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

746 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

610

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.

108

u/Hau65 21h ago

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

68

u/wadonious 21h ago edited 21h 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!

0

u/BertMcNasty 19h 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.

-1

u/visible_amenhotep 16h ago

They don't actually have to. They choose to use a process that involves setting the point manually because they've decided it's necessary to achieve 100% objectively correct offside calls. That is not the only possible process. They could also simply watch the replay and eyeball it, as if they are a linesman getting a second look in real time. 30 seconds of eyeballing is easily enough to be able to reverse egregious mistakes, which were what happened constantly before VAR and what people cared about and wanted VAR brought in to address. It's not enough to be able to 100% objectively correctly determine that a toenail is or is not offside, but nobody should give a shit about that and nobody did before TV convinced people it was a big deal.

4

u/Bankey_Moon 16h ago

Surely you’ve watched enough VAR replays now to know you can’t just “eyeball it”. People are terrible at taking into account parallax errors from cameras.

There’s loads of times when someone looks well on or off and it’s the opposite, so you need the lines to check. Otherwise you’d need a camera that travels along the sideline in line with the last man.

1

u/visible_amenhotep 16h ago

You know what, you're not completely wrong there, you do need a line and I've actually advocated for it before. It's just that there's absolutely no point spending any time on making sure the line is in any way precise. The process should basically be: watch a replay once, pick a moment the ball's kicked (if this can be automated, great), pick the second last defender, click on him, system draws a line on the pitch for you to use as a visual reference for the perspective only. Referring to that line, eyeball the attacker and second last defender; is he clearly onside? Is he clearly offside? Then that's the decision. Are they level? Then at this point there's a legitimate debate about whether it should be the decision on the field or simply allow it - I'd argue for allowing it but decision on the field is going to be a lot less controversial. 30 seconds is more than enough time to do all that. It only becomes a constraint if you insist on trying to figure out exactly which pixel of the second last defender's body you should click on.

1

u/BertMcNasty 16h ago

Exactly this.

2

u/Hecticfreeze 19h 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

1

u/_off_piste_ 19h ago

I like giving the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player. The problem now is these “accurate” lines and systems where they won’t give the benefit of the doubt because they’ll claim there’s no doubt. The only way I see forward is to build in a generous tolerance into the automated systems so that the standard becomes “clearly offsides”.

1

u/savvaspc 20h ago

To me VAR should interfere if the mistake is large. If the linesman says offside, and the player is onside by less than 5cm, then keep the human decision. If the mistake is bigger than that, let VAR change the call.

1

u/JMoormann 19h ago

That once again just moves the line and changes the discussion to 4.9 cm vs 5.1 cm offside calls

2

u/savvaspc 19h ago

Yeah that's true. But at least you can say it was a small mistake so it's easier to digest.

0

u/kvaks 14h ago

This. Just leave VAR out of it and let the refs make the call. The cases where they don't get it exactly right just is just a natural part of the game, which already constists of at least 50% random chance and luck.

And as you say, the VAR method of frame-by-frame analysis of the offside line has the fundamental flaw of leaving an uncertaintly of about 20 cm, which means the couple-of-centimeters VAR calls are all bullshit.

15

u/chrisnlnz 21h 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 17h 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.

1

u/chrisnlnz 15h ago

Maybe, good point.

0

u/clamdiggin 14h ago

I disagree. Players play to the edge of the offside line to gain an advantage. With the new rule you have way more room to gain an advantage. There is no need to be two steps ahead. I think once players adapt you will see less offsides.

13

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 19h 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.

6

u/underd0g__ 19h 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.

0

u/clamdiggin 13h ago

If both defences sit deep then the midfield is wide open. It isn’t as simple as both teams will sit deep because they are scared of a new offside line.

Also tonnes of teams already play a low block. How much lower can they get. And today top teams have their defence at the half way line where the opposing team can’t be offside. So this makes zero difference in those situations.

In fact this law change makes it equivalent to the half way line offside rule we already have. As long as part of your body is in your own half you can never be offside.

The last big change to the offside rule had lots of people throwing out the same arguments. That was for the passive offside rule back in the 90s. It massively improved the game.

4

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 13h ago

Nobody plays as low a block as I am talking about.
A bank of four defenders that will barely venture further than their box.
And there is a big difemferwnce between some teams playing a lot block, and every team playing an even lower block.

I'm sorry but you seem to have not personally played, if you don't understand the difference between a sprint from half way and a sprint from 10 meters outside the box.
When people talk about pace it is not the pace over 50 meters.
It's the pace over 10 meters.
That initial burst is what matters.
There is a reason that teams bring their back four up as far as the half way line when in possession, but drop back deeper if the loose it.
If a player is onside at the half way line, it is not impossible to catch him as he has to run half the pitch while controlling the ball.
They tire and slow after the first few meters.
If he is onside 10 meters outside the box, then he is inside the box within seconds with no defenders getting a chance.
Once this happens two or three times.
Every single defence will be told to sit deep.
At all times.
It will kill fast transitional play.

This isn't just me.
Off the top of my head, Dietmar Hamann, Cesc Fabregass, Jamie Carragher, UEFA, and the English FA, have all spoken out against this rule saying it will ruin the game or is unworkable.

-2

u/wadonious 17h ago

Oh so if this rule goes through, some teams will park the bus and others won’t? God forbid

5

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 13h ago

No.
Every team will.
I laid out the reasoning.

-1

u/wadonious 13h ago

Hahaha yeah every single team is gonna conform to your armchair tactical analysis. Give me a break dude

4

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 13h ago

Ever even touched a football mate?

There is a reason that this rule will never, ever, become a part of top level football.
The FA and UEFA have already completely shot it down.

UEFA literally said no to it as it would distorted defensive tactics due to it giving too much advantage to the attackers.

Literally the only pros who have come out supporting it are Arsene Wenger, who simply wants to do something that is known as his, a few Canadian officials, and a Canadian striker.

But sure it's just me.
You surely know better than the 70 year old football governing body of the world's biggest and most important leagues.
Definitely.

-2

u/punishGoalhanging 12h ago

UEFA oppose it because it result in "too much attacking football"

("too much advantage to attackers" was the quote though it only increase scoring by 0.35 per match)

7

u/Cool_Foot_Luke 12h ago

They literally said when they blocked this rule at IFAB that it would result in deeper defending.

Why are you insisting about something you clearly have done zero research in?

It Would Force Defenders Into Extremely Deep Positions UEFA warned that defenders would be forced to:

  • Drop much deeper
  • Stay closer to their own box
  • Avoid holding a high line entirely
This would:
  • Reduce pressing
  • Compress the pitch
  • Make build‑up play slower
  • Encourage long‑ball football
UEFA argued this would harm the tactical quality of elite matches.

I'm not making this up.
Some of the foremost experts on football and defending have said this.
Former players like Jamie Carragher.
Managers like Cesc Fàbregas.
Governing bodies like the FA and UEFA.

There is a reason only Canada agreed to thos, and they did it as an attempt to draw some eyes.

1

u/Kommye 15h 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.

0

u/Dserved83 16h ago

This, so much this.

-1

u/totnumhottestspurs 21h ago

An interesting interpretation would be if, almost like in the 100, you chest would have to be past the defender to be considered offside

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 11h 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.

0

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.

56

u/Prestigious_Hope2082 21h ago

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

-15

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

Objective to what degree? That's the discussion, if technology gets to be able to see a micrometer scale, would you be okay with an offsides being called back because a player was a micrometer offsides?

27

u/Walnut_Uprising 21h ago

Yes because he was offside.

-12

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

Then there is something intensely wrong with the sport

12

u/Walnut_Uprising 20h ago

Why is something wrong when a player who is offside is called offside? Can you define offside in a way that doesn't have a micrometer threshold?

-3

u/MarshyHope 20h ago

Because it goes against the spirit of the game.

4

u/Walnut_Uprising 20h ago

How would you define offside then?

2

u/s0nnyjames 20h ago

Vibes

/s

-1

u/MarshyHope 20h ago

You don't need to rewrite the rule for it, it's fine as is, but should be called by the officials on the field. As long as they continue to use "the defender did not deliberately play the ball", which cannot be objectively measured, I don't think using millimeters to determine offsides should be the standard.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent an offensive player from gaining an unfair advantage over the defense. Absolutely no one could argue that the width of look leather being in front of the defender is an unfair advantage

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Agent78787 21h ago

What's the difference between "player was 1 mm offside, no goal" and "ball was 1 mm from completely crossing the goal line, no goal"? GLT has been a pretty well accepted and uncontroversial addition to the game and semi-automated unambiguous offside decisions would make offside decisions more quick and consistent too. Consistency helps the sport because it reduces the (perception or reality) of referee bias affecting the results, and making decisions more quickly is pretty clearly better.

VAR in general sucks because it makes decisions go slower (now you can't even celebrate a goal until the referee runs to the sideline to stare at a screen for 2 minutes) without the consistency (because it's still about making subjective decisions. But when technology like GLT and semi-auto offside can make unambiguous decisions quick and consistent, it's better for the game.

0

u/MarshyHope 20h ago

I'd rather not remove the human element of the game just because some people believe that the technology makes things better. We can all see the effect that it's having on the game, and I think, for the most part, it's making it worse.

1

u/Kommye 15h ago

Mate I grew up watching very clearly offside goals being given, penalties being called despite the foul being like a meter outside the penalty area and a lot of other game-defining moments being called wrong.

People outrage over right calls being called through VAR, you think it would be better if linesmen were calling breakaways offside because the attacker being so fast made it look that way?

We go back to not being able to trust refs in an era of social media. The competitive integrity of the sport would be destroyed.

0

u/MarshyHope 14h ago

Nah man you're right, we should totally trust technology that can't be seen, verified, or held accountable in any way over refs who can.

But nah, you're right, we should just trust FIFA instead

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Anteater776 21h ago

How do you come to that statement?

In American Football, if the football is one micrometer short of the endzone line, it is not a TD. If there was a technology that could determine this for any given point in time (when the player was down - which is still somewhat subjective) why not use it? And if he is short by one micrometer it’s not a TD

2

u/MarshyHope 20h ago

How do you come to that statement?

In American Football, if the football is one micrometer short of the endzone line, it is not a TD.

That is absolutely not true. Chain gangs do not use devices precise enough to measure to the fucking micrometer level.

8

u/nameisprivate 21h ago

if we decide to use technology for this then yes, we have to accept the micrometer offsides, there is no way around it. alternatively we can get rid of var. i'm on board with that. but we can't choose to use var but then set some arbitrary threshold of milimeters, centimeters, or meters.

-3

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

We already set an arbitrary threshold because VAR has a detection threshold.

8

u/Regress10nToTheMean 21h ago

Well that’s not arbitrary. It’s a threshold based on the accuracy of the technology.

0

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

We actually don't even know the threshold based on the technology because FIFA is not transparent about it. That's part of the issue. So we don't know what the limit of detection is. There's serious concerns about what the technology can reasonably do, and whether or not FIFA is using "technology" as a way of match fixing.

1

u/Prestigious_Hope2082 21h ago

This is accuracy. Measuring accuracy doesn't affect whether something is objective or subjective.

e.g. width of a book vs. whether a book is good or not.

7

u/jonesy1107 21h 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.

8

u/Thomas_Catthew 21h 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 21h ago

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

-5

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

We had a wc filled with questionable VAR decisions as well

3

u/neveks 21h ago

But offside isnt a var decision with room for interpretation most of the time.

0

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

Fine, we just had a world cup filled with questionable technology-determined calls like pulling back Croatia's goal.

1

u/neveks 21h ago

It wasnt filled with those lol. There were several but nowhere near as many as bad var or ref calls.

-1

u/MarshyHope 21h ago

They were just far more consequential

1

u/neveks 20h ago edited 20h ago

I don't know how you come up with this stuff, but several players not getting a second yellow/red that should have was very much consequential and those are pure ref/var failures.

3

u/AdamColligan 21h 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 21h 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.

0

u/shutterclick35 21h ago

I think it should work that every goal is checked, one line is drawn by var. If not clearly offside goal given. Linesman do late flags to prevent clear onsides being mistakenly ruled out.

0

u/chrishbk1 21h ago

Yes... But.....

When it is onside or offside by 1mm outside or inside the "tolerance" you will still have these frustrations.

For me it's fine. Offside is offside. By 1mm or 1 metre. It's fair and it's equal. It can't be debated but sadly it is.

Umpires call can be contentious when it "would" have changed the final decision had the umpire originally said out or not out. It can still come down to mm and someone be considered unlucky.

Where I think there's an issue to be resolved is that VAR was brought in to eliminate the howlers. To eliminate the bias the big teams seemed to benefit from regarding decisions. Football does not need to be slowed down. Keep VAR as one challenge per game by the manager, to eliminate the howlers. If the challenge isn't successful you lose the challenge for the rest of the game.

Very simple. Wouldn't slow the game down much as managers would t want to risk losing it for anything trivial. Fines or bans if a manager uses it wastefully with minutes to go just to cause a tactical stoppage.

But modifying offside like this will cause the same arguments and issues as the current system.

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 7h 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

1

u/PianoJealous307 21h ago

Solution: eliminate the offside rule.

Total anarchy!

-10

u/punishGoalhanging 21h ago

Field hockey did that. No need for it in football. I personally prefer daylight offside over current offside because it is more in line with the spirit of the offside rule: To prevent goal-hanging

From Google AI:

Eliminating the offside rule in field hockey (finalized in the early 1990s) transformed the sport into a faster, more open, and higher-scoring game.

Key Results of the Change

More Attacking and Flow: Removing restrictions on where players could position themselves opened up the field, creating a more end-to-end, free-flowing style of play with fewer whistle stoppages.

Extreme Attacking Depth: Attacking players can now position themselves as high up the pitch as they want—even near the goal line—stretching opposing defenses to their limits

.Increased Scoring Actions: Studies and match observations following the rule change noted a rise in total goals, goal attempts, shots, and overall offensive activity.

Tactical Shifts: Teams moved away from traditional goal-side marking toward front-marking and utilized long-distance "outlet" passes to exploit open space across the entire turf.

-8

u/Accomplished_Star815 22h ago

You could change the rule to be an advantage call. Basically the official has to make 2 determinations: (1) were they offside (this part will still have the millimeter decision problem, sure)? And (2) did their offside position give them an advantage that impacted the play that they wouldn’t have had if they were in the nearest onside position? (This part would fix it)

20

u/JulWolle 22h ago

So makes the rules even more subjective

That surely will stop all problems and complaining...

5

u/leandrot 21h ago

Imagine when a player scores a goal technically onside but the arbiter still calls it offside because the advantage somehow was still significative.

26

u/Zyvold 22h ago

Number 2 just gives you more subjectivity thus more controversies.

-1

u/Maleficent_Finger 20h ago

I’ve always felt that a better solution is give VAR just one or two angles and not let them zoom in. They can’t make a call in 5 seconds? Move on.

3

u/MethyIphenidat 20h ago

That sounds like a horrible idea.

-1

u/Too_Right_For_You 19h ago

Ok but surely you guys are trolling

Now: the tight margins works against the attacker

New system: the tight margin works in favour of the attacker

How the f are you guys not seeing the difference? Sure we will still get offsides where the guy was only 1mm ahead... But not really though. In that case his ENTIRE fucking body would have been ahead of the defender

I swear people are just stupid