Club Website readers are split down the middle when it comes to that old chestnut of a football discussion on the off-side law.
Club Website's latest poll asked: Do you think the current off-side law is too complicated.
53% of readers said that they found the current law too complicated, while 47% of readers said they didn’t.
However, of those who believe the law is too confusing, there was an interesting split in what people think should be done to solve the problem.
32% of overall respondents think that the law should be simplified while 12% believe the law should be scrapped altogether!
Whilst the latter option may sound extreme to some people, football wouldn't be the first sport to ditch the off-side rule altogether.
Hockey made the same move a few years ago and is held as a good example of such a change working by those in favour of a similar move in football.
Supporters of the change include former referee Graham Poll, who spoke to Club Website on the issue in the November edition of the Club House, suggesting that the rule change should at least be experimented with in some competitions.
The remaining 9% have obviously had enough of all the previous changes to the off-side law as, when asked if they find the current law too complicated, they voted "Yes, but don't change it again!"
With all the changes to the off-side rule over recent years - think daylight between defender and attacker, active players, passive players, phases of play etc - it is hardly surprising that some rule-change fatigue has crept in.
The off-side law has always been the one that causes most disputes and, as you the Club Website readers have shown, it continues to divide opinion!
Poll result: Do you think the current off-side law is too complicated?
47% - No, it's fine.
32% - Yes, it should be simplified.
12% - Yes, we should scrap off-sides altogether.
9% - Yes, but please don’t change it again!
Poll size: 7,706
If you have an idea for a poll that you'd see us feature on Club Website, email your ideas to firstname.lastname@example.org.