The Offside Law

Quoted from lukeo

The only positive from this means more goals in the prem

Not when the trials are being held in the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy...

I've always thought that the best way to deal with marginal decisions is to have an 'Umpire's call' equivalent in football. If it's not completely obvious a player is onside or offside from a quick glimpse of the footage, let the original refereeing decision stand.

I think this new interpretation would bias the game a bit too much in favour of the forwards. If they want to see more goals, move the goalposts a little bit further apart. No doubt that players are much, much taller than they were back in the early years of the game when the measurements were standardised - keepers were rarely above 6 feet tall back then. I'm not an advocate of making the goals higher as that would be unfair on the slightly more diminutive keepers who can still do a good job, but move them a foot or two further apart and you'll see a good few more goals. It would benefit the forwards, no doubt, but the defenders would still have a big say and it requires less faffing around than we see with VAR. Only issue here would be the cost of rolling out new posts across men's football.

Quoted from Lost in Lincoln

So instead of measuring whether a player's big toe is ahead of play, they'll be measuring if their bum hair is behind play?  

Sounds like it's based on feet only and whether at least one overlaps with the second defender

This doesn't resolve any problems that we already encounter with VAR (they'll now be measuring whether a striker's toenail was level with any part of the defender's anatomy) but it may bring a few more goals.

I'm a fan of cricket and I'm a big fan of DRS and umpire's call.

Penalties and red cards are still tricky, but for offside we all agree from the outset that if it's clear and obvious then overturn it. If it takes more than, say, 20 seconds to determine whether someone's offside or not, stick with the call that was made on the field.

That way, the on-field ref and linos retain some power, and the game won't be run by lads behind screens hundreds of miles away.

Whatever the rule says about offside it will involve a microscope and lines. If the whole body has to be ahead we'll now be checking if the players heel is offside instead of his big toe
The answer seems fairly straight forward - either stop using VAR and trust the linesmen or give the VAR man 20 seconds. If it's not clear and obvious in 20 seconds the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt

I'd prefer a system of if the ref is confident its a goal - and has looked to the lino's flag for agreement- he just awards it and once it's awarded VAR can't step in.  If the ref thinks it's suspect he can then ask for VAR help before awarding it.  VAR should be a resource the ref can call on not an extra level of officiating.  

Quoted from Maringer

Not when the trials are being held in the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy...

I've always thought that the best way to deal with marginal decisions is to have an 'Umpire's call' equivalent in football. If it's not completely obvious a player is onside or offside from a quick glimpse of the footage, let the original refereeing decision stand.

I think this new interpretation would bias the game a bit too much in favour of the forwards. If they want to see more goals, move the goalposts a little bit further apart. No doubt that players are much, much taller than they were back in the early years of the game when the measurements were standardised - keepers were rarely above 6 feet tall back then. I'm not an advocate of making the goals higher as that would be unfair on the slightly more diminutive keepers who can still do a good job, but move them a foot or two further apart and you'll see a good few more goals. It would benefit the forwards, no doubt, but the defenders would still have a big say and it requires less faffing around than we see with VAR. Only issue here would be the cost of rolling out new posts across men's football.

Terrible idea, there is nothing more wishy washy than ‘umpires call’ it’s garbage

I’d prefer VAR to be scrapped but that’s not going to happen but I would much rather have the advantage given to the attacker as disallowing goals over millimetres is, IMO, ridiculous but allowing them just mean’s fans can celebrate with a bit more certainty.

In reality this is only going to affect the upper echelons of the game as it requires technology to determine whereas we will still have the much preferred dodgy Lino incidents so we can continue to apply pressure hoping they will be a little biased towards town.

Quoted from supertown

Terrible idea, there is nothing more wishy washy than ‘umpires call’ it’s garbage

And yet the cricketers don't urine and moan when marginal calls go against them and it keeps the game going more quickly.

I'm thinking about keeping the flow of the game going rather than having the lengthy disruptive VAR-sessions which we currently see.

Of course, the easiest thing all round would have been not to bother with VAR in the first place, but that genie is out of the bottle now.

Quoted from Maringer

And yet the cricketers don't urine and moan when marginal calls go against them and it keeps the game going more quickly.

I'm thinking about keeping the flow of the game going rather than having the lengthy disruptive VAR-sessions which we currently see.

Of course, the easiest thing all round would have been not to bother with VAR in the first place, but that genie is out of the bottle now.

That’s the nature of the game , I wouldn’t say it keeps cricket flowing , takes an age to sort out their ‘VAR’

By body.....do they mean any part of a person at all or are they talking about the torso?
As others have said,  it will still mean a line drawing exercise to prove disprove a marginal call anyway so hardly going to speed anything up.
Makes you wonder how the game managed to play at all prior to Sky.