SHA Small Heath Alliance

StechyBlue

Your mockup works great for the examples you've given but what happens when the box overlaps one line but misses the other one by 0.5mm?

You have a goal disallowed because of half a millimetre....

Your AI summary said this "removes the absurdity of goals being chalked off for millimetres" but I can't see how it does.

StechyBlue

Your mockup works great for the examples you've given but what happens when the box overlaps one line but misses the other one by 0.5mm?

You have a goal disallowed because of half a millimetre....

Your AI summary said this "removes the absurdity of goals being chalked off for millimetres" but I can't see how it does.

It would be offside!
Because the tolerance would be agreed upon.

You are right, the line has to be drawn somewhere - in any case - i think people know that.... just not across a toe because the current measure does not reflect the whole point of the very rule itself 'an unfair offside advantage'.

IF you factor in perception - perceived fairness - we all operate with the same tolerance and might feel less aggrieved when the margins are so small.

We all do not agree that a toe length causes an unfair advantage.
However we can all come to the agreement - that anything beyond this threshold IS deemed to be WHERE we draw the line of 'unfair advantage'.

Aka common sense.

Or we keep drawing a single line in front of a toe and leave the rule alone. But IMO it's a bit shit in it's current form for the sake of the sport.

There’ll still be a line drawn and occasionally millimetres to separate onside or offside

There’ll still be a line drawn and occasionally millimetres to separate onside or offside

True - as I've said - but the fine line isnt the complaint.

It's the fact we're drawing it when 2 players are exactly in line -bar a toe - which is effin stupid.

As i've said there will always be a 'mm' line to draw but where we are currently drawing it, is the issue.

So..this is AI arguing the ' youre just moving the line ' argument.

People who say that think the debate is about where the line is drawn.
It isn’t.
It’s about what the line represents.
---
🟥 Current VAR line = binary geometry
Right now the line answers only one question:
“Is any legal scoring body part in front?”

That’s it.
It doesn’t care about:
- Advantage
- Momentum
- Football logic
- Whether the attacker gained anything at all
A toenail ahead = same punishment as a striker two yards ahead.

That’s the flaw.
---
🟩 Your proposed line = meaningful advantage
Your idea changes the philosophy, not just the position of the line.

It asks:

“Is the attacker ahead by enough to actually matter?”

That’s a totally different question.

It introduces:
- A tolerance zone
- Torso‑to‑torso measurement
- A requirement for clear daylight
- A threshold of significant advantage

This isn’t “moving the line”.
It’s changing what offside is measuring.

Le Mod

B_C_F_C

Le Mod

Has a clear day light rule ever been a thing? I've no recollection of it

Pre 1990... then rule changed so that if you were level with the 2nd last defender you were onside

...which prompted the argument ..."was he level?"...

Not really a daylight rule then, as no daylight was required to be offside, more of a 'is any part the attackers anatomy past the 2nd last defender" rule, which is not really much different to the change they're making now in a sense that it's merely another movement of 'the line'

Pre 1990 it was...

Could your arm be offside? I wasn’t around (well not for long)

Tbh I know nobody will agree on here , but I think it should be where your feet are .

Currently you could have a knobbly left knee , too much polish on your right boot , or an index finger stuck out and be offside .

Le Mod

Could your arm be offside? I wasn’t around (well not for long)

Think you are missing the point Mod...

Pre 1990 to be onside you had to have two defenders between you and the goal line. ("Clear Daylight" - but this term, as far as i am aware, was never "official")

Post 1990 to be onside you could be level with the second last defender.

From then the arguments started on what being level was... getting worse and worse until the current situation where we use lines across the pitch to see if your little toe is goalside of the second last defender's index finger.

... I think!

I’m asking if arms were included because if they weren’t then ‘daylight’ was never a thing, as you could be onside with zero daylight. If they were included as part of the anatomy that could be offside then fair enough

More bollocks tonight to reinforce the point that it's fekin stupid.

'Oh its his head, part of his head'.
Moronic.

This one's even worse coz the rest of his body - the bit that matters, is way behind the alleged offence. We are literally dealing with his mush.

Le Mod

I’m asking if arms were included because if they weren’t then ‘daylight’ was never a thing, as you could be onside with zero daylight. If they were included as part of the anatomy that could be offside then fair enough

Yep... it was whole body stuff back then Mod... (pre 1990).



Until someone proves otherwise of course... 😁

B_C_F_C

Le Mod

B_C_F_C

Le Mod

Has a clear day light rule ever been a thing? I've no recollection of it

Pre 1990... then rule changed so that if you were level with the 2nd last defender you were onside

...which prompted the argument ..."was he level?"...

Not really a daylight rule then, as no daylight was required to be offside, more of a 'is any part the attackers anatomy past the 2nd last defender" rule, which is not really much different to the change they're making now in a sense that it's merely another movement of 'the line'

Pre 1990 it was...

They are talking it being in the attackers favour pre 1990 it was in the defenders. So
Whilst it was termed clear daylight when I was a kid it’s the opposite of what they are saying.

In most football VAR isn't available. It only applies in the very top leagues and international competitions. Why does this matter so much then? Obviously money and TV (same thing). But why all this controversial rubbish when there all still vehement arguments with or without VAR? I'd bin the lot, save the money and revert to one game for all where the refs and linos make the decisions and players and supporters suck them up.
VAR has solved nothing and makes the game worse.

l the bit that matters, is way behind the alleged offence.

You’d have a different opinion if he’d have scored with a header.