Sounds like they’re thinking of implementing the “Wenger Rule” i.e instead of the attacker needing to be fully behind the defender to stay onside he can stay onside if he’s all but fully in front of the defender.

The idea is to give more an advantage to the attacker and disallow less goals.

To me it makes absolutely no sense, and I don’t understand how people buy into this kind of rule change not understanding that all it does is move the boundary for offside.

Those people who incessantly complain about “toenail calls” would still be whining with this new rule as an attacker has his heel keeping him onside by a cm.

The other thing I see with it, is it only makes it worse for an attacker to stay onside. Why? Because, with the current rule he can look down the line to time his run perfectly. With the new rule change, you can’t see what’s behind you and where your body is in relation to the defenders, so it’s only going to be more frustrating and luck based at times from the attacker’s perspective.

All in all, I don’t really see the point of this rule change. All it serves to do is move the margin slightly while potentially making things more confusing.

The current rule is perfectly fine. What we really need is automated offsides. We have the same concept when it comes to goal line calls and no one has an issue with the close calls there because they’re called correctly 99.99% of the time, so what’s the issue with having the same for offline calls? Get the technology in now and be done with it.

  • sozh@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    fingernail no, because it’s not a body part that can legally play the ball. Shoelace - maybe??? Would a flapping jersey or shorts that was in an offside position be enough, or does it have to be the player’s body. What about hair??!