alcazar

iTrader: (2)

How would the game cope with the influx of females wanting to play and watch, if there were no offside rule they didn't understand, to put them off?

I vote against!

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

April 1st is it?

Joke idea.

I think the term 'goal hanger' would be used a lot.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

it would remove the art of defending.

I'm not even going to go near the Hockey comment....

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Ok I'll end this now.... as an Arsenal fan think which recent team you played who benefits most from one of the few times in a game you cant be offside. Now imagine the tactic they use for that situation used all the time from any dead ball kick.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

And Rooney because he has huge ears.


Oh............and Terry because he's just a ****

Little Miss WRX

It'd be so much easier to officiate.

However, there'd be fewer breaks in play for me to catch my breath.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Spot on. With the amount of flight you can get on the ball a % tactic will be to pepper the box with long ***** from all angles, mainly straight from keeper or back 4.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

The back four would have to congregate around the six yard box, not venturing forward of the 18 yard box. Long ball would ensue, Plymouth would rise to the top of the tree. Simples.

I still vote against. Lets revert to the offside rule before all the 'interfering with play', 'in line is offside/onside', 'daylight between the defender and striker' rubbish, and take it back to brass tacks.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

This has been semi-experimented before in the non-leagues with the 'kick-in' - basically you could kick the ball in if you wish when you had a throw in. Funnily enough since you couldn't be offside from the throw/kick in, they just piled the box when within range. Scrapped at the end of the season.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'd like to see the "not interfering with play" part scrapped.

As the late, great Brian Clough said, "If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?"

Myles

iTrader: (40)

+1. It just muddies the issue, you are either on or off, and if that decision cannot be made in a split second efficiently, with the aid of the linesmen(or whatever they are called) then the law needs to be changed.

I dont mean the Andy Gray type of offside decisions, ie. 20 looks at the monitor using slide rules, pythagoras theorem, then abusing the ref because he didnt get it right.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Just as I said would happen.

M4RKG

iTrader: (22)

Terrible idea! Will just turn into a game of rugby where you cant use your hands!

Gone will be the days of pass and move... Hello the hell of constant long *****

Little Miss WRX

One thing I don't like is the allowance of interpretation of what is considered "interfering with play" that leads match officials to be split on some very close calls.

For example, the Ireland/France game where two players were in offside positions, however because the ball sailed over one of them albeit only about 6 inches over his head as he jumped, any assistant who would have flagged that would have been crucified for his/her decision. There are some officials in discussions I have had since who have said it should have been given as offside and would have prevented the contraversy over the goal and others who say, despite being extremely close to play and defenders he didn't interfere directly and hence did not commit an offence.

A consideration that I would offer up is that within X distance the player is considered to be interfering with an opponent or defender as opposed to being allowed to stand a meter away with hands innocently up in the air pretending not to be there.

The Dogs B******s

Is this another rule that goes against Arsenal Wenger???????

Gav

It's a load of bollox, close the thread

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Once again, I agree. Instead of looking for a pinpoint pass, the guy on the ball will look for a big open space to drop the ball into, while his oppos will sprint into said space to pick it up. And so it continues, until the ball is in the back of the net.

Was it Platini who came up with this? He is to football what Shipman was to life expectancy in the aged.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Blatter wont be the prime mover on this, he will have been given 'expert' consultation by some idiot like Platini. The same Platini who wanted the game to be non-contact, and the goals to be bigger. Fool.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Platini is the enemy of football as we knew it.

beef-on-the-bone

iTrader: (5)

was nothing wrong with the original rule, if you are in an offside position, you're offside!!!

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

I disagree. It was too restrictive and stopped some perfectly good and great goals. I do however think the rule as it is now has gone too far. As a defending team you're at the mercy of the refs interpretation. The ball can be played towards a player in an offside position but he doesn't touch it and a midfielder runs through onto the ball as a defender you have to play the ball as if the offside player is active because if it's only half a yard or so how are you to know he's not onside.

The original rule was black and white which obviously means you can stop all the discussions regarding if a player was off or not but it also means that if there's a good attack and a player who has made a run earlier in the play and is getting back onside but the ball is played down the opposite side of the pitch the attacking team is offside. That to me is too restrictive and breaks up the play too much.

They got it right when they allowed play to continue if the player was moving back towards an onside position and not interfering with play ie was in a clear offside position that the defence could clearly know this and thus treat the player as inactive. This has a grey area for the teams and ref but it's far less than with have now which has a huge grey area. Unfortunately I think a lot of the time those making the rules and enforcing them haven't played the game.

beef-on-the-bone

iTrader: (5)

^^^^^^^

didn't mind that, it was the 'inactive' player that has caused the grey area when they started involving 2nd phase of play

sure, if he's retreating from an offside position then the defending team can see that, but during his retreat if he rejoins the attack during the 2nd phase he becomes onside???

they need a black and white rule as each ref would have a different interpretation, if it's the same rule they should make less mistakes............

Little Miss WRX

It is something we argue about because at the end of the day he in a lot of ref's opinions has STILL gained an advantage from being in an offside position to start with. But as you say, the second phase of play allows him to be onside and the FIFA interpretation binds us to allowing play to continue.

However, taking it back to the old interpretation will stifle things too much in my opinion, having just got used to the adaption of Law 11 and believe me it does take some time and guidance for us to get it right. On my recent assessments I have been advised that I have had good judgement on offside calls, everything else is ****e, but at least I get the offsides right.