On technology: I agree with ursus that it and its use will only improve with time. I agree with 2006 World Cup final referee Horacio Elizondo, who I once sat down for a chat with, that technology will help referees in cases where the ruling is a matter of fact rather than interpretation (was the whole of the ball across the whole of the line? Was this or that player offside? Did that bloke hit that other bloke with a sucker punch off the ball while the ref's back was turned?).
On offside, I agree with what Rory Smith has said a few times on Twitter recently: interpretations are difficult at present, and as such it's hard to criticise the ref or the linesman (I acted as a linesman for a game once, and I've never criticised one since, it's phenomenally difficult), but what we can question is the offside rule itself. It was introduced to prevent strikers from goalhanging. Disallowing a goal because a striker's big toe, or knee, or part of their shoulder, was offside, when that might not have been the case had the ball been released a twentieth of a second earlier (or, perhaps, later, depending on the running cadence of the striker and the defender they've just passed), was not what the offside rule was introduced for. There was a time, was there not, when the ruling was that there had to be 'daylight' between the last defender and the attacker? That seemed sensible. It prevented strikers from goalhanging, it allowed defenders to play an offside trap while still being punished if they ballsed it up, and it seemed like it gave defences a chance without unnecessarily strangling promising attacks. The reason for the current problems is that as the game has sped up, and as attackers in particular have got faster, and as new pressing models have resulted in more rapid turnovers of possession further up the pitch (making it harder for a linesman who finds himself running first one way and then the other to keep up), the offside rule has become more restrictive, moving from a requirement that a striker can't be clearly and entirely beyond the penultimate defender to a requirement that no part of the striker's body which can legally play the ball be so much as a milimetre beyond the penultimate defender. Increased speed coupled with a much finer criteria can only lead to more disallowed goals and more controversial decisions. And those disallowed goals aren't being disallowed due to violating the principle offside was actually brought in to protect.
All of which is to say: whatever about VAR, but IFAB should go back to the 'daylight' version of the offside rule. That on its own would get rid of a lot of the most egregious calls.
On offside, I agree with what Rory Smith has said a few times on Twitter recently: interpretations are difficult at present, and as such it's hard to criticise the ref or the linesman (I acted as a linesman for a game once, and I've never criticised one since, it's phenomenally difficult), but what we can question is the offside rule itself. It was introduced to prevent strikers from goalhanging. Disallowing a goal because a striker's big toe, or knee, or part of their shoulder, was offside, when that might not have been the case had the ball been released a twentieth of a second earlier (or, perhaps, later, depending on the running cadence of the striker and the defender they've just passed), was not what the offside rule was introduced for. There was a time, was there not, when the ruling was that there had to be 'daylight' between the last defender and the attacker? That seemed sensible. It prevented strikers from goalhanging, it allowed defenders to play an offside trap while still being punished if they ballsed it up, and it seemed like it gave defences a chance without unnecessarily strangling promising attacks. The reason for the current problems is that as the game has sped up, and as attackers in particular have got faster, and as new pressing models have resulted in more rapid turnovers of possession further up the pitch (making it harder for a linesman who finds himself running first one way and then the other to keep up), the offside rule has become more restrictive, moving from a requirement that a striker can't be clearly and entirely beyond the penultimate defender to a requirement that no part of the striker's body which can legally play the ball be so much as a milimetre beyond the penultimate defender. Increased speed coupled with a much finer criteria can only lead to more disallowed goals and more controversial decisions. And those disallowed goals aren't being disallowed due to violating the principle offside was actually brought in to protect.
All of which is to say: whatever about VAR, but IFAB should go back to the 'daylight' version of the offside rule. That on its own would get rid of a lot of the most egregious calls.
Comment