Belgian Study Supports My Belief That it’s Time to Change the Offside Rule

At the very least, I would like to see some change to the rule — perhaps 1) allow the offensive player to be beyond the last defender so long as some part of his body (could just be a toe) is in line with that defender, or 2) have no offsides rule except for within the box. I am with you in believing that it would open up the field and create more scoring opportunities. That’s not to mention that the offsides calls are wrong so often.

Posted from  United States

I like the idea of allowing the offensive player to have a part of his body (as Marco says, could be just a toe) in line with the last defender.

This, I think, should be the first step at correcting the problem. It would make a rule change, but not one so drastic that it won’t be easy to adapt to.

By forcing the offside to be only when there is “daylight” between the offensive and defensive player, it could make it easier to get it right.

Posted from  United States

Aaron,

I have a “theory” about why offside violations are so often incorrectly called.

However, I don’t have any experience (that could be called legitimate experience) at being an Assistant Referee. So, I’m asking your professional opinion as to whether this “theory” holds water.

I think that ARs, in watching the line of the last defender AND watching play downfield, depend on more than visual cues to base their calls.

I think that they also depend on the auditory cue of the thump as the ball is kicked.

Now, sound travels slower than light; so, when the AR hears the thump, he looks back at the offside line – and he sees the offensive player in an offside position.

The offensive player, meanwhile, has been watching the ball – not depending on the thump. So when he sees the pass being made, he makes his break.

The problem for the AR is that by the time the thump arrives at his ears, the offensive player has already seen the pass and made the break.

This allows for just enough delay between the sound and the sight that the offensive player appears to be offside.

Well, it’s just a theory. Whaddaya think?

Posted from  United States

It took decades for passive offside to come in, I doubt FIFA will change it in the near future. Besides I think its good as it is. Whether u make a toe blah blah blah lineup with the lastline of defence won’t make a difference there still will be human error in the decision, perhaps more so, until a video referee is employed and given that job of looking at such 50/50 decisions, even then mistakes can happen but hopefully far less than if it was just the onfield referees.

Posted from  Australia

Cajun Nick,

Your theory has some support. If you don’t want to hear the science, skip to “Summary”.

Science:

The speed of sound is roughly 340 meters per second. So if the ball is, say, 50 meters away from the AR when it is kicked (”thumped”), it takes that sound 0.15 seconds to reach the AR’s ears.

Now, how fast does an attacker sprint in a situation like this? Well, Justin Gatlin did the 100-m dash in 9.76 seconds, but that’s excessive. Let’s split the difference and say 5 meters per second.

Summary:

During the time the AR is waiting for the “thump”, that attacker (the 5 meters per second one) will move 0.74 meters–about two feet.

Even if he were moving about 2 meters per second (that’s a slow jog), he still moves 10 inches during the time the AR is waiting for the sound.

I believe that’s enough distance to complicate a split-second decision that is made from 30-40 yards away.

Posted from  United States

I don’t support abandoning the offside rule: the well-timed through-ball is one of the beauties of the game.

I do support the notion that there must be daylight between attacker and defender. In other words: give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. The offside rule should be there to keep it tight, not to give the defense an excuse not to defend.

If the motivation is to allow more goals to be scored, I disagree. I would like to see (a few) more goals scored, but abandoning the offside rule would turn soccer into basketball: just lob it up the other end and hope for the best.

Posted from  Australia

In thinking about changing the offsides rule, it is useful to think about the purpose of the rule. Sometimes the argument is made that the purpose is to prevent “cherry picking” (sending a player deep just so the ball can be played to him). That isn’t right. Players can cherry pick now, so long as they remain at the half line. And, in any event, cherry picking would be an exciting play to watch — it can’t justify the offsides rule.

The true purpose of the offsides rule is to prevent players for standing right in front of the keeper and changing the game into a rugby-style scrum in front of the goal. By letting the defense move up, the offensive players have to clear out at well. But that purpose evaporates once outside the box.

Therefore, reasoning from first principles, the offsides rule should not apply when the offensive players is outside the box.

Changing the rule in this way would have several advantages: (1) it reduces the number of times that a game turns on an official’s call, rather than the play on the field; (2) it would open up the game, as the defense would have to slide some defenders back toward the 18, rather than sliding them up towards midfield, as is done now; and (3) the number of goals would increase, without any significant change in the style of soccer we are all used to.

Posted from  United States

I am a referee; I have never gotten an offside call wrong.
I have two sons who are strikers; they have never been offside, despite having been whistled for it often.
The guidance referees receive has changed over time, even though the rule has remained the same. In the mid-90’s we were told not to call unless we saw “daylight” between the attacker and the defender. In the last year or so it’s been tightened up and we’ve been told that any part of the attacker’s body (except the arm) in front of the defender is grounds for an infraction.
Personally, I don’t care – I don’t make the Laws, i just enforce them (badly, if you ask any number of losing coaches).

Ah yes, the “thump” technique – I use it and will continue to until I can swivel & focus my eyes independently. I ain’t buying the “speed of sound/speed of light” notion. I just don’t see the difference being enough at those distances. Even if the somewhat over-opininated math above is correct, what else you got? And Cajun Nick has a big piece wrong – we don’t turn our heads to look (giving more time for a run). If we turned our heads, we wouldn’t have to listen for the thump. When I watch replays, my eye usually tells me they have it right, while many non-referees may say they have it wrong. It must be me who is wrong though; of course, being a referee, I am blind; so I do have that excuse. To sum up, let me leave a few final points:
Referees don’t adjust to players; so smart players adjust to referees.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences – removing the Offside Law may bring on something you like much less.
I have never played a mistake-free match; I have never coached a mistake-free match; yet week after week players, coaches & spectators expect me to referee a mistake-free match. That’s just unrealistic. Referee errors are part of the game – deal with it.

Posted from  United States

Although I don’t intend to start arguments and bickering back and forth – and I respect everyone who states their opinion here – I somehow highly doubt the person who posted above. If you have “never gotten an offside call wrong” you either
1) Have actually never refereed
or 2) do not do games at any sort of advanced level, even for youth

As you said, no body’s perfect. Players, coaches make mistakes, as do referees. You probably think you never have gotten one wrong but the assistant referees in the World Cup make the calls thinking they’re right and sometimes they make the wrong offside calls. The only difference is that they have billions of people worldwide watching endless replays and letting them know you were wrong.

If you had a replay of every offside you called/didn’t call I’m sure you’d be surprised to know you’re not perfect.

Posted from  Canada

Hey Pat – I guess they don’t do sarcasm in Canada, eh? You didn’t even get it on the giveaway, how neither of my striker sons have even been offside? If that’s how closely you pay attention, I hope you don’t referee at any level.

Of course I’ve missed calls; I’ve left the field every time rolling my mind around what I could have done to improve. Mostly it’s positioning, since you can’t call what you didn’t see. It’s easier with better teams, since you can anticipate the flow more easily. Still, I always seem to get caught a step to one side, or checking my watch, or sweeping the off-ball action when something happens at least once per match.

I guess you figured that I was joking in the part where I really serious, since you clearly thought I was serious when I was joking.

True, since I had my knee done in 2003, I no longer work high level games. The Dr. fixed the cartilage, but told me I had no ACL in the left knee and he wasn’t going to fix it at my age. Knowing that, I don’t have the confidence in the knee now to hang with the faster players, so I don’t consider it fair to the game or the players to accept those assignments. (Sometimes ignorance IS bliss.) Before that, I worked a coupla-three good games. Once after a match, one of my fellow officials told me I didn’t completely suck.

I’ll trust his opinion, since he saw me work. I’ll ignore yours, since you never have. Like I said, I don’t call what I don’t see; I guess that’s not your policy.

Posted from  United States

I think everyone has to agree: refs make mistakes. It’s no secret and indeed many players try to take advantage of this (”schwalbes”).

The big question is: are we willing to fix this? There are sports (American Football for instance, the posters from the North Americas can probably correct me if I’m wrong) in which it is common for the referee to watch re-plays and base their decision on that rather than on the spot. However, many soccer enthousiasts believe room for human error is “part of the game”. Although they usually defend this position when their favourite club just got an unjust penalty-kick, the argument always pops up in these discussions.

I for once think most referees are doing a great job — most of the time I revise my opinion about a fault or penalty after seeing it in slow-motion. For referees to take these decisions in a split second is harder than it seems. Of course fans have very selective memory: if they would count how many just and unjust decisions refs make, they’d be surprised how good refs are at their job.

As for the off-side rule: I think the rule adds something to the game. A well executed off-side trap is as nice to watch as the goal it prevents. I do agree that assistant refs probably have a hard time looking both ways at the same time — or even listening for thumps while keeping an eye on the strikers.

Posted from  Netherlands

Lamont, I’d like to apologize for what I said in light of me realizing your sarcasm. The problem is it’s hard to detect when just reading words on a message board thousands of miles away from you.

I have met too many people and referees who think they are absolutely perfect that I thought you were just conceited and ignorant – obviously not the case.

Once again sorry for insulting you and enjoy the final,

Pat

Posted from  Canada