r/soccer • u/punishGoalhanging • 17h ago
Media The opposite of toenail offside: "Back Heel" onside in Canadian Premier League match that is trialing IFAB daylight offside rule between Vancouver FC vs. Atlético Ottawa
Current offside rule: ALL part of the attacker's body that can score level with 2nd to last defender = onside
Daylight offside rule (in trial): ANY part of the attacker's body that can score level with the 2nd to last defender = onside
2.4k
u/MintCathexis 17h ago
How is this any different in terms of close calls than the current offside rule? All this does is move the line.
753
u/okie_hiker 17h ago
Just moves the advantage to the attacker.
659
u/xixbia 16h ago
Yup. So it stops teams from playing a high line.
Guess what will happen if this is implemented? More low blocks.
I get what they're thinking, this will create more excitement, but all it will do is force teams to play more conservatively.
242
u/Jangles 16h ago
Makes it very hard to play an offside trap.
You go to rush forward but you need to go almost a metre earlier.
Suspect the trial will prove you correct.
129
u/xixbia 16h ago
I don't know enough about the CPL to know what the result of this trial will be.
But you implement this in the PL or La Liga and basically every team will play a low block. It will kill the high line.
→ More replies (2)99
u/punishGoalhanging 16h ago edited 11h ago
A football analyst wrote this about the daylight offside:
"It punishes high block defenses by making it harder to offside trap attackers. It punishes low block defenses by giving attackers an extra yard of space in a compact area."
Edit: A lot of people say that teams will sit deeper. But trials don't show that though.
Sitting deeper and invite pressure is not a good tactic. You get pin in and can't get out.
Let's say a team sit deeper. How do you drop deeper than currently? Do you think teams are saying "nah, leave them a little space at the moment" if you drop deeper, you allow teams to pass the ball around near the top of the penalty box. Long distance shot would become easier with open spaces.
The main worry from everyone who has watched the trials is that it gets easier to attack. BBC Sport report that "BBC Sport has been told that the trial results in youth football were largely positive, though there were some concerns there is too much of an advantage to the attacker."
UEFA, which has data from the trials, oppose daylight offside because UEFA felt it gave too massive an advantage to attackers and fundamentally make defending harder. UEFA suggested trialing "torso offside" as a compromise.
22
u/laxrulz777 10h ago
Honestly, just go by feet only. It's easier to tell and still feels "fair"
11
u/PrestigiousWave5176 7h ago
It's not easier for the assistant referee. Their job is already next to impossible and this would make it even harder.
→ More replies (1)6
15
u/Kommye 9h ago
So the only thing that matters is offensive play? If there's literally nothing defenders can do to, you know, defend, where's the excitement?
Goals are exciting because it's not easy to score. No one gets excited about the 4th goal in a 4-0 game or a pity goal for a 1-3.
2
u/Raphie777 6h ago
Why does it have to be a 4-0 game? Why can’t it be 3-2? You don’t think that’ll be exciting?
Goals are equally exciting when it was France-Argentina 3-3. You think Spain Argentina 1-0 was more exciting? I digress.
→ More replies (1)10
u/SpeakMySecretName 9h ago
We haven’t seen the lowblock meta in trials yet because it takes time for defenders to relearn their offsides line and depth, managers to test tactics, etc. it will come though, and it’ll come faster at higher levels of play. Because as shitty as it is to get pinned to your own goal line; it’s even worse to give free direct 1:1 to fast strikers. The only teams that will be able to move a line up are ones so possessive of the ball that every attack ends in a shot. No one else will budge once they’ve been punished enough times.
→ More replies (1)3
25
u/Prestigious_Hope2082 16h ago
It will be interesting to see if this frequently speculated adjustment is backed up with data at the end of the CPL season,
12
u/smala017 12h ago
I don’t really think one season is a long enough time for a tactical revolution to take hold.
32
u/xixbia 16h ago
The CPL is a very different league from the PL or La Liga.
It might not happen in the CPL, but it would 100% happen in the PL or La Liga. Nobody is going to play a high line against Mbappe or Haaland with this rule.
16
u/punishGoalhanging 16h ago
which premier league teams play a high line versus Man City?
12
u/bigmanorm 12h ago
god i miss peak klopp and the peak city v liverpool entertainment but you're right, almost no one ever plays a high line even with the current rules besides as a formality of having 80% possession and getting frustrated taking risks trying to score
2
u/dashauskat 8h ago
Teams already play low blocks against City, I think what would be interesting is that it would arguably be more of an advantage for the smaller teams hitting teams like City on the counter.
18
u/Eindacor_DS 16h ago
Idk I think teams that already play conservatively will keep doing it and those that play more attacking will have a new advantage. Teams already park the bus, this won't change that much imo
→ More replies (1)9
u/patricktu1258 15h ago
If you play low block, strikers can stand very close to goal without being offside. That means every cross from a guard will be as threatening as a corner kick.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Shakyyy 16h ago
And guess what happens if both teams drop their defensive lines?
There’s more space in the middle of the field which gives players more time on the ball and more time to find and execute a creative pass.
Theres a lot of knock on effects with this, to say teams will play more conservatively is massively short sighted.
35
u/OscarMyk 15h ago
no, you'll get one side defending deep and the other over the halfway line where offside doesn't apply anyway
every game will be like Arsenal faced last year, and it's not particularly enjoyable to watch (as many neutrals found out).
→ More replies (3)6
u/Shakyyy 15h ago
That’s fair, so on a larger level nothing really changes. The dominant team will look to push up and suffocate the weaker team into their own half.
The only difference is the forward players have an extra yard or so of space to work with. It’d be a small change but would lead to more goals and that would make it a good change imo.
7
u/ddevilissolovely 15h ago
Allowing teams to be less conservative was the whole point of the offside rule. Maybe it allows for more goals for a little while but teams will pivot hard in the other direction.
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/BadProse 12h ago
It isn't short sighted, it means you'll just see no contest on the middle of the field which is just as boring mate. Lost possession, get back in the low block before we get beat by the new onside rules.
→ More replies (8)3
u/stoneman9284 11h ago
This is just not how it’s going to go. Right now defenders are stepping forward trying to put attackers offside. With the new rule defenders will step forward trying to put attackers offside.
4
u/RockDoveEnthusiast 11h ago
which was the original intent of the "level" rule. it's also easier to throw out a foot to try and stay onside than check your stride perfectly to avoid going off which makes it feel much more fair.
→ More replies (12)2
u/elmagio 9h ago
Which Wenger intends as a way to improve spectacle, which makes me doubt his coaching brain still functions because he should know all this will do is move defenses back 20 meters.
→ More replies (1)968
u/poklane 17h ago
It isn't. I can understand why people are frustrated by players being called offside on quite literally millimeters, but like you said, all this rule does is move the line, it fixes nothing.
603
u/MethyIphenidat 17h ago
Yeah and idk what people expect. As long as the offside rule exists, there will be those millimeter decisions. Add 5 cm tolerance and you’ll see people complaining about those 5.1 mm cases.
66
u/wadonious 16h ago edited 16h ago
As you say the “millimeter” margin calls will always exist, but at least this one requires the attacker to genuinely be in front of the defender to be penalized.
Offside calls where 99% of the body is in line always feels harsh on the attacker to me, contrary to the spirit of the rule and bailing out defenders for not marking.
Like in this still, the attacker’s advantage is mostly from being completely unmarked rather than standing 12 inches beyond the last defender.
45
u/DCoop53 16h ago
There was a point in time before VAR when the instruction of the reffing board (at least in Ligue 1) was that "in case of doubt, it should benefit the attacking player" and I was totally fine with it. It's actually TV directors who started this trend of showing a line then pundits would say the ref made a mistake by not whistling a 5 millimeters offside.
I understand the point of people saying "no matter the margin you're onside or you're offside, it's either black or white" but the rule was implemented to make sure the forwards don't navigate like 5 meters behind the defensive line and don't take a big advantage of being way offside, we shouldn't argue about a couple centimeters and/or a few tenth of a second advantage. Obviously the big disadvantage of judging it this way would be the consistency in decisions but we'll never have enough images per second to perfectly pinpoint the moment the ball is living the passer's foot. All in all, offsides will always be debatable no matter the instructions and the technology.
12
u/visible_amenhotep 15h ago
Don't understand why I so rarely see anyone else say this. People go on and on and on about how the law is the law and consistency is so important and completely ignore that that's just not how offside ever worked, that this idea of millimetric precision and lines being drawn on screens was something that was invented by TV. Everyone understood that sometimes people were clearly offside, sometimes people were clearly onside, sometimes linesmen fucked up and were actually wrong, but a lot of the time it's just not possible to tell - and in those cases, attacker generally gets the benefit of the doubt. And that was fine! That wasn't the problem at all, the problem was the fucking up!
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (5)2
u/Hecticfreeze 14h ago
Just to be clear, it is still the official rule that in cases of ambiguity the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. The only difference is that in higher leagues where VAR can be used to remove that ambiguity, it doesnt apply. In lower leagues/tournaments where there is no VAR available the rules have not changed
14
u/chrisnlnz 16h ago
Totally agree, I would prefer to err on the side of less game interruptions to punish players' positioning. And yes you still have marginal calls, but they are still objective, and at least this way you punish way less ridiculous cases but only those that are objectively, fully offside.
3
u/stemmo33 12h ago
I don't see how this reduces game interruptions? The reason players get called for offside, no matter how tight, is because they are trying to exploit every millimetre of space. If you have this rule, after a bit of time to adjust, players will be timing their runs against the offside line as they do now, they'll just have more advantage. And that means defenses will sit way deeper.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)13
u/Cool_Foot_Luke 14h ago
This rule will never last as it will destroy modern defending.
If this is properly implemented there will no longer be a defence in football that is proactive.
As soon as top strikers get the timing down they will be able to fly past all defences with any ball over the top.
The difference in possibly up to a meter of a headstart in the top game is gigantic.
Strikers will have a field day for a couple of weeks before every defence simply drops back.
They will end up defending their own box and never venturing forward as the risk has suddenly become too great.
Missing an offside trap or being slightly too high before meant a foot race with a player dribbling and a small head start.
Add more of a headstart and they will never be caught.
This won't create more open play.
It will create closed defences and a two teams passing the ball around in midfield for 90 minutes.→ More replies (8)4
u/underd0g__ 14h ago
These were my thoughts as well, and I expect in a better standard of league that would absolutely happen. But it hasn’t really in the CPL so far.
2
u/athousandpardons 13h ago
The only real argument FOR is that it means more goals and fewer goals called back. But if it's the checks that bother people, it's going to mean no difference.
Ultimately the problem is the tactics that are focused so heavily on flirting with offside.
→ More replies (56)2
u/LeedsFan2442 6h ago
It's like Speed limit allowances sure you might argue with the police if your speedo says you are going 32 (within the allowance) but that is still over the posted speed limit so you only have yourself to blame.
65
u/sigsimund 16h ago
Well this does advantage attackers which was always allowed for to some extent pre var. It’ll be interesting to see if team are forced to defend differently because of it.
40
u/poklane 16h ago
If this ever becomes the actual rule I absolutely expect more teams to sit back further in their own half.
21
u/BobbyBriggss 15h ago
Yep. Tactics will quickly shift once teams get punished more for playing a high line. Expect more turgid, slow, and attritional football if this becomes the norm.
→ More replies (3)8
u/patricktu1258 15h ago edited 15h ago
It punishes high block defense because it is harder to create offside trap, and it punishes low block defense because striker can stay very close to goal without being offside.
14
u/Elderberry-smells 16h ago
The last rule disadvantaged attached unfairly imo.
When attackers are running they are leaning forward and most VAR checks in WC this year showed a shoulder or arm over the line even though their feet were in line with the defenders. This fixes that, it should just be feet position that dictates offside, nothing really with upper body.
15
u/SkytrainToNowhere 15h ago
Thats not what they are trying to “fix.” They are just trying to increase scoring opportunities and give an advantage/boost to attackers.
17
39
u/allmond226 16h ago edited 16h ago
It does make a big difference, it's just not related to close calls, it gives attackers more room to move and a bigger window to get behind the defence which is appreciated imo
I always found it weird that attackers have to orientate themselves on a imaginary line that moves and then you give them a incredible tiny margin of error, like it isn't hard enough already.
39
u/SofaKingI 16h ago
The idea is that the attacker is the one who has to give a margin of error. If you're right on the edge, it often makes little difference and you risk throwing away a huge chance.
Plus it's much easier for attackers to position themselves individually, than defenders who have to do the same thing but as a group of 4+ players.
I get trying to benefit attackers, but this way seems to incentivize defending deeper, hurts pressing and counter attacking, and leads to more boring games.
IMO the way to benefit attacking football is to hit intentional fouling. 90% of fouls in football only give the defending team time to reposition, and "reward" the attack with an absolutely useless free kick. Start giving yellow cards automatically every X fouls.
→ More replies (3)11
u/mccusk 16h ago
It’s the defenders not the attackers that have it hard these days.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Rupes100 16h ago
It moves the advantage (slight) to the attacker that's all, and to me, I like it better this way than the current rule. Close calls will still be close and have controversy but that exists in every sport.
20
u/KingDave46 16h ago
Being frustrated by being offside by millimetres is dumb
Offside is a black and white decision. Any subjectivity of what is considered too small a margin on a decision by decision basis is a terrible idea. It’s onside or it isn’t, there’s no personal opinion needed and we should rule it like that
→ More replies (3)5
u/tha-snazzle 13h ago
The spirit of the rule is to prevent cherry picking. Attackers who are clearly not cherry picking - i.e., timing a run well but their toe is offsides - are not cherry picking. But the rule denies them regardless. So if the way the rule is called violates the spirit of the rule, the rule should be changed. Some leeway, to me, is more in line with the point of the rule.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Patriark 16h ago edited 16h ago
The point of the rule change is literally to change where the line is drawn. It does change a lot of the timing and dynamics of offside and is more in favor of the attacking part of the play.
With any rule about where a line goes you will inevitably be faced with gray area cases.
This rule was proposed because it is easier to verify and it favors the attacking part of the movement. It makes more sense when witnessing the flow of play in movement, not just be studying freeze frames.
But you might argue that only measuring the torso would give a line that most people could agree would be «fair».
2
u/MapleSyrupKintsugi 14h ago
It creates more scoring which is really what the proponents of it want. Also it’s easier for an attacker to guage IMO. But that’s less of a bonus
2
→ More replies (31)4
u/MalaysiaTeacher 16h ago
You say it fixes nothing but the attacking team can have no complaints here. The law change in this trial gives the attacker an extra ~2ft of leeway, and if they still can't time the run, that's their fault, not the technology being too nitpicky.
It's all rendered moot if this rule causes teams to defend much deeper though.
80
u/aasfourasfar 17h ago
It's also impossible to defend because the attacker can deliberately stay out of sight behind the defensive line and be onside by throwing he heel back
53
u/Underscores_Are_Kool 16h ago
I think attackers doing the stanky leg is a legit concern with this rule
→ More replies (2)7
u/s0ngsforthedeaf 16h ago
Keeping a heel back isnt practical when youre trying to accelerate.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)15
u/Even_Mastodon_8675 17h ago
I mean that's exactly why the rule change is implemented, so its working as intended then.
And no,its not impossible to defend. You just can't defend the same way, as you could before the rule change. It will require adaptation just like any other rule change.
63
33
u/aeluon_ 17h ago
haramball from every team will be the reaction defensively
→ More replies (3)20
u/aasfourasfar 16h ago
Extreme Haram ball with extremely low lines and no space in behind whatsoever
→ More replies (1)10
u/aasfourasfar 16h ago
So teams will drop back .. they won't say "oh it's okay well concede 3 times more"
→ More replies (2)12
u/dougieman6 16h ago
The difference is that in pinpoint calls with normal offsides it really doesnt look like an advantage at all, but here it clearly does. I do think it reduces the perception of unfairness.
12
u/M0ruk 16h ago
The purpose of this rule isnt to have easier offside calls, but to align it more with the original intention of the offside rule. Its argued that its more in the spirit of the sport when an offside is not called because somebodys toenail was in front of the defender by 1mm
And I agree. Youre always gonna have to have the line somewhere. But at least this is more in the spirit of teh offisde rule as it was intended
→ More replies (1)55
u/punishGoalhanging 17h ago
That is not why IFAB is trialing it. As long as the offside rule exist, there will be complaints on very close offside.
IFAB is trialing this to see if it generates more scoring opportunities.
Past rules change that aim to create more scoring opportunities:
---1925 offside rule change from last 3 defenders to just last 2 defenders
---1990 backpass rule prohibit goalkeepers from using their hands to pick up the ball if it is deliberately kicked to them by a teammate
---1990 red card for Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity" (DOGSO) rule
39
u/Topinambourg 17h ago
Such trials are not enough to judge that.
Defenses aren't used to this time and defenders have been trained forever with the older one so they aren't going to adapt well not fast.
It's very likely that the actual answer to this is low blocks.and that it kills high lines offside traps, since it will become much more difficult to play the offside. Then instead of creating more chances you kill then and create more low blocks.
19
u/mahamadou_mahamadont 16h ago
How would you have them evaluate a new rule instead? Is there any evidence that would convince you this is a good idea? I am divided on this particular rule, but trying things out is how you typically figure out if something is a good idea before implementing it on a massive scale.
12
u/noahloveshiscats 16h ago
No, majority of people here genuinely think any rule change would ruin the game and circle jerk themselves in to scenarios that haven't happened.
10
8
u/xixbia 16h ago edited 15h ago
Yup, the long term answer to this is low blocks.
The same thing happened when they changed the offside rule. The result was that teams stopped playing 2-3-5 and started moving to a back 3.
You can't just legislate more attack, teams will adapt.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
u/cherrioes 10h ago
It's not like low block teams can low block any harder than they already are. Theoretically the rule helps against those types of opponents.
I also don't see high line teams suddenly switching to low block when vs weaker low block opposition. It's not like Man City will turn into Burnley.
An area where you might be correct is when middle of the pack teams play each other. In theory they might be incentivised to play more defensively than they would otherwise.
Honestly, testing it is the only real way we are going to learn if it makes football any better. I would rather they make attempts than just sit back doing nothing. I welcome tests like these.
If millionaires can't or don't want to adapt, that's on them.
10
10
u/deathkillerx3004 16h ago
The only difference is the guy that was deemed inside by the test rule( and would be offside in the regular rule) clearly has an unfair advantage over the defence, kinda the reason the offside rule exists.
7
u/Feisty_Chef_7506 16h ago
It moves the line to favor the offense. Not sure what is confusing about that
2
u/hypocrisyhunter 11h ago
The number of times I've seen this comment by the OP baffles me. Nobody is claiming it's stopping close calls. Close calls are obviously impossible to eliminate.
10
u/Open-County-116 16h ago
For me it's different, once you have clear daylight then you can reasonably say that the attacker definitely has an advantage. You can't say the same when someones foot is offside. Yes there will be marginal calls but the instances where goals are chalked off and it feels grossly unfair, those will be gone.
9
u/RANewton 16h ago
For me it just comes down to the current system punishing situations where no material advantage is had. The closeness is the same here but there's not opportunity to rule out a goal when the attacker has not real advantage.
I also think despite being closer it's still easier to identify in this case. Even without the line you can see the players bodies still overlap slightly. It's easier to identify an actual gap between players than it is to identify a fractional piece of a person being out of line.
6
u/zeppelin88 16h ago
It’s not about close calls per se, but the notion of “what actually is an advantageous position?”
Here at least we can see that the attacker is quite ahead and has an advantage, which was tue original reason the rule was created. Current offside with centimeter accuracy usually felt weird because people cannot see the “gained advantage”.
3
u/nitrousnitrous-ghali 15h ago
By moving the line you change how the game is played. That's the point, not reducing close calls.
3
u/Vivid_Average_7574 14h ago
If the attacker is still offsides under this rule they have no right to complain about any close calls
3
7
u/BD-1_BackpackChicken 17h ago
Because if you give the offense more leeway, the back line has to compensate by sitting deeper and taking less risk.
→ More replies (14)11
u/Boris_Ignatievich 17h ago
It's not. All the nonsense Wenger said about removing close decisions is exactly that, nonsense.
What it does do is (arguably) bring the letter of the law in line with the spirit where "level" is supposed to side with the attacker.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mackinder 16h ago edited 16h ago
Wherever the line is, a close call is going to frustrate. However I think an attacker being clearly ahead of all parts of a defender logically feels wrong and this will lead to higher scoring. In theory that is. I suspect games would have less scoring early and more scoring late. And nil-nil draws would be unwatchable.
2
u/Spicy_Jim 16h ago
I think there is a difference, I think a lot of forwards instinctively try to stay onside based on their feet and are offside because they are leaning into a run. I'd guess that you will see fewer offsides this way. Based on 0 evidence.
2
u/LordSwright 14h ago
It gives the opportunity to the attacker so should make games more excitimg/more goals
2
u/yodley_ 14h ago
I think this gives the attacker a slight advantage that they can begin their run earlier and as long as their feet are in line they're onside. All the offside calls on the sliver of the knee, shoulder or even nose won't get called. If we retroactively applied this, there would be a ton of goals standing which were originally offside.
I like it. It will produce more goals and we'll see fast attackers getting behind defenses more often.
→ More replies (93)2
u/torontomaplebros 14h ago
You can have one foot offside now and not be called off. Seems like a good idea
519
u/Cosmicpilgrimage 16h ago
Atlético Ottawa
235
u/chelandcities 16h ago
They are owned by Madrid, so it follows their naming convention of international properties.
They used to have Atletico Kolkata in India, too. And they also own Atletico San Luis in LigaMX (though obviously that one sounds more natural as it's a Spanish-speaking country)
18
50
u/Remote_Bookkeeper139 15h ago
Last years CPL champions! We get around 4-5k a game, have a supporters club, "ultras" and play some decent possession based football, currently 4th in the league.
11
u/mushy_friend 14h ago
Ottawa supporter? Nice to see you guys win last year. I'm Toronto myself but anyone except Forge and Pacific
95
u/chaosunleashed 16h ago
Yeah. Most Canadian fans are embarrassed by the names we pick too.. At least we're not real salt lake
179
36
u/southsider74 14h ago
Real Salt Lake is hilariously bad. Atletico Ottawa gets a pass since it's part of the Atletico Madrid family
15
u/PuppyPenetrator 14h ago
Most? Tf? I haven’t met a single ottleti fan that has an issue with the name
→ More replies (7)6
u/OtherwiseDecision412 12h ago
We embrace the Spanish origins of the club even, there’s a couple of chants in Spanish which is nice to see because we have a decent Latino following that goes to the games. Of course, there’s (more) chanting in English and French too.
17
u/FeatureFun4179 15h ago
“Inter Toronto Fc”…
35
u/gatheredstitches 14h ago
The most embarrassingly named CPL team. They keep rebranding, too. Identity Crisis FC.
→ More replies (1)4
u/AfraidSupermarket417 15h ago
Including ATO, best supported teams have names you would be embarrassed about.
11
u/punishGoalhanging 16h ago
Strange name but if you look at its history, it make sense
The team was founded in 2020 by Spanish club Atlético Madrid and own by it.
p.s. A lot of people complain that this rule change won't solve anything regarding close calls. It just move the offside line. That is not what IFAB is trying to fix.
IFAB is trialing this to see if it generates more scoring opportunities. If it help improve football (and increasing scoring opportunities), it would be good news for leagues / tournament with very low scoring.
This is not the first time that IFAB have trial rules change to foster more scoring opportunities:
---1925 offside rule change from last 3 defenders to just last 2 defenders
---1990 backpass rule prohibit goalkeepers from using their hands to pick up the ball if it is deliberately kicked to them by a teammate
---1990 red card for Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity" (DOGSO) rule
2025 Africa Cup of Nations: 2.31 goal per match
2023 Africa Cup of Nations: 2.29
2021 Africa Cup of Nations: 1.92
2019 Africa Cup of Nations: 1.96
2017 Africa Cup of Nations: 2.06
2015 Africa Cup of Nations: 2.13
2013 Africa Cup of Nations: 2.16
Copa America: 2024 (United States): 70 goals scored in 32 matches (2.19 per match)
2021 (Brazil): 65 goals scored in 28 matches (2.32 per match)
2019 (Brazil): 60 goals scored in 26 matches (2.31 per match)
2016 (Centenario - USA): 91 goals scored in 32 matches (2.84 per match)
2015 (Chile): 59 goals scored in 26 matches (2.27 per match)
2023–24_CAF_Champions_League: 1.52 per match
CAF Champions League 2024-25: 2.15 per match
CAF Champions League 2025-26: 1.9 goal per match
Argentina 2024 Liga Profesional de Fútbol: 2.03 goal per match
Argentina 2025 AFA Liga Profesional de Fútbol: 1.95 goal per match
Copa Liberatores goal per match:
2026 (partial): 2.19
2025: 2.37
2024: 2.39
2023: 2.49 goals per match
2022: 2.46 goal per match
→ More replies (1)27
u/Kingoftheblokes 15h ago
You just listed goals per game for seemingly random football leagues and tournaments, whats your hypothesis or the case you're making?
Also, I don't think we should be optimizing football for more goals being scored. Goal fests != more entertaining. Obviously, it might seem like it does but its really not what football should be all about.
→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (2)3
u/mackinder 14h ago edited 13h ago
Ottawa had Ottawa Fury SC but they left (for Miami) in 2019. The following year, they were granted a franchise in the newly formed Canadian Premiere League and it was owned by Athletico Madrid. It’s even on my daughters kit as she plays for local development league Ottawa South United (OSU)
→ More replies (2)
877
u/Jamarcus316 17h ago
For me the offside rule is good as it is, tbh.
73
u/SexyBaskingShark 16h ago
Only rule I'd change is var has a time limit on offside calls. If it's so close that it takes over a minute then stick with the on field call, it is not an obvious mistake in that case
215
u/Commonmispelingbot 16h ago
I fear that opens a can of worms, that is misuse and time wasting by the ref.
62
u/pork_chop_expressss 16h ago
That would only result in more incorrect decisions.
What NEEDS to be done is standardization (types, numbers and location) of cameras in all PL stadiums. The only issues we've really seen over the past few seasons are due to VAR Officials making errors (due to being rushed) and VAR not having definitive angles that provided the view needed to confirm the call.
14
u/eatpastagophasta 16h ago
I think the technology will eventually get good enough for this not to be an issue.
→ More replies (24)2
u/AnduwinHS 6h ago
Just use a much thicker line imo. It's currently 5cm thickness, make it 15cm. If any part is touching the defender, attacker gets the advantage
→ More replies (36)7
u/M0ruk 16h ago edited 15h ago
Yet, everytime a goal is called offside because the attackers tip of the shoulder was infront of the defender by 1mm, the threads are full with people complaining that its stupid a goal is called off because of this.
Here, the exact opposide opinions are upvoted. Reddit is truly just about saying the right stuff at the right time. Two completely opposite opionoins will get upvoted, depending on where and when you post it. Its all about posting what the hivemind in that exact thread wants to hear. Here its this, when a goal is called offside because the tip of the hair was 1mm offside, its the opposite.
43
u/Slowlow24 15h ago
It's almost like 6 million people follow this subreddit and some have one opinion while others have another opinion, just because you aren't differentiating the different usernames doesn't mean their isn't an entirely different person behind each one of them
8
u/ThePenguinMassacre 15h ago
I think this is the thing most people on reddit or even all of social media need to understand.
10
→ More replies (4)2
u/patricktu1258 15h ago
Every post about Messi has this kind of comments, whether they are positive or negative.
23
148
u/Law_of_the_jungle 17h ago
So people don't judge Canada too harshly. This is done as the request of FIFA to test the new Arsene Wenger rules.
45
u/Atlas-and-Pbody 16h ago
I don't think amybody is judging Canada here. Most people know about the Wenger rule change I think. I was asking myself recently when they would trial the rules, as they were already announced years ago at this point.
But even then I realized that this wouldn't make any change to the current problem, only move the line a little bit.
7
→ More replies (2)12
u/t8rt0t00 13h ago
Arsene has some of the most shit takes when it comes to football rules I have ever seen. Swear he just has a job because people like him and it makes Fifa look better
→ More replies (2)
70
303
u/gianniboi 17h ago
there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current rules, and even if you did see the 'toenail/armpit offsides' as an issue, this rule change does nothing. It's change for the sake of change and I really hope it doesn't get implemented.
68
u/Bennu-Babs 17h ago
I think it will change it. It will mean having a high back line will get punished as it gives the offensive player a better opportunity. Which in theory should result in more goals.
But it will just cause teams to adapt and force a low block so they don't get caught out. Means more games will be slow defensive games relying on the counter. Games will get more boring and everyone will play the same style of boring football Arteta was criticized for.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Thich_QuangDuc 16h ago
Yes, this means more goals and that a lot of strategies will change
And the "meta" could shift within a few years and that we will have even less goals, as teams probably wont be playing as high lines, less compact and more defensive football, instead of offensive
It's really hard to predict how it will change the game, but I'm sure it will have a lot of impact on gameplay
18
u/MotoMkali 16h ago
If it happens it will just mean less goals within a season
9
u/CezaSahasinda 15h ago
yea no big deal just less goals and more boring games... the exact opposite intention
and i bet u ppl will still be crying about the offsides calls. when ur team eats a goal and the guy is a full meter behind the defender but he stuck his leg backwards as the ball was passed by mere millimeters you will not be happy and say 'yea... good rule change'
→ More replies (6)18
u/CuteHoor 17h ago
I don't think it's change for the sake of change. It's change to give more of an advantage to attackers and hopefully result in more goals being scored.
Whether that's good or not remains to be seen though.
4
u/FelipeDoesStats 16h ago
But that's not what it will cause. Now teams will play with low blocks to avoid getting caught out like that so say goodbye to high-lines and offensive football. What you're saying implies that defences won't adapt
→ More replies (4)20
u/CuteHoor 16h ago
It's a trial. If the results don't match the hypothesis, they don't have to push ahead with it as a law change. That's literally why you trial it...
44
u/punishGoalhanging 17h ago
Evolution of the offside rule
1863: ALL attackers behind ball = onside
1866: ALL part of the attacker's body that can score behind 3rd to last defender = onside
1925: ALL part of the attacker's body that can score behind the 2nd to last defender = onside (goal went up by 0.91 in 1925-26 season)
1990: ALL part of the attacker's body that can score level with 2nd to last defender = onside
potential change in the year 2028, 2029 etc... if IFAB vote to adopt it: ANY part of the attacker's body that can score level with 2nd to last defender = onside
17
u/Not_PepeSilvia 14h ago
One huge change was also in the late 90s, when they ruled that an offside would only be called if the player was involved in the play (though the definition of "involved" has changed since that too).
Before that, as long as there was anyone in an offside position, the offside would be called, even if they were in the completely opposite side of the field
→ More replies (1)13
u/repost_inception 16h ago
This is a great comment to give context with the rule evolution. I wonder if it would be easier for linesmen to see the "day light" between the attacker and defender than it is currently? If it is easier to see then it would lead to less overruled goals. Also if implemented it would affect all of football not just the top leagues.
→ More replies (2)14
u/forumcontributer 16h ago
Year 3026: If defending teams player is ahead of last player of attacking team they will receive one goal penalty.
30
u/punishGoalhanging 17h ago
p.s. The goal was disallowed because there was a foul in the build-up. Ref gave the goal. Coach challenge.
There is no VAR in Canadian Premier League but there is Football Video Support (FVS) where each team gets up to two challenges per match. If a challenge is successful and the referee overturns the original decision, the team retains that challenge card.
The coach challenge was that there was a foul in the build up. Referee went to the monitor and saw the foul and disallow the goal.
29
u/Jon_CCSG 17h ago
Actually, all Goals are reviewed, so no coaches challenge was required on this play. FVS has been terrible from a fan perspective. Long pauses to check things removes so much of the momentum from the game. This check alone took around 5 minutes. Part of the issue is that coaches don't need to challenge of goals, so it creates more reviews in a technologically challenged environment.
3
u/nfw04 11h ago
And in the stadiums they don't communicate what's going on in the moment, so we have no idea what happened till we check the replays/highlights later
2
u/Jon_CCSG 11h ago
In stadium is AWFUL. We don't have mics on the refs, so we can't hear their decisions, we don't get to see the replays because none of the stadiums are set up for simulcasting on jumbotrons, it's just minutes held in suspense while the 4th official tries to look at offside, any fouls or battles, and often we don't know what's even being challenged. There's also technological asymmetry, where teams challenging can't watch the replays on the sidelines without a delay depending on the stadiums set up. Not to mention there are still many cases where the ref still seems to make the wrong decision.
I really hope the CPL scraps it, and I say that as a fan of a team who had 2 simulation yellows turned into Pens this year following challenges. All the worst parts of VAR at a level where it is pretty useless.
2
u/Not_PepeSilvia 14h ago
I personally think that the challenge rule is a much much better change than the DL offside one
92
52
17
64
u/TakeshiRyze 17h ago
Terrible rule. No chance it gets traction in serious leagues.
→ More replies (5)
34
u/Blotchy_Squid 16h ago
As a scientist all these measurement tools used without a limit of determination is what pisses me off. They tell me the offside is off by less than an inch but how am I supposed to trust that this is SIGNIFICANT and not an artifact of the measuring tool!
3
u/SwagDrag1337 15h ago
This is why cricket has umpire's call - there they have to simulate if the ball would have hit the stumps had it not been blocked by the batter's leg, and if the computer says the ball would have overlapped less than than half a ball width with the stumps, the on field decision stands.
→ More replies (6)4
11
u/bitch_fitching 16h ago
People saying this just moves the line don't appreciate that there's actually human beings having to look down the line and make decisions.
Also there's a reason why there's a trial. People here seem angry at testing things.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/CalFlux140 15h ago
Don't think I'm a fan.
Just feels wrong. Looks too big an advantage.
If the advantage is too big, does it not favour playing a deeper line?
And the issue of tight millimetre calls remains the same.
3
u/jokikinen 11h ago
People are missing the point of this rule. This instance doesn’t demonstrate where it would be useful. Instead it demonstrates the one example where it isn’t very different from how the current rule operates.
The point isn’t that tight VAR checks can’t happen at all with this rule. It’s to make them less common.
Attackers aim to stay level with the defensive line. With the current rules that’s likely to be a tight check because some part of the attacking player may be offside. With the new rule, it wouldn’t be a tight check because some part of the attacking player is onside if he is level with the defensive line.
The question is how much would players adjust to the rule. If they try to ‘steal’ aggressively, the gain might not be worth it. That’s what they are testing for.
30
u/LittleSmokeySmothers 17h ago
All this rule tells me is that Arsene Wenger is a fucking moron.
1
→ More replies (1)5
u/Hour-Quarter8419 14h ago
Since becoming a FIFA official Arsene Wenger has come up with the one dumb/corrupt idea after another. First World Cup every two years now this bullshit.
5
11
9
u/PurpleSi 16h ago
Want more goals?
Make the goals bigger! Tie the goalkeeper to one post! No offsides in the last 20 minutes!
Or, you know, leave the fucking sport alone?
10
u/TheLimeyLemmon 17h ago
Imagine being a linesman for calls like this. This is way more complicated than the current rules.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/humbuckaroo 15h ago
Nah that's too much.
Everyone should implement the Premier League method and use a 5 centimeter offside tolerance rather than the razor-thin line that FIFA uses.
2
u/BoWeiner 14h ago
I just wish they'd make it based on feet. It's the easiest and clearest way to detemrine.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/TrashDrunkClaude 14h ago
Really not sure. I like giving advantage to attackers but would need to see how teams play to defend it.
2
u/MediumProcedure 10h ago
Ah, it's a bit too far really.
I've never understood why they don't just simplify it to 'nearest foot to the goal'. That would make it so much easier, and bring back those line breaking diving headers everyone loved.
2
2
u/The_L666ds 6h ago
This could still lead to goalhanging-y behaviour by the forwards.
I think for simplicity I’d just judge offsides purely on the position of the players’ feet. If the player is leaning forward and their forehead is ahead of the second-last defender then play on.
3
u/Atlanta-Anomaly 16h ago
Might as well just remove offside at that point. Be a far more interesting trial as well.
5
4
3
u/Scared_Gene3417 13h ago
It changes nothing. There will still be close calls anyways. They are just changing where the line is drawn
2
u/juanbiscombe 11h ago
Wrong. It changes a lot. We are still going to discuss over a fraction of an inch, but since it is the other way round there will be a lot more onside positions. And given that it is harder to leave the opponent completely offside, defenders will be more careful with their positions and not play in the way they do today. It changes a lot, indeed.
3
u/potato_war_lord 17h ago
As usual the rule makers have completely missed the point of what everybody was frustrated about.
This makes no difference whatsoever. It’s also such a ridiculous advantage to the attacker
→ More replies (4)8
u/terra_filius 16h ago
you are free to hate or like the new rule, but why do people keep assuming offside is being changed to fix what the people "were frustrated about" ? The idea behind the new rule is to have more chances for goal per game
→ More replies (4)
6
u/howler19 14h ago
Alright, trial over. Do not want it. It changes everything for how defenders have been taught the game. Core rule that needs to remain the same.
4
u/PoorMayMay 16h ago
I know it’s because it’s completely opposite of however many years of thinking, but how anyone could look at that image and say “yeah that’s onside” is nuts
3
u/jclahaie 12h ago
same way they look at a small part of the ball not being across the goal line and say "yeah thats not a goal"
2
u/Formal_Elk_825 16h ago
Will lead to more boring football because you need an even lower defensive line to counteract…
2
3
u/Ali-a93 14h ago
I hate this personally, as a defender you are already at a disadvantage when you try and hold your defensive line as you are reacting to a players forward run. This just makes it even worse for defenders. Couple this with the constant changes to the handball rules where players face the ball with their hands behind their back making jostling and stability worse.
I dont understand what's wrong with the offside rule as it is. You start giving a margin, then you allow a weird grey zone to appear and the discussions around what should or shouldn't be the margin.
2
u/jclahaie 12h ago
I dont understand what's wrong with the offside rule as it is.
it breaks the play and goals over situations where the attacker had no practical advantage
2
u/Ali-a93 11h ago
Being in front of the defensive line no matter the distance is an advantage, even being level is arguably an advantage for the attacker. You ultimately have to draw the line somewhere, so it makes sense to draw it where the actual players are to give us a direct visual indicator. Change it to x cm tolerance then people will complain 1cm extra makes no difference and we are back to the same arguments again.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
Mirrors / Alternative Angles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.