Offside Control in Soccer Performance Analysis

0:00 Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're really getting into one of football's most talked about maybe most frustrating rules. Offside. It's Been Around Forever really shapes the game, but boy does it cause some arguments. It certainly does, and it feels especially relevant now, doesn't it, with the Premier League bringing in semi automated offside tech this season. Exactly. That's really thrown it back into the spotlight. Lots of tight calls already. Yeah, and I bet a lot of people listening are wondering, you know, how exactly does this new system work?

0:33 What's changed? Right. So that's our plan today. We want to unpack this new technology, sort of demystify it a bit, but also crucially look back at the history because this rule, it wasn't just invented and left alone, was it? It's changed a lot. Oh absolutely. That's key. The offside rule we see today is, well, the product of loads of changes over the years, often trying to make the game more exciting actually. Finding that balance between attack and defense. Precisely. And you know, every step of the way people have praised it, criticized it, debated it constantly.

1:05 This new tech SA or it's just the latest installment in that long story. OK, let's dive straight into that new chapter then. Semi automated offside technology or SAR? What's its main goal in the Premier League? What problem is it trying to fix? Well, the big idea behind Essot is to make offside decisions faster, more efficient, and importantly, more consistent, right? Less waiting around. Exactly. Yeah, Think about those really long VR delays we sometimes got, especially for offside where they're drawing lines trying to find the exact kick point.

1:37 Agonizing sometimes, yeah. Essot aims to cut down that specific delay, the one for working out the off site itself. So it's semi automated. That implies humans are still involved. It's not just the computer making the call. That's right, the semi part is important. The human VAR officials are still crucial. Their job is to check that the system got it right. Check what exactly? They verify the key moments the system identifies, like the precise moment the ball is played and the positions of the attacker and the defender.

2:04 The tech provides the data points the lines, but a human confirms it before the decision is made final. OK, that makes sense. So how does the tech actually get that data? It sounds pretty complex. It is pretty clever, yeah. So each Premier League ground now has, I think it's around 30 special cameras, high speed ones running at 100 frames a second. Wow. And these cameras tracks the ball obviously, but also every player on the pitch. They capture something like 10,000 data points for each player.

2:33 10,000. Yeah, so the system can automatically figure out if any legal goal scoring part of an attacker's body is ahead of the last offender right at the moment the ball is kicked. That's incredible detail and we've seen it work already, haven't we? Goals being ruled out by. It we have yes. There have been a few Premier League games already where Sayo disallowed goals, remember 1 for SA at Crystal Palace against Man City and I think Tyranny for Arsenal against Brentford too. So it's definitely having an impact.

3:00 And remember, it was used in the Champions League and the FA Cup late stages before coming to the Premier League full time. And the hope is this gets rid of those really long VAR checks for offside, or at least shortens them the. Expectation is definitely for shorter delays for offside calls. It should speed up drawing the virtual lines, especially when it's really crowded in the box, but it probably won't eliminate delays completely if there's a potential foul before the offside that still needs a proper look.

3:29 Okay, so SEO is just for the offside geometry bit, not other potential issues. Exactly focuses solely on the offside decision itself. You mentioned a big delay in an FA Cup game where it couldn't be used. What happened there? Yeah, that was Bournemouth versus Wolves, an 8 minute VAR stop for a disallowed goal, SO wasn't available or couldn't be used in that specific 8 minutes. Yeah, so they had to go back to manually drawing the lines. The FA said afterwards that the crowded penalty area made it tricky for the tech in that specific case, and that they needed, you know, better processes for switching between different tech aids.

4:06 If one isn't working perfectly, it just shows. Even with fancy tech, things can still get complicated. It's fascinating how technology keeps intersecting with this really old rule. Let's go back, then let's talk about where the offside rule actually came from, its roots. Right, to really get it, you have to go back to the very first official laws of the game, the FA Laws 1863. OK. And interestingly the first offside rule was quite different. Basically a player was offside just for being in front of the ball.

4:37 In front of the ball at all? That sounds incredibly strict, like no forward passes almost. Pretty much. It was very rigid. Some say it was more like rugby's offside rule back then, rather than being about stopping goal hanging as we think of it now. And the name offside. It apparently comes from military language being off the strength of your side, like being behind enemy lines, out of formation. The rule really forced players to stay kind of behind the play. Hard to imagine football like that now.

5:03 Must have been a very different game to watch low scoring. Very low scoring generally, and there's a feeling growing that this super strict rule was, well, killing, attacking play making a bit dull, maybe attendances were even dropping in some places. So. They had to change it. Yeah, the FA started looking at ways to liven things up, encourage more goals. And then came the big 11925. That's the change. Everyone talks about this. Is the landmark 1? Yes, in 1925 they changed it so an attacker was only offside if there were fewer than two defenders between them and the goal line, including the keeper.

5:40 Instead of three before that. Exactly. It used to be 3. Reducing it to two had a massive impact. The average goals per game shot up almost immediately. So it worked. More goals, more excitement. But I imagine changing something so fundamental wasn't universal popular. Oh, definitely not. Loads of people at the time, especially in the press, were outraged. Some literally call it the death of football. Seriously. Yeah, that it would ruin the game structure and tactically teams had to completely rethink things.

6:08 The old offside traps, defenders stepping up together suddenly weren't as effective. Why not? Well, with only two defenders needed, it was easier for attackers to time their runs. Defenses felt more exposed, especially one-on-one, and that led to a big tactical shift. The center has started dropping deeper, marking the center forward directly. That role, the deep lying center half, came directly out of that rule change. Wow, one rule change creates a whole new tactical position. And the rule kept evolving after 1925, too.

6:40 It did. Fast forward to 1990, another key change. They decided that being level with the second last defender meant you are now on side. Giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt again. Exactly. The stated aim was explicitly to encourage more attacking play, hopefully leading to more goals. And then more recently, clarifications. Yeah. In 2005 they clarified which body parts count, basically anything you can legally score with. So arms don't count. And in 2016, a small adjustment regarding being offside in your own half.

7:08 You can't be. OK, so the overall direction seems to be making it easier or less difficult for attackers over time, but why have the rule at all? What was the original problem it was trying to solve if not just being ahead of the ball? The main thing as the game developed was trying to stop goal hanging. Just lurking by the goal. Yeah, layers. Just standing near the opposition goal, waiting for a long ball, not really being involved in the buildup. The rule was meant to encourage more teamwork, more passing, more dynamic movement, rather than just, you know, waiting for a tap in.

7:42 And as we've seen, they keep tweaking it to find that balance, encouraging attacks but keeping some defensive structure. Precisely. And every tweak forces teams to adapt, leading to new tactics. Think about the 1925 change in formations. It's this constant push and pull between the rules and how teams try to exploit them. It makes you wonder though, do we even need an offside rule now? I know some people, quite famous names have suggested getting rid of it completely. You're right, Marco van Basten famously argued for abolishing it.

8:11 What was his reasoning? He felt modern defenses are just so packed, so organized, it's incredibly hard for attackers to find any space. He thought removing offside would open the game up, create more chances, maybe more long shots and just generally lead to more goals, which fans enjoy. It's a radical thought. What would actually happen do you think, if they did scrap it? Well, it's impossible to say for sure, isn't it? But you'd likely see a big jump in goal scored. That seems probable. Which many would like.

8:41 True, but you might also see teams just resorting to hoofing the ball long all the time towards players camp near the goal and defenses might just drop incredibly deep to try and counter that. It could completely change the way games flow. Yeah, maybe not for the better. You mentioned earlier Scotland didn't originally have an offside rule like England's. How did that play out? That's a great historical point. In the early England Scotland games, Scotland without the strict English offside rule developed this intricate passing style, lots of short passes, movement off the ball, keep ball almost.

9:14 Whereas England with their rule tended to be more about individuals dribbling, rushing forward. It really shows how a basic rule shapes a whole style of play, a football and culture even. And other sports have grappled with this, too. It's not just football. No, Field hockey's a good example. They actually got rid of their offside rule entirely for a while. How did that go? Well, they eventually brought back a modified version. The feeling seemed to be the while removing it made things more open, it may be lost.

9:44 Some tactical shape, some structure. So they reintroduced a limited form of it. It just highlights how tricky that balance is and honestly, even with the rules we have, judging it in real time, that's incredibly tough for assistant referees, isn't it? Oh, massively. They're tracking the ball, the attacker, the defender, all moving at speed, often from an angle. It's incredibly difficult. The fact they get it right as often as they do is frankly amazing. Which leads us nicely onto VAR Video Assistant referees.

10:11 How has that changed things for offside and maybe other parts of the game too? Well, VAR core job is stepping in for clear and obvious errors in those big game changing moments and offside is definitely one of those, right? So VAR involves automatic checks behind the scenes, plus the referee potentially going to the screen for an on field review. And generally the stats show VAR has increased the accuracy of decisions in men's football. OK. But what about off site specifically? And has it had the same effect in the women's game that's been studied?

10:45 Hasn't. It it has, yeah. And it's quite interesting research looking at the FIFA Women's World Cups, comparing before and after VAR found some key differences from the men's game. Like what? Well, First off, playing time definitely increased after VA came in both halves. Total match time that matches the men's game. VAR chicks take time. Sure, makes sense. But here's the striking thing. The study found no significant change in the number of offsides given in women's matches after VAR was introduced.

11:13 Really. That is surprising. You'd think VR would catch more errors, wouldn't you? Why might that be? There are a couple of theories. 1 is about something called the flash lag effect. It's basically how our brains perceive moving objects. Sometimes we see them slightly ahead of where they actually are. VAR corrects for that, but this effect is stronger at higher speeds. Since average Sprint speeds in women's football are generally a bit lower than in men's, maybe there were fewer initial errors caused by this flashlight effect in the 1st place for VR to correct.

11:45 That's a fascinating biological point. I hadn't thought of that. Yeah. And another factor could just be playing style. The research suggested women's games tend to have fewer sort of defense splitting through balls compared to men's games. And those passes are often where offsides happen, right? So fewer of those passes might mean fewer marginal offside situations for VAR to even look at. Interesting. And the study also found no big change in penalties or fouls awarded after VAR in the Women's World Cup, Which again, it's a bit different from what's been seen in some men's leagues.

12:19 So VAR adds time in the women's game, but maybe doesn't change the frequency of key decisions like offside quite as much as in the men's. That's definitely worth remembering. Absolutely. It shows technology's impact isn't always the same everywhere. It depends on the specific dynamics of the game itself. Which brings us to the debate now where things stand today and where the offside rule might go next. Because even with SAU, the arguments haven't stopped, have they? No, not at all. In fact, the incredible precision of VAR, we're talking millimeters pixels has almost fueled a different kind of debate.

12:54 How? So. Well some argue that these super fine margin calls where maybe an attackers armpit hair is offside. That kind of goes against the spirit of the 1990 change which was meant to favor the attacker more. Remember, give them the benefit of the doubt. Now technology can spot these tiny, tiny infringements, leading to goals being ruled out that feel, well, a bit harsh maybe. Yeah, the armpit offsides definitely cause frustration. I've heard talk about the Wenger rule as a possible solution. What's that about?

13:25 Right, Arsene Wenger's proposal. The idea there is that an attacker should only be offside if there's clear daylight between them and the defender. Did not just a toenail. Exactly. The whole body part you can score with has to be completely ahead of the defender. It aims to get rid of those marginal calls and swing the balance back towards the attacker a bit more. More goals, potentially more excitement. It sounds like trying to recapture that spirit of earlier changes. And people have tried different offside experiments before, right?

13:52 It's not a new idea to tweak. It Oh yeah, definitely. They tried only applying offside in the penalty area in the Scottish League Cup once, didn't stick. I don't think there were ideas about no offside from free kicks too. These things get trialled, showing there's this constant search for the best way to apply the rule. Given that long history of making the rule generally more lenient for attackers, do you think VAR and SO are actually maybe unintentionally reversing that trend now, but being so precise?

14:21 That's a really sharp point. It's a strong argument because VAR catches these tiny margins that would have been impossible to see before. It is DIS allowing goals that probably would have stood previously. So yeah, even though the law's wording hasn't changed much recently, the application has become much stricter in practice because of the technology. And are there other ideas floating around for the future? I think I read something about only looking at players feet. That's another one, yeah, yeah.

14:48 The logic is your feet are what ground you, what propel you. Maybe judging offside just based on foot position would be simpler, more objective. Perhaps it might eliminate some of those awkward leaning shoulder offsides. It really feels like this debate is never going to fully go away, does it? It's this constant juggling act, accuracy versus flow versus entertainment. It really is. It's so fundamental to how football is structured and played and how we want it to be played. So wrapping up our deep dive today, it's clear the offside rule isn't simple.

15:20 It has this really rich, long history, changing so much from those super strict beginnings. Esso is just the very latest attempt to apply it consistently and quickly. But the arguments about how it should be interpreted, what its effect should be, they're still raging. It touches tactics, entertainment, everything. Totally. The history of Offside is like a mirror reflecting how we think about football, how we want it to look and feel. And looking ahead, you have to wonder what's next for the offside rule.

15:49 Will Tech keep pushing it one way? Will we see rule changes like the Wenger idea push it back another, or something even more fundamental? It leaves you thinking about that balance, doesn't it, Between perfect accuracy, letting the game flow and just seeing brilliant attacking football. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.