Wengers Offside Rule

GibbosEmpire said:
For me it would cut out the grey area, its either offside with the whole body with a clear space between the last defender, or its onside with part of the body in line with the defender.
Click to expand...
No it would just mean the lines are drawn in a different area. Strikers will adjust their runs. Unless they address the way in which VAR judges these incidents then you are no better off.
 
Muttley said:
No it would just mean the lines are drawn in a different area. Strikers will adjust their runs. Unless they address the way in which VAR judges these incidents then you are no better off.
Click to expand...
Agree, the problem is not the law or the interpretation thereof it's the bloody lines themselves. Offside was never meant to be judged to millimetre accuracy, that's not the spirit of the law at all.
 
Sounds like a load of crap to me, you've just moved where the line is being measured from, whilst giving the attacking players a new massive advantage on defenders.

There will be a lot more goals scored, but largely because players will have a toenail keeping them onside.

The VAR checks will take just as long to decide that, and it's being introduced because of the number of VAR checks.
 
spanishman said:
Linesmen will still get it wrong sometimes. As I have said above, if the change speeds things up and increases the number of correct decisions it would be a good change.
Click to expand...
It’s worse than that. It’s a rule that can only be implemented accurately with multiple cameras or at least with a single camera significantly above the height of the players. It can’t be implemented accurately from the eye line of the assistant.

Imagine the lower scenario, but with a second attacker nearer to the assistant, who is clearly further forward than the defender, but not as far forward as the first attacker. That second attacker is not offside, because the assistant can see that there is overlap, but gets in the way of the gap, and so makes it not merely difficult but physically impossible to give a decision in relation to the first attacker.

The great virtue of the current law is that an assistant who is in line can always in principle see who is furthest forward. And if the player who is furthest forward is an attacker, then that is offside. Doesn’t always make it an easy call, but it always makes it a physically possible one. Any amendment, including this one, necessarily create scenarios where even a perfectly positioned assistant simply cannot physically see all possible scenarios. This is a law change designed for VAR that is simply impractical everywhere where VAR is not used.
 
chickenrunner said:
Agree, the problem is not the law or the interpretation thereof it's the bloody lines themselves. Offside was never meant to be judged to millimetre accuracy, that's not the spirit of the law at all.
Click to expand...
It is the law. It should be measured as accurately as possible so long as it does not take an excessive amount of time. It should be a trade off between time and accuracy of the decision.
 
FishofContemplation said:
It’s worse than that. It’s a rule that can only be implemented accurately with multiple cameras or at least with a single camera significantly above the height of the players. It can’t be implemented accurately from the eye line of the assistant.

Imagine the lower scenario, but with a second attacker nearer to the assistant, who is clearly further forward than the defender, but not as far forward as the first attacker. That second attacker is not offside, because the assistant can see that there is overlap, but gets in the way of the gap, and so makes it not merely difficult but physically impossible to give a decision in relation to the first attacker.

The great virtue of the current law is that an assistant who is in line can always in principle see who is furthest forward. And if the player who is furthest forward is an attacker, then that is offside. Doesn’t always make it an easy call, but it always makes it a physically possible one. Any amendment, including this one, necessarily create scenarios where even a perfectly positioned assistant simply cannot physically see all possible scenarios. This is a law change designed for VAR that is simply impractical everywhere where VAR is not used.
Click to expand...
My gut feeling is that the job of the linesman is of similar complexity with both of the rules.
 
Last edited:
spanishman said:
For me getting more correct decisions is the most important thing.

If rule changes and increased use of technology can do that then it is a good thing.

Over time I think AI will draw up the important images and mark them up for final checking by a human.
Click to expand...
This. We shouldn't be far from AI actually reffing the game I wouldn't have thought. A dramatic improvement I for one can't wait for.
 
spanishman said:
My gut feeling is that the job of the linesman is of similar complexity with both of the rules.
Click to expand...
I specifically gave you the scenario. Where there is a second attacker nearer to the assistant, who overlaps with both the further away defender and the further away first attacker, that second attacker physically blocks the assistant’s view of the very thing he needs to see in order to give the decision.

Under the current law, this is irrelevant, because the first attacker is clearly offside anyway as he is partly ahead of the last defender, and the assistant can see that. Under the new law, the assistant cannot physically see whether the first attacker is offside or not as he cannot see whether or not there is an overlap. If your gut cannot tell the difference in complexity between giving a decision where you can see what you need to see and where you can’t see what you need to see then you probably need a new gut.
 
Last edited:
changingman said:
This. We shouldn't be far from AI actually reffing the game I wouldn't have thought. A dramatic improvement I for one can't wait for.
Click to expand...
For AI learning to work it needs to be trained. The domain of all rules on the whole of the pitch is so complex I feel it is going to take a long time to happen.

For specific smaller domains it is much more likely. For example, goals and offside.
 
spanishman said:
For AI learning to work it needs to be trained. The domain of all rules on the whole of the pitch is so complex I feel it is going to take a long time to happen.

For specific smaller domains it is much more likely. For example, goals and offside.
Click to expand...
Well, effectively it already does goals. But the “I” element of that decision is so trivial that we don’t really think of it as AI.
 
FishofContemplation said:
I specifically gave you the scenario. Where there is a second attacker nearer to the assistant, who overlaps with both the further away defender and the further away first attacker, that second attacker physically blocks the assistant’s view of the very thing he needs to see in order to give the decision.

Under the current law, this is irrelevant, because the first attacker is clearly offside anyway as he is a head of the last defender, and the assistant can see that. Under the new law, the assistant cannot physically see whether the first attacker is offside or not as he cannot see whether or not there is an overlap. If your gut cannot tell the difference in complexity between giving a decision where you can see what you need to see and where you can’t see what you need to see then you probably need a new gut.
Click to expand...
We will have agree to disagree.

I feel a linesman is normally never ever in an exact position to judge the time the ball was played and see the offside line exactly square. Whatever the rule.

You obviously think differently.
 
Although i like the rule as I do think attackers should get the benefit of doubt, its going to change the way the game is played dramatically I think.

Teams will defend a lot deeper. You are taking a big advantage away that currently is with the defending team and hand it to the attackers. Teams won't be able to leave so much room in behind. It's going to lead to teams defending deeper and putting men behind the ball in my opinion. It could actually lead to less goals.

As said by someone further up the thread, defending set pieces will change dramatically. Teams will be defending on the penalty spot instead of edge of area.
 
Another important thing is to understand that the rules have to apply to matches with and without VAR.

At present there is an attempt to keep them the same.

I feel we need to have one set of rules. With an appendix containing more info for matches using VAR.
Scrote said:
Can you back that up with actual statistics. As far as I'm aware no-one has undertaken a study that proves it either way.
Click to expand...
Yes. There is already a recent separate thread that show VAR is more accurate more often.. I will try to dig it out.
 
spanishman said:
We will have agree to disagree.

I feel a linesman is normally never ever in an exact position to judge the time the ball was played and see the offside line exactly square. Whatever the rule.

You obviously think differently.
Click to expand...

I am not looking for an argument, and I am always happy to agree to disagree if necessary, but I don’t believe you have grasped my point so I would like to have one further try.

I would accept that an assistant is almost never in the best possible position, and that even if they are, it is close to impossible to judge accurately when the ball is played, and at the same time judge the relative positions of the players. In consequence, mistakes will always be made, close decisions will be close to guesses, and this is one of the reasons why I would support development of the automated offside system that we first saw in the World Cup. It represents one of those areas where technology, if not already, must be close to being in principle clearly better.

But there is still a difference between the current offside law and the proposed change. Under the current law, the decision is limited by biology, by the ability of the human eye and brain to judge two things that they can see but that are happening in different places simultaneously. But at least they can be physically seen. To give a correct decision under the new law also at times needs to defy the laws of physics, requiring an assistant to judge something they can’t see. That takes impossibility to a different level.

Of course, there will always be situations on the field of play when even with three (or more) officials some incidents will simply be out of the sight of any of them. But it’s probably best not to rewrite the laws to make such an event more likely.
 
spanishman said:
Another important thing is to understand that the rules have to apply to matches with and without VAR.

At present there is an attempt to keep them the same.

I feel we need to have one set of rules. With an appendix containing more info for matches using VAR.

Yes. There is already a recent separate thread that show VAR is more accurate more often.. I will try to dig it out.
Click to expand...
fmttmboro.com

Simple VAR vote to gauge opinion

VAR errors seem to be just as frequently discussed and controversial as simple referee errors ever were. I believe we are into the fifth season of it’s usage in the Prem now. We keep hearing that things will get better with time as people get more familiar with it and issues are ironed out….has...
fmttmboro.com fmttmboro.com

In my view the wording of the poll was skewed. So ignore that. Just look at the discussion of the stats.

However the issues are not just ones of the level of "correctness". It it also to do with the time needed and the way the results are presented, on tv and in the stadium.
 
FishofContemplation said:
I am not looking for an argument, and I am always happy to agree to disagree if necessary, but I don’t believe you have grasped my point so I would like to have one further try.

I would accept that an assistant is almost never in the best possible position, and that even if they are, it is close to impossible to judge accurately when the ball is played, and at the same time judge the relative positions of the players. In consequence, mistakes will always be made, close decisions will be close to guesses, and this is one of the reasons why I would support development of the automated offside system that we first saw in the World Cup. It represents one of those areas where technology, if not already, must be close to being in principle clearly better.

But there is still a difference between the current offside law and the proposed change. Under the current law, the decision is limited by biology, by the ability of the human eye and brain to judge two things that they can see but that are happening in different places simultaneously. But at least they can be physically seen. To give a correct decision under the new law also at times needs to defy the laws of physics, requiring an assistant to judge something they can’t see. That takes impossibility to a different level.

Of course, there will always be situations on the field of play when even with three (or more) officials some incidents will simply be out of the sight of any of them. But it’s probably best not to rewrite the laws to make such an event more likely.
Click to expand...
I understand your position. I even think you could be correct in your specific example. I am not arguing about that.

The issue for me is that I feel the level of difficulty of the job of the linesman is similar with both rules.

One could come up with loads of ways in which one of the rules could be viewed as better in specific circumstances.

My view is that you are arguing using one example. Then trying to generalise that.

I am trying to take more of a view on the linesman's overall job of dealing with offside.

So it is more about approach rather than the correctness of your specific single example.

So if one of the rules is better for VAR then pick that one.
 
[QUOTE="spanishman, post: 1273343, member: 39"

Yes. There is already a recent separate thread that show VAR is more accurate more often.. I will try to dig it out.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is that we are told they are now correct by Howard Webb and other, but there are so many I disagree with.

I.e the two footed lunge by the spuds player in the Chelsea game on Sterling. The only reason he didn’t make contact is Sterling got him self out of the way to avoid injury.

In the same game the kick out by the Argentinian spuds player. It was silly and petulant but none the less no different to Beckham and Aliadier (vs Liverpool) and we are told both of the are correct. Not sending off suggests your allowed to hit people if it’s only a little bit.
 
The_Big_Woodowski said:
[QUOTE="spanishman, post: 1273343, member: 39"

Yes. There is already a recent separate thread that show VAR is more accurate more often.. I will try to dig it out.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that we are told they are now correct by Howard Webb and other, but there are so many I disagree with.

I.e the two footed lunge by the spuds player in the Chelsea game on Sterling. The only reason he didn’t make contact is Sterling got him self out of the way to avoid injury.

In the same game the kick out by the Argentinian spuds player. It was silly and petulant but none the less no different to Beckham and Aliadier (vs Liverpool) and we are told both of the are correct. Not sending off suggests your allowed to hit people if it’s only a little bit.
[/QUOTE]
How long ago were those matches?

The stats I was talking about cover matches starting from some time ago. So there is probably more agreement of which decisions were right and wrong. If I remember rightly the answer was many more VAR overturn decisions were right rather than wrong.

This is another example of arguing about specific examples compared with a more overall view.

So again I feel we should agree to differ. As we will not convince each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top