The Drybourgh Cup Offside Rule

[Key West]

Unfortunately only folk over a certain age will remember this, a line was drawn straight across the edge of the box to the touch lines and you couldn’t be offside outside the box, do you think that would be suitable for the modern game?

[wookie70]

Unfortunately only folk over a certain age will remember this, a line was drawn straight across the edge of the box to the touch lines and you couldn’t be offside outside the box, do you think that would be suitable for the modern game?

I'd like to see it as football is dull as ditch water much of the time. I suppose you might get the poacher situation which is one of the reasons offside exists but you would also stop team compressing the game as much and that may lead to more space in the middle of the park

[at last 61]

I'd like to see it as football is dull as ditch water much of the time. I suppose you might get the poacher situation which is one of the reasons offside exists but you would also stop team compressing the game as much and that may lead to more space in the middle of the park I've been saying this for so many years at the end of the day you go to the football to see your team win but you also go to see goals, and not be ruled offside

[Inconsequential]

I can remember the offside rule in the Drybrough Cup but was just a nipper. Anything to make the game more entertaining is fine by me. This evening's game The Netherlands v Ukraine was an entertaining match which is rare for a group stage match. However all the experts in the studio reckon most of the goals were preventable. Too much negativity in the game now and the players are stifled by excessive coaching to stop the opponent from scoring and not how to score. What was a simple game in that the team with most goals wins is now complicated where every player must have defensive capabilities to stop a reverse and have the knack of snatching a goal in rare attacking move to win a match by a solitary goal. I'm sure Brazil won a couple of World Cups where they couldn't defend! Those were the days! 🙄

[SonOfDavidFrancey]

One rule I’d change is to bring back ‘obstruction’ when the ball is going towards the goal line and the defender stops and blocks the attacker from collecting it.

[Key West]

It would make the pitch bigger, these days players are much fitter and close the spaces down quickly as observed by a previous poster, I'd like to see it trialled in one of the cups.

[Coach Jon]

I remember they played with that same adjusted offside in the League Cup in !974, suited attacking teams. I remember Hibs v Rangers at ER, Arthur Duncan stayed upfield and patrolled the 18 yard Line, Scotlands player of the year,Sandy Jardine was given the job of marking him, Arthur kept switching from Left wing to Right Wing, Jardine had to keep chasing him, got P****d off as he couldnt keep up with Arthur, was arguing with Jock Wallace to get him to put somebody on the other side to share his workload. Hibs won 3-1 that day, and went on to reach the Final, losing 6-3 to Celtic, who had a great attacking team as well at that time.

[Future17]

Unfortunately only folk over a certain age will remember this, a line was drawn straight across the edge of the box to the touch lines and you couldn’t be offside outside the box, do you think that would be suitable for the modern game?

I think it would have the opposite effect from making the game more open. It would increase space in the middle of the park and decrease it towards the goal areas. Dull games are rarely dull because of teams playing an effective offside trap.


One rule I’d change is to bring back ‘obstruction’ when the ball is going towards the goal line and the defender stops and blocks the attacker from collecting it.

I see this mentioned a lot but don't understand why this is specifically a problem rather than shielding the ball generally.

How is it different than what a Doidge or a Dykes is asked to do when the ball is played up to them with their back to goal?

[ShadesLongThrow]

The rule change I'd like to see trialled is one taken from basketball. If you're in an opponents half, you can't pass the ball back into your own half. That should encourage more attacking play and a high press when defending.

[Peevemor]

I see this mentioned a lot but don't understand why this is specifically a problem rather than shielding the ball generally.

How is it different than what a Doidge or a Dykes is asked to do when the ball is played up to them with their back to goal?

I've certainly mentioned it before as a pet hate of mine. I think defenders should only be allowed to shield a ball if they've touched it. If they haven't touched it and have no intention of doing so, then blocking an opponent's access to the ball should be obstruction.

[Future17]

I've certainly mentioned it before as a pet hate of mine. I think defenders should only be allowed to shield a ball if they've touched it. If they haven't touched it and have no intention of doing so, then blocking an opponent's access to the ball should be obstruction.

But surely the principle of football is getting the ball to go where you want it to go to your team's advantage?

It just feels to me like this would be another example of different rules for defenders and attackers. I know we want more goals but let's make them work for it at least! :greengrin

[superfurryhibby]

But surely the principle of football is getting the ball to go where you want it to go to your team's advantage?

It just feels to me like this would be another example of different rules for defenders and attackers. I know we want more goals but let's make them work for it at least! :greengrin

If you have never touched the ball then blocking someone else from playing it has to be obstruction, whether it is defending or attacking. The rule would be the same for all players.

[Future17]

If you have never touched the ball then blocking someone else from playing it has to be obstruction, whether it is defending or attacking. The rule would be the same for all players.

But you'd be permitted to obstruct an opposition player if you have touched the ball? Surely that would favour attackers?

[Peevemor]

But you'd be permitted to obstruct an opposition player if you have touched the ball? Surely that would favour attackers?

That's what happens just now though. The most obvous being when trying to play out the final few minutes where an attacker takes the ball to the corner flag and stands with his back to the defender. The thing is though he's already touched the ball.

[AltheHibby]

"FIFA Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct clearly states that an indirect free-kick should be given if a player impedes or obstructs an opponent.
The Law goes on to state: ‘Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
‘Shielding a ball is permitted.
‘A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.’"

Source:https://plymouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/obstruction-the-forgotten-rule/

Put simply, as long as the player doing the shielding is able to touch the ball it's not obstruction.

Edit: As there is no mention of having to have touched the ball we can assume there is no need to touch it.

[Peevemor]

"FIFA Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct clearly states that an indirect free-kick should be given if a player impedes or obstructs an opponent.
The Law goes on to state: ‘Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
‘Shielding a ball is permitted.
‘A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.’"

Source:https://plymouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/obstruction-the-forgotten-rule/

Put simply, as long as the player doing the shielding is able to touch the ball it's not obstruction.

Edit: As there is no mention of having to have touched the ball we can assume there is no need to touch it.

That's the rule I'd like to see changed.

[ancient hibee]

I think it would have the opposite effect from making the game more open. It would increase space in the middle of the park and decrease it towards the goal areas. Dull games are rarely dull because of teams playing an effective offside trap.



I see this mentioned a lot but don't understand why this is specifically a problem rather than shielding the ball generally.

How is it different than what a Doidge or a Dykes is asked to do when the ball is played up to them with their back to goal?
Surely it’s totally different. When a ball is played up to a forward he is attempting to control it and do something with it. In the other situation a defender is making no attempt to play the ball while obstructing an opponent.

[JeMeSouviens]

It would make the pitch bigger, these days players are much fitter and close the spaces down quickly as observed by a previous poster, I'd like to see it trialled in one of the cups.

:agree:

Also the size of the goals. These dimensions are from Victorian times when players were a few inches shorter and as you say, much less fit.

[Future17]

That's what happens just now though. The most obvous being when trying to play out the final few minutes where an attacker takes the ball to the corner flag and stands with his back to the defender. The thing is though he's already touched the ball.

I get that's what happens just now, which means there's no difference to the treatment of attackers and defenders. What you're suggesting would create a difference.


Surely it’s totally different. When a ball is played up to a forward he is attempting to control it and do something with it. In the other situation a defender is making no attempt to play the ball while obstructing an opponent.

The defender is trying to do something with it as well - he's trying to win a goal kick in circumstances where he feels that's to his team's advantage.

[mal]

Surely it’s totally different. When a ball is played up to a forward he is attempting to control it and do something with it. In the other situation a defender is making no attempt to play the ball while obstructing an opponent.

Not when the forward is just trying to run down the clock.

Edit: Or indeed when the forward is letting the ball run out for a corner.

[Peevemor]

Not when the forward is just trying to run down the clock.

Yes, but ordinarily the forward will have touched the ball before shielding it.

[mal]

Yes, but ordinarily the forward will have touched the ball before shielding it.

I think I edited my post while you were posting yours to include my point about forwards shielding the ball to allow it to run out for a corner.

[Key West]

Folks, the thread was about the offside rule possibly making the pitch bigger, how did it morph into obstruction? :dunno:

[Peevemor]

Folks, the thread was about the offside rule possibly making the pitch bigger, how did it morph into obstruction? :dunno:

Because in any discussion, one thing will lead to another. At least we're still on about rule changes we'd like to see to improve the game.

[nonshinyfinish]

Folks, the thread was about the offside rule possibly making the pitch bigger, how did it morph into obstruction? :dunno:

That's what happens when posters are allowed to run the thread out for a goal kick without touching the original topic.

[superfurryhibby]

That's what happens when posters are allowed to run the thread out for a goal kick without touching the original topic.

:top marks

[Future17]

That's what happens when posters are allowed to run the thread out for a goal kick without touching the original topic.

:greengrin

[mal]

That's what happens when posters are allowed to run the thread out for a goal kick without touching the original topic.

:not worth

[greenginger]

I remember they played with that same adjusted offside in the League Cup in !974, suited attacking teams. I remember Hibs v Rangers at ER, Arthur Duncan stayed upfield and patrolled the 18 yard Line, Scotlands player of the year,Sandy Jardine was given the job of marking him, Arthur kept switching from Left wing to Right Wing, Jardine had to keep chasing him, got P****d off as he couldnt keep up with Arthur, was arguing with Jock Wallace to get him to put somebody on the other side to share his workload. Hibs won 3-1 that day, and went on to reach the Final, losing 6-3 to Celtic, who had a great attacking team as well at that time.

I think we won the first Two Dryburgh Cups, both against Celtic , 5 - 3 and 1 - 0. It was a league cup final we lost 6 - 3 if my memory is still working.
i certainly remember Arthur running the legs off the Rangers defenders with his tactics.

[Inconsequential]

I think we won the first Two Dryburgh Cups, both against Celtic , 5 - 3 and 1 - 0. It was a league cup final we lost 6 - 3 if my memory is still working.
i certainly remember Arthur running the legs off the Rangers defenders with his tactics. It was the League Cup final in 1974. Joe Harper scored a hat-trick and Deans did likewise for Celtic. A dull, boring defensive match!

[leftfield]

I remember the experimental offside rule and my recollection was that it led to a lot of long punts up the park missing out the midfield altogether. Mind you there are certain teams today that continue to play like this.

[A Hi-Bee]

The Drybourgh cup was great but the beer was sheite the offside rule when you had some one in the team like Arthur Duncan to get passes from wee Mickey Edwards was a joy to watch, Eddie Turnbull had it well sussed out, could do with something like that today to liven up the dull boring fitba we have to watch.
The hun and the smellies could not cope with the side we had under the offside rule, it was a wee bit different under normal rules not so much for the hun as they were never close to that team, but the smellies still had a great side.

[Coach Jon]

I think we won the first Two Dryburgh Cups, both against Celtic , 5 - 3 and 1 - 0. It was a league cup final we lost 6 - 3 if my memory is still working.
i certainly remember Arthur running the legs off the Rangers defenders with his tactics.

You havent read my post properly, I was referring to the League Cup.

[BILLYHIBS]

I remember they played with that same adjusted offside in the League Cup in !974, suited attacking teams. I remember Hibs v Rangers at ER, Arthur Duncan stayed upfield and patrolled the 18 yard Line, Scotlands player of the year,Sandy Jardine was given the job of marking him, Arthur kept switching from Left wing to Right Wing, Jardine had to keep chasing him, got P****d off as he couldnt keep up with Arthur, was arguing with Jock Wallace to get him to put somebody on the other side to share his workload. Hibs won 3-1 that day, and went on to reach the Final, losing 6-3 to Celtic, who had a great attacking team as well at that time.
:top marks

[gbhibby]

Remember the Drybrough Cup games forwards hung about outside the box most games were entertaining. Don't want to see it come back.
The offside rule is a mess and is made worse by VAR. The game is all about goals. The offside rule should benefit the attacking team. I would prefer that if any part of the attackers body is in line with the last defender they are onside, so the whole of the body must be offside. VAR will still draw lines but it will be to the benefit of the attacking team.

[Kato]

if any part of the attackers body is in line with the last defender they are onside, so the whole of the body must be offside. VAR will still draw lines but it will be to the benefit of the attacking team.

Problem solved.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Future17]

Problem solved.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

What problem would that solve?

[AltheHibby]

Problem solved.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

At first that makes sense to me. The whole ball has to be over the line to be out of play or a goal. Why not the same standard for the whole body to be offside?

The problem is, it gives a massive advantage to the forward. The defender then has to move further back to compensate, so the forward then moves up again.simpler to keep it how it is and reintroduce the line across the 18 yard box.

[Kato]

At first that makes sense to me. The whole ball has to be over the line to be out of play or a goal. Why not the same standard for the whole body to be offside? The problem is, it gives a massive advantage to the forward. The defender then has to move further back to compensate, so the forward then moves up again

Suits the attacking player, which is all good in my book.


.simpler to keep it how it is and reintroduce the line across the 18 yard box.

The game turns into a game of long-bangers with attacking players patrolling the 18yard line and team-mates trying to find them with long balls. It actually changes the fundamental way the sport is played. It was exciting as an experiment at first but soon turned into something else altogether.

[gbhibby]

At first that makes sense to me. The whole ball has to be over the line to be out of play or a goal. Why not the same standard for the whole body to be offside?

The problem is, it gives a massive advantage to the forward. The defender then has to move further back to compensate, so the forward then moves up again.simpler to keep it how it is and reintroduce the line across the 18 yard box.
The advantage should be with the attacking team. The defenders need to work as a unit so the attacking player is offside and its the whole of his body. I would say that the defender does not need to move further back to compensate but would need to move forward.
The 18 yard rule ended up with long ball punts to edge of 18 yards. Defenders lined up at edge of box. Don't want to see a return of that.

[gbhibby]

Suits the attacking player, which is all good in my book.



The game turns into a game of long-bangers with attacking players patrolling the 18yard line and team-mates trying to find them with long balls. It actually changes the fundamental way the sport is played. It was exciting as an experiment at first but soon turned into something else altogether.
Agree 100%.

[Future17]

The advantage should be with the attacking team. The defenders need to work as a unit so the attacking player is offside and its the whole of his body. I would say that the defender does not need to move further back to compensate but would need to move forward.
The 18 yard rule ended up with long ball punts to edge of 18 yards. Defenders lined up at edge of box. Don't want to see a return of that.

The advantage is already with the attacking team in that level is onside.

[gbhibby]

The advantage is already with the attacking team in that level is onside.
Yes level is onside but with VAR a player who is level 99% of their body can be offside as VAR draws a line. My take is to turn this around so if 1% of the attackers body is level with the last defender he is onside the game is about goals.

[SChibs]

"FIFA Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct clearly states that an indirect free-kick should be given if a player impedes or obstructs an opponent.
The Law goes on to state: ‘Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
‘Shielding a ball is permitted.
‘A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body.’"

Source:https://plymouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/obstruction-the-forgotten-rule/

Put simply, as long as the player doing the shielding is able to touch the ball it's not obstruction.

Edit: As there is no mention of having to have touched the ball we can assume there is no need to touch it.

They don't need to touch it because if the ball is within playing distance and there is not an opponent in the way they are in control of the ball. You don't need to touch the ball to be in control of it. Shielding it to allow the ball to go out is the same action as shielding it in the middle of the pitch like McGinn used to do several times a game. Can't really have a rule that says you can shield the ball here but not over there.

[Future17]

Yes level is onside but with VAR a player who is level 99% of their body can be offside as VAR draws a line. My take is to turn this around so if 1% of the attackers body is level with the last defender he is onside the game is about goals.

I get that, but what "problem" does that solve?

The game isn't purely "about goals"; it's about trying to score goals and trying to stop them. Excellent defending should be regarded as highly as excellent attacking.

The game is already weighted in favour of attackers. Any more and it'll become farcical IMHO.

[gbhibby]

I get that, but what "problem" does that solve?

The game isn't purely "about goals"; it's about trying to score goals and trying to stop them. Excellent defending should be regarded as highly as excellent attacking.

The game is already weighted in favour of attackers. Any more and it'll become farcical IMHO.
I agree that defending is part of the game but the game has always been about goals. The problem it would solve is a messy offside rule that since new technology has been introduced that a player is offside due to his armpit being offside. I don't agree that the game is weighted in favour of the attackers.
I would rather see a game with goals rather than a nil nil draw with "excellent defending"
I take it you were a defender?

[Key West]

How about a line across the pitch between the halfway line and the edge of the box?

[gbhibby]

How about a line across the pitch between the halfway line and the edge of the box?
I am sure that the 25 yard offside zone was experimented with also.