Explain to me why there is an "offsides" rule in hockey and soccer

[YogSosoth]

I don't watch those sports, so I cannot appreciate why they have a rule that seemingly discourages scoring and fast breaks.

The only sport I really watch is basketball, and this looks to me like the equivalent of outlawing the fastbreak. Fastbreaks are exciting, allows you to score quickly, and usually pumps up the crowd

As far as I can tell with my admittedly limited knowledge of soccer and hockey, it lowers scoring for no good reason. Its not like it has no risks. A defending team can choose to leave a defender in the back court and hope to get lucky on defense with one man short, and they can either succeed or get burned by the risky strategy. Reading the wiki on offside traps makes it seem even more legitimate as a high risk/high gain strategy. I dont understand why this is against the rules because I just dont see a downside to allowing teams to implement this

[garygnu]

The closest equivalent is basketball, I think, would be the three-second lane violation. It's to prevent camping.

[lobotomyboy63]

My WAG is that the officials need to have the players corralled somewhat in order to do their jobs effectively. E.g. if a hockey player held back, maybe he and the goalie would be messing with each other and the referees wouldn't be able to see it, since they'd be at the other end.

[Malacandra]

Soccer used to have no offside rule. If you like soccer to be a game where you punt the ball wildly upfield so one of the mob permanently encamped there can bundle it into the goal, that's up to you - the point is that it used to be played that way, and was found wanting as a spectacle and a contest. Maybe basketball needs a score every ten seconds, but soccer players and watchers alike have different expectations. You want to advance the ball, you take it there yourself, or if you want to try kick and chase, your chaser can't have a start on the defence (the same principle applies in Rugby).

[RealityChuck]

It's for the same reason for each sport -- to prevent someone from camping in front of the goal and waiting for a long pass.

Hockey has actually opened up a bit -- it once banned a forward pass and up until recently banned a pass across two lines (or, rather, no longer counted the red line when a pass was made).

[FrWindyShephardHenderson]

Soccer used to have no offside rule. If you like soccer to be a game where you punt the ball wildly upfield so one of the mob permanently encamped there can bundle it into the goal, that's up to you - the point is that it used to be played that way, and was found wanting as a spectacle and a contest.

If however you do like that it sounds a lot like Gaelic Football, our national sport in Ireland. I'm not a geat fan but I'd watch the odd game. There is no offside line but because its played on a much larger pitch than soccer you need midfielders to relay the ball on.

Also due to there being no offside line it does suffer a lot from players getting digs in when the referee is at the other side of the pitch.

[Rysto]

Hockey needs the offside rule for more than just to prevent camping. The offside rule allows a team to effectively defend against the rush. Without the offside rule, forwards could skate from the neutral zone past the defenders looking for a pass. If the defenders follow them to defend against the pass, the puck carrier has a free lane into the offensive zone. This situation makes it basically impossible to defend in transition, especially in against an odd man rush.

[Malacandra]

If however you do like that it sounds a lot like Gaelic Football, our national sport in Ireland. I'm not a geat fan but I'd watch the odd game. There is no offside line but because its played on a much larger pitch than soccer you need midfielders to relay the ball on.

Also due to there being no offside line it does suffer a lot from players getting digs in when the referee is at the other side of the pitch.

I've very occasionally seen Gaelic Football and slightly more often Australian Rules, which is very similar in spirit though played with an ovoid ball and on an even bigger pitch. Again, you can wait more or less where you like for the ball but the size of the pitch means you can't just get a long ball booted to you directly from in front of your own goal, more or less. As to the digs, I got the impression the game would be considered boring if there wasn't the odd bit of niggle going on. :D

In informal schoolboy football there's usually no referee and hence no offside, but when I was a lad "goal-hanging" was deprecated socially if nothing more.

[DSYoungEsq]

I find it funny that the OP asks why hockey and soccer have an offsides[sic] rule, but doesn't ask why American football has one. ;)

[YogSosoth]

I find it funny that the OP asks why hockey and soccer have an offsides[sic] rule, but doesn't ask why American football has one. ;)

I didn't even know about the American football rule. As AF seems a lot more static (ie. lots of dead time) and doesnt just have people running around non-stop, I thought it best to differentiate

[Gorsnak]

Offsides has a similar purpose in soccer and hockey in terms of how it regulates game play. Offsides in American football is an entirely different animal, really just preventing players from getting a jump start on the play prior to the ball being snapped. The rules regulating who can make a forward pass, and when, are far more similar in purpose to the soccer/hockey offsides rules.

[MOIDALIZE]

I can see how soccer would get real boring if you could just boot the ball down the field to a teammate hanging out near the goal, but they could tailor the rule to prevent that. For example, the rule could be that any pass is fair game as long as you're in your opponent's half of the field and the recipient of the pass isn't hanging out in a certain area (like that box around the goal).

Personally, I find the offsides trap to be more offensive than a player camping near the goal.

[villa]

In Association Football, or soccer, there is no "offsides" rule. There is an offside rule. Adding the extra s sounds just plain wrong. And while I am at it, it is a pint of Harp, not a pint of Harps.

I love how the suggestion regarding this all seem to be attempts to Americanize the beautiful game. "But offside reduces the scoring!" Oddly enough, many of us who love the game don't need a 7-5 game for it to be considered entertaining.

The offside rule developed because the game flows better than way. Changing it, as suggested by MOIDALIZE to some convoluted system whihc doesn't seem to make the game any better strikes me as a little pointless. I'd like to see them enforce the not interfering with play rule a little bit more, but overall, it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

[DSYoungEsq]

I can see how soccer would get real boring if you could just boot the ball down the field to a teammate hanging out near the goal, but they could tailor the rule to prevent that. For example, the rule could be that any pass is fair game as long as you're in your opponent's half of the field and the recipient of the pass isn't hanging out in a certain area (like that box around the goal). They could, but that would still mean that the game would be intensely vertical, with long, hopeful kicks to players camped deep in the defensive end. Possession would quickly become a much less important tactic.

Personally, I find the offsides trap to be more offensive than a player camping near the goal.

I love teams that try to trap my team. Traps are beatable, and when you do, it's a very easy goal.

Offsides in American football is an entirely different animal ... No, it isn't, really.

First of all, a pedantic nitpick: it is "offside", not offsides. I point this out because it helps understand the rule in all its variations. The rule establishes an area from which an offensive play can begin. You can either be "onside", meaning you are on the correct side of the demarcation line, or you are "offside," meaning you are on the wrong side of that line. In American football, that line is static, and plays are individual, but there is no reason that it has to be that way (look at the craziness that is a Canadian Football backfield prior to snap!). In hockey, the line is static, but the play is dynamic. In soccer, that line is dynamic, as are the plays. But the same objective exists for all of them: limit how an offense can attack a defensive goal area.

Basketball doesn't need to create an offside rule to prevent inappropriate attacks on goal; it uses the 3-second lane violation to avoid so-called "cherry picking" and uses the "over-and-back" rule to limit the offense in what area it can attack from effectively. If you saw a large amount of cherry-picking in basketball, you'd soon see a rule to eliminate it, such as an offside rule.

[MOIDALIZE]

How is my rule convoluted? If anything, the current rule is more convoluted because it makes the refs and players constantly have to determine whether 2 defenders are in front of them. My rule sets a defined area where you can pass the ball to anyone.

[villa]

How is my rule convoluted? If anything, the current rule is more convoluted because it makes the refs and players constantly have to determine whether 2 defenders are in front of them. My rule sets a defined area where you can pass the ball to anyone.

I assumed you were keeping the two defender rule, if not, the rule makes no sense whatsoever. So the referees have extra things to look for - where is the pass coming from and where is the player - has to be in the penalty area.

In other words, bring the ball just over the half way line, have your goal hangers on the edge of the penalty area (unless by that 'box around the goal' you mean the 6 yard box, which would be even more crazy a rule), and hoof the ball in. It isn't a fun game to watch.

I'm now tryign to parce your rule...

For example, the rule could be that any pass is fair game as long as you're in your opponent's half of the field and the recipient of the pass isn't hanging out in a certain area (like that box around the goal).

So is a pass from your own half automatically not fair game, regardless of where the recipient is?
Is a player ever to be allowed into the 'box around the goal' to be passed to? What if the passing player is right at the goal line, so is passing backwards to a player in the 'box around the goal'?

It doesn't work as a rule... There's nothing wrong with the present one that enforcing the 'not-interfering' exception wouldn't change.

[YogSosoth]

I love how the suggestion regarding this all seem to be attempts to Americanize the beautiful game. "But offside reduces the scoring!" Oddly enough, many of us who love the game don't need a 7-5 game for it to be considered entertaining.



I realize that Soccer has a rich history and is pretty much the most popular sport in the world, but I do not understand the seeming backlash to making it a higher scoring affair. Speaking again from a basketball perspective, if you have a score of 1-0, then it seems like so much of the game is wasted. Momentum and cheering by the fans amount to basically nothing if it produces no score. In the NBA, when there are momentum shifts, teams can go on a 10, 15, or 20 point scoring binge and the other team can utterly be demoralized. I guess I just want to know why people have something against that. If you dont, sorry for the characterization

I think Soccer, Hockey, even Football and Baseball can do with more scoring. Theres no denying that the fans love to watch a home run or a touchdown, and I dont think it would destroy the game of Soccer to make rules that allow easier scoring. Whats wrong with that? Now Soccer's so impossible to score on that a 2 point lead with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team. In basketball, the last 2 minutes of a game are the most exciting. Why cant Soccer prosper with 10-9 scores?

[Raygun99]

There's no reason that a game of soccer, as the sport is played now, that ends 10-9 couldn't be entertaining. It's not that soccer fans don't like goals. But changing the game just for the purpose of getting consistent 10-9 scores would not make for an entertaining game.

[John DiFool]

Basketball doesn't need to create an offside rule to prevent inappropriate attacks on goal; it uses the 3-second lane violation to avoid so-called "cherry picking" and uses the "over-and-back" rule to limit the offense in what area it can attack from effectively. If you saw a large amount of cherry-picking in basketball, you'd soon see a rule to eliminate it, such as an offside rule.

The smallish team sizes in hockey and basketball severely limit the effects that cherry picking would have-sure lurk back near our goalie while giving us a de-facto power play all the time (same effect in hoops). In soccer there's more players so you can (could) get away with it more. I still would prefer NASL-style blue lines (tho the NASL didn't call them that)-I definitely dislike offside(s) being called when the ball is even with the top line of the penalty area.

[RaftPeople]

...But changing the game just for the purpose of getting consistent 10-9 scores would not make for an entertaining game.

Why not? Obviously depends on the changes but it seems like someone could come up with something. When I watch soccer, I see a zillion failed attempts to get anything going, 1 (sometimes 2) good passes and then the other team breaks it up.

One of my kids plays lacrosse, that's a fun game to watch (at this age at least). It seems like they can hold onto the ball long enough to make a play and there seems to be a decent amount of scoring but not too much (basketball renders a score pretty much meaningless).

[Bijou Drains]

Soccer needs to do the same thing as hockey: make a line where there is no offside beyond that line. It's totally dumb to call offside 3 feet in front of the goal. In hockey if you go beyond the blue line everything is OK except you need to say out of the small crease.

Also for soccer - why on Earth can you not pass the ball ahead if you beat the entire defense? That rule is completely bizarre and has no point at all. If you are fast enough to beat the defense than anything should be OK

[villa]

I realize that Soccer has a rich history and is pretty much the most popular sport in the world, but I do not understand the seeming backlash to making it a higher scoring affair. Speaking again from a basketball perspective, if you have a score of 1-0, then it seems like so much of the game is wasted. Momentum and cheering by the fans amount to basically nothing if it produces no score. In the NBA, when there are momentum shifts, teams can go on a 10, 15, or 20 point scoring binge and the other team can utterly be demoralized. I guess I just want to know why people have something against that. If you dont, sorry for the characterization

It's not something against it per se, but the best baseball games I have seen are low scoring pitchers duels. The bottom line is I don't see a 1-0 game as "wasted" in any way.

I think Soccer, Hockey, even Football and Baseball can do with more scoring. Theres no denying that the fans love to watch a home run or a touchdown, and I dont think it would destroy the game of Soccer to make rules that allow easier scoring. Whats wrong with that? Now Soccer's so impossible to score on that a 2 point lead with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team. In basketball, the last 2 minutes of a game are the most exciting. Why cant Soccer prosper with 10-9 scores?

Upping the scoring for the sake of upping the scoring panders to low attention spans and the lowest common denominator. If a goal is easier, it is less exciting. Do you honestly not find defense interesting to watch?

[RaftPeople]

Upping the scoring for the sake of upping the scoring panders to low attention spans and the lowest common denominator.

Then a game in which you can't score at all must pander to an even more exclusive club, right?

Upping the scoring is an attempt to optimize the emotional appeal of the game for observers. There exists a sweet spot (IMO) in which scoring is not too easy and not too hard, that the observer is excited about the accomplishment but still uncertain of the outcome due to the other teams ability to score also. In my opinion, soccer has too little scoring and basketball has way too much. 4 to 7 scores per team per game (for many sports, not sure what to do with basketball) seems to me to be within the sweet spot.

[Piker]

Absurdly, I haven’t yet got around to saying that football is a wonderful sport, but of course it is. Goals have a rarity value that points and runs and sets do not, and so there will always be that thrill, the thrill of seeing someone do something that can only be done three or four times in a whole game if you are lucky, not at all if you are not. And I love the pace of it, its lack of formula; and I love the way that small men can destroy big men in a way that they can’t in other contact sports, and the way that the best team does not necessarily win. And there’s the athleticism, and the way that strength and intelligence have to combine. It allows players to look beautiful and balletic in a way that some sports do not: a perfectly-timed diving header, or a perfectly-struck volley, allow the body to achieve a poise and grace that some sportsmen can never exhibit.

Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch

We like our game just fine, thanks.

[villa]

Then a game in which you can't score at all must pander to an even more exclusive club, right?

Upping the scoring is an attempt to optimize the emotional appeal of the game for observers. There exists a sweet spot (IMO) in which scoring is not too easy and not too hard, that the observer is excited about the accomplishment but still uncertain of the outcome due to the other teams ability to score also. In my opinion, soccer has too little scoring and basketball has way too much. 4 to 7 scores per team per game (for many sports, not sure what to do with basketball) seems to me to be within the sweet spot.

That might be the case if I had set upping the score panders to the lowest common denominator. But I said upping the score for the sake of upping the score...

Football fans aren't sitting crying out for 5-4 games every week. It isn't hockey where the fans were deserting the game. There simply isn't a problem at the moment. The Premier League last year averaged 2.5 goals per game. Serie A was slightly higher at 2.6. Both leagues were, week in, week out, fantastically exciting and popular with the fans. You will never convince me seeing 4-3 or 3-2 every week is more exciting that 2-0 and 2-1. It just flies in the face of 40 years of football watching experience for me.

A 6-4 game once in a season - wonderful. 6-4 every week and I would start to get bored.

[RaftPeople]

Football fans aren't sitting crying out for 5-4 games every week. It isn't hockey where the fans were deserting the game. There simply isn't a problem at the moment.

I am sure you are correct that fans are not asking for more scoring, nor is there a problem for current fans. But I think this is probably due to familiarity with the game as it exists.

As an outside observer (only really watch my kids soccer games, generally), and someone that analyzes this type of stuff with most sports, I think there is a sweet spot that would be considered more enjoyable by more fans than the current amount of scoring if the new way was setup from the beginning. In other words, if you take away the familiarity quotient and start from a clean slate world wide, I think a higher scoring game would be considered more enjoyable. But that's just my opinion.

[FrWindyShephardHenderson]

As to the digs, I got the impression the game would be considered boring if there wasn't the odd bit of niggle going on. :D

In informal schoolboy football there's usually no referee and hence no offside, but when I was a lad "goal-hanging" was deprecated socially if nothing more.

Yeah but occasionally in Gaelic Football you do want a game to break out.

Also yeah, in a pick up game of soccer with no offside, the tag of goal hanger was the greatest insult that could be bestowed upon someone.

[drillrod]

Something I've always found interesting about American Football is that it's considered a high-scoring game, relative to soccer, but that's simply due to the scoring system.

Few fans would be disappointed at a result of 14-7, which discounting nearly 100% automatic extra points, is really a 2-1 score.

[villa]

I am sure you are correct that fans are not asking for more scoring, nor is there a problem for current fans. But I think this is probably due to familiarity with the game as it exists.

As an outside observer (only really watch my kids soccer games, generally), and someone that analyzes this type of stuff with most sports, I think there is a sweet spot that would be considered more enjoyable by more fans than the current amount of scoring if the new way was setup from the beginning. In other words, if you take away the familiarity quotient and start from a clean slate world wide, I think a higher scoring game would be considered more enjoyable. But that's just my opinion.

You are basing your opinion on what would make football a better game to watch based on kids' games?

How old are these kids? Because I probably wouldn't make judgments on how baseball could be made a better spectator sport based on observation of Little League games.

[RaftPeople]

You are basing your opinion on what would make football a better game to watch based on kids' games?

How old are these kids? Because I probably wouldn't make judgments on how baseball could be made a better spectator sport based on observation of Little League games.

No, mostly I was thinking of the pro games I've watched (been to one earlier this year). Kids are high teens and select, so it's not really little league-ish, if that has influenced me.

[villa]

No, mostly I was thinking of the pro games I've watched (been to one earlier this year). Kids are high teens and select, so it's not really little league-ish, if that has influenced me.

Honestly, watch a full season of a good league (Premier League, Serie A or La Liga and tell me you think it would be better with close to double the number of goals. Just don't focus on Chelsea games, otherwise you will get a false opinion... :)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I realize that Soccer has a rich history and is pretty much the most popular sport in the world, but I do not understand the seeming backlash to making it a higher scoring affair. Speaking again from a basketball perspective, if you have a score of 1-0, then it seems like so much of the game is wasted. Momentum and cheering by the fans amount to basically nothing if it produces no score. In the NBA, when there are momentum shifts, teams can go on a 10, 15, or 20 point scoring binge and the other team can utterly be demoralized. I guess I just want to know why people have something against that.
It's not "wasted". The fact that nobody scored does not mean that nothing happened- and momentum and cheering by the fans can amount to an awful lot even with no score. If a huge underdog manages to pull out a draw against a massive favorite, you can bet the screaming fans are fine with that.
Soccer needs to do the same thing as hockey: make a line where there is no offside beyond that line. It's totally dumb to call offside 3 feet in front of the goal. In hockey if you go beyond the blue line everything is OK except you need to say out of the small crease.

Also for soccer - why on Earth can you not pass the ball ahead if you beat the entire defense? That rule is completely bizarre and has no point at all. If you are fast enough to beat the defense than anything should be OK
That makes absolutely no sense. The point of the rule is to discourage goal-hanging; your suggestion would make it perfectly okay to goal-hang, just not to almost goal-hang.

I don't understand what you're getting at with the second bit. You can pass the ball ahead if the guy you're passing to is fast enough to beat the offside trap.

[Rysto]

I don't understand what you're getting at with the second bit. You can pass the ball ahead if the guy you're passing to is fast enough to beat the offside trap.

What he means is, if two players get past the defence and one of them has the ball, the one with the ball can't pass to the one without the ball. This is a very strange situation to somebody who's used to, say, hockey.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What he means is, if two players get past the defence and one of them has the ball, the one with the ball can't pass to the one without the ball. This is a very strange situation to somebody who's used to, say, hockey.
Oh. That's not true. If two players are past the last defender, the ball can be passed between them, just not forwards.

[villa]

What he means is, if two players get past the defence and one of them has the ball, the one with the ball can't pass to the one without the ball. This is a very strange situation to somebody who's used to, say, hockey.

It's also not true. He can pass the ball backwards to the other player.

[Bijou Drains]

A problem with soccer is that not only do they not score, they don't even get a lot of shots on goal which means there is not a lot of offense. Some games one team may have less than 10 shots on goal.

At least in hockey you can have a 2-1 game but the total shots could be 50 or 60. And of course hockey has a lot of speed and hitting too which fans like. (By hitting, I don't mean fights but there are those too - I mean legal checks)

I understand the offside rule about not being behind the last defender. But as I said above once you beat all the defenders why are there still restrictions on passing? That's not hanging out by the goal - you are using speed to beat the defense.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I sort of see your point there, but honestly it doesn't make any difference; if you have two plays beyond the offside trap chances are you haven't got space to pass the ball forward anyway.

Plus, in practice, referees won't bother to whistle any pass in that situation as long as it goes "mostly sideways".
A problem with soccer is that not only do they not score, they don't even get a lot of shots on goal which means there is not a lot of offense. Some games one team may have less than 10 shots on goal.

85 minutes or so of every 90-minute match is "offense". Anytime a team has the ball and is advancing it towards the other goal, that's "offense".

So what if there aren't a shit-ton of shots on goal? Ice hockey is a niche sport; association football is the most popular sport in the world.

[Bijou Drains]

I guess if people passing around the ball 50 yards from a goal is offense, then I guess 85 minutes of a game is "offense"

BTW, isn't it a joke that championships are sometimes decided just by penalty kicks? I can't think of any other major sport that decides a title by rules that have nothing to do with the actual game.

[Really Not All That Bright]

BTW, isn't it a joke that championships are sometimes decided just by penalty kicks? I can't think of any other major sport that decides a title by rules that have nothing to do with the actual game.
Necessary consequence of all the running required. Soccer games are 90 minutes long, with only one real break. Only rugby comes close (actually, rugby is more tiring because of all the contact).

Playing more than half an hour of extra time after the 90 minutes would just be cruel- and possibly dangerous. Most players are cramping by the time they get to 105 minutes, and all of them are by the time they get to 120 (except the goalkeepers).
I guess if people passing around the ball 50 yards from a goal is offense, then I guess 85 minutes of a game is "offense"
What do you call it when a team has the ball inside its own 10-yard line in American Football? "Running three boring rushing plays so we can punt?" No, it's called "offense".

[Bijou Drains]

They need penalty kicks because players are too tired? That doesn't seem to be a problem with hockey in the playoffs. (or basketball) (And yes I know hockey has 20 guys on a team and only 6 are on the ice at 1 time. ) Those guys are still dead tired after an OT or two , partly because of all the extra gear they wear.

Why not allow more subs in soccer so players are not as tired? I guess that's just another wacko idea? After all why should the world's most popular sport change right?

[Telemark]

After all why should the world's most popular sport change right?
Re-read that sentence a few times.

[villa]

Almost every fan I know would change games being decided on penalties. The reason major tournaments moved to penalties is nothing to do with tiredness, it is to do with logistics preventing the possibility of a replay.

As I said, fans want an end to penalties, as long as someone could come up with a sensible alternative. There is no opposition to change that would make the game better. But fans who know the game don't want to see 6-4 games every week.

Baseball fans in general like seeing home runs. It would make the sport immeasurably worse, however, if they moved in the walls 50 or 100 feet to get more dingers.

[Bijou Drains]

They didn't need to move the fences in for baseball! Just ask Bonds, McGuire, Rodriguez, Canseco, Sosa, etc. :)

[Piker]

They need penalty kicks because players are too tired? That doesn't seem to be a problem with hockey in the playoffs. (or basketball) (And yes I know hockey has 20 guys on a team and only 6 are on the ice at 1 time. ) Those guys are still dead tired after an OT or two , partly because of all the extra gear they wear.


That reminds me. I remember watching my hometown hockey team play, out of sheer San Jose boosterism, in the Western Semis against Dallas a couple years back. It ended up being one of those "famous" multiple overtime games that tested the NHL record for the longest game ever. It was "destined" to be considered "legendary".

It was a farce. I saw hockey players skating around, having already played the equivalent of two games on one night, back to back, lunging themselves at the puck, deep into the early morning. That the Sharks saw their season end that night, in something that barely resembled "hockey", was insult upon injury.

The only proper way to solve these ties are replays. Football (soccer) had them for decades, but, like everything else in sports, TV started to call the shots, and ruined it. Now we have the athletic equivalent of a coin flip to decide who moves on in single elimination tournaments.

-Piker

[Bijou Drains]

I attended a 3 OT NHL playoff game in 2002 (Carolina vs. Detroit) and I didn't find the play to be bad in the 3rd OT despite the players being tired. But maybe I was half asleep myself, game ended around 2 AM.

I've seen Carolina play a lot of OT games in the playoffs and I think every game was decided in the first or 2nd OT except the one noted above.

If TV really called the shots in the NHL they would use a shootout even in the playoffs.

[chique]

Now Soccer's so impossible to score on that a 2 point lead with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team.That's a crap argument. An American football team up 14-0 "with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team", too. Sunday's game between Buffalo and Tennessee ended with a score of 21-18. Remove the PATs and field goals* and the final score was 3 touchdowns to 1. The last game between the Patriots and the Eagles? 3-1. Atlanta and Detroit? 3-3. Gee, sounds like soccer scores.

This is a subject that comes up at least once a year and it's invariably started by someone who neither understands nor appreciates football for what it is. There truly is more to the game than the final score, I promise you.


*aka "We weren't good enough to score a real touchdown so we'll just kick it instead." Can you imagine what real football would be like if they awarded an extra goal for every 5 missed shots on goal? Oy.

[Bijou Drains]

The NFL is super popular in the US but they don't have a problem with rule changes to make the game better. In fact they probably make too many changes.

BTW, a FG is not points awarded for missing a touchdown. It's just an alternate way to score.

[chique]

Yep, but I'm not starting threads about how stupid it is that a sport would allow a team a chance to earn half-credit on a field goal because they weren't good enough to score a real goal. That's just stupid! If they're not good enough to score a real goal they shouldn't get credit for it! There shouldn't be ANY points for second place! That's ...well, it's practically un-American! I don't understand why it's allowed! They should change it! There aren't any other sports that have such a stupid rule!

And why don't I start threads like that? Because arguments based on a lack of knowledge of how a game developed, how it's played, and how a sport flows would make me sound like an idiot.

Continuing to argue for an abolition to field goals in American football despite the fact that devotees of the sport are quite happy with the way the game is now, thanks, would make me sound like an arrogant bitch.

[MichaelQReilly]

Overall, I'm absolutely fine with football/soccer just the way it is. However, for curiosity's sake I would be very interested in seeing a a trial where they had some kind of line beyond which offside wasn't called. If I read DSYOUNGESQ correctly, the old NASL had something like that. Maybe they could try it with one of the various preseason tournaments that nobody really cares about.

[YogSosoth]

It's not something against it per se, but the best baseball games I have seen are low scoring pitchers duels. The bottom line is I don't see a 1-0 game as "wasted" in any way.


I think in this case, you cannot compare baseball since it has very specialized positions and nobody can really move around freely. The pitcher's in almost total control of the ball like 90% of the time whereas a soccer ball is all over the place.


Upping the scoring for the sake of upping the scoring panders to low attention spans and the lowest common denominator. If a goal is easier, it is less exciting. Do you honestly not find defense interesting to watch?

Honestly, no, not when it results in no scoring or one score in 90 minutes of play. I would be happier with a more offense-oriented version of Soccer where scoring is easier and the defense is more difficult. So much of the Soccer that I see consists not of good defense but simply just keeping the ball away. I wish they wouldnt pass it back so much, it drives me crazy

It's not "wasted". The fact that nobody scored does not mean that nothing happened- and momentum and cheering by the fans can amount to an awful lot even with no score. If a huge underdog manages to pull out a draw against a massive favorite, you can bet the screaming fans are fine with that.


If there is no score, how can you claim something worthwhile happened? Teams dont win unless they can get at least one ball in the net. Would you honestly love to watch a team for a season whose defense was so good that it yielded no goals, yet whose offense is so bad that they never score? I find that if the momentum does not result in one score, basket, run, or touchdown, then it is kind of wasted. On certain sports, its ok, like football and basketball, because scoring happens more often. On other sports its maddening.

As far as the underdog goes, wouldnt the fans prefer a win for them instead of a draw? Why is the World Cup or any championship game decided by 5 penalty kicks to the goal instead of a tie(correct me on this if I'm wrong, I dont know all the rules for all the Soccer championship games)?

That's a crap argument. An American football team up 14-0 "with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team", too. Sunday's game between Buffalo and Tennessee ended with a score of 21-18. Remove the PATs and field goals* and the final score was 3 touchdowns to 1. The last game between the Patriots and the Eagles? 3-1. Atlanta and Detroit? 3-3. Gee, sounds like soccer scores.

I'm not too fond of American Football either but one thing at a time! :p

[Piker]

If there is no score, how can you claim something worthwhile happened?

That's a very odd way of looking at sports. I cannot honestly believe that the only things that you find worthwhile in any sport are the goal/run/point generating events. If so, I'm sorry, you're missing out on a lot.

[Really Not All That Bright]

As far as the underdog goes, wouldnt the fans prefer a win for them instead of a draw? Why is the World Cup or any championship game decided by 5 penalty kicks to the goal instead of a tie(correct me on this if I'm wrong, I dont know all the rules for all the Soccer championship games)?
The World Cup is a knockout tournament, so obviously somebody has to win. Most professional matches take place in domestic leagues, which are round robin arrangements- a win gives you 3 points, a draw gives you 1.

[BigT]

That's a very odd way of looking at sports. I cannot honestly believe that the only things that you find worthwhile in any sport are the goal/run/point generating events. If so, I'm sorry, you're missing out on a lot.

You didn't pay attention. If there is no score, NOBODY WON. Surely you have a favorite team and would like them to win, right?

I mean, I can get watching a low scoring game. But a non-scoring one? Then I just saw two teams try their hardest, and neither of them won. Why would that be fun, for the players or the spectators?

As for the rest, I like that in basketball, telling someone the score basically tells them how the game went. In baseball, they at least have the stats. I am unaware of anything like this in soccer.

[Malacandra]

No need to yell. Some games allow for draws more easily than others. There's nothing in golf, for instance, that says that two guys can't finish 72 holes in exactly the same score. In chess draws are frequent, in checkers all the more so. Soccer games end in draws more often than many, but they're not unique in that respect.

Informed spectators understand that you can see two teams try their hardest, and neither comes away the winner. You can also see two teams turn up, both make no attempt to win, and neither comes away the loser. If you know the game then you know what you've just seen, or if you didn't see the game you can read about it in the paper. Merely looking at the scoreline isn't a substitute, unless it's something freakish like Arsenal 6 Everton 1 that tells you that the Toffees just got a hiding.

Even that doesn't tell you everything. A 3 - 2 scoreline might tell you that one side led all the way and the beaten side got a couple of consolation goals at the finish after being 3 - 0 down until the 88th minute. Or it might conceal something like one side being 2 - 0 down until, again, the 88th minute and then scoring twice to take the game into extra time, and then coming up with the winning goal - or the side that was originally winning got their third goal with the last kick of normal time when everyone was expecting extra time.

As to what you're unaware of, that depends where you're looking. In Brit papers it's not unusual to see stats like time in possession, number of tackles made, passes completed, shots on and off targets, fouls committed, corners conceded and so on, as well as ratings out of 10 for each player along with a few sentences on why they're getting the rating. But that's served up as an aside along with the 1000-word report on the match itself.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

De thread seemed to be moving towards the benefits vs negatives of scoring in a sport. I for one prefer the low scoring in Football. It is difficult to describe the feeling of your team scoring in an important game, partly because you know how important the one goal can be. Especially in international games (Holland in my case) everytime a goal is scored the whole coutry goes nuts for a couple of minutes. This in contrast to sports like Basketball where the first thing you do after scoring is rush back to defend.

Another sport I like, but which fails to get me as exited as with football, is tennis. I can really appreciate some of Federer's shots but even the tightest games (Wimbledon the last couple of finals) don't lead to the excitement and elation of a goal at the world cup.

[John DiFool]

If TV really called the shots in the NHL they would use a shootout even in the playoffs.

4-on-4 would work better.

[villa]

You didn't pay attention. If there is no score, NOBODY WON. Surely you have a favorite team and would like them to win, right?

I mean, I can get watching a low scoring game. But a non-scoring one? Then I just saw two teams try their hardest, and neither of them won. Why would that be fun, for the players or the spectators?


Well except for the game where Villa needed a draw to qualify for Europe the next season. Or another alternatively where they needed a draw to prevent being relegated. I'd happily take 0-0 in either of those situations.

Or when I saw them draw against Liverpool, when Liverpool were a fantastic team, and Villa were last ditch defending for 95% of the game and could have given up 7 or 8 goals.

None of those were fun for me in the slightest. I would have had so much more fun if the score had been 14-9 in each of those games.

[villa]

De thread seemed to be moving towards the benefits vs negatives of scoring in a sport. I for one prefer the low scoring in Football. It is difficult to describe the feeling of your team scoring in an important game, partly because you know how important the one goal can be. Especially in international games (Holland in my case) everytime a goal is scored the whole coutry goes nuts for a couple of minutes. This in contrast to sports like Basketball where the first thing you do after scoring is rush back to defend.


Exactly - take the 1990 World Cup for example. England beat Cameroon 3-2 in the knock out stages. That was an incredibly exciting game. But it was no more exciting than the 1-0 win over Belgium the prior round. And I cannot remember any of the goals from the Cameroon game (a Lineker penalty I seem to have a vague recollection of...), but I will remember Platt smashing in a Gascoigne long ball in the last minute of extra time for the rest of my life...

[Piker]

You didn't pay attention. If there is no score, NOBODY WON. Surely you have a favorite team and would like them to win, right?

Yes? But sometimes they tie? I don't see what you're getting at.

I mean, I can get watching a low scoring game. But a non-scoring one? Then I just saw two teams try their hardest, and neither of them won. Why would that be fun, for the players or the spectators?

Can I ask you, what do you think happens for 90 minutes in a scoreless match? The ball sits in the middle of the field and both sides stare each other down?

As for the rest, I like that in basketball, telling someone the score basically tells them how the game went. In baseball, they at least have the stats. I am unaware of anything like this in soccer.

I, for one, enjoy that my favorite sport cannot be reduced to numbers and statistics, and that actually watching the game tells you the story in a way that a lazy glance at a box score can never ever replicate.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hell- just look at cricket. You can score 1,000+ runs in a test match and yet the sport has always been and will always be indescribably boring.

[Malacandra]

Hell- just look at cricket. You can score 1,000+ runs in a test match and yet the sport has always been and will always be indescribably boring.

Obviously, I disagree as to the "boring" part, though it can be, but it does emphasise that interest isn't necessarily tied to scoring. :)

[Quercus]

I tend to agree that more scores would make top-level soccer a better game to watch (watching a team defend a two-goal lead with one attacker isn't very interesting), and would love a simple rule change that kept the basics of the game the same while increasing scoring, but have been convinced that eliminating offside isn't a magic bullet. Remember, defenses would also change if the rule was eliminated.
So eliminating offside would actually result in fewer breakaways, because the last couple defenders would just never leave the penalty area, making it impossible to get behind them. I suppose it might open a little bit of room above the penalty area, as one or two defenders would get sucked towards the end line to defend against goal-campers, but at the expense of exhausting the midfielders who would be moving from penalty area to penalty area on every change of possession.

[Cugel]

Can you imagine what real football would be like if they awarded an extra goal for every 5 missed shots on goal? Oy.

That'd be Australian rules, except it's six misses equals a goal

[Really Not All That Bright]

Obviously, I disagree as to the "boring" part, though it can be, but it does emphasise that interest isn't necessarily tied to scoring. :)
Well, you're wrong to disagree ;). I have a H&W Under-13 County Cup winner's medal tucked away somewhere and I cannot stand cricket. I can watch a one-day match if I'm in a patient mood.

[chique]

that'd be australian rules, except it's six misses equals a goalWHY do you have SUCH A STUPID RULE?!?!?!?!



;)