Terrible refereeing ruining football - the saga continues.

[Royal Rother]

Indeed. I mean, what is the point of offside? The idea of the game is to get the ball in the back of the net, who really cares whether an attacker is 6 inches in front of the last defender when the ball is played through? It's a somewhat illogical rule. The defender's job will always be to stop the attacker from scoring, should the game care so much about their respective positions during a move?

Sure, doing without offside would change certain aspects of the game, its shape might be redifined somewhat but who cares - the fundamental objectives and the skills associated with achieving them would remain unaltered; the game would be more free-flowing and there'd be less contentious issues / decisions affecting the distribution of the vast sums of money involved in key games.

All good in my eyes. I'd love to see it trialled somewhere.

[Hoop Blah]

It is trialed almost everyday in every school playground up and down the country!!

I don't think it would add to the way the games played, although it might appeal more to US audiences who can't seem to appreciate low scoring sports.

[paultheroyal]

Just do away with offside altogether.

Worked in hockey (very well !)

Would be well worth an experiment, would require managers and players to really think about the way the game is played.

Would also free up linesmen to concentrate on key goal line decisions !!!!

Pointless idea, will never happen, and totally change football from how it should be played. All it will do is encourage the long ball game. Hoof up the pitch from one end to the other. Free kicks around the box, attackers filling up the goal mouth. Think about it.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Quite agree the law does need to be there.

Also, there isn't anything particularly difficult to grasp about Offside so why anyone would suggest removing it in the first place I can't fathom.

[Royal Rother]

I guess I'm a bit bored with football as it is; it's only fantasy but it'd be great to see something massive like that change the game, just to see what happens!

[frimmers3]

how about a "comprimise"?.....what if only two pre-named players(strikers perhapaps) were allowed to score within the penalty box,but a free for all from outside...thus encroachment into the box would be policed by defenders intent on snuffing out the immediate threat posed...no need for "off side" under those circumstances. perhaps i am too old for original thought....

[brendywendy]

how about a "comprimise"?.....what if only two pre-named players(strikers perhapaps) were allowed to score within the penalty box,but a free for all from outside...thus encroachment into the box would be policed by defenders intent on snuffing out the immediate threat posed...no need for "off side" under those circumstances. perhaps i am too old for original thought....

so only two attackers allowed in the box?

no fanks

[TBM]

how about a "comprimise"?.....what if only two pre-named players(strikers perhapaps) were allowed to score within the penalty box,but a free for all from outside...thus encroachment into the box would be policed by defenders intent on snuffing out the immediate threat posed...no need for "off side" under those circumstances. perhaps i am too old for original thought....

Next you'll want to rename the game netball

[RoyalChicagoFC]

Semifinal assignments made

That just about leaves Frank de Bleeckere and Howard ("World Wide") Webb to split the third place match and the final, hmm?

'Mon Ingerlund --beat them Belgums!

[Sarah Star]

That Uzbekistan ref is the best IMO. Can't we get him to come over here and do a few for us? Surely we could pay him more than he gets in Uzbekistan.

[Franchise FC]

Yes to anything that gives an instant notification to the ref. Hawkeye, as tested at Hogwood, gave the ref a buzz within 0.5 seconds of the ball crossing the line.

But a big NO to anything that stops play or takes it back - and here's why. After yesterday's incident, the ball was cleared and Germany were immediately on the attack, and within 30 seconds of the ball bouncing behind their goalline they'd had a shot themselves on the England goal. What if that had gone in?

When would you look at the replay? Would you stop play immediately and deprive Germany of the chance to attack? Or would you take away the "goal" they'd scored - which might have been the best goal in the history of football?

TV replays are a must for tournament football - goal line decisions only. Any issue with ball over the line - whistle is immediately blown - this then answers Dirks point and prevents further controvesy. Replay is looked at, decision is made - either a goal is awarded, or a goal kick to the defending team - job done.

So the England shot goes 'in' but instead of the ball being gathered by the keeper, it hits him and comes out. Eventually, the onrushing Rooney pops the ball in. If the whistle goes as soon as the original incident happens, England are penalised again. Don't stop the game, but give extra official 5 seconds to decide whether it was in. If he can't decide in 5 seconds - no goal.

Now the jobe's done.

[SLAMMED]

Basically you play on until the ball goes out of play. If it's a goal, then it is awarded, if not, how ever the ball went out of play will be how the game continues.

[Dirk Gently]

Basically you play on until the ball goes out of play. If it's a goal, then it is awarded, if not, how ever the ball went out of play will be how the game continues.

What if it goes out of play by a team scoring a perfectly good goal?

[SLAMMED]

Exactly the same as any other scenario. If the ball is judged to have crossed the line, the team are awarded the goal and the opposition take centre, just like the goal had been spotted the first time around.

[Dirk Gently]

So everything that happens after a contentious goal is only "provisional" and may not actually happen?

So what if the next stoppage is a dangerous tackle from behind which would be an instant red card? Does that player still get sent off if it's discovered a goal was scored earlier?

And what about if that red card tackle injured a player? That injury can't be wiped off like the red card can.

It's a minefield. The only answer is an instant notification to the ref and immediate decision - not provisional play or taking the game back wards.

[exileinleeds]

Or you could just accept that of the 23 men on the pitch probably all will make a mistake during a game, one or two might change the game- a shot going over, a "professional" foul to break down play in midfield, or the ref might miss, or misconstrue something...it is what makes the game exciting. Who wants to hang around waiting for a panel of judges making decisions?

The only video evidence I would be happy to see is the FA taking additional action after a game. If the ref makes an error and books someone for a foul more serious than he saw, then I don't think it unreasonable for the decision to be revisited and maybe a ban handed out, similarly for diving and acting to get another man sent off.

[Sun Tzu]

So the England shot goes 'in' but instead of the ball being gathered by the keeper, it hits him and comes out. Eventually, the onrushing Rooney pops the ball in. If the whistle goes as soon as the original incident happens, England are penalised again. Don't stop the game, but give extra official 5 seconds to decide whether it was in. If he can't decide in 5 seconds - no goal.

Now the jobe's done.

How is putting the ref under pressure to make a decision on 5 seconds going to work ?

he's still got a game to referee and in the 5 seconds he won't get any more info than he had first time round.

So chances are he'll not concentrate on the action , not have anything to base a decision on other than what he saw first time and never give a goal anyway becasue there would be no basis on which to do it....

Agree 100% with Dirkers that an instant signal is the only way.

[Royal Rother]

Yes to post-match reviews if bookings have been made incorrectly or blatant evidence of cheating has been revealed but how anyone can possibly be against an instant answer as to whether the ball has actually crossed the line or not is absolutely and completely beyond me.

These sorts of errors are not "what make the games exciting" - they are what make the games sickeningly frustrating at times.

[Sun Tzu]

Just do away with offside altogether.

Worked in hockey (very well !)

Would be well worth an experiment, would require managers and players to really think about the way the game is played.

Would also free up linesmen to concentrate on key goal line decisions !!!!

Pointless idea, will never happen, and totally change football from how it should be played. All it will do is encourage the long ball game. Hoof up the pitch from one end to the other. Free kicks around the box, attackers filling up the goal mouth. Think about it.

Why would it do that ?

You might get some teams trying to play that way (like some do now). But in reality the better teams will realise it actually gives freedom to play all over the pitch. You will actually get a lot more space to play the game and it would benefit teams who play passing football.
Stick a big centre forward in the 6 yard box and pump long balls to him and 1. the keeper will use his advantage of reach and take the ball or 2. the defence will man mark and take the forward out of play.
I think it would be very interesting to run a tournament with top class players and intelligent coaches and see what they do with a 'no offside' game. I think people would be surprised at how it would work. I've seen youth football at U13 level on the continent played 9 a side with no offsides and it was very good. OK they have good coaches and better players but the format worked.

[Skyline]

So the England shot goes 'in' but instead of the ball being gathered by the keeper, it hits him and comes out. Eventually, the onrushing Rooney pops the ball in. If the whistle goes as soon as the original incident happens, England are penalised again. Don't stop the game, but give extra official 5 seconds to decide whether it was in. If he can't decide in 5 seconds - no goal.

Now the jobe's done.

How is putting the ref under pressure to make a decision on 5 seconds going to work ?

he's still got a game to referee and in the 5 seconds he won't get any more info than he had first time round.

So chances are he'll not concentrate on the action , not have anything to base a decision on other than what he saw first time and never give a goal anyway becasue there would be no basis on which to do it....

Agree 100% with Dirkers that an instant signal is the only way.

As I've highlighted, FFC isn't talking about the ref but an 'extra official' (presumably someone like the video umpire they have in top-class cricket).

Personally, though, I agree with you and DG - it has to be some system where the ref is given an 'instant' (or realistically sub-0.5 secs) notification - say by a buzzer on his belt - that a goal has been scored.