VAR and offside. It's such a simple solution.

Just don't have offside.
Scrap the rule no more flecking arguments about it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poolerblue

Simple solution if it’s a Cardiff attacker he is not offside ever!!!

---

Except in the case of Earnie, when he popped out his mother all those years ago he was probably in an offside position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUETIT

I totally agree, as I stated in post 5, of this thread.

Whole body, no toes, armpits, noses (matt li-tiss:hehe:), lob-ons, fingers, any thing

---

Agree with all the above so why don't we just turn these VAR decisions on their head and say, if any part of the body is onside, yes even a finger tip, it is NOT offside. Reverse the VAR silliness in the attackers favour?

Why don't we just turn these VAR decisions on their head and say, if any part of the body is onside, yes even a finger tip, it is NOT offside. Reverse the VAR silliness in the attackers favour?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln blue

Why don't we just turn these VAR decisions on their head and say, if any part of the body is onside, yes even a finger tip, it is NOT offside. Reverse the VAR silliness in the attackers favour?

---

You still need to use the lines, attackers will just play even further on the shoulder. You're just moving the point of reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

It's if you're level with the last defender, then you're onside, anything after, toe nail, headband etc is off side. I'd say that before VAR those very tight calls would probably go the in the attackers favour. If i had my way then i'd scrap VAR and the whole football world would just have to accept mistakes will happen.

---

Amen to this. Any moaning, you've seen what the alternative is, so suck it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

You still need to use the lines, attackers will just play even further on the shoulder. You're just moving the point of reference.

---

I don't know why half the people on the thread don't grasp this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

Amen to this. Any moaning, you've seen what the alternative is, so suck it up.

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

I have no problem with the VAR line. I trust it, I think it's a good thing. I think if both a player's feet are in front of the line he should be offside. I know there would still be fine margins, but if it were kept to feet only and both of them had to be in front of the line, I think it would be easier to take because as a concept it makes more sense. The player would look offside. The law as it stands now is not relatable visually. Bamford was offside, but he doesn't look offside. So naturally, people are up-in-arms about it.

---

So the issue now becomes one of educating the public. I think this is very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Surely a whole body (clear ) is easier to view or measure than a hand ,knee,or foot ??

As a minimum it would take away these current decisions based on the odd limb being off side ?

---

What does clear mean in this sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I don't know why half the people on the thread don't grasp this.

---

It’s actually bothering me that people think I’m being stupid. Every single new suggestion is just a different reference point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln blue

Why don't we just turn these VAR decisions on their head and say, if any part of the body is onside, yes even a finger tip, it is NOT offside. Reverse the VAR silliness in the attackers favour?

---

Attacking players would keep an arm outstretched in an attempt to keep a finger tip onside, whilst being able to gain a couple of feet advantage over the defender.

QUOTE=The Bloop;5135160]Attacking players would keep an arm outstretched in an attempt to keep a finger tip onside, whilst being able to gain a couple of feet advantage over the defender.[/QUOTE]


So the advantage would switch to the attacking players, which is what thinks all about.

Anyone would think, we were on about attacking players wearing JUMBO HANDS, to gain an advantage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln blue

Why don't we just turn these VAR decisions on their head and say, if any part of the body is onside, yes even a finger tip, it is NOT offside. Reverse the VAR silliness in the attackers favour?

---

Just drawing the line in a different place again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUETIT

QUOTE=The Bloop;5135160]Attacking players would keep an arm outstretched in an attempt to keep a finger tip onside, whilst being able to gain a couple of feet advantage over the defender.

---

So the advantage would switch to the attacking players, which is what thinks all about.

Anyone would think, we were on about attacking players wearing JUMBO HANDS, to gain an advantage[/QUOTE]

Jumbo hands or not, the advantage would be massive, especially at set pieces. The attacking team could have as many players as they want between the keeper and the defensive line as long as they each keep any part of their body behind any part of any defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

So the advantage would switch to the attacking players, which is what thinks all about.

Anyone would think, we were on about attacking players wearing JUMBO HANDS, to gain an advantage

---

Jumbo hands or not, the advantage would be massive, especially at set pieces. The attacking team could have as many players as they want between the keeper and the defensive line as long as they each keep any part of their body behind any part of any defender.[/QUOTE]


Which is the opposite of what’s happening now, can’t you see that.

It was always give the benefit of doubt to the attacker, with VAR as it is, the advantage is with the defender

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Just drawing the line in a different place again.

---

It is but the advantage is then with an attacker and hopefully more goals in the game and therefore not disallowing perfectly good strikes just because the striker has a bigger c--k than the centre half

I reminisce over the days of trying to explain the offside law to women!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUETIT

Jumbo hands or not, the advantage would be massive, especially at set pieces. The attacking team could have as many players as they want between the keeper and the defensive line as long as they each keep any part of their body behind any part of any defender.

---

Which is the opposite of what’s happening now, can’t you see that.

It was always give the benefit of doubt to the attacker, with VAR as it is, the advantage is with the defender[/QUOTE]

I haven't said I cant see whats happening?? All I've given is a way that players could use any changes to the current rules to their maximum advantage.
All I can see is that it's a complete mess at the moment. VAR isnt being used as originally intended, and that there isnt a clear way out of the mess the authorities have created. The current situation causes more lengthier debates than pre-VAR (unless of course you're Welsh and wish it existed in 1978😁), which isnt healthy for the good of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln blue

It is but the advantage is then with an attacker and hopefully more goals in the game and therefore not disallowing perfectly good strikes just because the striker has a bigger c--k than the centre half

---

I've got no probelm with the attacker having the advantage I just don't think changing the reference point is going to change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

I've got no probelm with the attacker having the advantage I just don't think changing the reference point is going to change anything.

---

More goals would count .