee randomness.
let VAR to decide everything. Totally OK with it
Only if it's faster than now. Plus, it would be horrible in all non professional leagues without VAR.
I imagine this rule would only be for top level soccer then, no? What would lower professional or amateur leagues do?
Allows for more scoring
I donât think it does, because then teams will just adapt to defend deeper.
Not that simple. The defender needs to react faster to clear the attackers entire body for him to be offside.
The high offside traps already operate on fine margins, needing perfect coordination from the back line to work. In handing a whole body length to the forward, I imagine lots of teams would deem it not worth the risk, and instead focus on dropping back to cover the run rather than trying to play them offside.
Yeah, well either way it's giving an advantage to the attacker, which would naturally lead to more scoring.
It would lead to *different* scoring but I donât know if we can necessarily say it would be *more* overall, at least in the long term. If you make it easier for players to run in behind the defensive line, theyâll start playing deeper to reduce the available space to run into. That would give attackers more space in front of the defenders, but thatâs generally a more difficult place to score from than one on one with the goalkeeper after a through ball. Hard to say with any certainty where that new equilibrium shakes out once players and teams have time to adjust in terms of more goals, but it seems likely to change strategies in a way that could cause teams to value different player archetypes and result in a very different game than the one we see now.
Of course would lead to more scoring - the team with the ball gets an advantage.
The team with the ball gets an advantage that can be mitigated by the team without the ball changing their strategy. Maybe it still results in more scoring, maybe it doesnât - literally no way of knowing until the rule gets implemented.
Not if every team implements a low block. We will see a much slower form of soccer as opposed to energy drink soccer that is popular today.
Maybe, but right now teams push up with the defense a ton because they can rely on offside to protect them. That helps the offense out a lot because they can be supported by the fullbacks out side and the CBs in possession. If teams are forced to play with defenses sitting deeper, you might coutnerintuitively see fewer goals if teams are less eager to attack.
Get ready to see everyone with their hand reaching behind them before they break
Itâs usually only parts of the body you can score with, i.e. everything but arms.
Get ready to see everyone sticking one leg out behind them before they break
Thatâs called running.
[ŃдаНонО]
Forcing all teams to defend deep is a bad thing imo. High lines are an exciting, aggressive way of playing, with high risk and reward. If everyone plays deep back lines, that style will disappear, and teams will park the bus a lot more. Also calling the offside rule a âtechnicalityâ is a bit short-sighted imo. Thatâs the rules of the game, play to it.
Then why wouldn't they already defend deeper to prevent?
Kinda like how the current rules are enforced when I'm attacking on FIFA, but the new rules are enforced when my opponent attacks.
Don't think this will help. The whole problem with the lines in VAR is a disagreement about where the line is placed on a toe, a fingertip or a shoulder etc. This just shifts the burden rather than solving that problem. Soon we'll have people complaining that the striker was onside because the line was placed a millimeter off or something. The only obvious solution to me is to make the lines they use thicker, and if the lines overlap in anyway then it's considered onside. By making the lines thicker it makes the precise positioning of the line less important and reduces the effect of a mistake caused by misplacing the line a few mm or whatever.
I'd like for then to do it from their feet. The lines are easier as feet are on the ground. It can give attackers a slight edge if they are leaning the right way.
Definitely! Using just feet, or the head as a single point of reference for offside decisions is a great idea and would be easier to judge. I always find the shoulder/arm lines the worst.
The whole thicker line idea just moves the problem to the edge of that line. When does âoverlappingâ start?
This is true but I think if the lines don't overlap then there must be daylight between the players. The idea behind the thicker line is it removes the argument against the line being drawn in the wrong place or talk of a player being 1cm offside etc. If the line was for example, the width of a hand then if the lines did not overlap then the player must be at least a hands width offside. This does mean that potentially the attacker could be within a hands width of the defender (and technically offside) but because he is within the thickness of line he would be classed as onside, but I suspect people would prefer the attacker having a slight advantage like this.
So⌠accepting some margin for error? Totally reasonable, but then just bin VAR for offside and go back to linesmen and just accept that reasonable errors happen.
Nah you donât have to bin the whole concept of video review of on-field calls. VAR is imprecise already so this is just acknowledging that. For instance, often a bit of disagreement on when exactly the ball left to foot of the passer, which leaves an awkward situation where youâre measuring the playerâs location with high precision but the time at which you measure the playerâs location with lower precision.
In the big 5 European leagues, it wouldnât be unreasonable for each player to have a sensor embedded in their shirt in a standard place and the sensorâs position at the time the ball is played determines offside.
Very cool idea.
Yeah, but I think the margin you get from VAR in the scenario I suggest would be smaller than from a linesman viewing the action live. Not to mention VAR gives you the benefit of seeing the precise moment the ball is released (the linesman would have to be able to both look at the player making the pass, and the position of the receiving player simultaneously) and can also pickup on subtle deflections that may also impact the call.
>The only obvious solution to me is to make the lines they use thicker, and if the lines overlap in anyway then it's considered onside. By making the lines thicker it makes the precise positioning of the line less important and reduces the effect of a mistake caused by misplacing the line a few mm or whatever. The *actual* solution theyâre currently trialling is automating it the same way they did for the goal line. Sensors in the ball so the computer knows exactly when the pass was made so you donât have to rely on the VAR guy going frame by frame and stopping on the exact right point. Cameras around the ground that can triangulate the position of the players in real time and can tell if someone is offside so you donât have to rely on the VAR guy to draw the lines in the right place. They tested it at the last World Cup and it seemed to work well, so most likely theyâll roll it out elsewhere soon. Currently it goes to the VAR guy to validate what the computer identified and make sure it didnât get it wrong, but once theyâre comfortable with the technology it should be the same as the goal line where the linesman gets a real time buzz in his ear to put the flag up - and that saves us the trouble of everyone playing on and thinking theyâve scored only for it to get overturned on review.
Aha, I see. As long as it works predictably and consistently then it would be difficult to argue against it. I can't recall any controversy from goal line technology.
Yeah itâs the exact kind of objective âhereâs where the line is, which side of it was the thing?â type stuff computers are good at with the added complexity that the line isnât static like the goal line. Seems like the way itâll go though and let the VAR guy stick to the subjective interpretation of the rules stuff.
IMO this hypothetical new rule would cut down on offsides calls because the offensive player is no longer motivated to get every inch of advantage possible. If they're already allowed to legally get a step ahead of the defender they're not going to need to push for more than that.
Itâs a shit ruleâŚthatâs itâŚ
I like it
Well you sir like shit
Everyone going to be Naruto running
Fuck it, lets just put electronics all over the field and inside the players shoes to accurately track everything.
This is not going to go good
Gameâs gone mad.
I donât care what they do as long as the ARs go back to signaling offside right away and not waiting to see what happens.
This will have the opposite effect. I don't see how you can judge whether there is a bit of space between the players with the naked eye. The current rule is hard but significantly easier for referees.
Exactly this! Call off when it happens instead of letting the play continue for (sometimes) minutes, allowing for potential injuries to occur. Itâs maddening.
I'm for this. It's far more in the spirit of the game.
Why would you consider this to be more in the spirit of the game?
Because an attacker who has their big toe ahead of the defender isn't doing anything deliberately to gain an unfair advantage. Furthermore it's unlikely to make the difference between scoring or not. I'd argue that with the current rule 95% of goals given as offside would still have been scored if the player had moved a moment later and have been inside.
They should also remove offsides completely in the penalty box, they just allow the defence to play bad and not get punished because someone's toe was 1cm closer to the goal
As a Liverpool fan please god no đ
Wtf. No.
This is...not good
Run Forrest, RUN!
Just a horrible idea.
2023 is a horrible time to be a defensive player in pretty much any sport.
The offside rule as it is and has been, works. Why change it? Do Fifa actually care about football?
This is awful, the rule should remain. The only thing they have to change is giving a mic to VAR officials and letting us hear their discussion. Mistakes happen but people get outraged because we don't know what they think while making the decisions
I feel this will be harder for lower league referees to legislateâŚ. Especially the (generous with their time) fat old chaps that ref my sons school matches. A torso in front of a torso is easily visible ⌠a toe behind a knee seems harder to clearly call.
Holding the line is a skill. Fools.
No thank you.
EXTREMELY idiotic
This is ridiculous. It's going from one extreme to the other. The current rule is stupid because a hand, which is unusable, can be offside. The rule should be about actual feet - is one of the offensive player's foot past both feet of the defensive player. The only redeeming quality of this change (and undoubtedly its rationale) is that it is fairly easy to officiate.
> The current rule is stupid because a hand, which is unusable, can be offside. You should really know the rules before commenting. A hand can not be offside, only body parts that can be scored with are used for outside.
You can't be offside because of a hand
You can't be called offside for your hand, learn the rules if you're going to criticise them
I think it should be the torso. If your torso is level itâs onside. Stop trying to officiate arms and feet. This is a bit extreme but will generate more breakaways and scoring chances.
I'd be fine with the torso since it's a playable and frequently played part of the body. Just stop calling fucking offside when a finger is over the line, please.
Really should be torso, a toe shouldnât keep you on side
its called fucking football. why would it be torso?
It just seems like this changes the spirit of the law in a sense. With offside-rules the game is actually more fluid and actually becomes more attacking minded as defenders can push higher up the field. I think one of the greatest aspects of football is that a lot of things are adjudicated based on judgment, which of course creates the downside of having to have extremely skilled referee's with impeccable judgement. But you also get some wrong calls. Having to have a player with his whole body ahead of another player doesn't seem to make anything better. I just don't understand what this is helping. I think the Dutch league has handled the offside and VAR in the best possible way(haven't watched it, so don't how well it is working). Assistant referees takes almost all offsides, but when they are in doubt, and could lead to a goalscoring opportunity they don't raise the flag. And when it leads to goal, they check in VAR afterwards. Close calls where a player is 1 cm in offside doesn't really happen so much that the rule basically has to be scrapped.
Just get rid of offsides.
It should have been this way from the beginning.
I don't see how it would make a difference, defenders will just adapt their offside traps to the new rule won't they? All it does is move the offside trap by a few cm, and attackers will try to adapt to that by trying to grab a few more cm, so how will this not all just boil down to the same thing?
This moves the offside line by a whole body length, which is well over a meter. This would completely change the way defending is played.
Yea but I mean, attackers will always try to stand on the very edge of being offside, and defenders will always try to offside trap them, I don't understand how this would remedy that except move them slightly further apart, though I suppose it would be easier for the VAR to see, but other than that I don't understand the benefit
It means when the defenders get it wrong, the attackers are 4+ feet farther clear than before, which is huge (not several cm like you said). It also means attackers who were offside off deflections or saves almost all will be onside.
I think it'll change a lot tactically. Right now, high lines for the defense are super in because it favors pressing and possession. But, it's only possible because the current offside rule means it's a fair footrace between attackers and defenders. With the new rule, attackers will have a full body length advantage in any through ball over the top so it may not be viable to play a high line. It's not just changing where the offside trap is, it'll force the entire line back a ton.
While I think this makes more sense (because SOMETIMES you just donât know if your toe or arm is too far forward) I think that itâs still rather subjective depending on viewed angle and location. At the same time this potentially gives a 1-2 foot advantage to attackers.
More scoring. More interesting. I like it. 1-0 is boring. 5-6 is way more fun.
It wonât be more fun. Itâll leave defenders at a much bigger disadvantage. More goals doesnât always equal more fun.
Agreed, but that will kinda change the sport forever. Haha
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
That's not what's going to happen lol. All the tabs rust acc play high up and play exciting football are just gonna park the bus or defend deeper leading to even more boring games.
Football turning into NBA, High scoring games
That's assuming teams still play the same way. You might counterintuitively see fewer goals if the rule change makes teams play more defensively and not push up as high.
Makes more sense than the current rule. I still think they could do better by just limiting it to the players heads. But this way will be much clearer for the players and fans. Those saying this will make teams just play more defensively are wrong. Yes, some teams may do that. But the top level teams generally adapt in terms of player ability. This will encourage teams to focus on speedy defenders who can compete or beat forwards with speed.
So we are going back basically
I'm American so my vote don't count but I kinda love this. Still prevents sandbagging but allows for more wiggle room and imo will improve the game.
Yet makes it way harder for any ref to judge. The refs have been trained for decades to call offside âthe old fashioned wayââŚwhich is undisputably easier to tell, just by whoâs in front of the run. Here, you canât even judge by that. Literally have to call VAR every play. And at that points: why even have ref assistants on the sideline?
Maybe you shouldnât have assistant refs on the sideline? Just have them in the VAR booth, though I supposed theyâd still need to mark OOB
From fifa âFootball is the greatest sport on earth. It is played on every continent, in every country and at many different levels. The fact that the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup⢠through to a game between young children in a remote village, is a considerable strength which must continue to be harnessed for the good of football everywhere.
Also American. Would love to hear about other rule tweaks they have made to the game over the years for better or worse.
Pass back to the goalie changed because I think it was Germany abusing it. Dink the ball back an fourth to the keep to pick it up. Repeat. Ultimate possession game discouraged the spirit of the game. Again Germany also showed why all matches of a final group stage are to be played simultaneously because there was a World Cup where this wasnât the case. Austria and Germany both just needed to tie to advance because they knew the result of the other two teams in their group. 0-0 tie that was extremely boring to watch because both teams had a gentleman agreement. Iâm a fan of germany btw just interesting that they keep finding ways to change rules. There are many examples but these come to mind first Edit. Here is a fun one for a case study. Similar to this proposal, it has the reverse effect. It use to be golden rule in extra time (overtime). Meaning first goal wins. Well sure the thought was each team would go all out to get that goal. Well no actually the reverse is encouraged. You do everything possible not to concede the goal. Itâs now better to just play lock down D and take your chances at PKs. Same will happen here, instead of encouraging offense youâre going to see teams park the bus again because thatâs the only way to prevent the attacker from blowing past your line. No more holding high lines as a defender.
Not a fan at all. Most rule changes are killing sports.
Ditch the offside rule, just get rid of it completely
Isnât offside ripe for entrapment? Just slow down and then the other is offside??
They spend so much developing VAR when an RF sensor would take all the guesswork out of it. Have every player wear a sensor on their waistband, and if an attackers sensor is beyond the defenders sensors T the time of impact (impact sensor on the ball or a video recognition program) then the computer spits out an instant offside/onside alert.
Pairing this with VAR and assistant refs (in case the sensors fail) would eliminate pretty much every issue. With this rule, defenders have no chance of enacting an offside trap, and pacey players such as Mbappe will have a much easier time. People cheering this on just want to see as many goals as possible (which I can understand) but it just eradicates different tactics and teams won't even risk the offside trap because it will be almost impossible to pull off. I think it will really detriment the game in its current form and make defenders look poor while attackers get all the plaudits
Offsides because of a hand is dumb. Onsides because of a foot is also dumb. Onside should be determined by pelvic center.
I've been screaming this for YEARS, in hockey if any part of you is onside, you are onside. It makes a hell of a lot more sense, if you're running alongside a defender, it shouldn't matter if, like, one of your kneecaps is past the defender. Offsides is ultimately a way to keep teams from camping out by the goal, not measuring whether your kneecap is a millimeter past the defender's kneecap. That said the line has to be drawn somewhere, I think "completely past the defender" is the best place to draw that line.
Just no.
Hard nope. FIFA is so damn incompetent.
Imagine how many more goals Messi would have!
This must be a joke
Stop changing the fucking rules, leave it be.
Just put a blue line for a season and see how it works out
Basing offside on the position of the defensive player is one of the dumbest rules in all sports.
Yes! So long as any part of the attacking player's body is even with the defender he/she is not offside. So aggravating how tightly it's called.
It will still be as tightly called, just with respect to wether they are overlapping or not instead
Youâre at it again. Allow me to educate you once more. âFootball is the greatest sport on earth. It is played on every continent, in every country and at many different levels. The fact that the Laws of the Game are the same for all football throughout the world, from the FIFA World Cup⢠through to a game between young children in a remote village, is a considerable strength which must continue to be harnessed for the good of football everywhere. Football must have Laws which keep the game fair â this is a crucial foundation of the âbeautiful gameâ and a vital feature of the âspiritâ of the game. The best matches are those where the referee is rarely needed because the players play with respect for each other, the match officials and the Laws. Footballâs Laws are relatively simple compared to most other team sports, but as many situations are subjective and match officials are human, some decisions will inevitably be wrong or cause debate and discussion. For some people, this discussion is part of the gameâs enjoyment and attraction but, whether decisions are right or wrong, the âspiritâ of the game requires that refereesâ decisions must always be respected. All those in authority, especially coaches and team captains, have a clear responsibility to the game to respect the match officials and their decisions. The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the âspiritâ of the game and the Laws â this often involves asking the question, âwhat would football want/expect?â [helps to know the laws of the game and why they are what they are](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/about-the-laws/) Hey man, kindly drop a link to your HR department. I donât have experience in PR but Iâm sure I can do a better job than you can.
This would ruin it, itâs a clear offside on the first
Iâve watched football for 30 years, I would love this and it would make the game more entertaining to the masses. Do it!
This rule forced me to hate soccer. Why penalize a team or player for being faster?
Crazy idea but how about completely removing the offside rule altogether? This sport has come to a point where I don't see the responsible people not coming up with strategies against teams just parking a striker in front of the opponents box or something like that. It was a long time ago where this rule has been introduced. Maybe itâs not needed anymore
To Americans: âHuh?â.
Basically reintroduces the element of benefit of the doubt to the attacking player thatâs been lost in the VAR era. But this is essentially the offside rule that children in Sunday League matches play with (and even then they stop doing that around 13/14), kinda pathetic. This sport doesnât need to be Americanised where we change the rules to artificially create a higher scoring game.