Rule change ? 09:35 - Jan 13 with 1511 views | Wickets | Watching Harry Kane's "goal" quite rightly ruled out by VAR last night i wondered if their a case for a rule change ? Would it be possible to make the Goalkeeper irrelevant in the offisde rule could it be one defender goalside when the ball is played and the keeper would not count ? What do others think would this work . As it stands the Keeper can make a huge error rushing out of his area and as last night get away with it ! | | | | |
Rule change ? on 09:59 - Jan 13 with 1431 views | rickw | Just saw it, no that's always been the rule - I can remember our PE teacher going through rules like that with us nearly 30 years ago! I think the rule is there has to be 2 players behind the attacker, however usually people see it as 1 defender behind as the keeper always is | |
| |
Rule change ? on 10:01 - Jan 13 with 1419 views | TractorCam | No, the rule is fine and makes perfect sense. | |
| |
Rule change ? on 10:12 - Jan 13 with 1400 views | ellaandred | Rather than this 'silly' toe nail, why not 'clear' daylight between the defender and the attacker. The two defenders including the goalkeeper is fine. | | | |
Rule change ? on 10:31 - Jan 13 with 1344 views | Vaughan8 | No need for the rule change. I'm guessing that kind of offside rarely happens. Are you suggesting this rule change for people who can't understand the goalie is a player? Didn't Portsmouth get a goal allowed in the FA Cup (last year?) when our goalie was ahead of him and only 1 defender on the line? | | | |
Rule change ? on 10:33 - Jan 13 with 1336 views | Vaughan8 |
Rule change ? on 10:12 - Jan 13 by ellaandred | Rather than this 'silly' toe nail, why not 'clear' daylight between the defender and the attacker. The two defenders including the goalkeeper is fine. |
Doesn't it just change the "silly toe nail" margin. If there is 1mm of daylight it is allowed? I definitely think there should be some sort of "time limit". I wish they would follow the original "clear and obvious" we were told it would be. Being offside by 1mm doesn't seem a clear and obvious error if it takes 3 minutes to work it out? | | | |
Rule change ? on 10:59 - Jan 13 with 1283 views | Wickets | Usually i would also be reluctant to mess about with the rules but with this i am struggling to see the down side of this . Yes rickw it has always been the rule and yes Vaughan8 i am sure your right it does rarely happen thats why when it does i think their is a sort of sense of injustice . I have had over 60 years in the game as a player , youth coach and now a fan and can only remember it a few times . Once to me as a player , i had been instructed to push up as far as possible on my centre back and ended up scoring a goal similar to Kane's effort last night . I remember thinking i had been punished for doing my job and the keeper rewarded for his howler . Vaughan8 yes i do agree with you on any change regards the "Clear Daylight " as that just kicks the can further down the road . I am not suggesting i played the game at any great standard all non league stuff . Thanks for your imput . | | | |
Rule change ? on 11:51 - Jan 13 with 1206 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure | Defenders can make a huge error rushing forwards but a forward would still be offside as a result, why would it be any different for a keeper? | |
| |
Rule change ? on 12:12 - Jan 13 with 1160 views | ellaandred |
Rule change ? on 10:33 - Jan 13 by Vaughan8 | Doesn't it just change the "silly toe nail" margin. If there is 1mm of daylight it is allowed? I definitely think there should be some sort of "time limit". I wish they would follow the original "clear and obvious" we were told it would be. Being offside by 1mm doesn't seem a clear and obvious error if it takes 3 minutes to work it out? |
Day light is day light. Agree on time limit. Didn't it take around three minutes to disallow the Villa 'goal' on Monday? | | | | Login to get fewer ads
Rule change ? on 13:24 - Jan 13 with 1072 views | jayessess |
Rule change ? on 12:12 - Jan 13 by ellaandred | Day light is day light. Agree on time limit. Didn't it take around three minutes to disallow the Villa 'goal' on Monday? |
Any limit you set is going to have fine margins. Day light only is a huge advantage to the forward in any case. You could effectively start every move a whole step ahead of the defender, so long as your back foot was in line. | |
| |
Rule change ? on 13:25 - Jan 13 with 1067 views | jayessess | Who was it scored against us recently from an offside position behind our keeper? Was it Wigan? | |
| |
Rule change ? on 16:11 - Jan 13 with 988 views | Kropotkin123 | The rule that needs changing is a player that is obviously offside and clearly interfering with play, not being flagged offside, because they don't touch the ball. We're just supposed to pretend that off the ball movement has no impact, even though we get mind-numbingly boring analysis at half time telling us how good some players are at pulling defenders out of position. | |
| |
Rule change ? on 16:14 - Jan 13 with 982 views | Wallingford_Boy |
Rule change ? on 09:59 - Jan 13 by rickw | Just saw it, no that's always been the rule - I can remember our PE teacher going through rules like that with us nearly 30 years ago! I think the rule is there has to be 2 players behind the attacker, however usually people see it as 1 defender behind as the keeper always is |
He knew it was the correct rule, he was suggesting a change to it. | |
| |
Rule change ? on 18:02 - Jan 13 with 931 views | Wickets | Yer just to add i am not adament that the rule needs changing just thinking would it be right to do so . No biggie if others think its ok but remember that the rules are often changed or ajusted to suit modern football and this one dates back to a time when goalies rarely left their 6 yard box let alone the penalty area , As for the daylight bit that has to be a no go for me as if the defender had his arm out stretched he would need to be about a yard behind or he would play the attacker on by a finger ! | | | |
Rule change ? on 20:48 - Jan 13 with 870 views | Crawfordsboot |
Rule change ? on 10:12 - Jan 13 by ellaandred | Rather than this 'silly' toe nail, why not 'clear' daylight between the defender and the attacker. The two defenders including the goalkeeper is fine. |
If you have an offside rule and if it is adjudicated by VAR then by definition VAR will be called upon to decide whether an attacker is in front of, or behind the offside line. Whether the offside decision is to be decided on the basis of “in line”, a toenail more, a toenail less, or clear daylight, that line will be plotted and VAR will adjudicate. You can’t then argue and complain that a player was only a little bit over the chosen line. Speed up VAR decisions yes but stick with the offside law - it works. | | | |
Rule change ? on 20:50 - Jan 13 with 867 views | ZXBlue |
Rule change ? on 10:12 - Jan 13 by ellaandred | Rather than this 'silly' toe nail, why not 'clear' daylight between the defender and the attacker. The two defenders including the goalkeeper is fine. |
Because you then have exactly the same debate about whether its a toenail width of daylight or not. | | | |
Rule change ? on 20:53 - Jan 13 with 858 views | ZXBlue |
Rule change ? on 16:11 - Jan 13 by Kropotkin123 | The rule that needs changing is a player that is obviously offside and clearly interfering with play, not being flagged offside, because they don't touch the ball. We're just supposed to pretend that off the ball movement has no impact, even though we get mind-numbingly boring analysis at half time telling us how good some players are at pulling defenders out of position. |
Absolutely correct. Along with the delayed flags, phases of play, and the "anypart of the body you can score with". Simply make it feet. If you gain advantage from being in an offside position when its played, its offside. If you interfere with play, you are offside. Put your arm up and walk back when you are miles away- thats fine. Used to work fine, but they keep fussing with it and making it worse. Referees need the scope to work with judgment rather than a ridiclous set of interlocking unintuitive rules. See also- handball. Which worked fine, save that certain fans and indeed pundits didnt actually know the rule properly. | | | |
Rule change ? on 21:21 - Jan 13 with 825 views | Trequartista |
Rule change ? on 20:50 - Jan 13 by ZXBlue | Because you then have exactly the same debate about whether its a toenail width of daylight or not. |
But the difference is that if a goal is disallowed because a toenail of daylight has been found, there won't be that feeling of injustice if a goal is disallowed as the forward will have to acknowledge they were morally as well as technically offside. | |
| |
Rule change ? on 21:29 - Jan 13 with 816 views | ZXBlue |
Rule change ? on 21:21 - Jan 13 by Trequartista | But the difference is that if a goal is disallowed because a toenail of daylight has been found, there won't be that feeling of injustice if a goal is disallowed as the forward will have to acknowledge they were morally as well as technically offside. |
Its exactly the same! | | | |
| |