The offside rule is unnecessarily complex. It is physiologically impossible for assistant referees to accurately arbitrate.
Consequently, it led to numerous erroneous decisions, some of them were real head scratchers but most were entirely understanding given the amount of data they had to process whilst often being in a position where it was humanly impossible.
Assistant referees were further undermined by TV pundits who after watching numerous video replays from a multitude of angles, sometimes frame by frame, would criticise them for making a wrong decision. Often this judgement would be followed up by some sort of declaration that the assistant referee will (or should be) disappointed in him/herself.
In some instances, the decisions made had financial impacts that ran into millions of dollars.
In my view, the culpability for this lay not with the assistant referees, but with the administration of the game. They created a rule so complex that even with all the analysis of decisions, pundits (so called experts) disagreed over whether a play was off/onside. The same people would then continue to criticise the poor individual who had to call it. At full speed. In real time. Without the benefit of any tools to assist them in the decision making process.
So, now there is a system in place that can provide a substantial in the accuracy and integrity of officiating. It provides to a far greater extent, the right call in accordance to the rules that apply.
Slava (btw, you autocorrect to ‘Salvation’), I get where you are coming from. However, according to the rules, it was offside. Anything that followed was not a change of the game, it was what should have happened. Had Spurs goal been allowed, THAT would have been the change to the game.
The issue here wasn’t the application of the rule, it was the rule itself.
|