In all seriousness 1 is a clear improvement on the current rule, but needs work. 2 is a good idea and I don't see the issue. 3 discourages attacking wing play too much, though having watched Arsene's set ups over the years I can see why he'd advocate for that.
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 13 minutes ago
In all seriousness 1 is a clear improvement on the current rule, but needs work. 2 is a good idea and I don't see the issue. 3 discourages attacking wing play too much, though having watched Arsene's set ups over the years I can see why he'd advocate for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 is an issue because the ball is out of play, why is that fair?
So let's say somebody had a free kick in their own half but on the touchline, would it be fair to play the free kick down the line but go out of play and then curl back in just because it favours the attacking team?
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
It favours attacking play more, but I think it's a step too far of how much advantage the attacking team gets imo.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but it makes it easier for the players to judge in open play.
I personally think they should take out all these lines anyway and just judge from what they can see. If there is no obvious offside, allow the goal.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
How can the attacking team see the flight of the ball but the defending team can't? You are making it out to be some major thing, but in reality it is nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a serious question? The keeper and at least 2 defenders usually start on or just in front of the goal-line. The attackers tend to start at least 6 yards our so they can attack the ball. If the ball starts off our of play, the keeper and defenders are going to have their view obstructed by the posts/crossbar/net.
I think the offside one doesn't solve the major issue that people seem to currently have, and brings other issues that could completely change the game.
One of the biggest issues for a lot of people currently is tight offside calls. This proposal wouldn't change these, it just changes the point at which the offside is measured. You would still have tight offsides.
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but it makes it easier for the players to judge in open play.
I personally think they should take out all these lines anyway and just judge from what they can see. If there is no obvious offside, allow the goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it? Like I say, the margin of the call doesn't get any easier for the officials just because the flip the rules.
Clear and obvious errors are for those which are subjective though, whereas the offside rule isn't. You're either offside or you aren't so that's why they use all the lines.
Could you imagine the uproar if they took all the lines out, had 1/2 looks and deemed it as offside when in actual fact during all the analysis after the game they drew the lines on, looked at it a couple more times and the player who scores the winning goal in the 90th minute was actually onside, potentially denying somebody 3 points. Managers, players and fans alike would be going even more ballistic with VAR.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 seconds ago
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I imagine strikers standing back to back with defenders will become a big part of the game.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 seconds ago
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I imagine strikers standing back to back with defenders will become a big part of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not? Strikers already play on the very edge of offside to be able to gain through. Whilst they may not physically be touching backs this proposal effectively allows a striker to stand beyond the last defender, facing goal, and run through. The defender has to then turn and try to catch him.
Why do you not magine strikers will make the most of this opportunity?
Only having to have part of your trailing foot level with the last defender to be onside is far too much of an advantage to attackers. So unfair on the defensive side of the game. The offside trap is one of the more difficult and technical aspects of the game. Offside is fine as it ithe attacker has a massive advantage if he times it right anyway the advantage of momentum, usually hes on the move and the defenders not as theyve often got their back to goal too. So i have no issues with it being a mm offside, just need to sort out the accuracy of it all if anything but even when its tight i think defenders should be given the benefit of doubt not attackers. This more goals bs excuse is pathetic.
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
Wenger needs a good kick in, with this kick in idea.
Ridiculous hoofball promoting idea.
Can't see 4 linesmen being effective in the game at all and would be redundant with VAR anyway as it would just increase the chances of human error as well.
A table/points decision for referee's and officials throughout the season would be interesting although surely you'd assume there is some method of judgement on officials already.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 seconds ago
Can't see 4 linesmen being effective in the game at all and would be redundant with VAR anyway as it would just increase the chances of human error as well.
A table/points decision for referee's and officials throughout the season would be interesting although surely you'd assume there is some method of judgement on officials already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify mate the 4 linesmen would be instead of VAR not as well as.
I.personally don't mind human error. Part of the game for me
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said mate human error is part of the game
For me it's about making the officials better, which won't make every game perfect.
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said mate human error is part of the game
For me it's about making the officials better, which won't make every game perfect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, on the part of the players. The ref's role is to apply the laws of the game not to influence the result through errors. Whilst it is unlikely that we will reach a point where there are 0 errors, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to reduce them. Effectively giving a team a goal incorrectly is not fair on the opposition and can have far-reaching implications.
Number two should be a given. Like it feckin matters and leads to any kind of advantage.
Bout time we did away with offside completely...& then just have VAR for pens, cards & stuff the ref can't see
What has Wenger been taking, acid?
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
Sign in if you want to comment
Proposed Rule changes
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 8/10/20
In all seriousness 1 is a clear improvement on the current rule, but needs work. 2 is a good idea and I don't see the issue. 3 discourages attacking wing play too much, though having watched Arsene's set ups over the years I can see why he'd advocate for that.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 13 minutes ago
In all seriousness 1 is a clear improvement on the current rule, but needs work. 2 is a good idea and I don't see the issue. 3 discourages attacking wing play too much, though having watched Arsene's set ups over the years I can see why he'd advocate for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 is an issue because the ball is out of play, why is that fair?
So let's say somebody had a free kick in their own half but on the touchline, would it be fair to play the free kick down the line but go out of play and then curl back in just because it favours the attacking team?
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
It favours attacking play more, but I think it's a step too far of how much advantage the attacking team gets imo.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
posted on 8/10/20
i hate them all.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but it makes it easier for the players to judge in open play.
I personally think they should take out all these lines anyway and just judge from what they can see. If there is no obvious offside, allow the goal.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
How can the attacking team see the flight of the ball but the defending team can't? You are making it out to be some major thing, but in reality it is nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a serious question? The keeper and at least 2 defenders usually start on or just in front of the goal-line. The attackers tend to start at least 6 yards our so they can attack the ball. If the ball starts off our of play, the keeper and defenders are going to have their view obstructed by the posts/crossbar/net.
posted on 8/10/20
I think the offside one doesn't solve the major issue that people seem to currently have, and brings other issues that could completely change the game.
One of the biggest issues for a lot of people currently is tight offside calls. This proposal wouldn't change these, it just changes the point at which the offside is measured. You would still have tight offsides.
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also why is rule 1 a clear improvement on the current rule? It is no different, it's essentially saying you're onside unless you're ahead of the defender, how is that an improvement on what we currently have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easier for an attacker to judge if the are in line with a defender, than it is to judge if your tow nail is offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what happens when the stud on the back of his boot is "onside". Flipping the rules doesn't make the margin of calls any easier to determine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but it makes it easier for the players to judge in open play.
I personally think they should take out all these lines anyway and just judge from what they can see. If there is no obvious offside, allow the goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it? Like I say, the margin of the call doesn't get any easier for the officials just because the flip the rules.
Clear and obvious errors are for those which are subjective though, whereas the offside rule isn't. You're either offside or you aren't so that's why they use all the lines.
Could you imagine the uproar if they took all the lines out, had 1/2 looks and deemed it as offside when in actual fact during all the analysis after the game they drew the lines on, looked at it a couple more times and the player who scores the winning goal in the 90th minute was actually onside, potentially denying somebody 3 points. Managers, players and fans alike would be going even more ballistic with VAR.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 seconds ago
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I imagine strikers standing back to back with defenders will become a big part of the game.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 seconds ago
The other issue i can see is that this means a striker can stand back to back with the defender and just make sure to keep his back foot level to be onside. A ball over the top and the striker is clean through on goal and the defender has to turn around before he can chase and then has the striker between him and the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I imagine strikers standing back to back with defenders will become a big part of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not? Strikers already play on the very edge of offside to be able to gain through. Whilst they may not physically be touching backs this proposal effectively allows a striker to stand beyond the last defender, facing goal, and run through. The defender has to then turn and try to catch him.
Why do you not magine strikers will make the most of this opportunity?
posted on 8/10/20
Only having to have part of your trailing foot level with the last defender to be onside is far too much of an advantage to attackers. So unfair on the defensive side of the game. The offside trap is one of the more difficult and technical aspects of the game. Offside is fine as it ithe attacker has a massive advantage if he times it right anyway the advantage of momentum, usually hes on the move and the defenders not as theyve often got their back to goal too. So i have no issues with it being a mm offside, just need to sort out the accuracy of it all if anything but even when its tight i think defenders should be given the benefit of doubt not attackers. This more goals bs excuse is pathetic.
posted on 8/10/20
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
posted on 8/10/20
Wenger needs a good kick in, with this kick in idea.
Ridiculous hoofball promoting idea.
posted on 8/10/20
Can't see 4 linesmen being effective in the game at all and would be redundant with VAR anyway as it would just increase the chances of human error as well.
A table/points decision for referee's and officials throughout the season would be interesting although surely you'd assume there is some method of judgement on officials already.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 9 seconds ago
Can't see 4 linesmen being effective in the game at all and would be redundant with VAR anyway as it would just increase the chances of human error as well.
A table/points decision for referee's and officials throughout the season would be interesting although surely you'd assume there is some method of judgement on officials already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify mate the 4 linesmen would be instead of VAR not as well as.
I.personally don't mind human error. Part of the game for me
posted on 8/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said mate human error is part of the game
For me it's about making the officials better, which won't make every game perfect.
posted on 8/10/20
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 24 minutes ago
I've never liked VAR. As a big cricket fan I have hated the introduction of technology and think hawkeye has spoilt the experience
Thee problem for me has always been that there has been no comeuppance for the umpires and refs/linesmen.
Basically howlers should be "punished" in some way but tight decisions going against a team should be seen as fair enough.
I liked the idea of the ref behind the goal but the problem was the guy never really got involved with many aspects of the game making him pointless.
Human error is part of the game for me and it's uproar if it goes against you and funny if it goes against the opposition. Part of the game for me.
I would have rather seen four linesmen. Having two means distance was an issue if on opposite side and speed of the game. Having four helps that and maybe have a rule that both have to raise the flag for offside. If one does and one doesn't then after the game the one who is wrong has some form of comeuppance, even if it's like a table for refs so points given and/removed and at the end of the season they get relegated or win an award.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But human error will remain in the game in the form of the players making mistakes like Robbo against Arsenal.
The ref making mistakes essentially means the rules aren't being applied equally to both teams which makes the game inherently unfair. If the linesman catches all of Team As offside perfectly, but misses one of team Bs which they score from then you are effectively allowing the two teams to play by different rules and this shouldn't be encouraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said mate human error is part of the game
For me it's about making the officials better, which won't make every game perfect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, on the part of the players. The ref's role is to apply the laws of the game not to influence the result through errors. Whilst it is unlikely that we will reach a point where there are 0 errors, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to reduce them. Effectively giving a team a goal incorrectly is not fair on the opposition and can have far-reaching implications.
posted on 8/10/20
Number two should be a given. Like it feckin matters and leads to any kind of advantage.
posted on 8/10/20
Bout time we did away with offside completely...& then just have VAR for pens, cards & stuff the ref can't see
posted on 8/10/20
What has Wenger been taking, acid?
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
posted on 8/10/20
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7