Example-1 (Denmark-Croatia):
https://youtu.be/m19sZreGh9k (@
~2:40)
Example-2 (Ireland-Ukraine):
https://youtu.be/EbGHZpheAZ4 (@
~1:00)
Example-3 (Andorra-Liechtenstein):
https://youtu.be/stoDm_HwgH4 (
all)
There are myriad example I could cite. I just grabbed these two at random, since I've been watching the highlights of the European Nations League, over the last few days; and I've been noticing more and more of these ridiculous, game-changing "offside" calls disallowing what were once, and by all rights, should be perfectly legitimate goals.Consider that the offside rule exists in the sport of football in order to stop teams simply "parking" strikers in the 16-yard box, old school AFL full-forward style; thereby, allowing the lobbing balls in from all over the park, and/or creating constant striker(s) versus keeper situations between however many strikers are parked there, versus a solitary goal keeper. Avoiding this obviously absurd outcome is an absolutely legitimate reason to have an offside rule, and I have no issue with it
under this pretext.
However, the problem arises where linesman rule on players who have even the hem of their shirt, or an inguinal bulge protrude past the last defending player [as the ball is played]. This pedantic implementation of the rule has been brought into even starker relief since the adoption of the V. A. R. system -- where time can be effectively stopped, and such persnickety decisions made in frame-by-frame slow-motion. With said technology, not only is the premise of the offside rule ill-conceived; but, the implementation of it becomes absurdly Draconian, and in complete defiance of the real-time speed at which a game is played in.
Absent V. A. R., at the very least, some of these "offside" instances -- what I refer to as "non-offsides" -- can slip past referees; as the real-time pace of a game, relative to human perception and decision-making dictates. With V. A. R., every vexatious protest by the defending team is scrutinised, down to the very pixel, and in an unnatural vacuum --
i.e., outside of the context of the many, influencing real-time factors -- and called for the protesting side, whenever a pubic follicle is found to be past the last defender. This scenario often plays out after the post-goal celebrations and the adrenaline hit the crowd receives from the on-field proceedings -- something that few would argue is not a horrible, even cringe-worthy anti-climax.
There isn't much point in dwelling on the obvious and immediate implications for the sport, caused by this kind of robotic implementation of an already flawed offside rule: lower scores; well-wrought goals artificially thwarted (see: example-1); abuse of the system (see: LBW appeals in Cricket); interruptions to the flow of the game (re. momentum), and the ensuing impacts on the final outcomes of games (see:
Socceroos' 1997 second leg WC qualifier against Iran)... I prefer to focus on the comparative examples of such technologies damaging the entertainment value of sports -- all* mediums of entertainment, in actual fact
(*beyond the scope of this discussion).Whether it's the, what some call "over-coaching" of Australian football, that has rendered a game which was once marked by twenty-goal-plus per side / dozen-goal per full-forward encounters, to what is now a glorified rugby scrum, comprised of sub ten-goal per side, "check-side" kick orgies; the "dumbed-down" form of the once intellectual cricket, after the game was diluted by "T-20" slog-athons, and 10-minute delays by third umpire scrutiny of every cynical appeal; or tennis, where computerised linesman and the raising of the net has created a game that is beginning to resemble basketball, and every player is a generic, 200kph serving, baseline camping, metronome drone.
The wholesale DIGITISATION of sports (and life in general) is ruining everything we once held dear.The fallibility of the decision-making of sports adjudicators is as key to the intrinsic appeal of sports, as the use of real instruments in music-making, is intrinsic to the creation of good music (compare: modern-day 'music'). The real-world, contextual administration of rules, is as important to the underlying fairness of those rules, as a jury of ones peers deciding upon a verdict, based on the evidence presented, is to justice being served (compare: "pre-crime"). A rule implemented blindly, is to rule by injustice.
Modernising extant rules in a given sport, in order to bring them into line with emerging technologies, is an imperative to maintaining the historical appeal of those sports.- There must be visible daylight between the attacker and the final defending player, for it to qualify as an offside
- The offside rule should no longer apply within 10 metres of goal (i.e., between the penalty spot and the goal line)
- Teams should be limited in the number offside appeals to V. A. R. they can avail -- e.g., three appeals, with each correct referral being "free" (no consumption of an appeal when it is upheld); five, and the appeal number is absolute, upheld or otherwise
If offsides continue to be called for every millimetre discrepancy, football will become another AFL, cricket, or tennis: something completely different to what made "soccer" football the world game. Once the sport changes, and as can be evidenced by aforementioned dead canaries in the sporting coal mine, going back to what the sport once was, is all but impossible: there will again be Tony Locketts, Don Bradmans, or John MacEnroes -- the respective sports are simply no longer structured to accommodate such players / play styles; thus, such players are no longer even blooded to begin with; let alone, sought by the sports. As a more specific example: in tennis, single-handed backhand play is now discouraged by coaches, and from a grass roots level, because, in generally, it requires a lot more training to master a "Federer backhand", than it does "Djokovic backhand". In other words, the modernisation of the sport of tennis has conspired to kill off one of its most entertaining components (to say nothing of the flow-on effects).
It's rather inarguably that such changes are categorically
not for the better. Homogenisation may "broaden the appeal" of a given sport -- for AFL, less key position play makes teams less discriminatory in player selection; in cricket, T-20 elevates lesser-skilled play/players to higher levels; for tennis, height and serve becoming the deciding factors for success, simplify player training regimen --
from a corporate standpoint. However, this broadening of appeal is, in effect, a euphemism for the dilution of sports; and anything that is diluted, inherently loses its efficacy. The efficacy of a sport to maintain viewer interest -- issuing from that, its future participants -- rests upon the pastime's unpredictability. Digitisation of sports increasingly removes the "human element" from the pastimes; thereby, and invariably, increasing predictability. Predictable entertainment is not entertaining.
The thoughtless, overnight digitisation of sports which grew organically over many generations, will damage the essence of those sports; eventually, killing the sports outright.NB: I do realise that the V. A. R. system, hasn't, thus far, completely "destroyed" the world game. Hence, my appeal and warnings still being legitimate and valid; as distinct from crying over spilt milk -- as it would be in the cases of the other sports I used as comparative examples. It should be noted, however, that V. A. R. is not yet implemented across the world game board. My fear is that, once it is made ubiquitous, the game will change irrevocably--and not for the better.