There is no confirmed date for a new offside rule to begin across professional football. The proposed “daylight” change is not the standard law, so matches continue to use the existing offside rule unless a competition is specifically running an authorized trial.
Here’s what the proposal would change, how the rule works now, and what has to happen before any new version can become official. You’ll also find practical ways to tell whether a headline describes a real rule change or only a suggestion.
When will the new offside rule start football?
There is no confirmed worldwide start date. Football has not switched to the proposed “daylight” offside rule as its standard law. Unless a competition announces an approved trial, players, coaches, and fans should expect the existing offside law to apply.
The proposal most often discussed is associated with former coach and FIFA development figure Arsène Wenger. It would change how an attacker’s position is judged against the second-last opponent. However, a proposal or a trial is not the same as an approved change to the Laws of the Game.
For a permanent change, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which maintains football’s Laws of the Game, must approve it through its rule-making process. Until that happens, there is no date for leagues around the world to adopt the proposal. A competition could use a rule variation only as part of an authorized trial, with details announced for that competition.
What the proposed “daylight” offside rule would change
Under the proposal, an attacker would be onside if any eligible part of the attacker’s body were level with the second-last opponent. The attacker would be offside only if the entire relevant part of the body were beyond that opponent toward the goal.
In simple terms, there would need to be visible “daylight” between the attacker and defender for the attacker to be offside. If an attacker’s shoulder, knee, or foot remained level with the defender, the attacker would be onside under the proposed version.
The proposal is meant to make close decisions less marginal and give attacking players more room. Its effect would be substantial: some runs that are ruled offside under the current law could become legal. But it would also affect defensive positioning and the timing of a back line’s movement.
It is useful to separate this idea from the current rule. The daylight approach is not simply a new way for a video assistant referee to draw lines. It changes the definition used to decide whether an attacker is in an offside position.
How the current offside rule works
An attacker is in an offside position if, when a teammate plays or touches the ball, the attacker is in the opponents’ half and any eligible part of the head, body, or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The halfway line itself does not count: a player level with it is not in an offside position.
“Second-last opponent” usually means the last outfield defender when the goalkeeper is near the goal, but the goalkeeper is not automatically the last opponent for this calculation. The referee compares the attacker with the two opponents closest to the goal line, regardless of which one is the goalkeeper.
Arms and hands do not count when judging offside position. For attackers and defenders, the boundary is generally the line at the bottom of the armpit. That matters because a player can look ahead at the shoulder or hand while the body parts that count are still level.
Being in an offside position is not, by itself, an offense. The player must become involved in active play. That can mean playing or touching a teammate’s ball, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage from a rebound, deflection, or deliberate save.
When a player is considered involved
- Playing the ball: The player touches or plays a ball delivered by a teammate.
- Affecting an opponent: The player obstructs an opponent’s line of vision or challenges for the ball, or clearly affects an opponent’s ability to play it.
- Gaining an advantage: The player plays a ball that rebounds or deflects to them from an opponent, or comes back from a deliberate save, subject to the law’s specific exceptions.
A defender deliberately playing the ball can affect the decision differently from a deflection. If a defender has control and deliberately plays it, an attacker who was previously in an offside position is generally not penalized for receiving that ball. A deliberate save is treated differently. The details of the action matter, which is why apparent “touches” do not all reset offside in the same way.
Current law compared with the proposed change
| Situation | Current standard law | Proposed daylight approach | Best way to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attacker level with second-last opponent | Onside | Onside | Level is not offside |
| Only a foot or shoulder is beyond the defender | Can be offside if that body part can legally play the ball | Would remain onside if another eligible body part is level or behind | Body-part position can decide a close call |
| Attacker is completely beyond the defender | Offside position, if also nearer the goal line than the ball | Offside position | Both versions can penalize a clearly advanced attacker |
| Attacker is in an offside position but does not affect play | No offense just for the position | The proposal does not remove the involvement requirement | Position and involvement are separate tests |
| League-wide implementation date | Current law remains in force | No universal start date confirmed | Look for a formal IFAB decision or a named trial |
How football rules become official
IFAB is responsible for the Laws of the Game. FIFA participates in that process, alongside the four British football associations, and does not simply put a proposed law into effect worldwide on its own. A suggestion can be discussed, researched, or tested without becoming part of the rules used in every match.
- A proposal is put forward. Football authorities, technical experts, or other stakeholders identify a possible change and explain the problem it is intended to address.
- The idea is assessed. Decision-makers consider how it might affect match play, refereeing, player behavior, and the clarity of decisions.
- A trial may be authorized. If a test is approved, it applies only to the competitions and conditions named for that trial. A trial is evidence-gathering, not a global rule change.
- IFAB decides whether to amend the law. If a change is approved, the formal announcement sets out its wording and effective date.
- Competitions adopt the applicable law. Leagues and tournaments communicate which version applies to their matches, including any permitted local adjustments.
This process explains why a headline saying the rule is “being tested” does not mean every league will use it next season. To establish whether a change applies to a match, look for an official announcement identifying the competition, the trial or law wording, and the dates involved.
What this would mean for players, coaches, and fans
For attackers
If the daylight proposal were adopted, attackers could potentially stay closer to the goal while keeping a body part level with a defender. That could reward runs timed to the moment a teammate plays the ball. It would not make every advanced position legal: the attacker would still need to meet the rule’s positional test and avoid becoming involved from an offside position.
Under the current rule, attackers should watch the defender’s position and the ball at the instant the teammate plays it. Looking only at where the ball arrives is a common mistake. A player can receive the ball legally after being onside at the crucial moment, or be penalized after moving into an offside position before the pass.
For defenders
A daylight version could make a close, high defensive line harder to rely on. If attackers remain level while a defender steps forward, those attackers might stay onside under the proposal even when a toe or shoulder would put them ahead under current law.
For now, defenders should use the applicable competition’s current instructions and law. The proposed version is not a reason to change a team’s defensive line unless the competition has confirmed a trial.
For fans watching a VAR decision
Video assistant referee (VAR) reviews help officials assess factual matters such as the position of a player when the ball is played. The technology does not create a different offside rule. The referee applies the competition’s law, and a close decision depends on which body parts count and when the pass or touch occurred.
A broadcast freeze-frame can be misleading if it is not taken at the correct moment. The ball may be played slightly before or after the image shown, and a player’s arm or hand does not establish offside position. Check the official explanation of the decision rather than assuming that a graphic represents a new law.
Why a start date may not be the same everywhere
Even after a formal rule change is approved, the effective date and competition arrangements matter. IFAB announcements specify when an amended law takes effect, while leagues and tournament organizers communicate how it applies to their fixtures. Different competitions can also be at different points in their seasons when a change is announced.
That is why there are two separate questions: when a rule becomes part of the Laws of the Game, and when a particular competition applies it. A published effective date answers the first question; the organizer’s rules and announcement answer the second.
For the daylight proposal, neither question has a general start date to follow unless an official announcement creates one. Treat social posts, pundit comments, and reports about a possible trial as discussion until an authorized body confirms the details.
Common misunderstandings about the offside change
“The rule has already changed”
A suggested law, a trial, and a permanent amendment are different things. The existing offside law remains the default unless a match is covered by a formally announced change or trial.
“Any part of the attacker being level means onside”
That is close to the proposed daylight idea, but it is not the current test. Under the standard law, an eligible body part beyond the second-last opponent can create an offside position, provided the attacker is also nearer the goal line than the ball and is in the opponents’ half.
“VAR is introducing the change”
VAR can support decisions under the law in force. It cannot independently replace the law with a new definition. A change in the offside test requires a rule decision, not just a different camera angle or graphic.
“Every offside position means a free kick”
Not necessarily. A player must become involved in active play in one of the ways described by the law. A teammate can be in an offside position without committing an offense if that player does not interfere with play or an opponent and does not gain an advantage.
How to check whether a competition has adopted a change
Before relying on a claim about a new start date, check the source and the scope. A reliable announcement should make clear whether it is an IFAB law amendment, an authorized trial, or simply a proposal under discussion.
- Look for a statement from IFAB or the relevant football association.
- Check whether the announcement names the competition and the dates it covers.
- Read whether the text says “approved,” “trial,” “proposed,” or “under consideration.” Those words describe different stages.
- Confirm the match regulations or referee guidance for the competition you follow.
Practical tip: Save the wording of the official announcement, not just a headline. Headlines often shorten “trial in selected matches” to “new rule starts,” leaving out the most important limit.
There is no confirmed worldwide date for the new offside proposal to start football. The daylight approach remains distinct from the standard law, which continues to apply unless an authorized trial is announced for a specific competition.
For now, use the current offside test and check your league or tournament’s official rules before assuming anything has changed. To verify a future update, look for an IFAB decision or a clearly described trial with named competitions and dates.