The new offside rule

[Trilly]

Has he had any good ideas since leaving Arsenal?

The 60 min matches were a great idea imo.

More football for the fans and imagine a buzzer beater goal

 

[Bloodbather]

Yeah, this isn't going to cause just as many problems when 1/4 of someone's toe or finger plays them on or offside.

I think you just have to accept that some offsides are always going to have a degree of ambiguity around them.

This change isn't about that though, it's about having goals not count due to offside less frequently.

It's basically about bringing back the original point of the offside rule, which was to prevent goal hanging. It was never about not allowing goals when the players were in close proximity to one another, not something that could be turned into an exploitable tactic by the defense. I think that Argentina - Saudi Arabia match at the World Cup where Argentina had a gazillion goals not count for miniscule margins was the nail in the coffin for the current rule.

This was an idea I've long endorsed when I had conversations with people about the offside rule, so I'd be glad to see it implemented. I think it makes more sense.

 

[Rain Dance]

Inzhaghi would have scored 100 goals a season with this kind of rule

 

[db10_therza]

The 60 min matches were a great idea imo.

More football for the fans and imagine a buzzer beater goal

In theory. In practice though you always get unintended consequences with these things.

Like it would open the door for strategic time outs. I think that would be the end of football for me. I can already see Arteta calling a time out and taking a out of his jacket ffs…

 

[Trilly]

This change isn't about that though, it's about having goals not count due to offside less frequently.

It's basically about bringing back the original point of the offside rule, which was to prevent goal hanging. It was never about not allowing goals when the players were in close proximity to one another, not something that could be turned into an exploitable tactic by the defense.

Tbh when you put it like that, this makes perfect sense.

It’s been around so long that you didn’t realise it was actually defences exploiting the rules.

 

[Trilly]

In theory. In practice though you always get unintended consequences with these things.

Like it would open the door for strategic time outs. I think that would be the end of football for me. I can already see Arteta calling a time out and taking a out of his jacket ffs…

How?

 

[db10_therza]

How?

Because you would be able to accommodate time outs without affecting the game time. It’s a logical progression.

 

[db10_therza]

It’s been around so long that you didn’t realise it was actually defences exploiting the rules.

This is the problem with it for me. It’s been around so long that modern tactics depend on it. It’s a MASSIVE change. Literally re-writing the rule book.

 

[Bloodbather]

This is the problem with it for me. It’s been around so long that modern tactics depend on it. It’s a MASSIVE change. Literally re-writing the rule book.

I mean, that's fine. Football is arguably in need of a tactical shake-up anyway. That's why you have so many former pros coming up with new ideas.

 

[Trilly]

Because you would be able to accommodate time outs without affecting the game time. It’s a logical progression.

I see, Yh that would be annoying.

But I’m sure the powers that be would prevent that from happening…it is a very logical progression though tbh.

 

[Bloodbather]

The 60 min matches were a great idea imo.

More football for the fans and imagine a buzzer beater goal

Cutting down the playing length is almost inevitable. Football is too uneventful of a game to last 90 minutes in regulation in our current world of a gazillion entertainment options. Most members of the newer generations have already moved onto watching highlights only.

Stoppages are a no go, though, as @db10_therza pointed out it would open the door for timeouts, which opens the door to TV timeouts, etc. It'd resemble American football coverage very quickly.

 

[Rex Stone]

Cutting down the playing length is almost inevitable. Football is too uneventful of a game to last 90 minutes in regulation in our current world of a gazillion entertainment options. Most members of the newer generations have already moved onto watching highlights only.

Stoppages are a no go, though, as @db10_therza pointed out it would open the door for timeouts, which opens the door to TV timeouts, etc. It'd resemble American football coverage very quickly.

Also with 60 minute matches they could still cram the schedule full whilst reducing the workload a bit.

We’re not going to get less matches, they’re just going to keep adding more.

 

[Jasinho]

Not sure how I feel about this.

Which leagues or countries will this be trialed in?

 

[Trilly]

Cutting down the playing length is almost inevitable. Football is too uneventful of a game to last 90 minutes in regulation in our current world of a gazillion entertainment options. Most members of the newer generations have already moved onto watching highlights only.

Stoppages are a no go, though, as @db10_therza pointed out it would open the door for timeouts, which opens the door to TV timeouts, etc. It'd resemble American football coverage very quickly.

Tbf you’d get 60 mins of actual football which is close to the average of 56 mins they found the ball to be in play for.

The stoppages aren’t going to stop, they just won’t be timed so I think it would still take the same real world time to attend/watch a game.

 

[Trilly]

Not sure how I feel about this.

Which leagues or countries will this be trialed in?

Netherlands, Italy and I think Sweden

 

[db10_therza]

I mean, that's fine. Football is arguably in need of a tactical shake-up anyway. That's why you have so many former pros coming up with new ideas.

Why? It’s hardly struggling for viewers etc? As an entertainment it’s probably the healthiest it has ever been. Even the bloody Americans are into it these days.

I contend it’s much more in need of reform around governance…

 

[Bloodbather]

Why? It’s hardly struggling for viewers etc? As an entertainment it’s probably the healthiest it has ever been. Even the bloody Americans are into it these days.

I contend it’s much more in need of reform around governance…

It's not struggling to attract attention, but it's struggling to keep attention. Average screen time is drastically lower among the newer generation, it's only going to get worse. Florentino Pérez pointed this out during the whole Super League shenanigans but it was overshadowed by the Super League idea itself.

 

[db10_therza]

Stoppages are a no go, though, as @db10_therza pointed out it would open the door for timeouts, which opens the door to TV timeouts, etc. It'd resemble American football coverage very quickly.

Call me a cynic but once you unlock sth, the vector of change is ALWAYS driven by commercial interests. The timeouts will be inevitable because the advertisers will lobby for it.

 

[AberGooner]

That would be going too far the other way. A happy medium between clear offside and needing a magnifying glass out on every decision shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[Makingtrax]

Idk, I’m not so sure about that. I think it plays against teams with a high line whose defence is built around the idea of catching people offside. If you set up a low block then through balls are difficult anyway, it’s the whole point of a low block..,

Look at this example of a low block employed by Conte at Sp**s. The City forwards have to be behind the Sp**s back line so if the ball comes in from wide, high or low, they’ve always got further to run than the defender. With the new rule they could push up a yard. Being faster normally, this could have a big impact over a season.