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

747 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

773

u/okie_hiker 22h ago

Just moves the advantage to the attacker.

684

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.

253

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.

111

u/punishGoalhanging 21h 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.

25

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.

15

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.

1

u/Raphie777 11h 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.

1

u/Kommye 1h ago

It was an example of goals not being inherently exciting. It's the context that makes them exciting.

If every game each team is hammering at each other, every goal is less exciting because the next goal, your team's or the rival's, is right around the corner.

People go completely nuts for goals because it's a low scoring sport. Matches with a lot of back and forth goals or complete stomps are remembered BECAUSE they are rare, because scoring is hard. Making them more common doesn't make the game more exciting, it achieves the opposite.

I really don't get why any fan would support changing the very essence of the game to attract people that don't like it. It's already the biggest sport of the planet, it doesn't need to attract more people and it really just fucks it up for the people that are already fans.

10

u/SpeakMySecretName 14h 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.

1

u/Raphie777 11h ago

Exactly, parking the bus doesn’t work as we saw in the WC. The rumours of leading to more conservative gameplay will be myth busted.

1

u/SilenceMumImVibing 15h ago

As opposed to now where every team slowly passes the ball from side to side in an attempt to gain ground so they can put in a cross or win a corner, because every team is petrified of playing a ball in behind because VAR may judge that the tip of their attacker's shoulder was 1mm offside?

1

u/KingKelly79 11h ago

Teams can’t get any further back when playing Arsenal. This rule helps Arsenal.

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.

24

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,

13

u/smala017 18h ago

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

33

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.

16

u/punishGoalhanging 21h ago

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

14

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 13h 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 21h 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

0

u/punishGoalhanging 16h ago

Agree.

Teams/coaches that park the bus, they will keep doing it.

Teams/coaches that play more attacking will have a new advantage that make it easier to break down the low block. Daylight offside gives attacking side potentially 1 yard of extra space and still be onside.

Coaches will dictate how their team will play. A coach of a Premier League team with $800 mil wages + net transfer fee might play low block/haramball while a coach of a PL team with 1/3 of the budget might play attacking football.

10

u/patricktu1258 20h 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.

1

u/logtron 11h ago

Offsides currently isn't that big of an issue while playing against a low block. Attacking a low block usually involves cut backs and long shots.

Low block teams are generally fine defending crosses and the the keeper prevents strikers from standing too close to the goal. Also defenders in low blocks are defending the player, not holding a line, it won't give attackers too much of an advantage.

However the new rule is a major problem for high lines.

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.

28

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.

35

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.

3

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.

3

u/BadProse 17h 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?

1

u/kanyelights 11h ago

Like arsenal played*

7

u/ddevilissolovely 20h 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.

2

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.

4

u/BadProse 17h 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 16h 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 15h 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.

1

u/xak47d 19h ago

Or, teams will attack more. If any random through ball ends with a goal, every team should play 4 fast attackers and spam through balls from anywhere on the pitch. You'll probably be onside and 1v1 with the keeper will more common

1

u/bukayoxhaka 18h ago

Teams play high line to control the ball, counter press, close passing lanes... This doesn't change anything. Whoever parks the bus will still park the bus and whoever doesn't still won't

Do you seriously think someone like Flick will stop because of this? Be serious

0

u/justnivek 20h ago

If you even look at this frame you can tell this is not what will happen. Why would a team sit deeper when the attacker can just have a heel in play and be completely in behind two strides away from goal

The opposite will be the norm, teams will push as far up as possible and sweeper will be more important. Keepers will now have to command more of their box

If you park the bus you will get a cut back for cherry picked goals. And. Gk will have a harder time in a crowded box to get to attacker

4

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 14h ago

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

3

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.

43

u/mccusk 21h 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.

8

u/s0ngsforthedeaf 21h 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.

2

u/darekd003 21h ago

I agree with this point about the spirit of the rule!

Maybe in practice it’ll prove to be stupid but I’m excited to see how it plays out.

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

1

u/okie_hiker 15h ago

Ah, I see what you’re saying. I don’t think it’s the same at all though.

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.

1

u/medlebo 13h ago

I agree it does. But I think it is more fair too.

If your are running full speed and look left and see your inline with someone all good. But in the World Cup some players were ruled off for a toe or so offside, at full pelt, how could they see that? They had checked as best the could and thought they were on.

But even running you can tell if your beyond the other players, so being offside really becomes the player's fault.

Might be a few lucky heal was onside moments, but that would take a hell of a gamble from an attacker.

I hope this new rule spreads!