Daylight offside

Oakster2

i think there should be 5 linos in each half instead of 1 & then the offside is awarded (or not) by majority decision - obviously helps if they are all different heights so they can get the best possible view. Might have to make the pitch a bit narrower in some circumstances I guess....

YTS1978

bobmunro said:

thetomahawkkid said:

sam3110 said:

MrOneLung said:

Scrap offside outside of a line across the field say equal to the penalty area 

stops goal hanging but opens up the space between halfway line and penalty area 

Too close to the goal, you'd just get a low block on that line, if you go that way it needs to be more like 30-35 yards out 

Am I imagining it or did there used to be such a line on Subbuteo pitches?

There are lines across the pitch dividing it into four quarters.

This was bugging me, so just googled whether offside was a thing in Subbuteo and got this AI response:

Yes, offside is a rule in Subbuteo, but it differs from traditional soccer. It only applies within the "shooting zone" (the final quadrant of the pitch) rather than the halfway line. An attacking figure is offside if it is closer to the goal line than the last defender when the ball enters the zone.

I do vaguely remember having to get players back onside when playing the game.

Dave Rudd

AddicksAddict said:

Dave Rudd said:

I'd prefer a system which judges whether an advantage was gained as a result of the player being marginally offside or if a handball in the penalty area actually deprived the opposition of a goal or goal-scoring chance.

I'm not sure you need elaborate off-field surveillance and equipment to make this call.

You could have an independent official running about close to the action and with some kind of signalling system that players and supporters could easily detect.

Maybe a Court of Law judge (with wig) carrying a saxophone or something. 

There may be better suggestions.

Yes, it would be much better if they had a xylophone instead of a saxophone.

It's obvious now that you've said it.

Or maybe a tuba?

Algarveaddick

Dave Rudd said:

AddicksAddict said:

Dave Rudd said:

I'd prefer a system which judges whether an advantage was gained as a result of the player being marginally offside or if a handball in the penalty area actually deprived the opposition of a goal or goal-scoring chance.

I'm not sure you need elaborate off-field surveillance and equipment to make this call.

You could have an independent official running about close to the action and with some kind of signalling system that players and supporters could easily detect.

Maybe a Court of Law judge (with wig) carrying a saxophone or something. 

There may be better suggestions.

Yes, it would be much better if they had a xylophone instead of a saxophone.

It's obvious now that you've said it.

Or maybe a tuba?

Now you are being silly... 

EugenesAxe

AddicksAddict said:

EugenesAxe said:

Someone needs to explain quantisation to Arsene Wenger, wether there is daylight or not there still has to be a point of crossover from onside to offside, that will still be argued doesn't matter how big or small the "buffer" is.

I think most people on here would benefit from an explanation of quantisation.

It's basically a way of rounding, or determining when an instance of something becomes something else, so something changes from being an event to a non-event, so from being on side to offside. It doesn't matter how much you change the size of the quantization (the margins) there will always be the point where it has to go from being one thing to the other and this will always be argued over, at what point does the daylight start and end? is everyones interpretation the same?

Unless you give it definitive values it can't be quantized.

Shrug...

EugenesAxe

Otherwise it's just the football equivalent of triggers broom

Rothko

There’s enough cheating from club linesman in the grassroots game, this will just make it worse 

valleynick66

Surely the point being missed is that the proposal is more about the ‘spiriit’ of the offside rule and a means of simplification. 

By saying daylight you are removing the technical view that the variation in body size / position can currently lead to a decision one way or the other rather than a player seeking an advantage by standing further forward. 

The game need not be ruled by strict interpretations of wording. 

EugenesAxe

valleynick66 said:

Surely the point being missed is that the proposal is more about the ‘spiriit’ of the offside rule and a means of simplification. 

By saying daylight you are removing the technical view that the variation in body size / position can currently lead to a decision one way or the other rather than a player seeking an advantage by standing further forward. 

The game need not be ruled by strict interpretations of wording. 

Do you trust the spirit of some of the refs out there?

valleynick66

EugenesAxe said:

valleynick66 said:

Surely the point being missed is that the proposal is more about the ‘spiriit’ of the offside rule and a means of simplification. 

By saying daylight you are removing the technical view that the variation in body size / position can currently lead to a decision one way or the other rather than a player seeking an advantage by standing further forward. 

The game need not be ruled by strict interpretations of wording. 

Do you trust the spirit of some of the refs out there?

Yes. Certainly more than VAR looking for ‘technical’ breaches. 

EugenesAxe

valleynick66 said:

EugenesAxe said:

valleynick66 said:

Surely the point being missed is that the proposal is more about the ‘spiriit’ of the offside rule and a means of simplification. 

By saying daylight you are removing the technical view that the variation in body size / position can currently lead to a decision one way or the other rather than a player seeking an advantage by standing further forward. 

The game need not be ruled by strict interpretations of wording. 

Do you trust the spirit of some of the refs out there?

Yes. Certainly more than VAR looking for ‘technical’ breaches. 

I wouldn't trust em as far as I can kick em

Stig

I think whether the clear daylight suggestion could solve the current problems associated with off-side depends how you understand it. If you take it's literal meaning and think that it's really about being able to physically see clear daylight, then it's absolute nonsense because all that will do is shift the position of the line on the pitch. It won't improve decision making, it won't stop the ridiculous pauses that afflict our game at the top level, and it won't help those poor souls who think that technology is the answer to everything.

If you take it as a metaphor for the fact that the measurement of off-side decisions has become far too pernickety, and that off-sides should only be given when they are clear and obvious to the unaided eye, then it is definitely the way to go. 

SomervilleAddick

For any decision to be overturned it needs to be clear and obvious. My personal opinion on that is that if you can’t see it in 15-30 seconds with the naked eye, let the call stand. 

It’s the same problem as I’ve seen in US sports where this has been introduced. It quickly morphs from catching clear and obvious errors, into forensic investigation to make sure every decision is correct. 

It becomes ridiculous and winds everyone up. 

Radostanradical

Honestly i think the previous poster who mentioned just giving the VAR people 1 minute to review if they cant decide it was offside that quickly, then its onside. Or even just stop using the lines.

Shrew

The exact time of the sunset will have quite an effect on the match.