FIFA are close to introducing another major new change to the offside rule.

FIFA are set to change the offside law again.  At the moment, a player is offside when they are in the opponents' half and, when the ball is played, any part of the body is closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.

However, FIFA are set to tweak the offside law. Wenger's proposal will see that changed to the whole goal-scoring body of the player. This means that if any part of the body is behind the last defender, the attacker will remain onside.

The rule change will be first implemented in a trial period in Netherlands, Sweden and Italy.

Arsene Wenger, who has been working as FIFA's Chief of Global Football Development for the past four years.

About bloody time as it will stop VAR disallowing loads of goals because someone’s big toe is in an offside position which to me is hard to accept gives them any form of advantage.

Have i got this right,  it's just about how it used to be?

Nope. Players who look a good distance offside (and would have been penalised under the old laws) will be determined to be onside if one of their feet is in line with the defender. Makes holding a defensive line even riskier.

Wenger appears to be determined to get revenge on football for some reason or another. A lot of his suggestions are a bit weird.

Sounds a good idea. You can’t be gaining too much advantage if one of your feet is still in line with the defenders. Would stop all this tragic offside-by-an-eyelash chat you have nearly every week.

Quoted from Maringer

Nope. Players who look a good distance offside (and would have been penalised under the old laws) will be determined to be onside if one of their feet is in line with the defender. Makes holding a defensive line even riskier.

Wenger appears to be determined to get revenge on football for some reason or another. A lot of his suggestions are a bit weird.

Nothing weird about this suggestion as far as I can see

Not a fan of this at all.

The problem isn’t the law, it’s how it’s enforced.

For me, if you’re in an offside position and have an impact within the phase of play…  You’re offside. The distance is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation.

Surely, the Premier League & technology is at a stage in which they can run a camera down each sideline? If you have that at your disposal, you’ll have decisions correct at all times.

There’s going some really odd looking goals.

20 years ago I could explain the offside rule to my Girlfriend a piece of urine but I'm buggered these days.

So does this mean Ross Hannah's coming back?

Doesn't this just turn the problem around? Instead of the attackers big toe has to be behind the defender, now it just has to be level. VAR will still be painting lines to see if it's offside, just behind the attacker instead of Infront of him.
Why do the clowns in charge think they have to somehow improve the offside law, when in fact they end up making it worse?

Just go back to the old offside law .You were always active wherever you were on the pitch

Quoted from bradzmilne

Not a fan of this at all.

The problem isn’t the law, it’s how it’s enforced.

For me, if you’re in an offside position and have an impact within the phase of play…  You’re offside. The distance is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation.

Surely, the Premier League & technology is at a stage in which they can run a camera down each sideline? If you have that at your disposal, you’ll have decisions correct at all times.

There’s going some really odd looking goals.

The distance is very relevant when the technology attempts to measure to the cm and the difference between chosen frames can be upwards of 20cm if the defender and attacker are moving in opposite directions. I think it's at least something worth trialling and now gives the attacker a bit of an edge.

Quoted from immariner

The distance is very relevant when the technology attempts to measure to the cm and the difference between chosen frames can be upwards of 20cm if the defender and attacker are moving in opposite directions. I think it's at least something worth trialling and now gives the attacker a bit of an edge.

I actually don't know what you said so it's probably time for me to take up darts, or knitting or painting daffodils.

Quoted from GYinScuntland

20 years ago I could explain the offside rule to my Girlfriend a piece of urine but I'm buggered these days.

T
Don’t you think it’s about time you married her

Quoted from GYinScuntland

I actually don't know what you said so it's probably time for me to take up darts, or knitting or painting daffodils.

That 11 month daffodil painting preseason might drag! I'll try and do better to explain.

The VAR cameras shoot at 25 frames per second. One of those frames has to be chosen as the point at which the ball left the foot of the player passing to their teammate, who is being adjudged as on or offside. There's no way of really knowing the exact point and the difference in positioning of the attacker relative to the defender between 1 frame and the next (0.04 seconds) can be upwards of 20cm. So when VAR attempts to measure offsides down to the cm, this is essentially guesswork for extremely tight offsides, particularly when the attacker and defender are moving in opposite directions at pace as the margin for error is much greater.

I'm pretty tired so that was probably a shite explanation but I hope it helped a bit

Quoted from immariner

That 11 month daffodil painting preseason might drag! I'll try and do better to explain.

The VAR cameras shoot at 25 frames per second. One of those frames has to be chosen as the point at which the ball left the foot of the player passing to their teammate, who is being adjudged as on or offside. There's no way of really knowing the exact point and the difference in positioning of the attacker relative to the defender between 1 frame and the next (0.04 seconds) can be upwards of 20cm. So when VAR attempts to measure offsides down to the cm, this is essentially guesswork for extremely tight offsides, particularly when the attacker and defender are moving in opposite directions at pace as the margin for error is much greater.

I'm pretty tired so that was probably a shite explanation but I hope it helped a bit

Trust me, it didn't.
But thank you for actually attempting. 😃

This should be applauded, football is about entertainment, the officials should be looking at ways to allow goals not disallow them and this is a massive step in the right direction.

The only positive from this means more goals in the prem

In the last 50years  Town were offside  6242 times - their opponents were offside 6243 times so obviously Town have been using all the variations of the rule to their advantage.

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?  ??)

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.

Will this new rule apply to all the leagues? If so it will be a nightmare for us lower league teams that don't have VAR. We already see VAR madness when linesmen (and women, transgender persons!) keep their flag down instead of putting it up straight away because that's what they have been told to do because of VAR.
Total madness!

This is only pertinent to the Premiership who can afford the £1.2 million pa for VAR to run.
Will it make people happy? Nope. There will be still people moaning about being off/on-side by a pixel.
Will it create more goals? Maybe,  as the striker can be half a stride ahead of the backs. However,
Will it change the shape of the game? Probably, as the backs will not keep a high line, so the striker has less "empty" space to use with newfound freedom.
What is certain, the game has split into two types of games. One with VAR and HawkEye goalline tech, the other with Flags.
As mentioned it's of no interest to GTFC as they don't have £1.2 million to spare, and if they did tarting up Blundel Park would be a better option.