LeonardSkinner said:

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

You're not a dumb American.

Problem is that you change the question from, "is the attacker's toe beyond the defender?" to "is the attacker's toe not behind the defender?" The fundamental issue is the same.

---

MattAg06 said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

You're not a dumb American.

Problem is that you change the question from, "is the attacker's toe beyond the defender?" to "is the attacker's toe not behind the defender?" The fundamental issue is the same.

---

Yes, the problem of being millimeters offsides would still be there but it would seem that the rulings would more often flip from no-goal to goal. Plus the intuitive sense of "did he really have an advantage?" would be more satisfactorily answered, imo. To me it's a way to compromise within the existing structure. My preferred change would be to mirror offsides in hockey, but using the midfield line instead of the blue line. But I know that's a radical change to the nature of the game. Too bad soccer doesn't have a developmental league where these types of changes can be experimented with, like baseball and basketball do.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

MattAg06 said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

You're not a dumb American.

Problem is that you change the question from, "is the attacker's toe beyond the defender?" to "is the attacker's toe not behind the defender?" The fundamental issue is the same.

---

Yes, the problem of being millimeters offsides would still be there but it would seem that the rulings would more often flip from no-goal to goal. Plus the intuitive sense of "did he really have an advantage?" would be more satisfactorily answered, imo. To me it's a way to compromise within the existing structure. My preferred change would be to mirror offsides in hockey, but using the midfield line instead of the blue line. But I know that's a radical change to the nature of the game. Too bad soccer doesn't have a developmental league where these types of changes can be experimented with, like baseball and basketball do.

---

A is A said:

---

Don't basketball my soccer

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

saw someone say a yellow should be playing a man down for 5 minutes and a red should be 10 minutes or game misconduct depending on severity.

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Guys. It doesn't matter how the specific point of offside changes… the real problem is in the level of precision of VAR enforcement, and even more specifically, the frustration comes in the delayed enforcement.

No one gives a real crap about offside when the play is blown dead immediately. Even if it's close and arguable, that gets added to a fan's mental list of grievances that they'll use to help explain the loss, but really every one deep down accepts that those kinds of calls sometimes go for you and sometimes go against.

To me the solution is obvious: scrap VAR.

And for reference, I used to love VAR. Soccer became my favorite sport to watch sometime in the last 5-7 years, and as a new convert to the sport, I wanted decisions to be right, no matter what. I think that's perhaps a very American mindset.

My position on VAR changes this past year because I've been able to watch a ton of Wrexham games now that they're in EFL Championship… which doesn't have VAR. And I love it. You never get the joy (or agony) of goals taken away. Even when the call is wrong, I find I can accept it and move on and I'd much rather let the game flow naturally than try to correct every wrong call.

Just my two cents. The joy of soccer has been robbed by VAR… specific rules have nothing to do with our current grievances. (But then new watchers of the sport do have to learn to accept that the ref has a lot of power and discretion, and well, that's soccer).

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

saw someone say a yellow should be playing a man down for 5 minutes and a red should be 10 minutes or game misconduct depending on severity.

---

aggiewilliford said:

---

No one is talking about FIFAs rediculous overage time in Portugal game, Croatia shouldnt have gotten the chance for a second goal. The 10 min overage to begin with was a joke, and then even with the other things added it was less than the 12 + minutes the referee was granting. There shouldn't have been a next goal situation to begin with. FIFA doing FIFA type crap when it suits them

---

deadbq03 said:

---

But the real TLDR of my post above is to make it clear - changing the point on the body where offside happens isn't an answer… it just moves the goalposts. It's truly not worth debating.

Our frustration is from the level of precision and delayed enforcement due to VAR.

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

You're not a dumb American.

Problem is that you change the question from, "is the attacker's toe beyond the defender?" to "is the attacker's toe not behind the defender?" The fundamental issue is the same.

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Yeah I think you're right. There's too much money at the high levels to let wrong calls stand if it impacts promotion/relegation/champions league spots/advancing in big tourneys/etc.

And that's why I'm increasingly a fan of the idea to just scrap offside entirely… if we're stuck with dumb levels of precision, let's take away the rule. The game would adjust, and probably end up being a lot more fun.

---

aggiewilliford said:

---

No one is talking about FIFAs rediculous overage time in Portugal game, Croatia shouldnt have gotten the chance for a second goal. The 10 min overage to begin with was a joke, and then even with the other things added it was less than the 12 + minutes the referee was granting. There shouldn't have been a next goal situation to begin with. FIFA doing FIFA type crap when it suits them

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

MLS probably has the best compromise of real time and technology for offside.

The AR makes the real time call on the field and if the VAR is involved they use the camera angle and eyeball it. No digital lines.

---

AustinScubaAg said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Yeah I think you're right. There's too much money at the high levels to let wrong calls stand if it impacts promotion/relegation/champions league spots/advancing in big tourneys/etc.

And that's why I'm increasingly a fan of the idea to just scrap offside entirely… if we're stuck with dumb levels of precision, let's take away the rule. The game would adjust, and probably end up being a lot more fun.

---

Offsides will never be scrapped. This would be a seismic shift in tactics. Offsides is a rule specific to 11v11 soccer mainly due to the size of the pitch. Indoor soccer and 7v7 outdoor soccer in the US for instance do not usually have offsides (neither is controlled by FIFA). Fustal which is the FIFA version of indoor soccer has no offside rule.

Could FIFA change offsides to reduce controversy and make these millimeter calls possibly but Offsides will never be eliminated.

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

MLS probably has the best compromise of real time and technology for offside.

The AR makes the real time call on the field and if the VAR is involved they use the camera angle and eyeball it. No digital lines.

---

Jarrin Jay said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

But the real TLDR of my post above is to make it clear - changing the point on the body where offside happens isn't an answer… it just moves the goalposts. It's truly not worth debating.

Our frustration is from the level of precision and delayed enforcement due to VAR.

---

Actually there is a very easy answer I have long advocated for and it is simple.

If both of your feet are fully onside you should be deemed to be onside, regardless if you are leaning and have an arm, head and half your torso offside. It is clear and unambiguous, and easy to enforce.

It's already hard enough to score in soccer, being offside with 1/4 of your body when your feet are inside is non-sensical.

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

IMO, there's only two answers.


2. Stoppage time, but there's an official whose only job is to count that time as accurately as possible, and relay it to the center official.

---