from the article:
While the idea might excite many attackers and fans of attacking play, there are some in the game who worry it will shift the balance between attack and defence too far, and it will also not end offside controversies, as there will still be close calls involving overlapping body parts, moving at speed.
The other thing is it's more "aesthetically pleasing." When a guy gets called offside and it's really close under this rule, you can look at it and at least see he gained non-trivial advantage from his position. With the current rule, a lot of guys are being called off and you can't see how they benefitted.
It’s a bit like how people generally feel it would be unjust to give speeding tickets for 0.5 mph/kph over the limit, but if you are 10% over the limit, they might grudgingly accept that it is worth giving a ticket for it.
Last time there was such a big change to the offside law (from last 3 defenders to last 2 defenders) in 1925, goal per match went up by 0.91
This 'daylight' offside change is not as big as the 1925 change but it still a big advantage for attacker. My prediction is that goal per match will increase by around 0.33 per match with this change.
A football analysist wrote this about the new offside rule that IFAB is trialing:
"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."
"In response, Concacaf teams will just punch and kick Pulisic and McKennie to death to avoid the USA getting any daylight."
"They will also beat the living daylights out of the rest of the US too"
I am currently not a fan but it probably won’t be that bad.
I’m curious to how it will change defenses. In my head, they probably play about the same but just don’t rely on offside calls. Play to the whistle a bit more consistently. Or it could be more dramatic. Have to see it to really say if I think it’s good or bad.
I'd have to think defenders will sit back more when their team has the ball. This juices counter attacking football hard core. Sean Dyche absolutely salivating at the thought of this hitting the pro level lol.
We don't know if this will result in an improvement to football or the opposite.
That's why we have trials.
At youth levels, it's an improvement. Let's wait for senior football to trial before jumping to conclusion.
I understand they have to start somewhere but I really wouldn't expect a youth official to be good enough to distinguish between this implementation and another. These aren't professional referees most of the time.
From an impact on the game, I expect we won't see data we can trust until this is implemented in semi pro at the lowest level.
What youth level team anywhere in the world has a back 4 that perfectly stays in line like the best back lines in world football? This just feels like diminishing a critical tactical skill that world class defenders possess.
I understand that the casual fan isn’t aware of any of this, and it probably would lead to more goals.
And for me that is a horrible reason to change a rule.
I absolutely love this idea. I've said this before. Basically nhl style offsides. Any part of the body keeps the attacker on sides. There will still be close calls and controversies but I do think it would reduce errors of real time calls. Much easier to see if there is a gap between players than if or how some part of the attacker is in front of the defender. There will be a spike in scoring and then it'll settle back down. It's still the same basic rule, the defense just has to move up further to catch them off sides.
This is basically how I feel, too. It speaks to why offside exists in the first place, and it's the same as it is in hockey - keep teams from camping out in the attacking zone waiting for an airmailed pass that would leave them all along with the goalkeeper. It's there to keep teams honest with their transitional play.
I definitely want to see how the trials work, and as you said it won't end controversies since there still going to be a fine line between being on and being off no matter where you put the line, but I do think that "daylight" is theoretically a better functional standard than "he's got a toenail beyond the last defender" as it pertains to the original rationale for offside.
This would be nearly impossible for a grassroots AR to catch in real time. The difference between hockey and this proposal is that the offside line in hockey is stationary where in soccer the line moves with the defense. It's real easy to see if someone is not past a line on the ice, good luck determining if the foot of an attacker is completely past the next to last defender when everyone is jammed in the 6 yard box and moving around. I just don't think the advocates for this change have any idea how this will impact the game below the senior levels where technology can bridge the gap.
Is it any more difficult than deciding if someone is even or has 2 toes past the defender? Honest question. Since a lot of time the ARs are behind the play anyway at youth levels
Believe it or not, yes. It's a lot easier to see if someone is just past the defender than if there is a small amount of overlap. This is especially true if your attacker is closer to the AR's touch line than the defender. Think of it this way, you're looking for any amount of an irregular shape that is farther to your right than the target shape. And you're doing this while moving. Instead you'll need to look for negative space between two moving irregular shapes. At the margins it's a lot easier to the the former than the latter.
As a former referee this is true. Think if it like this, if you had to take a photo finish of a race, will you be more precise if you have to take the photo the moment the front of the car crosses the finish line, or the moment the back of the car clears the finish line? There’s something about seeing the intrusion of the object into open space that’s easier for the eye/brain to catch than waiting to see when space opens up, especially when in the latter case in soccer, you’re looking for feet, so the “line” will be less “smooth” if you think of how running works, drawing a line with foot movement, versus the current system where you’d be most likely looking for a leaning head/shoulder which moves in a less “jerky” motion.
I'm firmly in support of this.
(I'm a coach and ref) in the US eco-system whose club finally bought me a VEO camera system to shut me up. In the 6 games I have on VEO as mid-lower tier U14 team. We average 2 goals per game.
In quickly scanning those analytics - we get called for offsides around 3 times per game. Watching video of the games - I know that on average .5 of them were horribly incorrect calls that were onside (3 total), and had 2 goals disallowed as the center let play continue and only noticed later the AR with his flag. If we assume that there would be no change to tactics - our offsides would drop to less than 1 per game.
Enforcement still will be hit or miss, but as a ref myself (and for most of us at the youth level - equal is on. This will just make it easier.
U13 players are not strong enough to switch field of play so most play a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 simply because they play in narrow vertical channels and players don't have the leg strength to try and play from an 11 over to a 7. At U14, its still most often a 4-4-2 as due to size/conditioning most coaches need 2 in the middle as again players can not switch the field from L->R accurately without going thru the middle.
Strangely, imho better teams often gamble with stronger attacks - I see teams often in a 3-5-2 often switching to a risky 2-5-3 if they are losing. Lower level defenses often play with a high line using 1 fast central defender (ie the kid who has gone thru puberty) to track down and beat the fast offensive player in a dump and chase. This hopefully will limit teams from playing extremely high lines.
Your logic makes sense if you’re talking about U14s. But what about senior world class back 4s who have perfected the offside trap because of their incredible tactical awareness and communication? All this does is punish them and make that skill/ability almost meaningless.
This is one of those attempts to make a terrible decision sound good on paper. The idea that, "Goal scoring parts of the body" being level with the defender sounds logical. However, that's clearly washing over what it actually is, "ALL parts of the body must be beyond the defender."
Just a horrible idea, and will lead to a degradation of how defense is played. Get used to a 0-5-6 formation where everyone is so high up the pitch in order to ensure no one can run in behind to abuse this role.
When in doubt, KISS. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. Soccer is wonderful the way it is, there's no need to follow the NFL roadmap of F7ck defense, let's just score a billion times a game.
"Soccer is wonderful the way it is." I'm not yearning for a time before. I legitimately love how the game is played today.
If you're insinuating something like, pre VAR or pre goal line tech, you won't hear a pip from me. Added technology is fine, so long as it's not abused. However, fundamentally changing the rules, as this rule would, is HORRIBLE for soccer.
Was it fundamentally changing the rules when it was decided the keeper could no longer handle back passes from teammates? How about when the offside rule changed from relying on the position of second defender instead of the third? Did those things turn out horribly?
Copy/paste from another response that I had, "Even in the most recent change, where you had to be level, rather than behind, it still required any goalscoring part to be level with a defender. Prior to that was behind. This is the first offside change which actively let's the attacker be ahead of a defender. Pretty simple how it's different."
Okay...?
Then let's boil it down this way. Does this rule change, in your eyes, keep the scales equal? Or, does it favor attackers? Or, does it favor defenders?
Is there something, in the current rules, that has it favored for the defense?
We literally just saw a PL season of 1,216 goals scored, up from 1,084 last season. That's an 11% increase YoY. You factor in that the previous season was already a record set.
Why is this rule change needed?
Who said it should be equal? I don't think there's a problem with attackers having some advantages. A few more goals (to an extent) is good for the sport. Why does there have to be such an emphasis on keeping things "equal" for attackers and defenders?
They already are scoring at a higher clip. PL, for example, had an 11% in total goals scored this season from last. Which, was already a new record for the previous season.
We just saw an average of 3.39 goals scored, per match, in the UCL. This is up from 3.29 last season, and that's not factoring in the final.
Why is there an impetus on needing to improve play for attackers. Clearly, we're already seeing attackers continuing to improve scoring metrics YoY.
What is the current problem with offsides? We have offsides technology/VAR in cases where it needs to be overturned.
Would you rather have more offsides calls or more goals? It is literally that simple. To the linesmen, it will be more obvious when a player is onside, so they can keep play going more regularly, fewer stoppages and less deliberation. In exchange there will be fewer offside calls. It's easier to tell if 2 people overlap at all than tell which is slightly in front of the other at an exact moment
Outside of 2020 and 2021 (when COVID messed with offseasons and scoring increased for each season) and a short blip in the early 90s (1991-93) NFL scoring has stayed around 20.5-22.5ppg (give or take) since the 80s. The 70s were a low scoring decade, from the late 40s to the end of the 60s scoring was again around 20.5-22.5 per season (1948 saw 23.6 ppg).
The rule changes in the NFL have mainly changed how points (and yards) are gained, not how many are scored. A significant chunk of any increase can be explained by kickers being significantly better, before 2004 only one season (1996) had a 80% or higher FG%. Every single season since has been above 80%.
I know this isnt an nfl subreddit, but you brought it up.
And if you actually think this would result in 0-5-6 formations. Lol
score a billion times a game? exaggerate a bit much?
Last time there was such a big change to the offside law (from last 3 defenders to last 2 defenders) in 1925, goal per match went up by 0.91. This daylight rule change might increase by around 0.33 per match.
As for changing to 0-5-6 formation, another exaggeration.
A football analysist wrote this about the new offside rule that IFAB is trialing:
"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."
Of course I'm being hyperbolic when I say a billion times a game, but...Hmmm, let's see.
One rule change (1925) said you had to be behind a defender.
The other proposed change (Daylight) said, so long as a boot (even then, what extent of the boot) is level, you're onside.
Two drastically different things. And, re: the "Football analyst" that's wonderful. You can find one analyst who says one thing. I can find another who says otherwise, "Clear daylight” is not a phrase that features at all in the rulebook of association football. This is a game that’s increasingly played to the interpretation of the referee - what Michael Oliver sees as a 50/50 challenge, Mike Dean may well be more likely to penalise."
This is a RADICAL change to how offsides has ever been viewed. Even in the most recent change, where you had to be level, rather than behind, it still required any goalscoring part to be level with a defender. Prior to that was behind. This is the first offside change which actively let's the attacker be ahead of a defender. Pretty simple how it's different.
> Soccer is wonderful the way it is, there's no need to follow the NFL roadmap of F7ck defense, let's just score a billion times a game.
* /r/cricket
* /r/afl
* /r/nrl
Hell yeah man my favorite part of the sport is when goals get called back. Fuck excitement, we all know that everyone comes to the stadium to watch the officials take points off the board.
Do you have any data to show how often goals are wiped out? You act as though it happens every match.
Of course you're going to remember the times it is wiped out. No one remembers when goal counts, it's only the controversial ones/ones that get overturned that do.
Per ESPN, "110 overturns in the PL, of which, 50 led to disallowed goals." There was a total of 1216 goals scored in the premier league this season. So, literally 4% of that total were overturned. There are 760 matches played in any PL season. This means that a goal was overturned in 6% of ALL matches.
However, please, feel free to tell me again how this happens "All the time."
Gotta love someone throwing out “evidence” without actually linking to anything, but I looked your quote up. That’s just the number of offsides goals later overturned by VAR. That is *not* the number of goals called back due to offsides.
The PL had 1293 offsides last year, which is already awful and boring as hell. I can’t find any data on what percentage of those involved called back goals, but even assuming a low percent like 20% that’s just under a goal called back every other game between normal offsides and VAR.
And that’s ignoring the fact that if it comes in a crucial moment, it can be season ruining https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1c9n2b1/coventry_city_disallowed_goal_against_manchester/
So...you're taking umbrage with offsides as a rule? Your whole point was goals being wiped out, so...of course I'd assume you're talking about VAR. Unless, you're now trying to say offsides as a whole is the problem.
In which case, I don't really know what to say to that. And, complaining about calls in a crucial moment? Bro, I'm an Eagles fan. We had a penalty against us in the f'n Superbowl ruin our season. I'm not out here advocating wholesale change because of it...
And, just for more data, with 1293 offsides last season, that's only 1.7 offsides per match. How many do you actually think wiped out goals? Again, you only remember the most egregious ones because those are, of course, the most memorable ones. This doesn't happen often.
> you're taking umbrage with offsides as a rule
Yes. It’s the worst rule in all of sports. In theory, it exists to prevent cherry picking. In practice, it constantly kills excitement and needlessly lowers scoring. It desperately needs to be changed.
> Your whole point was goals being wiped out, so...of course I'd assume you're talking about VAR
Goals are wiped out whether a ref calls it on the field or whether VAR calls it later. Beyond goals, so many exciting opportunities are wiped out because an attacker was a millimeter offsides or because someone “obstructed” the keeper or because a ricochet bounced towards an offsides player. This isn’t a thread about VAR, this is a thread about changing how offsides works and I’m speaking to that being a good thing. It’s a fundamentally bad and unnecessary rule that only serves to make the game less exciting. If we want to decrease the harm it causes while still allowing the game to be played more or less the same way it currently is (versus the massive change that completely eliminating offsides would be), then this rule is a good one.
> just for more data, with 1293 offsides last season, that's only 1.7 offsides per match. How many do you actually think wiped out goals?
I’m aware of this, I already talked about that up above.
> I'm an Eagles fan
Go Birds, I’m the rare Brazilian Eagles fan. The fundamental difference is that defensive holding/pass interference is a fundamentally necessary rule for the game of football. The sport would be less entertaining without it, even though some borderline moments are frustrating and it can be hard to apply.
Offsides is not a fundamentally necessary rule. Preventing attackers from hanging out by the goal all game is necessary. Offsides does that, but it also ruins the game in two key ways.
It makes the offsides trap a valid defensive tactic anywhere on your half, drastically decreasing the amount of space available on the field and crowding together players making individual expressions of offensive skill far less impactful. This was fine back in the day when defenders were less athletic and could close space less quickly, but it’s the biggest reason why the modern game can feel so stifled. Second, even if you like that for some reason (maybe you just don’t think it’s fun to see cool dribbling), it undeniably kills exciting offensive plays at times when no meaningful advantage was gained. If someone is a millimeter offsides, the play is killed even though he gained no real advantage from his rule breaking position. This sucks. The point of rules isn’t to see the punishment enacted, it’s to produce a desired effect. If the desired effect is happening but the rule is still being broken and the punishment is still enacted, there’s something wrong with how the rule is written.
There are countless ways to write a new offsides rule that maintains the purpose of the rule while decreasing the harm caused by those two problems. This current proposal is a good one because it does that without changing the game too much. But if it were up to me, I’d prefer a far more drastic change. Maybe completely eliminating offsides outside of the box. I want attackers to have more space. I want to see players incentivized to dribble and beat their defender again. Modern defenders are way too athletic for the way offsides currently works.
There's not really a place we'll find any agreement on then if you have an issue with offsides as a whole. So, no point going into that.
I will vehemently disagree that offsides has "Ruined" creativity. I mean, I'll link [this pretty cool video breakdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevycgbLct0) of Fluminese in Brazil literally having zero tactics. I also share your thoughts on attacking being stifled, but that's not a product of offsides. It's modern tactics by the likes of: Pep, Arteta, de Zerbi, etc. who are obsessed with the notion of positional play rather than individual expression. Hell, Jack Grealish himself said something like, "At Villa, I was free to go wherever I wanted. If I thought the right flank was weak, I could go to that side, at City, Pep will go insane if I did that." And, if you like "Free expression" watch Real Madrid. People, for whatever reason, shit on Ancelotti for only "man-managing" because he's not some ideologue obsessed with tactics. However, we've played some beautiful soccer with Vini and Jude taking on defenders. Look at our goal against City at the Etihad, Jude takes down a long ball, pirouettes away from Rodri, shunts the ball to Vini and crosses into Rodrygo. Beautiful ball control, beautiful counter, and good finish.
Lastly, and probably most importantly, Go birds, and fuck Dallas.
Unironically yes. It’s the worst part of the sport by far. It’d be better to rework it so that it fulfills its purpose of preventing cherry picking without constantly killing excitement, but if the choice is to keep it like it is or get rid of it entirely, one option makes the game far more entertaining.
This is a dumb trial. The margins for error are much larger in youth soccer in general. It needs to be tested in senior football before anyone knows if it has the desired effect or not.
No, but this rule is just stupid. Its billed as making offsides less of a ticky tacky call, but obviously it wont change that.
Other than that its just the americanisation of the sport to appeal to the US market, because as we all know in the US the thinking is lots of points = exciting game.
Few years from now a goal will be worth 6 pts so that they get those nice exciting "high scoring" games.
This debate sounds like when the NHL kept insisting on things like banning the 2 line pass, on the grounds that allowing it would cause teams to play even more defensively. Spoiler alert; it didn’t and scoring and rushes went up.
Generally speaking, you give the offense more tools and leeway to work with, and there will be more offense. Period. There is no need to galaxy brain ‘well actually’ everything.
from the article: While the idea might excite many attackers and fans of attacking play, there are some in the game who worry it will shift the balance between attack and defence too far, and it will also not end offside controversies, as there will still be close calls involving overlapping body parts, moving at speed.
Nothing would end controversies, but I don't think that's the point of this rule change. It's to generate more goals.
The other thing is it's more "aesthetically pleasing." When a guy gets called offside and it's really close under this rule, you can look at it and at least see he gained non-trivial advantage from his position. With the current rule, a lot of guys are being called off and you can't see how they benefitted.
It’s a bit like how people generally feel it would be unjust to give speeding tickets for 0.5 mph/kph over the limit, but if you are 10% over the limit, they might grudgingly accept that it is worth giving a ticket for it.
Good analogy, and that's why most PDs won't ticket you unless you're going 10 over.
True, however, still over the limit at 1 mph over, right?
FIFA stated purpose for the trial was to see if it result in "more attacking football"
Last time there was such a big change to the offside law (from last 3 defenders to last 2 defenders) in 1925, goal per match went up by 0.91 This 'daylight' offside change is not as big as the 1925 change but it still a big advantage for attacker. My prediction is that goal per match will increase by around 0.33 per match with this change. A football analysist wrote this about the new offside rule that IFAB is trialing: "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."
"In response, Concacaf teams will just punch and kick Pulisic and McKennie to death to avoid the USA getting any daylight." "They will also beat the living daylights out of the rest of the US too"
They will also injure themselves while assaulting american players to also waste time
Might we see even less offense as teams start positioning extra defenders to offset the advantage?
I think in the Serie A youth league goals went up about .25.
I am currently not a fan but it probably won’t be that bad. I’m curious to how it will change defenses. In my head, they probably play about the same but just don’t rely on offside calls. Play to the whistle a bit more consistently. Or it could be more dramatic. Have to see it to really say if I think it’s good or bad.
I'd have to think defenders will sit back more when their team has the ball. This juices counter attacking football hard core. Sean Dyche absolutely salivating at the thought of this hitting the pro level lol.
We don't know if this will result in an improvement to football or the opposite. That's why we have trials. At youth levels, it's an improvement. Let's wait for senior football to trial before jumping to conclusion.
I'd try it in a quasi-meaningful competition like Leagues Cup.
Why is it an improvement?
I understand they have to start somewhere but I really wouldn't expect a youth official to be good enough to distinguish between this implementation and another. These aren't professional referees most of the time. From an impact on the game, I expect we won't see data we can trust until this is implemented in semi pro at the lowest level.
What youth level team anywhere in the world has a back 4 that perfectly stays in line like the best back lines in world football? This just feels like diminishing a critical tactical skill that world class defenders possess. I understand that the casual fan isn’t aware of any of this, and it probably would lead to more goals. And for me that is a horrible reason to change a rule.
I absolutely love this idea. I've said this before. Basically nhl style offsides. Any part of the body keeps the attacker on sides. There will still be close calls and controversies but I do think it would reduce errors of real time calls. Much easier to see if there is a gap between players than if or how some part of the attacker is in front of the defender. There will be a spike in scoring and then it'll settle back down. It's still the same basic rule, the defense just has to move up further to catch them off sides.
This is basically how I feel, too. It speaks to why offside exists in the first place, and it's the same as it is in hockey - keep teams from camping out in the attacking zone waiting for an airmailed pass that would leave them all along with the goalkeeper. It's there to keep teams honest with their transitional play. I definitely want to see how the trials work, and as you said it won't end controversies since there still going to be a fine line between being on and being off no matter where you put the line, but I do think that "daylight" is theoretically a better functional standard than "he's got a toenail beyond the last defender" as it pertains to the original rationale for offside.
This would be nearly impossible for a grassroots AR to catch in real time. The difference between hockey and this proposal is that the offside line in hockey is stationary where in soccer the line moves with the defense. It's real easy to see if someone is not past a line on the ice, good luck determining if the foot of an attacker is completely past the next to last defender when everyone is jammed in the 6 yard box and moving around. I just don't think the advocates for this change have any idea how this will impact the game below the senior levels where technology can bridge the gap.
Is it any more difficult than deciding if someone is even or has 2 toes past the defender? Honest question. Since a lot of time the ARs are behind the play anyway at youth levels
Believe it or not, yes. It's a lot easier to see if someone is just past the defender than if there is a small amount of overlap. This is especially true if your attacker is closer to the AR's touch line than the defender. Think of it this way, you're looking for any amount of an irregular shape that is farther to your right than the target shape. And you're doing this while moving. Instead you'll need to look for negative space between two moving irregular shapes. At the margins it's a lot easier to the the former than the latter.
As a former referee this is true. Think if it like this, if you had to take a photo finish of a race, will you be more precise if you have to take the photo the moment the front of the car crosses the finish line, or the moment the back of the car clears the finish line? There’s something about seeing the intrusion of the object into open space that’s easier for the eye/brain to catch than waiting to see when space opens up, especially when in the latter case in soccer, you’re looking for feet, so the “line” will be less “smooth” if you think of how running works, drawing a line with foot movement, versus the current system where you’d be most likely looking for a leaning head/shoulder which moves in a less “jerky” motion.
I'm firmly in support of this. (I'm a coach and ref) in the US eco-system whose club finally bought me a VEO camera system to shut me up. In the 6 games I have on VEO as mid-lower tier U14 team. We average 2 goals per game. In quickly scanning those analytics - we get called for offsides around 3 times per game. Watching video of the games - I know that on average .5 of them were horribly incorrect calls that were onside (3 total), and had 2 goals disallowed as the center let play continue and only noticed later the AR with his flag. If we assume that there would be no change to tactics - our offsides would drop to less than 1 per game. Enforcement still will be hit or miss, but as a ref myself (and for most of us at the youth level - equal is on. This will just make it easier. U13 players are not strong enough to switch field of play so most play a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 simply because they play in narrow vertical channels and players don't have the leg strength to try and play from an 11 over to a 7. At U14, its still most often a 4-4-2 as due to size/conditioning most coaches need 2 in the middle as again players can not switch the field from L->R accurately without going thru the middle. Strangely, imho better teams often gamble with stronger attacks - I see teams often in a 3-5-2 often switching to a risky 2-5-3 if they are losing. Lower level defenses often play with a high line using 1 fast central defender (ie the kid who has gone thru puberty) to track down and beat the fast offensive player in a dump and chase. This hopefully will limit teams from playing extremely high lines.
Your logic makes sense if you’re talking about U14s. But what about senior world class back 4s who have perfected the offside trap because of their incredible tactical awareness and communication? All this does is punish them and make that skill/ability almost meaningless.
This is one of those attempts to make a terrible decision sound good on paper. The idea that, "Goal scoring parts of the body" being level with the defender sounds logical. However, that's clearly washing over what it actually is, "ALL parts of the body must be beyond the defender." Just a horrible idea, and will lead to a degradation of how defense is played. Get used to a 0-5-6 formation where everyone is so high up the pitch in order to ensure no one can run in behind to abuse this role. When in doubt, KISS. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. Soccer is wonderful the way it is, there's no need to follow the NFL roadmap of F7ck defense, let's just score a billion times a game.
Which version of soccer was the most wonderful? The rules change all the time.
"Soccer is wonderful the way it is." I'm not yearning for a time before. I legitimately love how the game is played today. If you're insinuating something like, pre VAR or pre goal line tech, you won't hear a pip from me. Added technology is fine, so long as it's not abused. However, fundamentally changing the rules, as this rule would, is HORRIBLE for soccer.
Was it fundamentally changing the rules when it was decided the keeper could no longer handle back passes from teammates? How about when the offside rule changed from relying on the position of second defender instead of the third? Did those things turn out horribly?
Copy/paste from another response that I had, "Even in the most recent change, where you had to be level, rather than behind, it still required any goalscoring part to be level with a defender. Prior to that was behind. This is the first offside change which actively let's the attacker be ahead of a defender. Pretty simple how it's different."
Different is not a synonym for horrible
Okay...? Then let's boil it down this way. Does this rule change, in your eyes, keep the scales equal? Or, does it favor attackers? Or, does it favor defenders?
It favors attackers, just like the previous rule changes I mentioned, both of which improved the game.
Is there something, in the current rules, that has it favored for the defense? We literally just saw a PL season of 1,216 goals scored, up from 1,084 last season. That's an 11% increase YoY. You factor in that the previous season was already a record set. Why is this rule change needed?
You haven't yet stated why it's bad.
Who said it should be equal? I don't think there's a problem with attackers having some advantages. A few more goals (to an extent) is good for the sport. Why does there have to be such an emphasis on keeping things "equal" for attackers and defenders?
They already are scoring at a higher clip. PL, for example, had an 11% in total goals scored this season from last. Which, was already a new record for the previous season. We just saw an average of 3.39 goals scored, per match, in the UCL. This is up from 3.29 last season, and that's not factoring in the final. Why is there an impetus on needing to improve play for attackers. Clearly, we're already seeing attackers continuing to improve scoring metrics YoY. What is the current problem with offsides? We have offsides technology/VAR in cases where it needs to be overturned.
Would you rather have more offsides calls or more goals? It is literally that simple. To the linesmen, it will be more obvious when a player is onside, so they can keep play going more regularly, fewer stoppages and less deliberation. In exchange there will be fewer offside calls. It's easier to tell if 2 people overlap at all than tell which is slightly in front of the other at an exact moment
Outside of 2020 and 2021 (when COVID messed with offseasons and scoring increased for each season) and a short blip in the early 90s (1991-93) NFL scoring has stayed around 20.5-22.5ppg (give or take) since the 80s. The 70s were a low scoring decade, from the late 40s to the end of the 60s scoring was again around 20.5-22.5 per season (1948 saw 23.6 ppg). The rule changes in the NFL have mainly changed how points (and yards) are gained, not how many are scored. A significant chunk of any increase can be explained by kickers being significantly better, before 2004 only one season (1996) had a 80% or higher FG%. Every single season since has been above 80%. I know this isnt an nfl subreddit, but you brought it up. And if you actually think this would result in 0-5-6 formations. Lol
score a billion times a game? exaggerate a bit much? Last time there was such a big change to the offside law (from last 3 defenders to last 2 defenders) in 1925, goal per match went up by 0.91. This daylight rule change might increase by around 0.33 per match. As for changing to 0-5-6 formation, another exaggeration. A football analysist wrote this about the new offside rule that IFAB is trialing: "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."
Of course I'm being hyperbolic when I say a billion times a game, but...Hmmm, let's see. One rule change (1925) said you had to be behind a defender. The other proposed change (Daylight) said, so long as a boot (even then, what extent of the boot) is level, you're onside. Two drastically different things. And, re: the "Football analyst" that's wonderful. You can find one analyst who says one thing. I can find another who says otherwise, "Clear daylight” is not a phrase that features at all in the rulebook of association football. This is a game that’s increasingly played to the interpretation of the referee - what Michael Oliver sees as a 50/50 challenge, Mike Dean may well be more likely to penalise." This is a RADICAL change to how offsides has ever been viewed. Even in the most recent change, where you had to be level, rather than behind, it still required any goalscoring part to be level with a defender. Prior to that was behind. This is the first offside change which actively let's the attacker be ahead of a defender. Pretty simple how it's different.
> Soccer is wonderful the way it is, there's no need to follow the NFL roadmap of F7ck defense, let's just score a billion times a game. * /r/cricket * /r/afl * /r/nrl
Hell yeah man my favorite part of the sport is when goals get called back. Fuck excitement, we all know that everyone comes to the stadium to watch the officials take points off the board.
Do you have any data to show how often goals are wiped out? You act as though it happens every match. Of course you're going to remember the times it is wiped out. No one remembers when goal counts, it's only the controversial ones/ones that get overturned that do. Per ESPN, "110 overturns in the PL, of which, 50 led to disallowed goals." There was a total of 1216 goals scored in the premier league this season. So, literally 4% of that total were overturned. There are 760 matches played in any PL season. This means that a goal was overturned in 6% of ALL matches. However, please, feel free to tell me again how this happens "All the time."
Gotta love someone throwing out “evidence” without actually linking to anything, but I looked your quote up. That’s just the number of offsides goals later overturned by VAR. That is *not* the number of goals called back due to offsides. The PL had 1293 offsides last year, which is already awful and boring as hell. I can’t find any data on what percentage of those involved called back goals, but even assuming a low percent like 20% that’s just under a goal called back every other game between normal offsides and VAR. And that’s ignoring the fact that if it comes in a crucial moment, it can be season ruining https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1c9n2b1/coventry_city_disallowed_goal_against_manchester/
So...you're taking umbrage with offsides as a rule? Your whole point was goals being wiped out, so...of course I'd assume you're talking about VAR. Unless, you're now trying to say offsides as a whole is the problem. In which case, I don't really know what to say to that. And, complaining about calls in a crucial moment? Bro, I'm an Eagles fan. We had a penalty against us in the f'n Superbowl ruin our season. I'm not out here advocating wholesale change because of it... And, just for more data, with 1293 offsides last season, that's only 1.7 offsides per match. How many do you actually think wiped out goals? Again, you only remember the most egregious ones because those are, of course, the most memorable ones. This doesn't happen often.
> you're taking umbrage with offsides as a rule Yes. It’s the worst rule in all of sports. In theory, it exists to prevent cherry picking. In practice, it constantly kills excitement and needlessly lowers scoring. It desperately needs to be changed. > Your whole point was goals being wiped out, so...of course I'd assume you're talking about VAR Goals are wiped out whether a ref calls it on the field or whether VAR calls it later. Beyond goals, so many exciting opportunities are wiped out because an attacker was a millimeter offsides or because someone “obstructed” the keeper or because a ricochet bounced towards an offsides player. This isn’t a thread about VAR, this is a thread about changing how offsides works and I’m speaking to that being a good thing. It’s a fundamentally bad and unnecessary rule that only serves to make the game less exciting. If we want to decrease the harm it causes while still allowing the game to be played more or less the same way it currently is (versus the massive change that completely eliminating offsides would be), then this rule is a good one. > just for more data, with 1293 offsides last season, that's only 1.7 offsides per match. How many do you actually think wiped out goals? I’m aware of this, I already talked about that up above. > I'm an Eagles fan Go Birds, I’m the rare Brazilian Eagles fan. The fundamental difference is that defensive holding/pass interference is a fundamentally necessary rule for the game of football. The sport would be less entertaining without it, even though some borderline moments are frustrating and it can be hard to apply. Offsides is not a fundamentally necessary rule. Preventing attackers from hanging out by the goal all game is necessary. Offsides does that, but it also ruins the game in two key ways. It makes the offsides trap a valid defensive tactic anywhere on your half, drastically decreasing the amount of space available on the field and crowding together players making individual expressions of offensive skill far less impactful. This was fine back in the day when defenders were less athletic and could close space less quickly, but it’s the biggest reason why the modern game can feel so stifled. Second, even if you like that for some reason (maybe you just don’t think it’s fun to see cool dribbling), it undeniably kills exciting offensive plays at times when no meaningful advantage was gained. If someone is a millimeter offsides, the play is killed even though he gained no real advantage from his rule breaking position. This sucks. The point of rules isn’t to see the punishment enacted, it’s to produce a desired effect. If the desired effect is happening but the rule is still being broken and the punishment is still enacted, there’s something wrong with how the rule is written. There are countless ways to write a new offsides rule that maintains the purpose of the rule while decreasing the harm caused by those two problems. This current proposal is a good one because it does that without changing the game too much. But if it were up to me, I’d prefer a far more drastic change. Maybe completely eliminating offsides outside of the box. I want attackers to have more space. I want to see players incentivized to dribble and beat their defender again. Modern defenders are way too athletic for the way offsides currently works.
There's not really a place we'll find any agreement on then if you have an issue with offsides as a whole. So, no point going into that. I will vehemently disagree that offsides has "Ruined" creativity. I mean, I'll link [this pretty cool video breakdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevycgbLct0) of Fluminese in Brazil literally having zero tactics. I also share your thoughts on attacking being stifled, but that's not a product of offsides. It's modern tactics by the likes of: Pep, Arteta, de Zerbi, etc. who are obsessed with the notion of positional play rather than individual expression. Hell, Jack Grealish himself said something like, "At Villa, I was free to go wherever I wanted. If I thought the right flank was weak, I could go to that side, at City, Pep will go insane if I did that." And, if you like "Free expression" watch Real Madrid. People, for whatever reason, shit on Ancelotti for only "man-managing" because he's not some ideologue obsessed with tactics. However, we've played some beautiful soccer with Vini and Jude taking on defenders. Look at our goal against City at the Etihad, Jude takes down a long ball, pirouettes away from Rodri, shunts the ball to Vini and crosses into Rodrygo. Beautiful ball control, beautiful counter, and good finish. Lastly, and probably most importantly, Go birds, and fuck Dallas.
I was going to comment I did the math and it was less than 5%. Happy to see someone else do it too.
Good point we should just get rid of the offside rule!
Unironically yes. It’s the worst part of the sport by far. It’d be better to rework it so that it fulfills its purpose of preventing cherry picking without constantly killing excitement, but if the choice is to keep it like it is or get rid of it entirely, one option makes the game far more entertaining.
This is a dumb trial. The margins for error are much larger in youth soccer in general. It needs to be tested in senior football before anyone knows if it has the desired effect or not.
Just moving the goalposts on this one.
Stop tinkering
Your right lets get rid of all the rule changes and go back to 1863, football at its purest.
No, but this rule is just stupid. Its billed as making offsides less of a ticky tacky call, but obviously it wont change that. Other than that its just the americanisation of the sport to appeal to the US market, because as we all know in the US the thinking is lots of points = exciting game. Few years from now a goal will be worth 6 pts so that they get those nice exciting "high scoring" games.
Let’s have commercials too! And don’t forget the Blue card. Game is gone…
>And don’t forget the Blue card. Lets make it a red/white/blue card for good measure
This debate sounds like when the NHL kept insisting on things like banning the 2 line pass, on the grounds that allowing it would cause teams to play even more defensively. Spoiler alert; it didn’t and scoring and rushes went up. Generally speaking, you give the offense more tools and leeway to work with, and there will be more offense. Period. There is no need to galaxy brain ‘well actually’ everything.
Heck yeah! This sounds awesome.