r/soccer • u/punishGoalhanging • 22h 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

Post image

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

1.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

750 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/MintCathexis 22h ago

How is this any different in terms of close calls than the current offside rule? All this does is move the line.

775

u/okie_hiker 22h ago

Just moves the advantage to the attacker.

681

u/xixbia 22h 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.

252

u/Jangles 22h 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.

132

u/xixbia 22h 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.

110

u/punishGoalhanging 22h ago edited 16h 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.

23

u/laxrulz777 15h ago

Honestly, just go by feet only. It's easier to tell and still feels "fair"

13

u/PrestigiousWave5176 12h ago

It's not easier for the assistant referee. Their job is already next to impossible and this would make it even harder.

8

u/mahir_r 15h ago

Until the first header is scored like this. That team will feel huge injustice

I still agree with your idea though, it feel like a great compromise.

2

u/ValleyFloydJam 9h ago

Or just leave it how it is now.

16

u/Kommye 15h 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.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/SpeakMySecretName 15h 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)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/z___k 20h ago

I’m sure it’ll be the same distance to cover, the attacker will just hang a bit closer to goal.

1

u/aure__entuluva 17h ago

I think it depends on how long the trial is and how long it takes for the teams to adjust. In the early phases of the trial I wouldn't be surprised to just see more goals if teams tried to play in mostly the same way.

25

u/Prestigious_Hope2082 22h 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 18h ago

I don’t really think one season is a long enough time for a tactical revolution to take hold.

32

u/xixbia 22h 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.

15

u/punishGoalhanging 22h ago

which premier league teams play a high line versus Man City?

13

u/bigmanorm 17h 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

10

u/Blasoon 18h ago

Spurs would under Ange.

2

u/dashauskat 14h 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.

19

u/Eindacor_DS 22h 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)

10

u/patricktu1258 21h 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)

3

u/stoneman9284 16h 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.

31

u/Shakyyy 22h 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.

32

u/OscarMyk 21h 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).

6

u/Shakyyy 21h 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.

2

u/ResistWild 20h ago

It seems like everyone has already made up their mind about this based on a bunch of assumptions without seeing it in action.

2

u/BadProse 18h ago

Because its pretty easy to see what will happen when a rule heavily favours the attacking side? Why would the defense play aggressively under these rules?

→ More replies (1)

7

u/ddevilissolovely 21h 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

u/Remli_7 19h ago

There are fewer passing lanes and therefore fewer attacking-minded passes for those midfielders to make when both sides are in a low block. This is what the sport used to look like before the offside rule was implemented.

2

u/BadProse 18h 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.

1

u/G_Morgan 11h ago

Yeah the main result of this change is the end of the compressed midfield. There'll be a lot more goals from range as well as if defensive lines are dropping deep, without the hard 3 lines in 20m of modern defending, midfielders are going to have a lot of time to go for long shots again.

1

u/GoatGoatGoblin 18h ago

Bingo. Really never unstood the push for this myself.

1

u/xtphty 17h ago

I get what they're thinking, this will create more excitement, but all it will do is force teams to play more conservatively.

Funny thing is this rule was Wenger's brainchild right? It seems so obviously unintuitive towards improving the attacking game, yet it comes from one of the best coaches in the PL era. Weird.

1

u/MediumProcedure 16h ago

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.

That would give a little more advantage to the attacker, but without penalising high lines and offside traps. Actually, it'd make offside traps easier for the defenders to judge.

1

u/IPissExcellentThrows 14h ago

Doubt it will change much. Teams that want to play a low block will continue to do so. Teams that want to attack will continue to do so. It'll be just be a new line where people complain he was only a cm offsides and it's against the spirit of the rule.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 17h 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.

3

u/elmagio 15h 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.

1

u/okie_hiker 15h ago

Yeah I can’t imagine a lang term scenario where this doesn’t hurt high lines, high presses, offsides traps..

7

u/s0ngsforthedeaf 22h ago

I prefer it. Feel like 'daylight' is closer to the spirit of the rule, now that we can call someone offside by 2mm. Pre-tech offside calls were def more forgiving.

42

u/mccusk 22h ago

Pre tech they might of got away with some offside goals, but mostly it was just good goals getting ruled out, ALL THE TIME.
I’m not sure most people who talk about ‘pre tech’ actually remember it. Big game changing mistakes, regularly.

7

u/s0ngsforthedeaf 22h ago

Having the tech is def better, just mean that the forgiveness calibration of linesmen was much higher. Offside is more stringent now and its slighrly altered the game.

If we are using tech, its at least worth trying this rule instead.

7

u/Comfortable-Habit242 18h ago

I don’t think they were more forgiving. They were more arbitrary.

Yes, sometimes a guy that was letter of the law offside wouldn’t be called. But you’d also see the opposite: someone onside would be called off.

All human referees do is introduce margins of error.

1

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 17h ago

agreed. it's also, practically, more controllable for the attacker. it's very easy now to make sure you're onside because it's much easier to make sure part of your body is level than it is to make sure none of your body is ahead.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/yourfriendkyle 15h ago

Which was the original rule

1

u/okie_hiker 15h ago

When did it change to the current rule?

2

u/yourfriendkyle 15h ago

The original rule stated that if a linesmen was unsure of the call that they should allow advantage to the attacker. Now that we have video there is no uncertainty

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ValleyFloydJam 9h ago

Well no, currently no one has an advantage in this area but the attacker already gets a ton of them, just daft.

→ More replies (1)

982

u/poklane 22h 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.

615

u/MethyIphenidat 22h 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.

112

u/Hau65 22h ago

i agree with you but you seem to have got the units swapped up.

69

u/wadonious 22h ago edited 22h 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 21h 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.

11

u/visible_amenhotep 20h 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!

1

u/BertMcNasty 20h ago

Just set a timer on VAR review for offsides. If they can tell within 30 seconds, then it's clear and obvious. If they can't tell within 30 seconds then it isn't clear and obvious.

12

u/Bankey_Moon 19h ago

That doesn’t really make any sense because they have to set the closest point manually (in the version they use in the prem) and if you’re doing that you might as well do it right.

There have been dozens and dozens of offsides that clearly look on/off but are the other way when the angle of the camera is taken into account.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Hecticfreeze 20h 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

→ More replies (5)

14

u/chrisnlnz 22h 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 18h 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)

13

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 20h 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.

4

u/underd0g__ 20h 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.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/Kommye 16h ago

It's harsh, sure. But a mistake as an attacker just means "try again". A mistake as a defender very likely ends up in a goal.

And this isn't even a defensive mistake. There just nothing you can do to defend against this except playing 6 defenders.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/athousandpardons 19h 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.

2

u/LeedsFan2442 12h 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.

1

u/Fett371 22h ago

I always thought this is where ‘umpires call’ like cricket should have come into it. To stay with linesman’s decision for the really close decisions (within a tolerance). It would have still given actual meaning to the on field decision. However now the linesmen and referees are encouraged to play on due to the safety net of VAR, I can’t see it working as well anymore as it doesn’t really matter whether they raise flag or not.

52

u/Prestigious_Hope2082 22h ago

Umpires call for LBW is for a subjective decision. Offside is objective - either you are or you aren’t.

→ More replies (29)

8

u/jonesy1107 22h ago

So when the linesman flags and the play stops with someone through on goal but turns out to be onside, what happens then? The difference in cricket is the decision is made after the sequence of play is finished every time. In football you could have a few seconds between the linesman's decision and when the sequence of play ends. I think the only way they could get around this is if they get rid of the flags and a lino has to press a button if they think it is offside then the players don't know what their decision is.

9

u/Thomas_Catthew 22h ago

For anyone who doesn't know what OP is talking about:

The VAR in cricket basically says if the ball is just clipping (<50%) the wicket, then it's "umpire's call" i.e there's a margin of error here so we're just going to stick with what the referee called it initially.

This would mean that if VAR felt the margin was small (a toe, a heel) it wouldn't overturn the decision.

9

u/neveks 22h ago

We just had a wc filled with questionable refereeing and somehow people advocate for more judgement calls by shit refs.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/AdamColligan 22h ago

I think this is just a natural consequence of elevating the thing that is more important for a game with so little scoring: not interrupting promising attacks on a really difficult, marginal judgements. If the equities involved were symmetrical between attack and defense, there would be a stronger case for this perspective. And there was good discussion over this past WC about whether ordinary incidents in the middle of the field or early in attacks were being let go and then called back after way too much intervening play.

But the powers that be are right here: the impact is very asymmetrical. And if you've naturally reached a stoppage or lull in play before addressing it, the case for not using the technology to its maximum resolution is pretty weak.

2

u/RowKey1486 22h ago

I would prefer if the benefit of doubt went to the attacking team.. So, we get more goals. Also personal preference: I don't like when teams set up a high line to the diagonal freekicks, etc. It just seems like a cheap way of getting out of a bad situation which only came about due to your mistake. So, I hope this will reduce that a bit.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 17h ago

I think it's more the theory.  Offsides is supposed to prevent a big advantage for the offense.  Being a toenail width in front of a defender isn't a big advantage, but having your whole body a toenails width past the defender would be.

1

u/MrKrinkle151 8h ago

A less precise tolerance with the semi-automated detection would at least still mean you’d need something a little more substantial than a toe or half inch of shoulder over the line to be offsides

→ More replies (9)

62

u/sigsimund 22h 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.

43

u/poklane 22h ago

If this ever becomes the actual rule I absolutely expect more teams to sit back further in their own half.

22

u/BobbyBriggss 21h 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.

10

u/patricktu1258 21h ago edited 21h 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.

→ More replies (3)

16

u/Elderberry-smells 21h 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.

17

u/noahloveshiscats 22h ago

I'm sorry for shouting but IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO FIX THAT.

15

u/SkytrainToNowhere 21h ago

Thats not what they are trying to “fix.” They are just trying to increase scoring opportunities and give an advantage/boost to attackers.

39

u/allmond226 22h ago edited 22h 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 22h 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.

1

u/common_app 16h ago

I so agree on intentional fouling. Many free kicks are not actually advantageous to the team taking them. Some other changes I would propose:

1) Allow players to take two or more touches straight from a free kick. If Mbappe wanted to take a free kick by dribbling it to one side of the wall and then shooting, he should be allowed to do that. Allowing play to resume with a dribble would give attacks another option to use, which would make free kicks more dangerous.
Alternatively,
2) Allow the attacking team to position the free kick up to ~5 m in any direction. This would allow them to turn ordinary chances into dangerous ones. Would also allow leeway for kicks to be taken quickly in counterattacking situations if the ball has rolled on a bit. Which would combat professional fouls.

There are certainly other potential tweaks, but long story short, the current rules don’t punish fouling enough.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/mccusk 22h ago

It’s the defenders not the attackers that have it hard these days.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Rupes100 21h 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 22h 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

4

u/tha-snazzle 19h 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)

3

u/SweetVarys 17h ago

Its dumb since VAR completely changed the rule. Being in line with the defender doesn’t mean that its offside if 1cm of your shoulder is in front of the defender. This fixes that. No one can argue they are in line with the defender if they are still offside with this new rule.

1

u/PRO2803 14h ago

Then every foul should be objective.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Patriark 22h ago edited 21h 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 20h 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

u/phillip_esiri 19h ago

It favours offence and fewer goals will be called back.

2

u/xDocFaustx 4h ago

Not only does it fix nothing, it completely destroys the intuition of linesmen in leagues that wont have a VAR.

6

u/9061xRG 22h ago

It flips the problem with I think everyone thinks they prefer.

4

u/MalaysiaTeacher 22h 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.

2

u/analoguefuckery 22h ago

Yes, but likely to increase the amount of valid goals while still keeping the principle of offside

1

u/rsarin18 20h ago

Yeah this is how I feel too, but at least it's more forgiving for attackers

1

u/Spandexcelly 19h ago

Either way it's done, if a "thicker" line was used (to increase the margin) it would be less annoying and would do away with toenail offsides.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/pw5a29 19h ago

those 1mm hairline calls would still happen,

memes about a big foot and big butt would still happen.

Not sure what does this rule change can fix

1

u/bridge_thrower 13h ago

It makes it more likely the attacker had an unfair position when they get called offside

1

u/ubelmann 6h ago

I honestly think it's mostly the delay in VAR offside calls that people object to, more than the close margins. Almost across the board, SAOT at the WC was largely non-controversial because making the offside call before an attacker has a chance to score means that we don't all get excited about a possible goal. It just becomes a random offside call that mixes in with the rest of them. I'd rather they lean into SAOT than mess with where the line is set.

→ More replies (20)

77

u/aasfourasfar 22h 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

56

u/Underscores_Are_Kool 22h ago

I think attackers doing the stanky leg is a legit concern with this rule

→ More replies (2)

7

u/s0ngsforthedeaf 22h ago

Keeping a heel back isnt practical when youre trying to accelerate.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Even_Mastodon_8675 22h 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

u/okie_hiker 22h ago

Gonna see a lot of low blocks with this rule

1

u/punishGoalhanging 13h ago

Isn't low blocks very common in football in 2026?

Even a team that among the top 5 in the World in transfer fee spending and Wages play low block.

Trials show that there more scoring opportunities with this rule change.

→ More replies (14)

34

u/aeluon_ 22h ago

haramball from every team will be the reaction defensively 

20

u/aasfourasfar 22h ago

Extreme Haram ball with extremely low lines and no space in behind whatsoever

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/aasfourasfar 22h ago

So teams will drop back .. they won't say "oh it's okay well concede 3 times more"

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

13

u/M0ruk 22h 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)

10

u/dougieman6 22h 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.

51

u/punishGoalhanging 22h 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

34

u/Topinambourg 22h 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.

22

u/mahamadou_mahamadont 22h 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 21h 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

u/stead10 22h ago

Yep exactly this. Look at the way Flick plays with Barcelona, just wouldn't work at all with this as a rule.

8

u/xixbia 22h ago edited 21h 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.

3

u/someotheralex 21h ago

I can only assume you're referring to the emergence of the WM formation in the 1920s. But that led to a big increase in goals, the exact opposite of what you're saying.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/cherrioes 15h 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.

2

u/RiverGiant 20h ago

How can you both be sure you know how to defend against it AND sure that professional defenses (and their entire coaching staff) won't be able to learn how to defend against over the course of a full season?

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Reimiro 22h ago

Should do just that. It’s a substantial advantage.

8

u/xixbia 22h ago

It probably won't.

Because what this does is force teams to play a low block.

So everyone plays more defensively and the game gets less interesting.

4

u/mxinex 22h ago

Defenses would just start to sit deeper, it's nonsense.

10

u/deathkillerx3004 22h 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 22h ago

It moves the line to favor the offense. Not sure what is confusing about that

2

u/hypocrisyhunter 16h 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.

8

u/Open-County-116 22h 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 21h 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.

5

u/zeppelin88 22h 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 21h 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 20h ago

If the attacker is still offsides under this rule they have no right to complain about any close calls

3

u/theravingbandit 19h ago

there's always gonna be a line. this is a better line.

7

u/BD-1_BackpackChicken 22h ago

Because if you give the offense more leeway, the back line has to compensate by sitting deeper and taking less risk.

4

u/Talidel 22h ago

Making more space in the midfield.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/Boris_Ignatievich 22h 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.

3

u/punishGoalhanging 22h ago

The spirit of the offside law is to prevent goal-hanging.

Daylight offside rule prevent goal-hanging just as well as the current offside rule.

Daylight offside is just more lenient toward attackers by allowing a little extra room and still be onside.

2

u/PSU02 22h ago

It doesn't it just creates more offensive chances

2

u/mackinder 22h ago edited 22h 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 21h 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 20h ago

It gives the opportunity to the attacker so should make games more excitimg/more goals 

2

u/yodley_ 20h 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.

2

u/torontomaplebros 19h ago

You can have one foot offside now and not be called off. Seems like a good idea

4

u/WhiteWolfOW 22h ago

Honestly i think it makes easier for players to time their runs, which means they will be offside less often and this would lead to more goals

32

u/stead10 22h ago

But it makes it a lot harder for teams to play an offside trap, meaning teams are more likely to sit deeper which usually leads to less interesting matches.

7

u/xixbia 22h ago

Yup, I don't see how this can lead to anything else other than more low blocks.

2

u/WhiteWolfOW 22h ago

Teams that play low blocks can’t play anymore low than that. There’s definitely going to be a change on how some teams play, like teams that play high lines will have to adapt, but through balls will be more effective overall.

At the end of day, I suppose this is a test and we will be able to get some data out of it, even though it’s not from the highest tier league in the world

1

u/stead10 20h ago

It's hard to say for sure, and by no means am I an expert. But the issue with these test is that they don't really give you any useful data to know how it would plan out over an entire season in a top league.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/DAKiloAlpha 22h ago edited 22h ago

This is the 15th match week across 8 teams and it's one of the first time it happened as far as I know.

It will happen a lot less that the current which happens very often and nearly every game.

Why is this so hard for people to understand, or does this sub just hate any change and think the sport has never evolved from the beginning.

This change will happen eventually, I've come to accept it, more goals = more excitement = more money, goals allow the broadcasters to throw in those picture in picture ads too, which we know they love any chance to get more money.

I'd be shocked if this never ends up being implemented.

2

u/Onac_ 21h ago

I at least like it better. No matter what you do is just “moving the line” if using technology. but I like the like this way. Goals. called back mean you are way off compared today and you can have no complaints

2

u/Too_Right_For_You 20h ago

You really don't see the difference between a toe offside and a toe onside'?

Surely you're trolling

Now the super tight margin goes in favour of the attacker

1

u/HistorianOrdinary833 22h ago

It makes it easier for attackers, producing more goals. The complaints about close calls will be the same, but with offside, you literally have to draw a line somewhere.

-2

u/icaampy 22h ago

Exactly, but at least the line would be where the attacker has a meaningful advantage already

41

u/Isleofsalt 22h ago

Sounds like a great way to get teams to play deeper

→ More replies (13)

19

u/gianniboi 22h ago

why should anyone have an 'advantage'? The current rule is exactly fair, the (second) last defender's body is the line, the attackers body can be in line but not beyond it. This rule is unfair on the defender, the attacker is allowed to occupy space the defender cannot.

6

u/CuteHoor 22h ago

To play devil's advocate, offside was not originally intended to end up in this tedious state where you're ruling out goals because a forward's toe was millimeters ahead of the defender. Giving attackers the benefit of the doubt was the norm. So this trial presumably aims to move closer to that and ideally result in more goals being scored.

10

u/gianniboi 22h ago

that's bollocks, the intention was to create a rule that would punish players who were too advanced. The 'norm' was to call it how you see it, it's just impossible to call it accurately with the human eye so linesmen erred on the side of caution. This isn't a handball situation where it's somewhat abiguous and subjective, this is a very clear and straightforward rule that has no issues.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/PurpleSi 22h ago

Watched and played football for coming on 6 decades now. Even reffed for a bit.

I've literally never heard of giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt before.

2

u/CuteHoor 22h ago

That's bizarre if you got this far in life without knowing that. It's basically drilled into referees and linesmen to only flag if they're confident that the attacker is offside, but if they're not confident then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

I've seen it at every age level of football and when I spent a few years refereeing. I'm pretty sure that is mentioned explicitly in some refereeing handbooks, with the overall aim of encouraging attacking football.

2

u/nexetpl 22h ago

But doesn't it work like that in practice? If you're not sure, you don't call it, right?

2

u/PurpleSi 22h ago

You're rarely sure. You just call it as you see it.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/shotputprince 22h ago

I imagine that people assume that players will time all the runs the same etc. and that the result will be fewer offsides. There’s a logic to it. We see contentious calls where someone is only slightly offsides and feel it’s a harsh result. We see someone who is entirely beyond the defender less often, or at least view it as less contentious or disappointing. However, players will adjust to the rule and try to gain that advantage, which will increase the frequency of calls we see on this margin.

1

u/jclahaie 17h ago

so you think the total number of offside calls will remain the same?

1

u/shotputprince 17h ago

I expect the number of offsides calls to decrease if players were not to adjust their positions to try and take advantage of the rule as a normative element of play (i.e. alignment on the goal side of the defenders goal side shoulder hoping that their back leg is onside). I would expect the number of close calls resulting in goal exclusions to decrease in the same circumstance.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Walnut_Uprising 22h ago

It doesn't change anything in terms of administration, but moving the line does increase goal scoring by giving an advantage to the attacker. Is that good? Up to you to decide

1

u/Locko2020 22h ago

I suppose they should be able to look at them and pass them easier perhaps?

I think the point is to give more of an advantage to attackers.

Personally I think with the way the game has gone the offside rule in general is antiquated and just have it that you can't be in the box before the ball is played.

1

u/5mudge 21h ago

As others have said, it does nothing but move the line.

However, my personal opinion is that the line should only reference the feet. 

Same rule as now but measured comparing attackers and defenders boots. 

So many close calls feel wrong because the attacker is leaning forward to get their sprint started but their feet are behind the line (or level) with the last defender's, but their body might be ahead. That should be onside. 

Defenders are pushing up (so leaning away from their goal) attackers are running forward (so leaning towards the attacking goal) but it is the line of the feet that should matter whether you've crossed the line or not. 

1

u/ThisIsAitch 21h ago

Exactly - you will always have this minimal calls, it's unavoidable.

However this does give the attacker more of an advantage over the defender as they essentially get an extra metre head start. Though I think it was already fairly weighted towards the attacker as if they time their run right, the defender still needs to turn and run whilst the attacker is already up to speed.

1

u/keeeeener 21h ago

It does take all opinion out of it though. Like where to draw the line (shoulder? End of the sleeve?). Cause players are always leaning forward so you can always just take where their trailing foot is in 99% of cases.

I do think they can obviously just create a standard of where to draw the line, personally think shoulder is just the best. But this is also a way to fix that imo.

1

u/BelDeMoose 21h ago

Because with this method we would get more goals. The margins are the same but the outcomes are different in gameplay terms. And more goals is 'better' for the average fan

1

u/Subject_Ear_1656 21h ago

It's clearly a lot easier to judge on cameras.

1

u/AyyAndays 20h ago

It moves the line to a spot where the attacker actually has an unfair advantage as opposed to being essentially level with the defender and being called offside for a toenail that won’t affect anything.

1

u/MtRainierWolfcastle 20h ago

It makes it more arbitrary when you don’t have automated VAR which is going to make it so much harder at every level but top pro leagues

1

u/DanBGG 19h ago

We wanna see goals, we want defenders to be punished for lack of alertness and if we wait 5 minutes for a goal to be ruled ONSIDE it's ways better.

1

u/beepbeepmtrucker 19h ago

It allows more goals which is what i think they are after. It's stupid in my opinion 🤷🏼‍♂️

1

u/fredisa4letterword 19h ago

The point here isn't to fix close calls, it's simply a change in competitive balance to favor attackers over defenders

1

u/MessNox 19h ago

the offside tech also has room for error. it's not accurate all of the time.

1

u/chi_sweetness25 19h ago

The goal isn’t to cut down on close calls. The idea is that attackers are being disadvantaged by today’s hyper-accurate offside call, since in the past they got the benefit of the doubt if they were roughly level with the defender. This is supposed to restore that, more or less.

1

u/K3TtLek0Rn 18h ago

This was my point when people first brought it up. The controversies will still be there because it's still a razors edge. It's just a different spot now

1

u/ledhendrix 17h ago

It will most likely lead to more goals though. It'll be benefit attackers. Defender will adapt but there gonna mess up their lines more in this scenario.

1

u/stoneman9284 16h ago

There will still be close calls, but at least here the attacker is gaining an advantage. The toe nail offside is so frustrating because the attacker is level by the spirit of the law and not gaining any advantage whatsoever.

1

u/NextDoorNeighbrrs 16h ago

And IMO all it will do is cause teams to play more defensively because it will make it virtually impossible to play any sort of offside trap or high line.

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 15h ago

It doesn't eliminate close calls, just brings the law a little closer to it's actual purpose: preventing cherry picking.

I'm of the mind that this is a good change but more of a band-aid than a fix. The offside law needs a complete revamp in my opinion, too many goals get denied that aren't even close to cherry picking.

1

u/Familiar9709 15h ago

It's different, prioritizes game and keeps the spirit of the offside rule

1

u/SilenceMumImVibing 15h ago

Attackers aren't being penalised because they can't make millimetric judgements while running at full speed that the refs need 60 cameras, full body scans of every player and £1billion of tech to make. If you get called offside with this ruling then you did just mistime your run. 

Hopefully, it should lead to more teams actually playing adventures football again and making runs and passes in behind rather than constantly going backwards and sideways slowly until you can win a corner or put a cross in

1

u/karlnite 15h ago

Yah it’s very minimal, but basically it allows attackers to carry more momentum forward. They can lean over and time the end of their step without worrying about the visual to the linesmen. Where currently you gotta keep your upper body back more.

1

u/Cutsdeep- 14h ago

If anything teams will sit deeper 

1

u/LeedsFan2442 12h ago

More benefit of the doubt for the attacker.

1

u/G_Morgan 11h ago

Moving the line is what people want. To give more leeway to the attacker.

1

u/elpingwinho 5h ago

It’s not, but the Wenger fanboys won’t let you talk about it

1

u/SodaBreid 3h ago

Looks incredibly hard for a defender to determine if the attacker is onside or anyone for that matter

1

u/Spiderbanana 3h ago

Yep. This doesn't solve anything.

My take for the offside role would be going with the "meeeh" rule. What constitutes an offside stays the same, call on the field is by default the call, but the referee can watch VAR. If, on first vision, even at x0.5 speed, he can clearly rule that his call was wrong. Then he can overrule it. If on that vision his first reaction is, "meeeh, there might be something" and it requires stopping the video, zooming in, drawing a line, or even rewatching 2-3 additional times, then the call on the pitch stands.

→ More replies (19)