Offside in Europe

[Devils_Advocate]

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?

Wow are you still going....

Of course people make and write the laws but this group of people would be ever evolving and you do not have a direct phone line in to them so to talk about them like you and (seemingly) only you know exactly what their intentions were is ludicrous.

The change in the law was indeed to give the attacking player an advantage but lets look at what this really meant and not all the extra stuff you've bolted on.

The offside rule was created to stop an attacking player having an advantage over the defender by being ahead of him. If the attacking player is behind the defender the defender obviously has the advantage. In the old laws if the two players were level it was considered offside giving the advantage to the defender. Under the 1990 rule change they decided that when they were level the advantage should go to the attacker.

This did not mean as you said in previous posts that the attacker was allowed to be a couple of feet nearer the goal than the defender under this new rule it meant if they were level.

So to your final question as Wood was in front of the last defender prior to VAR that would have been offside. It might not have been given offside because getting an offside call correct with the naked eye is very difficult and a lot of guesswork. Before VAR players were given onside for being ahead of the defender and offside when they were level or behind the defender - this is why people wanted VAR (to get the decision right)

VAR has not changed the law or its interpretation and the meaning of level still exists What VAR has done is remove all the linesmen mistakes which sometime wrongly penalised the attacking team and sometimes penalised the defending team.

One thing VAR has done from an attacking sense is that it has stopped the linesmen giving anywhere near the amount of offside decisions because they can now let it go and let the technology help them. The linemen giving less offsides sounds something that encourages attacking football to me

Finally you have no idea in real time if a non league linesman would have given Wood as onside or offside but my experience is that before VAR linesmen were more cautious and tended to give offside more when it wasn't rather than the other way round.

What we seen now are lots of tight calls but to make an assumption that all these would have been given offside with the naked eye is exactly what Im talking about with just jumping to your own conclusions then talking about it like it is a fact not open for discussion

[Colburn_Claret]

So to your final question as Wood was in front of the last defender prior to VAR that would have been offside. It might not have been given offside because getting an offside call correct with the naked eye is very difficult and a lot of guesswork. Before VAR players were given onside for being ahead of the defender and offside when they were level or behind the defender - this is why people wanted VAR (to get the decision right)

No it isn't.
People wanted VAR because of the many, many occasions when goals were given when the striker was obviously 2 or 3 foot offside. Clear and obvious.
Nobody said freeze frame and use silly bloody lines, or use the arm pit. That's down to referees, and as I said, because they made it complicated, they still make wrong and controversial decisions. Then make it even more complicated trying to undo their mistakes.

VAR should be a simple tool, for clear and obvious errors nothing more, nothing less, and fans would love it.

[Devils_Advocate]

People wanted VAR because of the many, many occasions when goals were given when the striker was obviously 2 or 3 foot offside.

Interesting, you want to speak to DSR and not me as he thinks that players a couple of feet offside counted as level before VAR and should have been given onside.

As for the rest of your posts its the same over emotional fact less verbal diarrhoea that flows out in some awful stream of consciousness.

[boatshed bill]

No it isn't.
People wanted VAR because of the many, many occasions when goals were given when the striker was obviously 2 or 3 foot offside. Clear and obvious.
Nobody said freeze frame and use silly bloody lines, or use the arm pit. That's down to referees, and as I said, because they made it complicated, they still make wrong and controversial decisions. Then make it even more complicated trying to undo their mistakes.

VAR should be a simple tool, for clear and obvious errors nothing more, nothing less, and fans would love it.

The problem is who decides what is clear and obvious?

[dsr]

Interesting, you want to speak to DSR and not me as he thinks that players a couple of feet offside counted as level before VAR and should have been given onside.

As for the rest of your posts its the same over emotional fact less verbal diarrhoea that flows out in some awful stream of consciousness.

When you are doing your level best to provoke argument by saying things that are stupid, that's allowed under site rules. Stupidity is permitted.

but when you are trying to disrupt the site by being objectionable and rude in hope of starting an argument, that is not allowed. If you were interested in discussion, then you wouldn't put insults and bile into every post. This is what this site has been plagued with for years and it should stop.

[Devils_Advocate]

When you are doing your level best to provoke argument by saying things that are stupid, that's allowed under site rules. Stupidity is permitted.

but when you are trying to disrupt the site by being objectionable and rude in hope of starting an argument, that is not allowed. If you were interested in discussion, then you wouldn't put insults and bile into every post. This is what this site has been plagued with for years and it should stop.

If someone talks rubbish at me then I'll tell them. I am not trying to start an argument and would prefer if that poster didnt converse with me (I certainly ignore his rubbish) but if he does then I'll be honest with him.

I think you style of posting is disruptive because it is dishonest and disingenuous and I normally ignore you but you've been beating your boring drum over this notion of level not existing for some time so I thought Id challenge you on it and highlight its ridiculousness. Im sorry if you get offended by me thinking your viewpoint is ridiculous but I do.

[dsr]

If someone talks rubbish at me then I'll tell them. I am not trying to start an argument and would prefer if that poster didnt converse with me (I certainly ignore his rubbish) but if he does then I'll be honest with him.

I think you style of posting is disruptive because it is dishonest and disingenuous and I normally ignore you but you've been beating your boring drum over this notion of level not existing for some time so I thought Id challenge you on it and highlight its ridiculousness. Im sorry if you get offended by me thinking your viewpoint is ridiculous but I do.

Of all people, you accuse other posters of posting dishonestly?

[Colburn_Claret]

The problem is who decides what is clear and obvious?

Surely that's common sense.
If there is clear daylight it's obviously offside, common sense.
If it's too close to call by the naked eye, give the attacker the advantage, common sense. Even if those fine lines show he had a big toe in an offside position, give it anyway.

Pre VAR when it was courted in order to avoid bad calls, it wasn't because fans were complaining about fine margins, fans were complaining about the obvious bad decisions, and there were many. If you can leave the ground thinking the ref was wrong, BUT I can see why he gave it, that's life. So long as there is consistency with the attacker being given the benefit of any doubt I'd be satisfied.