But for Offside the technology is miles more precise than the human can manage. All your comments are even more damning of the rule when humans are judging it. If you don't allow the technology to get the most precise answer possible you are effectively allowing the more fallible human to overrule the more precise technology.
The last time it was changed they made being level onside when it was previously offside. That literally only matters if the measurement is made very precisely.
So having got technology that can measure Offside more precisely than ever before you want to change the rule so it can't be used? It would surely be better to define being level as not being more than 2 cm nearer to the goal than the last defender.
I believe the off side rule was brought in to penalise those "seeking to gain unfair advantage". You do not need MM measured positions to enforce this, people being quicker of thought/movement or having bigger boots are not seeking to gain unfair advantage.
Whatever the reason for the rule it is nearly impossible to write it as other than a yes or no decision. You could define a number of cm where being above that was Offside but below that not but it would be completely arbitrary and wouldn't alter the need for a precise measurement. As far as I can tell from a search on line the VAR system is at least 10 times more precise than relying on humans.
Because you/they are looking at distances and not intent. If a player anticipates a pass should he just stand still until the pass is made or should he act on his instincts? If a player knows he's faster than his apponent should he wait until the opponent moves before he does?
So write down the Law that would allow that sort of Offside Rule to be enforced....I've often thought that the Offside Law would be better if you couldn't be Offside if the last but one defender was running away from the goal. But I think that would make it even harder to call in practice as the Assistant Ref has even more things to look at.
Past the last defender or the ball, presumably. What about if the defenders run past the forward after a move breaks down.
I've aways been of the opinion that VAR was only for clear and obvious errors...these decisions were never complained about in the past. On top of that I do not know how accurate the decisions are considering how many frames per seconds filming takes. VAR was supposed to improve football not steal goals.
There isn’t a problem with VAR getting clear decisions correct. It’s the marginal ones which are the issue. VAR doesn’t seem to be any better equipped to get those right. Stopping the game for protracted periods to decide if a toenail was offside - and having a no more than 50/50 chance of getting it right - is destroying the spectacle, causing unnecessary controversy and stifling and discouraging attacking play. Offsides should be given when a player is clearly offside and therefore gaining an unfair advantage. The benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side. Football is meant to be entertaining. Using a slide rule to try to decide the most impossibly marginal offsides is extremely tedious and time consuming. It does nobody any favours.
You are talking about being offside from running ahead of the opponents, but that is not the only way of being offside. After an attack breaks down the forward has to get back onside to receive a pass. The scenario you present ignores this. To be fair my point is a little pedantic, but it is a tricky rule to write.
