The Drybourgh Cup Offside Rule

[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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Problem solved.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

What problem would that solve?

[AltheHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"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...orgotten-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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.