Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

Anonymous wrote:AND Al-Hilal beat Man City...

We're not talking club ball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer is at best a 4th tier sport in the US. It’s probably a good deal lower than that. As a result it will never get the kind of attention (read: money) that attracts the best players and coaches. The problems you call out are symptoms. The root cause is that soccer is not very popular here especially on the boys side.

Money isn't a soccer quality solution or the Middle East would own the World Cup

I agree. I think the PP was saying that money isn't the solution but one of the ways to attract the best coaches and players in the system. Why the Saudi league went from literally nothing to having one of their teams tie Real Madrid in the FIFA club world cup.

With players developed outside the Middle East and who represent European and South American countries

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

Fine. Just don't use the reasoning being that too many goals are nullified because of arms and fingers because in an offside position, it makes you sound stupid. Stick your toes or something....something that can actually be an offense.

Did you not see the arm example? Every tourney I watch, there's at least one of those. Happens a lot in TV pro/national team matches -- too much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

Fine. Just don't use the reasoning being that too many goals are nullified because of arms and fingers because in an offside position, it makes you sound stupid. Stick your toes or something....something that can actually be an offense.

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the best athletes and coaches play other sports. I think that's an extremely dumb statement. There are PLENTY of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just look at the size of the US compared to 90% of the other countries in the world. The number of kids we have playing soccer is probably more that most other countries total populations. Now why we can't find 20 kids to put together to beat all these other countries is absolutely bonkers to me. I just don't know. We should be able to find 20 kids in the DMV to beat any country in the Caribbean for Pete's sake. On a side note...I'm not sure big TV networks like soccer because there are no commercials so I don't think it's as lucrative as all the other sports that have time outs and big breaks every few minutes. This will keep the big money out of soccer in the US.

This is accurate. What I hope is that all of you folks with kids on A and B teams who have kids with the desire to play at the next level will pay attention to skill development and not just taking the clubs advice. I encourage people to watch the #youthsoccerplaybook playlist on Youtube by Kyle Wilson. He grew us like most of our kids in the DMV with moderately wealthy parents, like most of us. https://youtu.be/2nt4lPXTEEM?si=agykvfybr33VXujb

The club environment is still the same now as it was when he grew up. He is a little obnoxious online and my kid did not get into soccer until he was 9 but we are still building a foundation but on this playbook. Kids should be doing at least 15-30 minutes at home, on their own, mastering the ball.

The more technical each of our kids are, the more they will push each other and the DMV will start to produce talent commensurate with the investments people are making in their kids. $200 an hour of private training 1-2x a week will pale in comparison to the kid spending 20-30 minutes daily mastering the ball. Grab a few kids together and allow them to do it together. Get away from spending $$$ for development and work in your individual neighborhoods/communities and even clubs to get kids off devices and working with the ball on a daily basis. The results will follow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the best athletes and coaches play other sports. I think that's an extremely dumb statement. There are PLENTY of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just look at the size of the US compared to 90% of the other countries in the world. The number of kids we have playing soccer is probably more that most other countries total populations. Now why we can't find 20 kids to put together to beat all these other countries is absolutely bonkers to me. I just don't know. We should be able to find 20 kids in the DMV to beat any country in the Caribbean for Pete's sake. On a side note...I'm not sure big TV networks like soccer because there are no commercials so I don't think it's as lucrative as all the other sports that have time outs and big breaks every few minutes. This will keep the big money out of soccer in the US.

No, the big TV networks don't like soccer because so few people watch it here. There is plenty of TV money in Europe even without commercial breaks.

There are NOT plenty of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just because they are professional soccer players does not make them world class athletes. A small few US players who play in Europe could maybe be considered world class. Not the rest of them. NFL and NBA have our world class athletes. Freakishly athletic outliers that are beyond anything we have in US soccer, not just in their physical talents, but also freakish in their obsessive work habits. Also, the outlier obsessive coaches like Bill Belichick and Nick Saban and Pat Riley and Coach K are in football and basketball not soccer. It all trickles down and is cultural. Typical American thinks we should be better than everyone else at everything.

Athleticism has never been the problem. We have traditionally fielded very athletic teams to make up for our other issues. Granted, in the last few years we have started to move away from that (with so so results) but the idea that if we just gave an NFL football player a soccer ball he would be world class is the 'go to' US bravado 'take' on why we aren't as good as we think we should be. You are literally doing with that argument what you accuse others of: "Typical American thinks we should be better than everyone else at everything".

Even the OPs take on the U15 game was that we were vastly overpowered in athleticism. That's how we've always done it! And, to be fair, soccer is a game about winning and losing and if that was a pathway to winning long term maybe we stick with it (or go back to it). But that doesn't seem to be the case.

We have a ton of issues, from our geography, identity, history, politics, youth structures, leadership (or lack thereof) etc., in play that impact what our net results are when the team trots out there. Everyone likes to spin around and single one thing or the other out but the truth of the matter is it there is no 'one' thing. We've got issues. I think we're getting better in small increments but so is everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the best athletes and coaches play other sports. I think that's an extremely dumb statement. There are PLENTY of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just look at the size of the US compared to 90% of the other countries in the world. The number of kids we have playing soccer is probably more that most other countries total populations. Now why we can't find 20 kids to put together to beat all these other countries is absolutely bonkers to me. I just don't know. We should be able to find 20 kids in the DMV to beat any country in the Caribbean for Pete's sake. On a side note...I'm not sure big TV networks like soccer because there are no commercials so I don't think it's as lucrative as all the other sports that have time outs and big breaks every few minutes. This will keep the big money out of soccer in the US.

No, the big TV networks don't like soccer because so few people watch it here. There is plenty of TV money in Europe even without commercial breaks.

There are NOT plenty of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just because they are professional soccer players does not make them world class athletes. A small few US players who play in Europe could maybe be considered world class. Not the rest of them. NFL and NBA have our world class athletes. Freakishly athletic outliers that are beyond anything we have in US soccer, not just in their physical talents, but also freakish in their obsessive work habits. Also, the outlier obsessive coaches like Bill Belichick and Nick Saban and Pat Riley and Coach K are in football and basketball not soccer. It all trickles down and is cultural. Typical American thinks we should be better than everyone else at everything.

More are watching ... https://www.samford.edu/sports-analytics/fans/2025/Americas-Soccer-Revolution-5-Viewing-Trends-Poised-to-Make-World-Cup-2026-a-True-Watershed-Moment

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the best athletes and coaches play other sports. I think that's an extremely dumb statement. There are PLENTY of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just look at the size of the US compared to 90% of the other countries in the world. The number of kids we have playing soccer is probably more that most other countries total populations. Now why we can't find 20 kids to put together to beat all these other countries is absolutely bonkers to me. I just don't know. We should be able to find 20 kids in the DMV to beat any country in the Caribbean for Pete's sake. On a side note...I'm not sure big TV networks like soccer because there are no commercials so I don't think it's as lucrative as all the other sports that have time outs and big breaks every few minutes. This will keep the big money out of soccer in the US.

No, the big TV networks don't like soccer because so few people watch it here. There is plenty of TV money in Europe even without commercial breaks.

There are NOT plenty of world class athletes in the US that play soccer. Just because they are professional soccer players does not make them world class athletes. A small few US players who play in Europe could maybe be considered world class. Not the rest of them. NFL and NBA have our world class athletes. Freakishly athletic outliers that are beyond anything we have in US soccer, not just in their physical talents, but also freakish in their obsessive work habits. Also, the outlier obsessive coaches like Bill Belichick and Nick Saban and Pat Riley and Coach K are in football and basketball not soccer. It all trickles down and is cultural. Typical American thinks we should be better than everyone else at everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Ummm ... https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/z1qi8q/thoughts_on_the_new_offside_technology/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.