A radical solution to the offside dilemma

In order to improve our game as a spectacle and keep the football flowing, I think the current offside rules need to be scrapped.
Instead the ultimate solution should be to change the player’s behaviour and this can only be achieved with the use of ‘negative stimulus,’ in much the same way that laboratory rats are subjected to electric shock treatment.
I propose that by using cutting edge technology and highly trained attack dogs this offence could be permanently removed from our game.
The method is simple. Each linesperson would be equipped with an electronic transmitter and one pit bull terrier on a lead. He or she would then note each time a player is caught offside and after three offences the linesperson would type the player’s number into the transmitter and trigger a signal. This signal would be instantly received by a micro-chip in the offending player’s shorts causing a temporary chemical reaction in the fabric. The colour of the shorts would turn bright lilac for thirty seconds and the pit bull terrier (which is trained to attack anything coloured bright lilac) would then be released allowing a short but savage ‘negative stimulus’ to take place.
I feel that each player’s natural instinct for self-preservation would create a significant change in their behaviour and eventually offside play could be completely eradicated.
Of course this may also have the side-effect of reducing the desire in some forwards to play attacking football, but I don’t have a ****ing solution for everything!
However if this experiment does prove successful it should be expanded to cover other offences such as the Thierry Henry handball incident, where in future a referee may decide to release a leopard or possibly a wolverine onto the pitch.
I welcome your serious and considered responses or alternative suggestions.

 

You spent quite alot of time typing that up didn't you? And may I say myself, what a load of ****e.

please log in to view this image

 

Miserable bugger!

 

I was willing to engage in a sensible debate on the matter and gave up after the second sentence.

 

We could turn it into a serious offside ruling debate, but the for the original poster to ask for a 'considered response' after his solution, it's hardly worth the time

 

Nice to see the sense of humour bypass is working.

 

Do away with "offsides" altogether and make it the responsibility of the defending team to police their own territory. Then it would be the same for both teams and not left up to visually impaired officials.

 

please log in to view this image

 

I'd like to see this modern offside rule **** off. The one where if you recieve the ball from 3 deflections off opposition players, but you were stood offside at some point in the past 15 minutes, then that counts as offside. Or worse than that, when they're called offside for 'being in the keeper's line of sight'. It's ridiculous, it's like they want to outlaw as many goals as possible.

Then people get confused and think that the modern complications of the offside rule make it more attacking, but it's actually the complete opposite. It used to just be that if you recieved the ball straight from a team mate you were off. Now just standing there can make you offside.

 

Do you mean like Gallas was when he scored the winner against us in the FA cup?

 

Wasn't he just plain offside? I.e. he recieved the ball from his team mate and there was no real debate about it?

 

In all seriousness mate have you really thought this one through ?

A Ratel or as it is otherwise known a 'honey badger' would be far more affective than a pit bull.They look more like a weasel than a badger, which is slighly confusing , but are nasty little bastards.

Like the Wolverine idea though .

 

I think that thing's a bit too evil for an offsider. I wouldn't want to be accused of being cruel.