Sam Mills 51
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 26,440
Offside. Not offsides.
Yeah, splitting hairs. But how many of us are/were writers and editors?
Yeah, splitting hairs. But how many of us are/were writers and editors?
2026 World Cup thread
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
Enforcing AP style on SJ? This board has been shut down for less!
2muchcoffeeman
Well-Known Member
I approve the specificity of your grammar, sir.
ChrisLong
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 7,504
I'll take an L when I deserve an L. Not this time.
I'm not mad, I just view it as apples and oranges. Soccer is vastly different than football, the absurd comparison Inky made. I think he got mad because I brought this up.
Half this thread -- by people who are knowledgeable about sports -- is about the offside rule. I am not one who wants to change long-established rules, or go for bizarre Phantom runners on second base.
But here is a sport where the major complaints are an unrecognizable offside violation and lack of scoring. I bet 90 percent of folks here can't spot offside while watching live action and only know it's offside when they see the flag is up or the announcer tells them. And there could be a serious debate as to whether eliminating offside would result in more goals or fewer goals. But that's a debate I'm not going to participate in.
You and I have been on this board together for how many years now and you think that would make me mad!?! LOL.
Gridiron football (and rugby) came out of soccer. Their offside rules are pretty similar - which is why I mentioned it. Soccer’s offside rule is fine as is - though VAR has made it very ticky-tack.
Spartan Squad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 18,357
Lack of scoring has more to do with the analytics of soccer and teams opting to defend a lead rather than push to pile on against a squad that actually stands a chance. And it isn’t a reason to can the rule.
Not being able to spot offsides has more to do with the camera angle than us not being able to spot it. And it isn’t a reason to can the rule.
Comparing the soccer offside to football offside is reductio ad absurdum to make a point. Saying if you wanted to talk football you’d post it on a different thread is dismissive, so I can be forgiven for accusing you of being mad. It isn’t some debatable thing. You can’t get rid of it. It can only be enforced differently.
Last edited:
Shropshire Slasher
Well-Known Member
Since the ball is not out unless the complete circumference of it is over the touchline, or it's not a goal unless the ball is completely over the goal line.
Such should be the same for offside. If you can't see daylight between a defender's arse and an attacker's back foot, then it shouldn't be offside.
Such should be the same for offside. If you can't see daylight between a defender's arse and an attacker's back foot, then it shouldn't be offside.
The technical aspects of why the offside rule is what it is have been discussed, but I guess I'd sum the whole thing up like this. There are numerous examples of attempted rule changes to address undesirable but intended consequences. They often lead to even more undesirable unintended consequences, a great example of which being the golden goal rule, which existed for exactly two World Cups (1998, 2002) because they found that giving a goal the power to end a game was being treated somewhat like a live grenade -- the sort of thing one could blow one's self up with.
It's also worth noting that you, and many others, think of the offside(s) rule from hockey and probably think, wow, those stretch passes are cool. And they are, but on surface that's 85 feet wide, the side boards act as an ersatz defender that keeps the defenseman within relatively close proximity at least on that x axis. Given 74 yards of width, there's no means of effective gap control for something like that so the only way to avoid being beaten like that would be to hang back on the attacker and then no one goes forward.
---
As for the VAR scolds, I'll say this -- the choice laid out before us is pedantically right or potentially wrong. @Shropshire Slasher's idea above has been floated (I believe Arsene Wenger in particular has advocated for this), and I think it has merit.
But whether it's offside, handballs, fouls in the buildup, etc., folks who are advocating for a buffer zone or some sort of subjective leniency are choosing willful ignorance. A man who is a toenail offside is, by definition, offside. And that's how it was in 1986. The only difference is we know the "awful truth." There was another suggestion earlier to restrict VAR to things that weren't judgment calls. That's fine, until the first obvious foul that leads to a tournament-changing goal that can't be changed because we found that rule unfashionable and got rid of it.
As a Packers fan, it is worth remembering that the NFL got rid of instant replay for a time even after the 1989 Packers-Bears game for many of the same arguments that are presented now, and that it came back, mostly because it was determined that a venal sin punished with damnation was a lesser problem than a mortal sin allowed to stand, particularly when it benefitted the Jets.
PCLoadLetter
Well-Known Member
I get that, but here's my response: do you enjoy the games more now that every goal is a five minute wait to find out if you can celebrate? Do you feel like justice is served when VAR reveals that a fraction of a toe was offside, or there was physical contact in the box on a corner kick? Because I don't. I have largely stopped watching European soccer over the past few years, and about 90% of that is because VAR just kills it for me.
I would gleefully go back to the days when offside had to be visible to the linesman. I think that worked beautifully. I will choose willful ignorance on that every time. I don't like some of the other uses, but just being done with VAR offside calls would be a massive improvement.
Hold up, France is playing on Bastille Day!?!
dixiehack
Well-Known Member
If offside is not visible to the human eye in real time, it did not aid the play and should not be called. Now I would be good with adding two more linesmen so that there are two sets of eyes on each end of the field.
Bubbler
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,727
I just think VAR needs to be reformed.
It should be a very limited challenge system, two per team for everything, including goal-related reviews. None of this bull**** of VAR horning in to assert itself into the proceedings. They can be called in by the participants only.
Perhaps a unique rule for soccer could be made where the official himself gets one VAR request per match to help with a difficult decision?
Offside (now that I’m in compliance with the grammar/style police on a site where absolutely nothing else written here comes close to publication/broadcast quality) should be a full planted foot.
It may be letter of the law that a toe or a flailing arm is technically offside, but there is no advantage gained from either.
In the VAR era, offside should be adjudicated by advantage gained. Period. Nothing else.
The one and only exception I would make to the challenge system is for violent conduct as it’s a player safety issue. Then VAR can intervene on its own.
The one issue with my system is that it would likely eliminate the use of VAR to discourage diving. I DO like VAR for that purpose, but you can’t have it all.
It should be a very limited challenge system, two per team for everything, including goal-related reviews. None of this bull**** of VAR horning in to assert itself into the proceedings. They can be called in by the participants only.
Perhaps a unique rule for soccer could be made where the official himself gets one VAR request per match to help with a difficult decision?
Offside (now that I’m in compliance with the grammar/style police on a site where absolutely nothing else written here comes close to publication/broadcast quality) should be a full planted foot.
It may be letter of the law that a toe or a flailing arm is technically offside, but there is no advantage gained from either.
In the VAR era, offside should be adjudicated by advantage gained. Period. Nothing else.
The one and only exception I would make to the challenge system is for violent conduct as it’s a player safety issue. Then VAR can intervene on its own.
The one issue with my system is that it would likely eliminate the use of VAR to discourage diving. I DO like VAR for that purpose, but you can’t have it all.
Unfortunately, it's like a Champions League game on a Tuesday and Wednesday.
The 1994 semifinals were on the same day -- during the day (1 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. EDT). The final was at noon PDT at the Rose Bowl, same time as this year, only at the crappy Meadowlands.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2002
- Messages
- 29,699
The linesmen have been incredibly accurate this WC. I am amazed at how well they do.
Yeah. All editors meeting on Tuesday and sports department on Wednesday. That problem is kind of why I haven't been as in to Champions League as I'd like to be, even though Villa were in it two years ago and will be again.
On the other hand, Villa being in the Europa League came with its own problems, namely that those games being on Thursday kicked a ton of their league games into Sunday morning timeslots that conflicted with church.
In 1994, BBC produced this masterpiece of parody ahead of the biggest game held at the Cotton Bowl (a Brazil-Netherlands quarterfinal that turned out to be a banger). I hope the BBC did (or does) this again today:
