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.

But why? You could still be in or out of this 5cm line by 1cm so it would still take just as long to measure. And if you’re measuring, why not go with the correct result?

Agree

There definitely was a clear air rule. The problem, as always, is that it was enforced inconsistently. Now we’ve got the tech to do it right.

I’d also much prefer to go by feet rather than drawing lines up. That’s the next step of the argument.

Yours is a popular opinion but I disagree with some of the logic and think you’re misunderstanding the argument for.

I agree completely that you can’t remove marginal calls by moving the line. There will always be a line that you can be 1cm either side of. However, I don’t think most people are arguing this. They’re arguing tha being an inch ahead isn’t a really an advantage. And if they aren’t, I am.

At the moment, if an attacker tries to keep themselves exactly level they’ll be offside half the time because they can’t do it perfectly. Even leaning forward to look along the line past the defender puts you offside. To be sure they’re onside they have to actively disadvantage themselves by being a little behind the defender.

If instead you had a daylight rule - any part of the attacker must be level or behind some part of the defender - then the attacker can try to be genuinely level. Of course you can still be offside by an inch but if so it’s more obvious that you’re gaining an advantage. Like you say, it makes no difference to accuracy where the line is drawn so why not give attackers more leeway?

The only argument I get is that making it harder for defenders to play offside will last to more defensive tactics. I still think the daylight rule would outweigh this by stopping offsides that are virtually level but I accept that’s just a matter of opinion.

I get it but I disagree. As agonising as the disappointment is, the thrill and enjoyment of a neck and neck battle shouldn’t be discounted. Especially when we’re playing with an uneven deck.

It’s a shame we get so fixated on the result. Yes, I’m obviously desperate to win but if you don’t enjoy the journey why even bother? When we came within 2 games of the quadruple, would it have been better to have a mediocre season?