Is there a case for scrapping the offside rule?

I would like to see the margin for onside widened, i,e, you can't be offside because your toe, knee, etc. is ahead of the last defender, the attacking player has to be fully further up the pitch than the last defender.

If the linesman can see the attacker is ahead of the last defender, i.e. clear space between them, then the attacking player is offside. If not, he is on.

The margin for offside is too thin, imo. Give the attacker the advantage.
 
gmbear said:
I would like to see the margin for onside widened, i,e, you can't be offside because your toe, knee, etc. is ahead of the last defender, the attacking player has to be fully further up the pitch than the last defender.

If the linesman can see the attacker is ahead of the last defender, i.e. clear space between them, then the attacking player is offside. If not, he is on.

The margin for offside is too thin, imo. Give the attacker the advantage.
Click to expand...


But that's as bad.

If clear space needed, then it's down to interpretation. Same as now.

All your doing is moving where the line Sky Sports will draw on the screen a wee bit forward , the arguments would be exactly the same

Leave as is, unless you want to get rid of the crap moving back/not interfering with play shtik. Everyone interferes with 'play'.
 
The McLeod said:
But that's as bad.

If clear space needed, then it's down to interpretation. Same as now.

All your doing is moving where the line Sky Sports will draw on the screen a wee bit forward , the arguments would be exactly the same

Leave as is, unless you want to get rid of the crap moving back/not interfering with play shtik. Everyone interferes with 'play'.
Click to expand...

It's going to be down to interpretation whether it's a linesman or a VAR assistant who interprets the decision.

With clear space between the attacker and last defender, there should be less offside decisions called and the advantage goes to the attacking player.

The current rule necessitates the close scrutiny of VAR and it takes away from the game, imo. And where this technology can prove if a toe or a knee is ahead of the last defender I don't see what advantage a striker is getting by this, so why stop the game and rule in favour of the defender?

Just my thoughts on onside/offside and VAR. I'd widen the margin and have fewer offside decisions made, if possible.
 
by coincidence I was actually thinking about this earlier, it would maybe even make the tactical side of things more interesting. If you leave a couple of players up front the opposition need to mark them which leaves more space and makes team less likely to park the bus

It would lead to higher scoring games but would be a huge change tactically
 
I'd like to see the attacker get the benefit of the decision more often,Make the whole body having to be offside rather than the big toe,elbow or knee etc,Reverse it as long as part of the player is level with the last defender he is onside.
 
gmbear said:
It's going to be down to interpretation whether it's a linesman or a VAR assistant who interprets the decision.

With clear space between the attacker and last defender, there should be less offside decisions called and the advantage goes to the attacking player.

The current rule necessitates the close scrutiny of VAR and it takes away from the game, imo. And where this technology can prove if a toe or a knee is ahead of the last defender I don't see what advantage a striker is getting by this, so why stop the game and rule in favour of the defender?

Just my thoughts on onside/offside and VAR. I'd widen the margin and have fewer offside decisions made, if possible.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I disagree.

The clear space would then come down to toenail/shin guard being 'off', same as it is now
 
J Dawg said:
I think this may have been tried in the early 70's.

Dryburgh Cup maybe?

Not to everyone's liking but then again what is?
Click to expand...
You couldn't be offside unless you infringed the 18yard line. The games consisted of punt after punt straight up the park. Dunno if teams didn't have long to develop new tactics or just went with the easy pss ie right up the park
 
Jake said:
You couldn't be offside unless you infringed the 18yard line. The games consisted of punt after punt straight up the park. Dunno if teams didn't have long to develop new tactics or just went with the easy pass ie right up the park
Click to expand...
 
LOL 133 said:
Is this a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Probably, injury rates would go through the roof because of pulled muscles and late challenges. Plus would also increase time wasting to get a breath. I’m usually that guy at 5’s who launches the ball over the fence to get a breather haha!
 
Baxter Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about a line across the 6 yard box and all "goals" automatically checked by VAR?
 
Baxter Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was that the 70s? I'm sure I can remember that line and I was born in the 80s?
 
J Dawg said:
I think this may have been tried in the early 70's.

Dryburgh Cup maybe?

Not to everyone's liking but then again what is?
Click to expand...
That was a line drawn across the pitch, an extension of the 18 yard box on both sides. You couldnt be offside inside it IIRC. It seemed to work well enough.

Or was it no offside outside it.....memory failing here !
 
Wegner nicked my idea... since the game is about scoring goals if any part of the body is onside the goals stands.. so were talking about it at work the other day and the arguement was a player could be a yard in front of the defender but his trailing arm keeps him onside but so what the benefit of the doubt should always go with the attacker !
 
Imo all they need to do is change it to being if any part of the attacker is onside then he's onside,at least that way more goals are being allowed.
 
Roadrunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seem to remember carping about different rules for different tournaments. Pretty sure BJK got his tuppence-worth in.
Can‘t remember if there was more to it than that.
 
In my day, playing in the street or park, the only rules were:

1) Any man save
2) No moochin’

Mind cuppie doubles (mini World Cup)? A handball and every team got a penalty - brutal.
 
Really wish they would bring back the rule about taking bys kicks from the side the ball went out, how many times do you see keepers getting the ball and then walking all the way across the box to take the kick and just run down the clock.
 
I think no offside rule means teams going route one, bypassing the midfield and booting the ball up to 2 or 3 players on the opposition goal line.

I am a fan off the offside trap. VAR I just don't believe is being used properly for it - particularly in England. If it needs measured to a mms then give benefit to the attacker.
 
There was a German magazine that did an experiment where they played a few games without the offside rule but the fuckers have locked the video on YouTube. Tbh it didn’t really alter the game at all.

Due to var and the daft lines i would prefer the idea that it should be if the forward is completely past the last defender. This way the advantage is the striker and hopefully add goals to the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top