I totally agree. The offside rule has become ridiculous. To be offside, a player has to be interfering with play. If VAR has to get out a ruler to find whether a player is one toenail offside, then clearly he or she is no more or less able to interfere with play than if that toenail were to be 1cm further away or closer to goal.
I've seen decisions go for and against my team (Tottenham, since you ask) and whether in the opponents' favour (this week against Southampton) or in our favour (Champions League quarter final against City) they've been equally stupid.
(PS: I remember being at Loftus Road to watch Rodney Marsh. Those were the days)
I could write another piece about how absurd it has become, but I'll probably keep my powder dry for now. But I will say this: if a toenail is offside and the owner of the toenail scores (or assists), I think we should be able to say that he was "interfering with play".
I agree that he was interfering with play. My question is, would that interference have been one iota different had he been a toenail onside? Surely the point of being offside is that you have gained an unfair advantage. In all fairness, the width of a toenail is hardly going to make a difference to the ability to score a goal. At some point, some semblance of rational sense has to come into it.
I am utterly fascinated by the way you are thinking about this. I feel compelled to ask: by how many toenails would the attacker have to be offside in order for you to deem the player to be gaining an unfair advantage? [NB: I'm not asking how many toes of the foot. I'm asking by how many toenails of width (or millimeters).]
The answer is simple: the attacker would have to be visibly in an offside position without the need to run a laser-pointer across the pitch. If It doesn't look clearly offside on VAR to the naked eye, then there's no significant advantage.
I totally agree. The offside rule has become ridiculous. To be offside, a player has to be interfering with play. If VAR has to get out a ruler to find whether a player is one toenail offside, then clearly he or she is no more or less able to interfere with play than if that toenail were to be 1cm further away or closer to goal.
I've seen decisions go for and against my team (Tottenham, since you ask) and whether in the opponents' favour (this week against Southampton) or in our favour (Champions League quarter final against City) they've been equally stupid.
(PS: I remember being at Loftus Road to watch Rodney Marsh. Those were the days)
Thanks for writing, Charles.
Actually, the phrase "interfering with play" has been modified by FIFA - see https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside.
I could write another piece about how absurd it has become, but I'll probably keep my powder dry for now. But I will say this: if a toenail is offside and the owner of the toenail scores (or assists), I think we should be able to say that he was "interfering with play".
I agree that he was interfering with play. My question is, would that interference have been one iota different had he been a toenail onside? Surely the point of being offside is that you have gained an unfair advantage. In all fairness, the width of a toenail is hardly going to make a difference to the ability to score a goal. At some point, some semblance of rational sense has to come into it.
I am utterly fascinated by the way you are thinking about this. I feel compelled to ask: by how many toenails would the attacker have to be offside in order for you to deem the player to be gaining an unfair advantage? [NB: I'm not asking how many toes of the foot. I'm asking by how many toenails of width (or millimeters).]
The answer is simple: the attacker would have to be visibly in an offside position without the need to run a laser-pointer across the pitch. If It doesn't look clearly offside on VAR to the naked eye, then there's no significant advantage.