Perhaps my imagination is failing but I’m struggling to see a scenario where it would be an advantage to have a player miles offside rather than standing on the halfway line or close to the line of the last defender.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24
- Thread starter blue b4 the moon
- Start date
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,091
Perhaps my imagination is failing but I’m struggling to see a scenario where it would be an advantage to have a player miles offside rather than standing on the halfway line or close to the line of the last defender.
Because it’ll stretch the defensive line back if that players allowed to be onside when he touches the ball rather than if the ball is played. The last thing the defender would want is them ten or twenty yards behind them as they then need to be as conscious of what’s behind them as in front.
Similar to when teams with an attacking free kick have players in offside positions - they utilise it for the second ball. This would utilise it for the first and the second ball.
Just what offside needs. Another complication.That’s true, I do think however that the occasions where an advantage occurs in these circumstances would, I think be quite rare, and probably quite obvious. If the referee’s first consideration was to consider whether an advantage had been gained, with notes for guidance, then I think we would have more appropriate decisions. The sort of situation where I would see there would be an advantage would be where a player previously in a central offside position retreats to receive the ball centrally and the only opponent playing him onside is out by the touchline with no chance of challenging. Referee’s have to make this sort of decision with respect to DOGSO at present.
Sorry, perhaps I haven’t been sufficiently clear: to avoid being offside a player in an offside position when the ball was played would have to come back to be in an onside position when they received the ball so if a player is ten or twenty yards behind them they don’t have to worry about them unless the attacker gets back to an onside position to collect the ball.Because it’ll stretch the defensive line back if that players allowed to be onside when he touches the ball rather than if the ball is played. The last thing the defender would want is them ten or twenty yards behind them as they then need to be as conscious of what’s behind them as in front.
Similar to when teams with an attacking free kick have players in offside positions - they utilise it for the second ball. This would utilise it for the first and the second ball.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,091
Sorry, perhaps I haven’t been sufficiently clear: to avoid being offside a player in an offside position when the ball was played would have to come back to be in an onside position when they received the ball so if a player is ten or twenty yards behind them they don’t have to worry about them unless the attacker gets back to an onside position to collect the ball.
Yes, that’s the scenario I’m referring to. They’ll just play long high balls and the player will get back onside and challenge, the players in front of the defender will then just run up and challenge for the second ball. That or one of the players in front can just run onto it too so the defensive line would just have to permanently drop, which then means you won’t get as many teams trying to press from the front.
It’d make for terrible football games.
JGL07
Well-Known Member
There is a simple answer. Use the same approach as cricket and only overturn on-field decisions where there is a clear margin.
Marginal decisions should go the with the referee’s original decision.
Marginal decisions should go the with the referee’s original decision.
I’m still not clear how it is any easier for an attacker to get back onside from well inside the opponent‘s half of the pitch than for them to run from the halfway line, as Salah often tends to do now. The player can only get back onside if the defenders let him, they can always get to the ball first in a chase as if he gets to the ball ahead of them he will be still offside, or even if he challenges them for possession.Yes, that’s the scenario I’m referring to. They’ll just play long high balls and the player will get back onside and challenge, the players in front of the defender will then just run up and challenge for the second ball. That or one of the players in front can just run onto it too so the defensive line would just have to permanently drop, which then means you won’t get as many teams trying to press from the front.
It’d make for terrible football games.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,091
I’m still not clear how it is any easier for an attacker to get back onside from well inside the opponent‘s half of the pitch than for them to run from the halfway line, as Salah often tends to do now. The player can only get back onside if the defenders let him, they can always get to the ball first in a chase as if he gets to the ball ahead of them he will be still offside, or even if he challenges them for possession.
Because they’re being allowed to come from behind a defender as well as in front, it gives the attacking team multiple more options and a very easy out ball every time as they just need to boot it high and keep one attacker behind the defensive line to run back and challenge.
Every team would just sign a tall attacker and a fast one to accompany them straight away and look for second balls off them.
salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 4,082
The easiest rule would be for linemen to put their flag up when it is obvious straight away, and VAR to judge on tight calls and wrong calls, but then that would show up cheats, like the one that ruled Bobb off side, not a cat in hells chance he could see, even VAR had to cheat, the first replay shows Bobbs foot behind the last defender, but then that was taken from Foden`s first touch.There is a simple answer. Use the same approach as cricket and only overturn on-field decisions where there is a clear margin.
Marginal decisions should go the with the referee’s original decision.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,371
I’ve been saying for years now that they should simply implement an ‘umpires decision’ rule for offsides below a certain threshold.
It’s embarrassing to see the leagues around the world still trying to pretend they can pinpoint the moment contact is made with the ball.
On the Bobb goal specifically, it looked a clear offside as soon as the first picture was shown.
But this is the thing. Tell me what Bobb could have done to stay onside in that situation? He was looking along the line, he was waiting for the ball to be played. He did everything right apart from the fact that his foot was extended in a running movement that led to his toe being three inches beyond the defender's. Unless he was hopping, one frame earlier, or probably later for that matter, he would have been onside because his foot would have been withdrawn by three inches. This whole thing is removing the art of staying onside.
Unnecessary, imho.