i agree. it's a dumb rule.
Goal line technology
Burnwinter wrote:Sorry Biggs, it probably was a bit brutal of me to bring up two of your bugbears, Wenger and goal line technology, in the one article ...
I actually agree that the offside law is one place that needs some improvement- it's totally confusing, you try explaining to a non football person- I hardly understand it myself....If you're not interfering with play then what the heck are you doing on the pitch?
Found this oldish Jonathan Wilson article an interesting read on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius
The original change to the offside rule from three to two defenders (1925) added 50% more goals to the top flight.
He argues in favour of the active/passive rule because he reckons the confusion stops defenders from playing the offside trap. Seems a bit dodgy to me, but offside calls are down.
There needs to be a degree of active/non-active in the offside rules. That much is obvious.
I think that the previous rule was far simpler, an awful lot clearer, and thus much easier to officiate.
Timothy wrote:There needs to be a degree of active/non-active in the offside rules. That much is obvious.
Rubbish- If you're even just standing there your mere presence is enough to distract players eyes even for a second- Imo if you're on the pitch- You're interfering with play.
Biggus wrote:Timothy wrote:There needs to be a degree of active/non-active in the offside rules. That much is obvious.
Rubbish- If you're even just standing there your mere presence is enough to distract players eyes even for a second- Imo if you're on the pitch- You're interfering with play.
Well you would get some really dumb offside calls. Pretty much any player that gets to the byline and puts a cross in / makes a cut back would be a prime candidate to be called offside if the cross was banged home first time. Corner takers could get called a lot too.
That would actually be well funny.
Timothy wrote:Biggus wrote:Rubbish- If you're even just standing there your mere presence is enough to distract players eyes even for a second- Imo if you're on the pitch- You're interfering with play.
Well you would get some really dumb offside calls. Pretty much any player that gets to the byline and puts a cross in / makes a cut back would be a prime candidate to be called offside if the cross was banged home first time. Corner takers could get called a lot too.
No thats not how it ever worked, it's when the ball was played in the passage of play.
"When the ball was played in the passage of play" means what in English?
Timothy wrote:"When the ball was played in the passage of play" means what in English?
I think he means from open play. And it doesn't matter, of course.
Without an active/inactive rule the corner taker has to make a mad dash for the defensive line because otherwise any ball sent towards goal from his corner can't be followed up without an offside being called.
You can imagine a rule where only the player making the pass from an offside position (byline cross, cutback, corner etc) is permitted to be "inactive" and only if they don't touch a return ball, touch another player, or impede any player while they remain in an offside position.
But it's a bit of a can of worms isn't it.
yup, that would just bring up the same set of problems as the rule does now. Might as well keep the current rules.
At least you'd have it less often because only the playmaker would be permitted to be inactive for the purposes of offside.
That'd be relatively clear compared to the current situation where any forward runner can be inactive under the right circumstances.
7 days later
Burnwinter wrote:At least you'd have it less often because only the playmaker would be permitted to be inactive for the purposes of offside.
That'd be relatively clear compared to the current situation where any forward runner can be inactive under the right circumstances.
What if it was a short corner to another player, then that player crossed?