Football (soccer): the offsides rule is that much of a sacred cow?

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]

Another major recent change (probably going on 20 years now), was that a goalie couldn’t handle a ball kicked back to him.
[/QUOTE]

[hijack]
My kid has been playing soccer for a number of years and, more recently, the keeper position. This is the first season where the back pass rule applies. Is it legal to pick up the ball after he has handled the ball with a body part other than his hands, or does it have to touch an opposing player first?
[/hijack]

As to the op, regardless of the low scoring aspects of soccer, at least it has a faster pace than football and, by several orders of magnitude, baseball. I assure you, the second half of a 2-0 game is one the most nail-biting experiences you can have in the entire realm of sports when your kid is playing.

22

[QUOTE=UncleRojelio]
[hijack]
My kid has been playing soccer for a number of years and, more recently, the keeper position. This is the first season where the back pass rule applies. Is it legal to pick up the ball after he has handled the ball with a body part other than his hands, or does it have to touch an opposing player first?
[/hijack]

[/QUOTE]

Yes they can pick it up after playing it with another body part.

23

There’s a couple of things here. First, this is one of the true international games - and there are good reasons for that. That’ll be why the fundamentals haven’t changed much in 100 years, let alone 50 - there is no need to create a game that suits a certain mentality in one part of one continent when pretty much the whole rest of the world likes it as it is.

The offside rule has changed as noted above, with all the moves meant to be to the benefit of attacking sides. The ‘interference with play’ aspect is the most recent, and causes controversy still. However, that’s a key feature of football - that it is entirely down to human decisions. Generally there’s a feeling that you win some, you lose some - and as a fan it’s cathartic to blame defeats on poor decisions and enjoy the fact that one lucky call can turn an average performance into a win (see Liverpool v Everton last week).

I was a referee/linesman for some time, and can attest to the fact that determining exactly where a player is at the time the ball was kicked, especially against strong defensive sides that ‘step up’ when anticipating a through ball is very hard to judge. I wonder if the side (I can’t remember who) still blames me for losing in the Somerset Cup at Cheddar on Boxing Day 2000 because I didn’t raise my flag…!

24

[QUOTE=bordelond]
This article is mostly speculation, to be sure … but it doesn’t exactly sound like the door’s permanently closed on the idea.
[/quote]

Yes, that article is deliberately a short provocative piece, to get people talking about it on the message board it’s a part of.

The Premiership, and English and European football in general, can appear to simply make decisions via lots of shady dealings and backroom discussions. The phenomenon of wealthy foreign owners is too new to predict how they’d try and influence it.

Decisions are made by the Premier League, in other words jointly by all the clubs. However, the Football Association does have some powers, and there’s also the fact that UEFA would be unlikely to want games played outside of Europe. So it’s certainly not a matter of Malcolm Glazer and Abramovich deciding to play a competitive match in a different location, let alone a different country.

25

[QUOTE=Martiju]
However, that’s a key feature of football - that it is entirely down to human decisions.
[/QUOTE]

That was once said about American football, as well.

When instant replay first became technologically feasible for use in officiating, one of most commonly-heard arguments against it was that “human error is part of the game!” Now, that notion comes off as quaint.

26

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
God, no! This [increasing the size of the goal] rewards mediocre players and penalises good goalkeepers.

[/QUOTE]
I think increasing the size of the goal is an excellent idea. It does not change the nature of the game. Players today are significantly bigger and more athletic than when the size of the goal was first established. I would advocate increasing by whatever amount would result in shots that currently hit the woodwork becoming goals. I suspect that would add 1 - 2 goals per match on average, which sounds good to me.

27

[QUOTE=bordelond]
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.
[/QUOTE]
One of the most interesting, fascinating aspects of true football is that it is played in virtually identical fashion everywhere it is played in the world.. Thus, within reasonable limits (availability of equipment, for example), the youth playing the game in some small village in Africa or Asia or South America are playing by exactly the same laws of the game that are used in the Premiership, Serie A, and the Bundesliga, not to mention the World Cup every four years. Contrast the rather silly situation in America where, starting with Pop Warner leagues, moving up through high school, then into college, and finally into the pros, American Football rules change at every level.

Thus, FIFA and the International Football Association Board strive to keep the Laws of the Game relatively uncomplicated, and undifferentiated (to whatever extent possible) on the basis of level of play, or age of contestants. This is why the field’s markings are simple and easy to apply, each marking having a specific purpose in the laws. It is also why the Offside law (Law XI) is kept fairly simple. As I tell referees when I am training them, “you need to be able to recognize a sphere, divide things in half, and count to two.” Of course, the devil is in the details… :smiley:

Getting back to the OP: once again we are faced with an American who wants the game to have more scoring. I am not certain why it is that my fellow countrymen have given up on their appreciation of tightly defended contests. It isn’t just soccer; the OP himself notes the changes to baseball to reduce the dominance of pitching. It also has affected basketball (the 24 second shot clock), football (rules emphasizing the passing game), and hockey. I blame this on television. We watch so many games where we don’t have a vested emotional interest, that we lose appreciation for tight, low-scoring games. Nothing in the world is more nerve-wracking than a 1 - 0 soccer contest when you have an emotional investment in one side or the other (such as when your son is playing!). Some of the most rabid “fans” I have ever dealt with were soccer moms who were rooting for a team on which their child was playing, especially if that team was on the short end of a decision by the referee. :eek:

For me, football (soccer) has two main attractions. First, it is so free-flowing, when played (and officiated) correctly. A soccer game has an organic life, ebbing and flowing, momentum shifting over stretches of the game. Second, at any second, lightning may strike! You never are quite sure when, or how. To this day, I remember the moment when Romario, 20 minutes into the Brazil v. Russia group stage game in 1994 at Stanford Stadium, side-footed home an otherwise innocuous looking corner kick. The roar was spontaneous, and deafening (my boys, ages 8 and 6, had eyes the size of dinner plates at it!). One moment, anticipation. In the next - delerium.

I love American sports, but we just don’t HAVE that in our games, and we are the poorer for it.

28

[QUOTE=amarone]
I think increasing the size of the goal is an excellent idea. It does not change the nature of the game. Players today are significantly bigger and more athletic than when the size of the goal was first established. I would advocate increasing by whatever amount would result in shots that currently hit the woodwork becoming goals. I suspect that would add 1 - 2 goals per match on average, which sounds good to me.
[/QUOTE]

This is typically falacious thinking. The players would hit the woodwork just as often, because they do so by trying to tuck the ball into the corners and sides of the goal, which they would still be trying to do.

And, again, why do we need more scores? Is soccer somehow doing poorly in the world, hurting for attendance, money, interest, TV investment? :dubious:

29

Me too. The conservative “don’t change anything” mindset tends to rule the roost though. It’s a wonder we ever got changes as radical as the new back pass rule.

30

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
One moment, anticipation. In the next - delerium.

I love American sports, but we just don’t HAVE that in our games, and we are the poorer for it.
[/QUOTE]

Disagree. The 80-yard touchdown run, or the kickoff return in football. The last-second three-pointer in basketball. Heck, the basic home run in baseball.

31

[QUOTE=bordelond]
Disagree. The 80-yard touchdown run, or the kickoff return in football. The last-second three-pointer in basketball. Heck, the basic home run in baseball.
[/QUOTE]

But you miss the point, I think. Except for the end-of-the-game play, where there is no rebuttal possible, all of those have hardly the same impact that a soccer goal has, because they are simply one of a possible plethora of scores. And that’s my main complaint with basketball, for example: you watch a whole bunch of game that is essentially meaningless (though fun to watch for the athleticism) in order to watch those last few precious moments, assuming the game is still close enough to warrant it.

Whereas, in soccer, that moment may come in the 2d minute of the game, and dictate the whole play of the game thereafter.

32

[QUOTE=bordelond]

  • when were the blue lines added in the NHL?
    [/QUOTE]
    The Blue Line was added in 1918; as a matter of fact, the red line is newer, added in 1949. However, a few years ago they changed the rule to allow a pass across two lines (the red line now is only in effect for icing calls), though the puck has to cross the blue line ahead of the attacker.
33

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
But you miss the point, I think. Except for the end-of-the-game play, where there is no rebuttal possible, all of those have hardly the same impact that a soccer goal has, because they are simply one of a possible plethora of scores … Whereas, in soccer, that moment may come in the 2d minute of the game, and dictate the whole play of the game thereafter.
[/QUOTE]

That’s more of a weakness than a strength, IMHO. I do enjoy soccer the way it is, despite my OP. The only thing I don’t like is seeing a team I’m rooting for down 2-0 in the 75th minute, and knowing the game is over (I know, I know, there have been a handful of comebacks involving 3 goals scored in 15 minutes).

Maybe it comes from following the U.S. team, who consistently play from behind, and who spend about 3/4 of their World Cup matches pinned back in their own end by a more aggressive and skilled opponent :frowning: (They seem to do reasonably well in CONCACAF, though).

34

[QUOTE=bordelond]
That was once said about American football, as well.

When instant replay first became technologically feasible for use in officiating, one of most commonly-heard arguments against it was that “human error is part of the game!” Now, that notion comes off as quaint.
[/QUOTE]

And is AF the poorer for it? Personally, I would avoid any delays in the game as far as possible (except perhaps when I was refereeing and needed a breather!). If you want automated decisions, play computer games. If you feel that the officiating is part of the play, then leave it alone.

DSYoungEsq sums it up well. The game is meant to be organic, delays destroy that aspect (see Drogba going down with an ‘injury’ towards the end of any game when Chelsea have a slim lead and are under pressure). Football, more than many sports, has a significant psychological element and a huge part of that is that losing sides can change tactics to chase a game and open the game up entirely. The best sides in the Prem are those that hold on to slim leads and counterattack after all, and there’s good reason for that.

Like I say, why change something that works when it is a tiny part of the world that seems to require lots of scoring - most parties recognise the value of 1-0 and 2-1 wins. Hell, some of the best games I’ve seen have been when the side I’m supporting is weak but defends endlessly to get a successful draw - something unheard of in US sports.

35

[QUOTE=bordelond]
The only thing I don’t like is seeing a team I’m rooting for down 2-0 in the 75th minute, and knowing the game is over (I know, I know, there have been a handful of comebacks involving 3 goals scored in 15 minutes).
[/QUOTE]

Firstly, in such a situation, two goals is a comeback, getting one point rather than giving away three. Or, in a knockout competition, pushing it into extra time.

More importantly, even though equalising like this is a hard task, it’s not an impossible one. The winning team still has to defend well, and your team will still be playing for a reason. Yes, OK, football matches don’t always crescendo to a thrilling climax, but who said they should?

36

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
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.
[/QUOTE]

In fairness, this is true of most older sports. Baseball fans resist any suggestion that baseball is not utterly, thoroughly perfectly designed, even when it obviously isn’t, and are still bitching and whining about a rule that was instituted more than 30 years ago. Hockey has resisted a lot of necessary changes, though in fairness they finally got around to getting rid of the two-line pass rule, albeit about twenty years too late.

37

[QUOTE=Martiju]
And is AF the poorer for it? Personally, I would avoid any delays in the game as far as possible (except perhaps when I was refereeing and needed a breather!). If you want automated decisions, play computer games. If you feel that the officiating is part of the play, then leave it alone.
[/quote]
I don’t like the college instant replay rules. Everything goes upstairs and it seems like at times the officials would rather review every single play that could possibly have any effect on the game. I prefer the NFL rules, where each team gets two challenges a game (two successful challenges will get you a third) and losing the challenge loses you the timeout. Inside two minutes left of the 2nd and 4th quarters (and in overtime) the replays have to come from upstairs and they don’t seem to use it as often. Also, a team can manage to avoid having a replay called (that they don’t want) if they can hurry up and get the ball snapped before the challenge.

38

I prefer the scoring level in hockey vs. that in soccer (it may only be a one run difference per team per game), but it’s that difference which makes a late comeback a bit more likely. In soccer the pace is slower so a 1 goal lead with 5 to go in soccer (including that extra time stuff) is much more insurmountable than it would be in ice hockey. Baseball you can’t really compare because a maximum of 4 runs can be scored at once (tho that is precisely why it can be so enjoyable, a team can go from winning to losing in one swing-that can’t happen in a game involving goals).

39

Why does football need bigger goals, what problem is that solving? I assume it’s the old complaint about low scoring games but who decides what average goal-count is acceptable; should we just keep making the goal bigger until every game ends with at least 15 goals? No thanks.

The only change, in my opinion, that football desperately needs is better officiating. I am a supporter of goal-line technology or technology to aid in offside decisions. I’ll even go so far as to support a limited-use video referee. My preference is giving each team 2 ‘appeals’ where they can stop play and get the video ref to review the last decision. It’s something I believe they’ve started using in Tennis, I quite liked it, I’m not sure how popular it is though.

I forgot to add, I believe the current offside rules help make for a more attacking game. Instead of keeping defenders back to mark those goal-hangers they can push forward and help score goals. Without it 4-5 players would never leave their own half.

40

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]

God, no! This rewards mediocre players and penalises good goalkeepers.

[/QUOTE]

This argument could not be any more wrong-headed. Are you seriously trying to claim that a larger goal (say 6-12 inches on all sides) benefits players who cannot control the ball? On the contrary, it greatly rewards those players who have superior control over their shots and allows them a larger envelope to target. For every “accidental” goal that a poor shooter gains on what otherwise would have been a missed shot, you’ll see 5 that the best players gained using their superior skills.

On that same coin, a larger goal does more to separate great goalie from good ones. Making them cover a larger area favors those with great range and size. My making the task of goalkeeping more challenging you weed out those poor goalies making the outstanding ones even more valuable. I cannot think of any way that it hurts good goalies. They will allow more goals on balance, but the differential on average goals against will become wider setting the best clearly apart from the mediocre.