Offside in Europe

[Staniola]

Watched the highlights of Leipzig v Bruges last night and the first two goals, one for each side, looked well offside. They were both flagged offside and disallowed on the pitch, but then reviewed and reversed by VAR, so both goals stood. They were both far more offside than Wood’s on Saturday, so I just wonder are we playing different rules for offside in Europe and the Premier League?

[duncandisorderly]

I haven't seen them, but I suspect it has more to do with the companies providing the highlights and their own lines and angles.

Offside is one of the only rules that is utterly objective within the parameters of the technology available.
In order to get offside wrong there has to be an error somewhere.

[Devils_Advocate]

Its probably something to do with the different time zones in Europe. We play to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) even at the start and end of the season where as the rest of Europe play to Central European Time (CET) so are an hour ahead of us.

Probably made the attacking player look offside to us when in reality he wasn't. Was the linesman who flagged British by any chance?

[CFS]

Far more offside or not wood was off

[Staniola]

Yes, but that’s not my point. Under the interpretation of the rule last night, Wood’s goal most certainly wouldn’t have been disallowed, especially given that it wasn’t flagged initially. The goals last night were both flagged, then overturned and both seemed way more offside than his. I just wondered if they were working to different guidelines?

[RMutt]

I haven’t seen the goals from last night. Did the defenders pause or react to the flag in any way? It would be harsh to overturn the linesman’s decision if they did.

[Roosterbooster]

Offside is one of the only rules that is utterly objective within the parameters of the technology available

But that isn't true. The freeze-frame used is subjective. The location of the body/arm is subjective. Even the precise location of the edge of the foot on the turf is a subjective method. And even if you used algorithms to apply these, these are written by humans who subjectively decide these. It's really not as clear cut as people make out.

[duncandisorderly]

Like I said, within the parameters of the technology available.

[minnieclaret]

I’d be more worried by the wrestling that went on every time City put a deadball into the box.
Pep should have said EUFA must tell us if this is acceptable and I’ll get Dwayne Johnson in to coach my guys up to that standard.

[Roosterbooster]

Like I said, within the parameters of the technology available.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. You're saying it's objective interpretation of a subjective method? That's not objectivity.

The technology has margins or error. And the method has subjectivity. You could quite easily apply all this to decide if (within the parameters of the technology available) it was definitely onside, definitely offside, or too close to call, in which case it should go with the onfield decision, like cricket. If you don't apply these potential errors to the methods, then you cannot rely on the result

[duncandisorderly]

I'm saying that the technology available shows whether or not someone is offside. That the technology is flawed is another issue, that the laws of the game insist on using arm pits as a measure is also another issue, but once the agreed upon lines have been drawn then a player is either offside or not.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Offside is the same whether in the UK, Europe, Africa. New Zealand, South America, USA or wherever. It is the interpretation that is different and this can also be affected by the use of VAR.
I don't know how the referee, designated to a match on Sunday morning in the local park with club Assistant Referees, ever manages to get through a game. Perhaps it is because they just do their best to apply the Laws of the Game to enable people to play a game of football and they don't have to worry about VAR.
The biggest problem now at this level is that there is nowhere near the amount of people interested in refereeing and there are nowhere near as many leagues for them to gain experience. Never mind they can all be replaced by technology if there is a drastic shortage.

[bennitor]

I'm saying that the technology available shows whether or not someone is offside. That the technology is flawed is another issue, that the laws of the game insist on using arm pits as a measure is also another issue, but once the agreed upon lines have been drawn then a player is either offside or not.

This isn't quite true though. The biggest issue I have with the whole thing is, as someone mentioned above, the choice of frame used to show the ball leaving the foot. We are using these lines to make an exact judgement on a particular frame but the ball leaving the foot is just a blur with absolutely no accuracy to it. So the available technology doesn't clearly show if someone is offside or not because the chosen moment to pause the video remains subjective and largely inconclusive.

[Roosterbooster]

I hear what you say DuncanD, but I don't think that makes sense. And I have to agree with bennitor. Because it doesn't show if a player is offside or not. The technology available cannot show that one way or another, conclusively, for any close call. I understand ypur argument, that once the frame has been stopped, and the lines drawn, that one line will subjectively be ahead of the other, and the VAR will use this to make the decision. But to say that the technology available shows whether or not someone is offside, and that it's objective, just isn't correct. I also know that alot, and maybe the majority, think that this is acceptable application of error. But I would strongly disagree. The VAR camera framerate is 50fps. People running in opposite directions at a modest 18mph (easily attainable for footballers) could lead to a 30cm+ change in position between frames. The goalline technology uses cameras with a framerate 10 times higher. Both are used to decide goals or not, so why the discrepancy?

[duncandisorderly]

Okidoke, I don't disagree and I'm not really making my point clear enough.

I'm trying to say that, whilst things like fouls and diving may be dealt with differently on the continent by different referees in different leagues, we are all using the same VAR for offsides and that the technology that is available is the same that is used by everyone and that if VAR shows a player to be offside then that player is categorically offside. The call cannot be argued by anyone present at the game.

The VAR is instructed to use the frame that shows certain contact with the ball - that might mean they use the frame where the ball is already in motion having left the boot. It is what it is.

An argument could and probably should be made for finding that frame and then using the one immediately before it, so as to give the attacker the advantage, but until better technology is made available I think VAR for offsides is fine because its standard across the leagues.

[Roosterbooster]

Fair point. Enjoyed the discussion. Nice chatting

[Stan Tastic]

I’d be more worried by the wrestling that went on every time City put a deadball into the box.
Pep should have said EUFA must tell us if this is acceptable and I’ll get Dwayne Johnson in to coach my guys up to that standard.

Tarkowski was wrestled to the ground by Doucoure against Everton. A blatant penalty that for some reason VAR ignored. VAR is not solving the problems it was brought in for. City should've had at least two penalties last night. Instead, following the last instance of wrestling the clown of a ref warned the culprit before the corner was taken.

[dsr]

I haven't seen them, but I suspect it has more to do with the companies providing the highlights and their own lines and angles.

Offside is one of the only rules that is utterly objective within the parameters of the technology available.
In order to get offside wrong there has to be an error somewhere.

Not true. "Level" is subjective. VAR believes that the word "level" in the laws has no meaning at all and you cannot be level. Linesmen and the game in general, until 2 years ago, believed that "level" did have a meaning. Perhaps the European officials are still using the old definition as if the laws hadn't changed (which of course they haven't).

[TheFamilyCat]

Offside is the same whether in the UK, Europe, Africa. New Zealand, South America, USA or wherever. It is the interpretation that is different and this can also be affected by the use of VAR.
I don't know how the referee, designated to a match on Sunday morning in the local park with club Assistant Referees, ever manages to get through a game. Perhaps it is because they just do their best to apply the Laws of the Game to enable people to play a game of football and they don't have to worry about VAR.
The biggest problem now at this level is that there is nowhere near the amount of people interested in refereeing and there are nowhere near as many leagues for them to gain experience. Never mind they can all be replaced by technology if there is a drastic shortage.

There's going to be s referee shortage? ****, I need to go and panic buy some.

[Rowls]

Far more offside or not wood was off

It really does depend on how you interpret the wording on the rule as far as I'm aware.

Was he ahead of the relevant defender or was he actually level?

[CFS]

It really does depend on how you interpret the wording on the rule as far as I'm aware.

Was he ahead of the relevant defender or was he actually level?

Neither he was offside.

[ClaretTony]

Watched the highlights of Leipzig v Bruges last night and the first two goals, one for each side, looked well offside. They were both flagged offside and disallowed on the pitch, but then reviewed and reversed by VAR, so both goals stood. They were both far more offside than Wood’s on Saturday, so I just wonder are we playing different rules for offside in Europe and the Premier League?

If they were more so than Wood then they are poor decisions because Wood was offside.

[Devils_Advocate]

Not true. "Level" is subjective. VAR believes that the word "level" in the laws has no meaning at all and you cannot be level. Linesmen and the game in general, until 2 years ago, believed that "level" did have a meaning. Perhaps the European officials are still using the old definition as if the laws hadn't changed (which of course they haven't).

Level as a term in football is not subjective, it is just hard to prove emphatically in a sport that is played at such speed. It is not the word or its meaning that has changed because of VAR but that we can be make a more accurate judgement and decision on whether a player was nearer, further away or the same distance (level) to the goal line as the second-last or last two opponents.

If on a VAR decision the lines show the attacker and defender to be exactly in line then they will be judged as being level and therefore under the Law 11 will be given as onside

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or
last two opponents

[dsr]

Level as a term in football is not subjective, it is just hard to prove emphatically in a sport that is played at such speed. It is not the word or its meaning that has changed because of VAR but that we can be make a more accurate judgement and decision on whether a player was nearer, further away or the same distance (level) to the goal line as the second-last or last two opponents.

If on a VAR decision the lines show the attacker and defender to be exactly in line then they will be judged as being level and therefore under the Law 11 will be given as onside

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or
last two opponents

What's your tolerance level of "exactly in line"? Does 1 inch apart count as level? 1 millimetre? 1/100th of a millimetre? Ignoring measuring difficulties, is it not really possible, if you have tolerance to say 1 millionth of a millimetre, to ever be level. What width of tolerance should level be?

When the lawmakers thirty years ago declared that "level" was changing from offside to onside because they wanted to encourage more goals, they obviously felt that level meant more than just a fraction of an inch, or else they wouldn't have bothered changing it. So when did level stop meaning a significant amount, and who changed the law?

[IanMcL]

Watched the highlights of Leipzig v Bruges last night and the first two goals, one for each side, looked well offside. They were both flagged offside and disallowed on the pitch, but then reviewed and reversed by VAR, so both goals stood. They were both far more offside than Wood’s on Saturday, so I just wonder are we playing different rules for offside in Europe and the Premier League?

Because certain teams have to prevail, to retain the Prem brand.

[IanMcL]

If they were more so than Wood then they are poor decisions because Wood was offside.

The argument is that he should not have been. Football needs goals, not toes out of place.

[Vegas Claret]

Woody was offside, but it wouldn't have surprised me in the slightest if it was given had it been Vardy scoring at the other end

[ClaretTony]

The argument is that he should not have been. Football needs goals, not toes out of place.

There is no argument, he's offside.

[IanMcL]

There is no argument, he's offside.

There is every argument to be made to save the game from ridicule.

[Devils_Advocate]

What's your tolerance level of "exactly in line"? Does 1 inch apart count as level? 1 millimetre? 1/100th of a millimetre? Ignoring measuring difficulties, is it not really possible, if you have tolerance to say 1 millionth of a millimetre, to ever be level. What width of tolerance should level be?

When the lawmakers thirty years ago declared that "level" was changing from offside to onside because they wanted to encourage more goals, they obviously felt that level meant more than just a fraction of an inch, or else they wouldn't have bothered changing it. So when did level stop meaning a significant amount, and who changed the law?

Level means level and is still in the laws of the game. Level used to be offside and it was changed to onside and that is still the same. The problem was and still is the difficulty to judge this and before VAR there was far more errors. Now we have technology and just like the human eye it isnt 100% accurate so they have built in consistency around a tolerance level (like before VAR giving any benefit of doubt to the attacking side) but the word level and the meaning of it has not changed or been erased and is still exactly the same.

You are conflating the difficulty in making an accurate judgement of a player being behind, level and infront of another player with some silly notion that the meaning of the word has changed.

I'm surprised you dont tire yourself out trying convince others that some made up thing that sounds good in your head is reality

[dsr]

Level means level and is still in the laws of the game. Level used to be offside and it was changed to onside and that is still the same. The problem was and still is the difficulty to judge this and before VAR there was far more errors. Now we have technology and just like the human eye it isnt 100% accurate so they have built in consistency around a tolerance level (like before VAR giving any benefit of doubt to the attacking side) but the word level and the meaning of it has not changed or been erased and is still exactly the same.

You are conflating the difficulty in making an accurate judgement of a player being behind, level and infront of another player with some silly notion that the meaning of the word has changed.

I'm surprised you dont tire yourself out trying convince others that some made up thing that sounds good in your head is reality

"Level means level" is completely unhelpful. Level has more than one meaning. For example, level in the Olympic 100m final has a different meaning to level in football.

The lawmakers of 1991 clearly worked on the belief that level covered perhaps a couple of feet. Certainly a significant space.

[Devils_Advocate]

"Level means level" is completely unhelpful. Level has more than one meaning. For example, level in the Olympic 100m final has a different meaning to level in football.

The lawmakers of 1991 clearly worked on the belief that level covered perhaps a couple of feet. Certainly a significant space.

If you can point me to the commentary within the laws of the games that detail that level meant a couple of feet than please do so as otherwise it just sounds like your made up opinion that exists in your head only.

Even if that was the intention of the lawmakers and it was documented then you're still just talking about tolerance levels and the more accurate technology then the less tolerance is required but essentially the term level still exists in football and is still considered onside.

Keep trying though, someone somewhere will agree with you

[dsr]

If you can point me to the commentary within the laws of the games that detail that level meant a couple of feet than please do so as otherwise it just sounds like your made up opinion that exists in your head only.

Even if that was the intention of the lawmakers and it was documented then you're still just talking about tolerance levels and the more accurate technology then the less tolerance is required but essentially the term level still exists in football and is still considered onside.

Keep trying though, someone somewhere will agree with you

Because when they changed the law to say level was onside not offside, they said it was to create more goals. They wouldn't have done that if they thought level meant a quarter of an inch.

[Devils_Advocate]

Because when they changed the law to say level was onside not offside, they said it was to create more goals. They wouldn't have done that if they thought level meant a quarter of an inch.

Did they say it was to create more goals? Any proof? It sounds more logical that their concern was strikers who were just onside or level were being give incorrectly as Offside and guess what now we've got VAR if a player is level or onside they definitely dont get given as offside

Sounds to me like VAR has further helped with these imaginary lawmakers ideas that only you know about. Do these lawmakers come to you in the night like angels from football past to ask you to lead a crusade against VAR and the holy word "LEVEL"???

[Staniola]

Seems like this thread has descended into the usual pedantry parade. Has anyone actually seen the goals referred to in the opening post? I just wanted to understand if, as seems to me, Eufa are applying different criteria for offside decisions than the Prem.

[kentonclaret]

Driving a car displaying a Blue GB Sticker

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Just wait until IFAB bring in Arsene Wenger's proposals -----there will be more goals scored although there will still be controversy amongst players, managers and fans but goals like ours disallowed on Saturday will definitely be goals.

[Rowls]

What's your tolerance level of "exactly in line"? Does 1 inch apart count as level? 1 millimetre? 1/100th of a millimetre? Ignoring measuring difficulties, is it not really possible, if you have tolerance to say 1 millionth of a millimetre, to ever be level. What width of tolerance should level be?

When the lawmakers thirty years ago declared that "level" was changing from offside to onside because they wanted to encourage more goals, they obviously felt that level meant more than just a fraction of an inch, or else they wouldn't have bothered changing it. So when did level stop meaning a significant amount, and who changed the law?

Exactly.

Why are using mere pixels when we could be using microns, eh?

[CharlieinNewMexico]

If they just inserted the words “level to the human eye” we could all go back to giving it to the linos.

But someone would then start complaining different people have different eyesight

[Colburn_Claret]

Level as a term in football is not subjective, it is just hard to prove emphatically in a sport that is played at such speed. It is not the word or its meaning that has changed because of VAR but that we can be make a more accurate judgement and decision on whether a player was nearer, further away or the same distance (level) to the goal line as the second-last or last two opponents.

If on a VAR decision the lines show the attacker and defender to be exactly in line then they will be judged as being level and therefore under the Law 11 will be given as onside

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or
last two opponents

Why use lines at all.
I've always said use the action replay on the sidelines, but if a referee cannot say with certainty that the attacker is offside, then he isn't. Without lines, all fans can agree it was too close to call.
The big problem with close calls, such as Wood on Saturday, is he was moving forward, whilst the defender was pulling out. You can freeze frame Chris onside, and a split second later he's off. At which one point do you pick that split second you stop. When the ball makes contact with Barnes head, or when the ball loses contact with Barnes head, because the difference could be 2 foot.
I can clearly remember a similar shout from a couple of seasons ago when they froze the frame after the ball had left the players foot.
I don't believe fans requested offsides to the nth degree, VAR was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors, but our refs have deliberately scuppered it.

[Devils_Advocate]

Why use lines at all.
I've always said use the action replay on the sidelines, but if a referee cannot say with certainty that the attacker is offside, then he isn't. Without lines, all fans can agree it was too close to call.
The big problem with close calls, such as Wood on Saturday, is he was moving forward, whilst the defender was pulling out. You can freeze frame Chris onside, and a split second later he's off. At which one point do you pick that split second you stop. When the ball makes contact with Barnes head, or when the ball loses contact with Barnes head, because the difference could be 2 foot.
I can clearly remember a similar shout from a couple of seasons ago when they froze the frame after the ball had left the players foot.
I don't believe fans requested offsides to the nth degree, VAR was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors, but our refs have deliberately scuppered it.

I was one of the original minority against VAR and when you were all moaning at refs getting things wrong I was the one arguing its a difficult job and we should just accept their decisions. More importantly and further to that I have from the start stated that all VAR will do is shift angry biased fans ire from the ref to VAR and this what has happened

The loudest critics against VAR also seem to be the loudest critics of refs if the decision goes against their team so in my opinion you've all got what you asked for and deserved.

Now on this thread I was just addressing some ludicrous claims that the word level has been erased from existence because of VAR when it clearly hasnt and still means exactly what it always meant

[boatshed bill]

The argument is that he should not have been. Football needs goals, not toes out of place.

Then best he makes sure to stay onside.
With all the video available you'd think strikers would learn how to run in behind defences in the way Vardy does so well.

[Tall Paul]

Then best he makes sure to stay onside.
With all the video available you'd think strikers would learn how to run in behind defences in the way Vardy does so well.

That's Jamie Vardy who was caught offside more times than any other player last season?

[boatshed bill]

That's Jamie Vardy who was caught offside more times than any other player last season?

That's irrelevant when you see what he does when he gets it right, though.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

That's Jamie Vardy who was caught offside more times than any other player last season?

Was he really offside though because quite a number of times he would have been ruled offside when, if they had used VAR, he may well have been onside.
They only check when a goal is scored ----the AR is deemed to be good enough to judge offside all the rest of the time, however, a check has to be made when a goal is scored. Not only are they playing to a different interpretation when a goal is scored, they are playing to a different interpretation in the same game when a goal isn't scored.

[Colburn_Claret]

I was one of the original minority against VAR and when you were all moaning at refs getting things wrong I was the one arguing its a difficult job and we should just accept their decisions. More importantly and further to that I have from the start stated that all VAR will do is shift angry biased fans ire from the ref to VAR and this what has happened

The loudest critics against VAR also seem to be the loudest critics of refs if the decision goes against their team so in my opinion you've all got what you asked for and deserved.

Now on this thread I was just addressing some ludicrous claims that the word level has been erased from existence because of VAR when it clearly hasnt and still means exactly what it always meant

I'm not a critic of VAR, never have been.
VAR was necessary because OUR referees got the simplest decisions wrong, far too often. Now with VAR they still get many decisions wrong, for the same reasons, they're bloody useless, but try to blame VAR saying this is what we wanted. It isn't what we wanted. The way the continentals use it, is what we wanted. It's been shown in the Euros and last world Cup that VAR is fine, IF the people using it are competent and have the slightest bit of common sense.
Nearly all our issues come from trying to complicate something that is simple, and clearly understood. The laws of the game stood the test of time for decades, yet now we have to redefine what is offside, redefine what is handball, redefine what is deliberate and what is accidental. Referees try to con us into this is what we wanted, when it isn't, it never was.
Clear and obvious errors, end of.....

[Ashingtonclaret46]

I'm not a critic of VAR, never have been.
VAR was necessary because OUR referees got the simplest decisions wrong, far too often. Now with VAR they still get many decisions wrong, for the same reasons, they're bloody useless, but try to blame VAR saying this is what we wanted. It isn't what we wanted. The way the continentals use it, is what we wanted. It's been shown in the Euros and last world Cup that VAR is fine, IF the people using it are competent and have the slightest bit of common sense.
Nearly all our issues come from trying to complicate something that is simple, and clearly understood. The laws of the game stood the test of time for decades, yet now we have to redefine what is offside, redefine what is handball, redefine what is deliberate and what is accidental. Referees try to con us into this is what we wanted, when it isn't, it never was.
Clear and obvious errors, end of.....

THe only reason that they have messed about with the LAws of the Game which, as you have said, stood the test of time is simply because they have introduced VAR ---nothing more ---nothing less. Sad isn't it?
All media driven and nothing to do with referees wanting it.

[boatshed bill]

THe only reason that they have messed about with the LAws of the Game which, as you have said, stood the test of time is simply because they have introduced VAR ---nothing more ---nothing less. Sad isn't it?
All media driven and nothing to do with referees wanting it.

All media driven for sure.
But there have been many minor "tweaks" since the sixties, some very good.
But I would say that some of the more recent ones are absolute rollocks

[Ashingtonclaret46]

All media driven for sure.
But there have been many minor "tweaks" since the sixties, some very good.
But I would say that some of the more recent ones are absolute rollocks

I was really referring to the time since 2016/17 when David Elleray got involved with IFAB and has overseen over 178 changes up to October 2020 --the majority being since VAR was introduced at the 2018 World Cup.
I agree that several minor "tweaks" have worked, however,.............................................

[dsr]

Did they say it was to create more goals? Any proof? It sounds more logical that their concern was strikers who were just onside or level were being give incorrectly as Offside and guess what now we've got VAR if a player is level or onside they definitely dont get given as offside

Sounds to me like VAR has further helped with these imaginary lawmakers ideas that only you know about. Do these lawmakers come to you in the night like angels from football past to ask you to lead a crusade against VAR and the holy word "LEVEL"???

The 1990 laws of the game said about the offside law change, "Its sole aim is to promote an attacking style of play".

I'm sorry you think the lawmakers of 1990 are imaginary. If they didn't exist, who do you think wrote the laws? Who issued the 1990 handbook?

Show that picture of Wood (minus the lines) to 100 lower league and non-league linesmen and see if they would have disallowed the goal given that information. Any of them who say that they would not because Wood was level, have a different meaning of level to what VAR has.

Genuine questions - and if you can answer them without the "I will try to make you feel stupid" footnote, because it doesn't make me feel stupid but does tell people a lot about you, so much the better -

Do you believe that VAR is disallowing goals like Wood's that, before VAR, would have been given as level under the law?
And if yes, do you believe that disallowing those goals is a good thing?