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.
I fully agree with all of this. It’s not accurate so you’re right, I shouldn’t be talking about correct results.
I disagree though about reverting back to the onfield decision as this just adds an extra unnecessary layer of uncertainty. While var lines aren’t accurate, they’re much closer than the linesman’s view if its down to individual frames. You might as well toss a coin. Any buffer zone needs checking the same as a definite line so once you do that, go with the var decision and accept that while it may not be right it’s the best available data.
This is why my actual preference would be to go by feet - easiest and quickest to measure with the most accuracy - and by daylight, so having either foot level would mean onside. That way you accept that you can’t be 100% certain but it gives the benefit of doubt to the attacker, as originally intended. Trying to argue this all in one go is difficult though. The first step is convincing people that where you take your measurement from does actually matter.