Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
23 Apr 26
13:04
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Jan 07
Surely the right answer should be the feet. It is called football after all. Leaning to get a run on the defender and being flagged off for the T-shirt line etc is becoming a farce and ruining football. I'm going to text Wenger.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 8
|
By:
so would that mean if you scored with your head which was onside even though your feet were offside the goal would till count,or are your banning headed goals ?
|
|
By:
not banning anything, if your feet are onside, you're onside.
so in your example if your feet were offside it's offside, as is the case now anyway. |
|
By:
The Canadian league are trialling the day light rule this season, be interesting how it turns out as I'm sure I read there's no VAR for offsides not sure for penalty's etc. though. So I guess the linesman is being told to give any benefit of doubt to the attacking players.
|
|
By:
That's OK and easier for linesman-only calls with no VAR, provided he can keep up (unlikely). But still massively favours the attacker facing goal so don't like it.
Where VAR is in use I'd go with feet, and it's probably easier to automate than the whole body parts nonsense. |
|
By:
Yes it should go with feet but also in favour of daylight between them
|
|
By:
Sometimes players lean forward 2 feet to score a header though
|
|
By:
so that's fine if feet level or behind - decision = onside, GOAL
|
|
By:
Fair point swifty. I like the daylight rule too, but would need to see it in practise before passing judgement. As for favouring the attacker, I'm all for that if it opens up the game with more goals. For the majority of fans, I would imagine more goals is more excitement.
|