The Premiership is apparently kicking around the idea of playing a game that counts on U.S. soil to reciprocate this weekend’s NFL game being played in London.
On another board, discussing this topic, I made the following comment:
First response, from an American, FWIW:
My response
I admit I was taken aback by the vitriol in the response. It made me wonder:
Have the rules of football (as sanctioned by FIFA) been changed in any way within the last 50 years or so?
I understand FIFA would be conservative on such matters … but do they ever come off as unreasonably so?
Among non-American football (soccer) fans, are there any fine points in the rules that people wouldn’t mind seeing tweaked? From another perspective – does pretty much every soccer fan think the game is close to perfect as is?
Is the offsides rule a sacred cow?
Is the size of the goal a sacred cow?
Trying to think about similar (?) rules changes in popular North American sports, I came up with the following:
the lowering of the mound in baseball in 1969
the moving of the goalposts back ten yards in American football (early 1970s)
the shot clock, width of the key, and three-point line in basketball (1950s-1970s)
when were the blue lines added in the NHL?
So, might soccer ever undergo something similar? Is there any conceivable impetus that would lead FIFA to approve one or more score-increasing rule tweaks?
Probably not. The tweaks which have been made to the offsides rule usually involve specifying the number of defenders which can be between the goal and the recipient of the pass. There’s been tons of threads here about these issues; my general conclusion is that the sport in general, a majority of the hardcore fans, and its managing bodies are far too hide-bound to ever revamp the sport as radically as you suggest. My main quibble with the rules isn’t the offsides rule so much, but the simple fact that there are too many players on the field, and this inhibits offense-imagine baseball with an extra (softball-style) defender in the outfield, and all the resultant low scoring. Hockey style blue lines have been suggested too, but no soccer league has ever implemented something like that IIRC.
Actually the offside rule itself has been tweaked several times. Most notably something like 80-100 years ago it was changed from being three men to two men. A recent rule change was that a player who was not involved in the play was not offside, which has led to some confusion, because some flolks think it means that either the player touched the ball or interfered with the goalie or defender. But I have seen cases where the ball went by a player who looked like he would play it, relaize he couldn’t and it totally threw the defense off. Most tweaking is just clarifying the rule though, i.e. erring on the side of the attacking player (which never seems to happen).
Another major recent change (probably going on 20 years now), was that a goalie couldn’t handle a ball kicked back to him. I also think that there was no substitutions something like 50 years ago. Oh yeah, a big rule change was that a win became worth 3 points versus 2 points, which I think helped pick up the attacking play.
The real problem with the offside rule is that it is so often called wrong that it hardly gets any mention when it happens. The commentator will say,“looks like the official got that one wrong” and that is about it. It is difficult to call, but it is so pivotal that I have often thought that it is a real problem.
I think just having a linesman who can call the offside rule effectively would be a great boost to scoring- many games have a goal called back on a questionable offside call- if they would just give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player, scores would go up.
Removing the offside rule wouldn’t simply free up a few more attacking moves and create a few more goals, it would completely alter the whole nature of the game. And it would almost certainly result in much more defensive play, keeping more players back near one’s own goal, and have the opposite effect to that intended.
If only it were that easy. The job entails observing the positions of players, the motion of players, and also looking for the moment the ball is kicked, which is at a completely different place on the pitch. And then making a split-second decision. It’s a hard job. And it would then be made impossible by a tweak such as that in the OP’s quote, “if it were legal to have one guy offside in a certain area of the field so long as the pass wasn’t received within X meters of the goal.”
Unless you started using video referees, which then brings up a whole load of issues about stoppage of play, continuity of the game, etc. And still, how on earch players would be expected to keep track of all these new positionings - even if you paint extra lines on the pitch, that’s the last place they’re looking when they’re trying to time a run to receive a long pass.
In defence (hah) of the offside rule: it rewards good play. Good defensive play. A back four holding a straight line immediately becomes a difficult obstacle to get past. Any goal which are scored are all the more deserved as a result. 1-0 wins, provided the goal was scored at the right end, can be some of the most exciting and rewarding games.
Agreed about wholesale removal of the offside rule. I was hoping a creative and reasonable tweak could be put forth. Maybe increasing the size of the goal is a better idea.
A possible solution that comes to mind would be the addition of four more referees who do nothing but roam the sidelines checking on offsides calls.
A good question. I can tell you, however, that American football players do something very similar (making plays just past the first-down marker) without the benefit of a line on the turf – only a vertical marker on the sidelines is available.
IMHO, this is only true if the team leading 1-0 is hanging on for dear life against consistently relentless attacks and survives a bunch of near-misses. What I’m more concerned with is the apparent reality that a 2-0 or 3-0 lead is virtually insurmountable (again, with exceptions noted).
God, no! This rewards mediocre players and penalises good goalkeepers.
I’m not sure this lessens the likelihood of incorrect calls - doesn’t it increase it, with any one of them able to make a wrong call?
Could you elaborate, simply because of my ignorance about the game.
I think we’ll probably have to disagree here - IMO an early 1-0 lead offers time to watch a steady tactical build-up by the losing team, and the leaders having to be defensively safe while also wanting to increase the score.
2-0, certainly not insurmountable. Again, can make for a very exciting match, because either team can completely change its natur by scoring a goal, either taking the lead to the (yes, almost certainly winning) 3-0, or by putting a draw within close reach.
Interesting, I just went through the Premiership scores so far this season: of the 30 times a team has notched up three or more goals in a match, and over a third of those were in a match with ended 3-3, 4-4 or the rather exceptional 7-4.
Someone should invent a version of soccer with a smaller field of play, fewer players on the field … and (this is the kicker for me) … a wall around it, preventing the ball from ever going out of bounds.
It can all be automated. Jerseys are coated in Mysterion™ which cameras along the sidelines see at a particular wavelength. At any time, positions of players are tracked by computer, and a “potential_offsides” state is either ‘on’ or ‘off’.
The ball has an accelerometer that records when it is struck.
potential_offsides=on AND ball_struck=on equals a supplemental offsides whistle. Like the automated whistle in tennis for balls close to the end-lines.
Even before FIFA, rules have been tweaked or added.
BTW, from that wiki article:
Offside rules date back to codes of football developed at English public schools in the early nineteenth century. These offside rules were often much stricter than that in the modern game. In some of them, a player was “off his side” if he was standing in front of the ball. This was similar to the current offside law in rugby, which penalises any player between the ball and the opponent’s goal. By contrast, the original Sheffield Rules had no offside rule, and players known as “kick throughs” were positioned permanently near the opponents’ goal.
Since before the FA, the rules haven been tweaked, including the offside rule.
No. They are not. But, IHMO, I don’t see an overwhelming reason to change them in a dramatic way.
In all seriousness, there’s an issue with automation (it’s often discussed for goal lines, after every high-profile ‘did it cross the line’ situation): there’s always been a principle that the game is officiated in the same way at all levels, from the Premiership down to the hundreds of official amateur matches which take place every week.
Missed that, at the very beginning - it’s just West Ham’s chairman who’s made the suggestion. The Premier League have responded by saying no, they’re not considering it and it wouldn’t work.
Interestingly enough, this is not much valued in American football (or in American sport at all). Instant replay, for instance, is in use in all professional and many collegiate American football games. But no one bothers with all those replay cameras at lower levels of amateur American football.
What you’ll hear a lot of American sports commentators talk about nowadays is that getting calls right is paramount – more important than “flow of the game”, more important than “tradition”, more important than any other aspect of competition. This represents a culmination of gradual changes in mindset towards use of instant replay. 20 years ago, you’d have heard a lot of traditionalist arguments against using cameras to help officiate – too much time taken up, elimination of the “human touch” from competition, etc.
…
Succinctly: on a certain kind of play, it will be the quarterback’s job to throw the football to a wide reciever to gain 10 yards (every 10 yards gained results in an additional three [or four] tries awarded to the attacking team to advance the ball). The wide receiver has to run out 10 yards or so, evade his defender, and then catch the ball at a point 10 yards downfield.
How many Premiership teams are owned by non-English concerns? Does Rupert Murdoch still own Manchester U? Oh wait … just noticed that the article addresses that:
Now, I don’t know how the Premiership works “politically”, but in American pro leagues, the owners essentially call the shots, not the league leadership. How does the Premiership work? Would they just refuse to sanction a game played overseas?
The real rule that needs changing is (of course) the penalty kick shoot-out.
I think something similar to college football overtime in which one team is given a big advantage (10 players on 6 with no goalie, or something). They score a goal as fast as they can. Then the other team gets the same advantage, and scores as fast as THEY can. If they score slower, they lose. If they score faster, then the first team has another chance to beat that speed, etc.
Or, simpler than that, turn the 1-shot-from-the-penalty-spot shootout to a 4-on-2 offensive attack, each team gets 5 tries, must alternate players through the 4 and the 2 in some fashion, etc.
