Is there a case for scrapping the offside rule?

Northampton_Loyalist

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
Is it still relevant today? It was, believe it or not, introduced in it's first form in 1863 to try and get rid of passing, or at least curb forward passing. It has obviously evolved a load over the years but do we even actually need it now or is it more trouble than it is worth? If some side wants to employ a poacher to never leave the area, let them, the defending side can either man mark him or use the extra man advantage up-field.

The more I think about the rule, the less I think we even need it. The only real argument I would make is that it would be a fundamental change to the game and some will not like that aspect.
 
Scrapping the offside rule would cut out midfield play.
Back in the 70s we tried a line straight across the 18 yard box right across the width of the park.That was your offside line it didn't work.
 
Last edited:
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Is it still relevant today? It was, believe it or not, introduced in it's first form in 1863 to try and get rid of passing, or at least curb forward passing. It has obviously evolved a load over the years but do we even actually need it now or is it more trouble than it is worth? If some side wants to employ a poacher to never leave the area, let them, the defending side can either man mark him or use the extra man advantage up-field.

The more I think about the rule, the less I think we even need it. The only real argument I would make is that it would be a fundamental change to the game and some will not like that aspect.
Click to expand...

I dont think you can play a football game like schoolkids.

It will just end up a one-on-one most of the time and be shite.
 
Oops! Baxter Blue got there a few seconds before me. Great minds, and all that.

Did we not try, in Scotland in the 60s or 70s, to rethink the offside rule by continuing a line to the sidelines from the 18-yard boxes?

I'm sure I remember something like that.
Could it have been for league cup games only?
 
Tpol_rfc said:
Surely people should just accept that if a goal can be proven to be offside then it shouldn't stand? Whether that is by their 'big toe' or not?
Click to expand...
I agree 100% that if someone is offside on VAR replays, by no matter how small a margin, they are offside and the right result is reached.

I am talking more about the law ignoring VAR completely. It was brought in for a defunct reason, one that is completely at odds with how we want modern football to be played and I am struggling to see what it adds to the game at all.
 
Scrapping the offside rule would make defenders stay deeper and make the game quicker. But it would also make some games more boring: parking the bus would be even more common.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
I agree 100% that if someone is offside on VAR replays, by no matter how small a margin, they are offside and the right result is reached.

I am talking more about the law ignoring VAR completely. It was brought in for a defunct reason, one that is completely at odds with how we want modern football to be played and I am struggling to see what it adds to the game at all.
Click to expand...
If you leave the VAR thing out of it and just ask as a concept should it be scrapped then I'd say definitely not. It would fundamentally change the game. One team could decide to leave 2 players in the opposition 6 yard box. Then in turn at least 2 defenders need to stay back at all times. Just one example but it would not be great.
 
Would make it a completely unrecognisable game. Would be like American football. Absolute shite.
 
Tpol_rfc said:
If you leave the VAR thing out of it and just ask as a concept should it be scrapped then I'd say definitely not. It would fundamentally change the game. One team could decide to leave 2 players in the opposition 6 yard box. Then in turn at least 2 defenders need to stay back at all times. Just one example but it would not be great.
Click to expand...
Not really. When the opposition have the ball, they would have a 2 man advantage so keep-ball would be easier, there would be less defenders and attacking would be 'easier'. It would see a raft of tactical changes but anyone who has played 7's knows that just leaving a man up top doing nothing is a recipe for disaster in general.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Not really. When the opposition have the ball, they would have a 2 man advantage so keep-ball would be easier, there would be less defenders and attacking would be 'easier'. It would see a raft of tactical changes but anyone who has played 7's knows that just leaving a man up top doing nothing is a recipe for disaster in general.
Click to expand...
Can only speculate but I'd imagine it would. All it would take would be for a team to get the ball and batte it as far up the park as they can to their guys in the other box. Teams would need to keep players back to negate that danger.
 
Dunnybear said:
I think we beat them 3-2 and it was a great game?
Click to expand...

Can't be sure mate but I think there was one that ended 2-2 and we lost on penalties.

The other one I remember for sure was when we beat them 3-1 in 1979 (Davie Cooper wonder goal)
 
I think it would be a bit of a shambles to be honest. It would take away the intelligence needed to make clever runs and movement and would be a leveler for the shite teams. Already bad enough quality of game with he hammer throwers in this league without guys like Cosgrove camped in our box fouling defenders for 90mins.

I'm not a fan of some aspects of VAR though with regards to offside. I get what people are saying with that if you are 1mm offside then yes by the rules you are offside. But for me its not humanly possible for defenders and attackers to play with that kind of accuracy.

A defender is hardly going to hold a back line with a tolerance of 1mm or a toe length so is as good as onside for everyone concerned unless you stop the game, watch a replay, slow it down in slow motion and evaluate for 2 minutes on a screen, seems over the top to me.

I always thought that the attacker got the benefit of the doubt anyway if very tight (unless you play for Rangers obviously).
 
Tpol_rfc said:
Can only speculate but I'd imagine it would. All it would take would be for a team to get the ball and batte it as far up the park as they can to their guys in the other box. Teams would need to keep players back to negate that danger.
Click to expand...
realistically you would need 1 defender most of the time, to defend against 2 attackers going for a long ball because the keeper would come in to play. It is not a case of just leaving someone on the 18 yard line and smashing it up to them all the time because it will not always work, but you will always be a man down everywhere else on the park. I just do not think it would change football as much as people first imagine.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Is it still relevant today? It was, believe it or not, introduced in it's first form in 1863 to try and get rid of passing, or at least curb forward passing. It has obviously evolved a load over the years but do we even actually need it now or is it more trouble than it is worth? If some side wants to employ a poacher to never leave the area, let them, the defending side can either man mark him or use the extra man advantage up-field.

The more I think about the rule, the less I think we even need it. The only real argument I would make is that it would be a fundamental change to the game and some will not like that aspect.
Click to expand...

Ive been saying this for years. Its ridiculous and pointless. Complicates the game and causes controversy and leads to numerous 'goals' being chopped off for no good reason.

VAR has shown it up for what it is and finally some are beginning to question it. It'll probably take a few more years before it can be discussed rationally and openly but in my opinion its just a matter of time till its scrapped.
 
The whole structure of the modern game is founded on the offside rule. Scrapping it creates a new sport. If folk want to start a new game then go ahead, but leave mine alone thanks. And that's all I have to say on the matter as I think it's ridiculous. Not trying to start arguments or belittle anyone, but thats my honest opinion and I don't understand how anyone can not see the madness that this would create.
 
If we’re talking rule changes to add excitement I’d go for this:

Play advantage after every foul (like rugby), and when possession lost, play automatically goes back to where the infringement was. Would reduce these cynical and transitional fouls to break up play, as they could be a serious disadvantage to your team. The opposing team could pour forward with the advantage knowing play would be brought back!
 
Baxter Blue said:
Scrapping the offside rule would cut out midfield play.
Back in the 70s we tried a line straight across the 30 yard box right across the width of the park.That was your offside line it didn't work.
Click to expand...
In America the NASL had a 35 yard offside line, think it was so past it players didn't have to run as much.
 
tazzabear said:
The eighteen yard line was extended to each touch line and you could only be offside goalside of the line.
Click to expand...
Correct. I remember it happening for the Dryborough Cup, but I was a little too young to understand the significance of what changes it made tactically.

The trial didn't last long and I don't recall it ever being suggested that it was a good idea and should return. No doubt the likes of Joe Harper just stood at the edge of the penalty box and waited for the ball to be punted to him from his own penalty box, cutting out the whole midfield.

Any older Bears able to comment?
 
Disco Deejay said:
Correct. I remember it happening for the Dryborough Cup, but I was a little too young to understand the significance of what changes it made tactically.

The trial didn't last long and I don't recall it ever being suggested that it was a good idea and should return. No doubt the likes of Joe Harper just stood at the edge of the penalty box and waited for the ball to be punted to him from his own penalty box, cutting out the whole midfield.

Any older Bears able to comment?
Click to expand...

Remember it well and it was supposed to create a lot more goals but I 'm having trouble remembering why it wasn't taken up after the trial in the LC games.
 
PortoyMortoy said:
It's a dreadful idea. Far too many simply cannot accept that offside is offside and want to change it.
Click to expand...
People want to change it because it has proven to be poorly officiated time and time again.
FIFA have changed the law (or at least interpretation of it) more often than any other from "phases of play", daylight between last defender, interfering with play, benefit of doubt going to attacker.
This has been going on for at least 30 years so it isn't just something new because of VAR.
If you see something constantly failing then why should you just accept it and not strife to change it for the better?

P.S. I do think the OP is a terrible idea too and not the solution I would go for
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
The whole structure of the modern game is founded on the offside rule. Scrapping it creates a new sport. If folk want to start a new game then go ahead, but leave mine alone thanks. And that's all I have to say on the matter as I think it's ridiculous. Not trying to start arguments or belittle anyone, but thats my honest opinion and I don't understand how anyone can not see the madness that this would create.
Click to expand...
I would question that completely. It certainly plays a part in certain tactics and clearly has a huge effect on games but I think if it were binned the changes would be far less marked than people imagine and the game would lose nothing. Tactics, well, some tactics, would change, but the loss of the law would not fundamentally change the game at it's core and I don't think any change would be for the worse.
 
Disco Deejay said:
Correct. I remember it happening for the Dryborough Cup, but I was a little too young to understand the significance of what changes it made tactically.

The trial didn't last long and I don't recall it ever being suggested that it was a good idea and should return. No doubt the likes of Joe Harper just stood at the edge of the penalty box and waited for the ball to be punted to him from his own penalty box, cutting out the whole midfield.

Any older Bears able to comment?
Click to expand...

I remember it. It worked fine. If a striker stands on the 18 yard line waiting for a punt then one or two defenders have to stay with him. The same thing applies at the other end of the park. The result is we have a much more open and less congested game.

Have you ever noticed how games improve when nearing the end? Commentators get excited as the game gets "stretched". Much better on the eye.
 
Don't think we will know until we try in the modern game. Fair enough trying in the 70s but players (mostly) are much fitter now so could be interesting.
 
LOL 133 said:
I remember it. It worked fine. If a striker stands on the 18 yard line waiting for a punt then one or two defenders have to stay with him. The same thing applies at the other end of the park. The result is we have a much more open and less congested game.
Have you ever noticed how games improve when nearing the end? Commentators get excited as the game gets "stretched". Much better on the eye.
Click to expand...

The game is all about scoring goals and keeping possession. As you say if a team leaves a forward up, then the other team merely puts 2 defenders on him. Are you really going to risk losing possession by punting a long ball to an outnumbered attack?
 
bearbear1 said:
If we’re talking rule changes to add excitement I’d go for this:

Play advantage after every foul (like rugby), and when possession lost, play automatically goes back to where the infringement was. Would reduce these cynical and transitional fouls to break up play, as they could be a serious disadvantage to your team. The opposing team could pour forward with the advantage knowing play would be brought back!
Click to expand...


I like the sound of this. A foul should not be rewarded by stopping the game.


I think offside will change, if using VAR why not use the body part that scores. Giroud offside by a toe, but he scored with his head which wasnt offside. This would probably only work with VAR.

One thing, I'm sure I read that the EPL are using VAR differently from the rest of Europe, though I dont watch too much European domestic games.
 
It would change the sport to the extent it would be a different game. All records would need to be asterisked 'with offside' and 'without offside'.
 
There is a case for punishing linesmhen and referees who either deliberately get it wrong or guess because they can't keep up with play. Maybe losing some wages or outing them may make for better decision making. Or maybe it won't make a bit of difference.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
I agree 100% that if someone is offside on VAR replays, by no matter how small a margin, they are offside and the right result is reached.

I am talking more about the law ignoring VAR completely. It was brought in for a defunct reason, one that is completely at odds with how we want modern football to be played and I am struggling to see what it adds to the game at all.
Click to expand...
VAR was brought in to ensure that no major infringements are missed by the ref,like clear penalties,offside,handballball over the line and the like,not for hairline big toe offside decisions.
For what it's worth I wouldn't scrap the offside law but I think it should be changed to if any part of your body is level with the defender you are onside.
 
no no no
remember we tried the line right across the 18 yard line and you could only
be off side beyond that (the texaco cup or something like that)
it was binned for a reason
no offside at all would ruin the game completely, it would be unrecognizable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top