Offside Control in Soccer Performance Analysis

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?

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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?

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. 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.

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. 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. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

Offside Control in Soccer Performance Analysis

About this episode