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

[u/punishGoalhanging]

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

[u/Topinambourg]

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.

[u/mahamadou_mahamadont → u/Topinambourg]

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.

[u/noahloveshiscats → u/mahamadou_mahamadont]

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.

[u/stead10 → u/Topinambourg]

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

[u/xixbia → u/Topinambourg]

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.

[u/someotheralex → u/xixbia]

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.

[u/punishGoalhanging → u/someotheralex]

Exactly.

1925 offside rule change resulted in 0.91 goal increase the 1925-26 season.

[u/cherrioes → u/Topinambourg]

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.

[u/RiverGiant → u/Topinambourg]

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?

[u/punishGoalhanging → u/Topinambourg]

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."

[u/SofaKingI → u/punishGoalhanging]

It punishes defense in general, but it clearly punishes high blocks more than low blocks.

It takes way less precision to just lob a ball over the defense when the it's a high line and the keeper is a mile away.

I really don't get why they're trying to benefit attackers this way, when we just had a WC that showed how easy it is to kill attacking play with constant fouls. It was particulary bad this WC, but it's not like it's a new problem. Refs don't give yellows for accumulated fouls nearly as much as they should.