This doesn’t wash. You are correct that eliminating offsides would indeed allow fewer people within the attacking zone, but that doesn’t imply more scoring. On the contrary, it would encourage both teams to spread it’s players across a larger portion of the field, allowing more space for athletes to make plays. As it is, one player almost never has an opportunity to attack with the ball because he is immediately checked by 3 and 4 defenders, and it makes passing within the zone extremely difficult. By creating more open space you allow your most talented people opportunities to make plays and be creative with the ball. In short, it would allow more shots on goal. It also gives attacking teams additional room to gamble with their defense, making the risk involved in bring it’s defenders up into the attacking zone greater, almost like pulling the goalie in hockey.
See DSYoungEsq’s post - they’ll still target a small envelope.
This suggests that the current goal size doesn’t already separate the good from the very good. And in any case, good goalkeeping is far from only being about how quickly you can reach the other post.
You are ignoring the point. Yes, they still will target a small area and will still hit the post often. But you claimed that this would somehow favor mediocre players over excellent ones. That is nonsense.
Again, going post-to-post is one of many skills. It’s a very important one, and I argue that elevating towards the crossbar is perhaps the skill most effected by the change. In fact, I think raising the crossbar while leaving the posts as they are would accomplish 80% of what making the goal larger attempts. As in all sports, athletes (people in general) are getting much taller, bigger and more explosive. Making the goal bigger to adjust for that is reasonable, similar to the NBA moving back the 3-point line and college football narrowing the goalposts.
Regardless, it is besides the point. You somehow claimed the making a goal larger unfairly biases against the better goalkeepers. When in fact it hurts poor goalkeepers exponentially more than good ones. That is the point.
It’s fair to argue that scoring doesn’t need to be aided, and that a 1-0 game is the aesthetic ideal, but to claim that a larger goal somehow hurts elite players is baffling.
What soccer do YOU watch??? Perhaps you should review the goals of the month videos that are regularly produced. Individuals who manage unassissted goals are far from rare.
There was a REASON that they instituted the offside rule originally. The reason is that the lack of a limit on forward penetration in front of the ball produced precisely the sort of uninspired play that you are saying “doesn’t wash.” It’s true in hockey, too, which is why that game also precludes “cherry-picking.”
What happens instead of the lovely game we are used to seeing is that ALL teams play long ball, hoping to latch onto long passes forward for the purpose of getting a shot off. Boring.
Random selection, with the accuracy of Wikipedia:
Ronaldhinho - 5’ 11"
Rooney - 5’ 10"
Zidane - 6’ 1"
Lineker - 5’ 9"
Cruijff - 5’ 11"
Maradona - 5’ 5"
Eusebio - 5’ 9"
Pele - 5’ 8"
Sure, people are slightly larger now, but football is one game where height is not necessarily a huge advantage. Peter Schmeichel only outdoes Gordon Banks by 10cm. Scorers of Chelsea’s six today vary from 6’ 2" (Drogba) down to 5’ 7" (Cole).
Speaking of which, looking at those results today, I don’t see where the supposed drought of goals is hitting home: 3-2, 6-0, 4-1, 0-0, 2-1, 1-1. Or does the single nil-nil draw offend?
I think we have different definitions of rare. A half dozen or so such goals per month out of 50-60 Premiere League matches qualifies as rare to me.
Regardless, I’m merely arguing that fewer players in the scoring zone would generate more of them.
A rule written to forbid kick-throughs and cherry picking would be fine, but the current rule is too draconian and spoils too many potentially exciting opportunities that don’t qualify as long-ball.
This is the argument, but it’s seems a fairly weak one. Hockey is constantly under pressure to loosen the offsides and icing rule because they encourage a ugly dump-and-run style of offense. In basketball there is no offsides rule and you don’t see them stationing a player next to the opposing goal.
I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to goalkeepers explicitly. They have gotten taller and more agile, one of the few positions where increasing size has a direct competitive impact.
If the court was the size of a football pitch you might do. :dubious:
I was actually pondering how effective such a strategy would be now that zone defenses are allowed. If you are able to put up a solid 4-man zone against 5 and force them into a 60% scoring percentage, and were able to get the ball down court to your cherry picker for a 61% success rate you’d win!
Would be interesting to see it attempted at the college level.
Sorry, meant to reply to this at the same time…don’t overlook the fact that while goalkeepers may have a few more inches, modern balls travel faster, and are easier to curl. And there’s a better understanding of the latter, too, with clubs and players able to exploit this in training.
Huh? I thought we were talking about football? 
(Seriously, I have no idea what this means!)
Actually, making the goal crossbar higher would have the effect of forcing teams to use taller keepers. After all, with a crossbar of 8’, Jorge Campos was a very effective goalkeeper. At, say 10’, not so much, I’m guessing.
The point GorillaMan was making earlier about larger goals is simple to follow: as it stands, the ability to score requires specialized talent. Those who do it consistently are easy to differentiate from those who don’t, because a skilled keeper can usually keep the unskilled from scoring. That someone like an Alan Shearer could put up the numbers he did regularly in the Premiership shows that he had an extraordinary talent.
Now, spread out the goal. Yes, more goals might be scored. But the ability to score in a given situation would be spread out to a wider grouping. Those who had true ability would still score more, but not to the same degree. Thus, widening the goal has the effect of cheapening the value of the great goal scorer.
And, once again, I am forced to ask: why is there any need for change at all? Football is as popular around the world as it has ever been. The clubs in the big European leagues are making money hand over fist. The value of the players is as great as ever. Attendance is up around the world. It’s only in America, where we emphasize scoring plays, that the issue even comes up with any real emphasis. In other words, you don’t fix something that ain’t broken… 
Personally, I look at it like this: in basketball, the highest scoring sport I know of, it’s almost not worth watching until the final 5 minutes or so. Scoring doesn’t really even seem to be worth celebrating - it’s more exciting to prevent the other team from scoring than doing so yourself.
A goal in football, on the other hand, can happen at any time and is something to get excited about *because *you don’t get that many per game and just one goal can put your team at such a tactical advantage over the opposition. In what other sport can one score change the face of a game entirely? Why cheapen that moment of glory as your team takes the lead for the sake of some bigger numbers?
I’m with GorillaMan and DSYoung. The laws of the game are just fine the way they are. The only thing that needs changing is the standard of officiating, and that doesn’t necessarily include adding video (though I do kind of like the idea of a tennis-style limited number of decision challenges, but only on calls that would stop the flow of the game anyway, such as possibly offside goals and penalties/fouls just outside the box)
I don’t see why you’d have to stop play. Let the play on the field continue while the coach makes his appeal and the play is reviewed. Then if it’s some sort of penalty they can call it in to the referee who can then issue the card required or even reverse the card previously issued. Even if it’s a goal that comes back why not allow the decision to be announced over the loud speakers as the players run around. Although I’d imagine you’d want to make sure any decision is made within a few minutes. Perhaps allow a designated person on the sidelines 30 seconds to ask for a review. Then the powers upstairs have 3 or 4 minutes to review the video and make a decision. Although I imagine the style of play would become more conservative while a review is being made but so what.
What I appreciate about watching American sports is watching a team build a victory. This makes me feel like the best team won the game. With soccer it doesn’t feel like there’s much building going on and that a team merely has to be lucky at the right time to win. The possibility of a score at any time makes the game feel random but watching a good basketball team ramp up their focus and put together an excellent 2 quarter then hold off their opponent is exciting to me. Although basketball is too fast for me as you don’t get time to really appreciate and enjoy the offense and defense. Baseball, football and volleyball are much more my style. It’s like the difference between watching people play poker and roulette. But different people enjoy different styles of play.
I think that’s a very important distinction. Football is at its best when it’s flowing, I’d hate to see anything done to affect that.
All I would say is that one needs to be very cautious when tinkering with the rules of any game or sport, even when there are good motives.
Take my favourite game, Mornington Crescent, for example. For many years there was a broad consensus that Rule 14 (annotated IMCS Rules, Standard Edition) concerning Non-consecutive Vowels on station names ‘featuring or referring to the possessive’ did not apply to ‘Gallions Reach’. After much lobbying, this consensus became part of the official rules as adjudicated by the IMCS Committee at the '94 European Invitational Championships in Lisbon (7 in favour, 1 dissenting, 1 abstaining). All well and good until the '96 Welsh Open and Auden’s controversial semi-final win over Grunhilde. Auden had worked out that the '94 revision meant that it became ‘legal’ to play a Reverse Fairlop with Motion Over Water provided he had previously made three moves or more on a line passing through an Acton. This surprising and ingenious discovery obviously made a mockery of the game, and meant the '94 verdict had to be rescinded. (Those interested can read a more exhaustive analysis of this decision and its implications by referring to Stemman & Jenks, ‘Famous MC Tournaments’, 2005, IMCS Press).
So, tread carefully, is all I’m saying.
Arsenal.
Back to the conversation…something else about the suggested larger goals: if the increased size of goalkeepers has caused the problem, it would be easily demonstrated that fewer goals are being scored than in the past. Anyone care to explain how this trend can be seen, say, in the FA Cup results?
Fern Forest: interesting idea, but I can forsee all sorts of complications if implemented to that extent, and ones which would affect the flow of the game. Firstly, several more contentious incidents could arise while one is being reviewed - are they all going to be looked at consecutively, with all the time aggregated if one is reversed? Another big problem would be disallowing a goal which might have been scored several minutes back. And not just a disputed one, but another during the ‘review period’. Big effect on the flow of the game. Finally, what about things that occur in the last few minutes - are you going to require otherwise-unnecessary additional time to continue for several minutes while the video is looked at?
Totally unworkable, in reality. Think about it: let’s say that the complaint is that a goal should be disallowed for violation of Law XI (Offside). The referee has awarded the goal, and the game is restarted in compliance with Law VIII (Start and restart of the game) by allowing the scored on team to kick off. Behind the scenes, an appeal is made that there was an offside violation, which should have nullified the apparent goal. The team that was scored upon, from the restart, builds up a quick striking effort, resulting in a play into the opponent’s penalty area, where the striker is taken down by a lunging fullback in a clear violation of Law XII (Fouls and misconduct). A penalty kick is awarded; meanwhile the striker has to be stretchered off with a torn ACL. Just as the penalty is scored, the review of the prior play determines that there was indeed a player in violation of the offside law on the previous “goal,” so the proper restart should have been an indirect free kick from the spot of the infraction. The penalty kick goal is removed from the board, as is the other goal, and the game goes back to where it was.
Now, quite apart from the total chaos that would reign in the stands, do we set the clock back, or do we keep it running and just consider the last few minutes to have been fruitless?
And what would you do if the contested officiating decision had occurred late in the game, or perhaps even in added time?
Even American sports recognize that, if you are going to have video replay, you have to stop the game and deal with the replay before continuing.
I’d say that’s not unusual for Americans, and it points out the main issue here: failure to grasp exactly what is going on on the field during good soccer play. While it is certainly true that the team that is doing less well can end up being “lucky” with a goal (usually called scoring “against the run of play”), most soccer consists of teams building a victory in exactly the same way that American football, baseball, basketball, etc. teams do. A person who knows their soccer can see this happening: the strategy choices, the tactics that are allowing better penetration, the superior ball-handling skills, the attack of a weak point in the other team’s defence (say by running the ball up the right side for crosses into the area, or a series of sharp diagonal passes intended to exploit a slow set of central fullbacks). Soccer scores aren’t really random; they just seem that way to people who haven’t played the game at higher levels (I mean at a level higher than most American high school teams ever reach, which is glorified kick and run), haven’t watched a lot of the game with proper, inciteful commentary, and don’t talk about it at the water cooler on Monday for hours.
Which, of course, is the meat of the matter. No one says Americans (or anyone, for that matter) have to love soccer. Indeed, many won’t, which is why it is silly to assume that it’s just a matter of time until the Beautiful Game intrudes sufficiently on American consciences to establish itself as a full player in the TV sports scene. But what does need to happen is for Americans who don’t appreciate the game the way it’s played to stop complaining about the rules and advocate a change to a more American style of game.
The way you word this sentence, your use of terms like “hide-bound” and “revamp,” suggest that soccer is in desperate need of changes, and that such changes are only prevented by stubborn and irrational inertia.
The question, though, is why they should consider changing the most widely and wildly popular team sport in the world, especially when the only people i’ve ever heard complain about the game in any numbers are North Americans. If the changes you suggest were likely to make their total fanbase happy and increase their overall audience, you might have a point, but it strikes me that any gains made by such radical changes would probably be offset by losses among disenchanted fans.
And i don’t think the gains would be significant anyway. For all that Americans talk about how they’d watch soccer if it were “more interesting” or “higher scoring” or whatever, the fact is that even if soccer was altered almost beyond recognition in ways designed to appeal to American audiences, it still probably wouldn’t become a serious challenger to baseball, basketball, and football (or to hockey in Canada, for that matter).
I’m not saying that you’re obliged to like soccer as it is. If you find it dull and boring, fair enough. Each to his own. But your implication that it somehow needs changing relies on a set of assumptions that are probably not shared by the majority of the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who watch soccer every week.
Exactly.
Dimensional changes could be made to almost any game in order to increase scoring. Make the basepaths in baseball 80 feet instead of 90, and it would have a huge effect on scoring. Far more hitters would beat out the throw to first base, turning double plays would become a rare feat, and scoring from second on a hard line drive to the outfield would become routine even for slow runners.
But that would change the very nature of the game itself, and would make baseball a fundamentally different game. Sure, the skills required to hit the ball or throw a wicked curve wouldn’t change, but the whole shape of the game itself would be radically different.
But the biggest issue i would have with such a change wouldn’t necessarily be the lower scoring, it would be the fact that adding another outfielder would radically change the structure and tempo of the game.
While the Designated Hitter has been probably the most controversial change in baseball in the last 50 years (maybe ever?), and i’m not a big fan of it, i also recognize that it didn’t really alter the appearance or general structure of the play on the field. There’s still a batter, a pitcher, a catcher, seven fielders, and 90-foot basepaths.
Sure, the DH changes the way games are managed (no more worried about whether or not to let the pitcher hit), and makes for a stronger offensive game. But for me, it’s a qualitatively different type of change than altering things like the basic dimensions of the playing area or the number of players on the field.