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

Cafe Society
141

[QUOTE=bordelond]
I’m still curious about what Latin American fans think of games in which offside is called tightly. That’s gotta kill them … when they’ve got loads of great strikers that get nailed on close offside calls all game long. Do they ever get in snits about the reffing, which in turn leads into snits about the nature of the offisde rule?
[/QUOTE]

Well, not quite exactly on point to your question, but did anyone hear Messi (Argentine) crying like a girl after the Rangers-Barcelona Champion’s League match? He called Rangers style of play “negative football” or something like that.

It finished 0-0 and was one of my favorite matches of the year. Rangers bunkered down against Barca’s onslaught, carefully chose their moments to counter-attack, and if not for a few unlucky bounces, probably should have won the game despite being on the defensive for 85% of the match.

142

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
In basketball there is no offsides rule and you don’t see them stationing a player next to the opposing goal.
[/QUOTE]

Because that is against the rules, albeit with a different term for it.

143

[QUOTE=shelbo]
Many of the forwards that get consistently called for offsides all are older and slowing down (see Pavon, Carlos), and need to cheat a little to be able to get a step on the defender.
[/QUOTE]

I guess he’s not so good anymore (ever?) then.

144

Not really. Why would it? As Snarky_Kong says, they’re good at attacking play precisely because they can time their runs and through balls well. For another thing, they rely less on long balls over the top than (say) a lot of English sides, preferring instead to run at players more often, so offside is less of a hindrance. But again this is thinking backwards. The rules that require more skill (such as the timing of a run) actually benefit the top players, by making them stand out from the crowd. They should bemoan bad calls, certainly, but the offside rule is one of the things that make top forwards what they are.

It’s only a matter of feet anyway - as I said before, I don’t really think that changes that trivial are going to have much of an effect. If offsides are called a few feet more generously, then the players just adjust and it all evens out; they’re always going to be trying to hit the very limit of the rules, because that’s how you get an edge. So there will always be tight calls, and always debates about whether the ref called it correctly, because the best players are always pushing the limits.

145

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
You’re contradicting yourself here.
[/QUOTE]

How so?

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
More often than not, a team is able to score in a match. But that’s still the defence ‘winning’ too often?
[/QUOTE]

Can be. Do you really think allowing only 1 goal in a game is some great loss by a defense?

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Do you never want to see a team keep a clean sheet, or what? Every third piece of attacking play ending up with a goal? Because that would really make goals remain special, wouldn’t it :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Funny how hostile the soccer purists get.

I think an average of 4-5 goals a game would be a nice balance.

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
All the suggestions of major changes that have been proposed here involve rewarding less skillful players. If you can’t understand the explanations already given, then you need to accept that you don’t understand the game very well.
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that soccer is something of a zero sum game. If you make things easier for the attack, you make things harder for the defense rewarding more skillful defenders. Right now, we’re rewarded less skillful defenders. Is that what you want?

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Errrr, cite? Way back I posted a link to all the FA Cup final results, and there’s no trend downwards in the average score.
[/QUOTE]

Here are World Cup averages through 1998 (it’s hard to find these stats):

Pre 1960, you get around 4 goals/game. After, you never break 3.

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
It doesn’t happen often. And the striving for absolutely clinical accuracy and perfection isn’t familiar in sports outside of America. Shock and fluke results are part of the way we like things.
[/QUOTE]

Sure you do.

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
It’s not a dodge. It’s called an honest answer, but apparently that doesn’t count if it’s not the one you wanted to hear. As for your question, again, I don’t know. The score tells me who the winner was. That’s the purpose of keeping score. It’s not there to tell me how exciting the match was, that’s why you watch the match.
[/QUOTE]

C’mon, you’re weaseling out of answering. Do you think there are more exciting 0-0 than 3-2 games?

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
You haven’t demonstrated that skill isn’t already apparent (except maybe to you). And you haven’t demonstrated that increasing the scoring will make that skill more readily apparent.
[/QUOTE]

Well, common sense tells me that if you make it harder to prevent goals, the more skillful defenders will do more to stand out and get rewarded.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
You haven’t demonstrated that simply packing the box is a successful tactic.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve never seen this succeed? Seriously?

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
You haven’t suggested any way in which the game could be made “more open” without knock-on effects.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. I’ve admitted this from the beginning. But at least I try to keep an open mind about it. And I don’t mind when FIFA experiments (although doing so at the World Cup wasn’t the best idea). I think they could probably be a bit more aggressive on this front.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Whuh? An average of three goals a game in the Prem so far.
[/QUOTE]

Wow! :rolleyes: You do know there was a World Cup that averaged 5+ goals a game?

Oh, and there’s a world of soccer outside the EPL.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Is this really happening worryingly often?
[/QUOTE]

Worringly? I don’t particularly worry about. I enjoy the game as it is. Would I like to eliminate it if possible? Yes.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]

Think of this - the offside rule made scoring more difficult, and yet thereby forced players to be more skilful by eliminating a boring tactic that could be implemented by donkeys.
[/QUOTE]

Which is exactly what I’d like to see happen. Playing 10 men behind the ball is a “boring tactic that could be implemented by donkeys”.

Did offside really lead to fewer goals? I’ll take your word for that.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Augh!
[/QUOTE]

Relax dude.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
We do alter the game;
[/QUOTE]

I never claimed otherwise. I pointed out one change myself. But if you’re not arguing against change, isn’t this discussion pointless?

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
you’ve been (repeatedly) given two prime examples of rule changes that increased the levels of skill required to play the game, and in so doing made it better; one defensive, one attacking. Both of these changes were implemented in the right way: identify a specific tactic which is considered unaesthetic, and carefully attempt to eliminate it. That’s how it should be done.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. Have I argued any different?

What we do not do is put the cart before the horse and simply try whatever cockamamie idea comes into our heads on the offchance that it’ll mean we can read some bigger numbers. There needs to be some underlying rationale above and beyond the entirely inane and insupportable theory that “More Goals = Good”.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Can you actually name a specific tactic which you don’t enjoy watching, short of “defending well”? At this point, I very strongly doubt it.
[/QUOTE]

I believe I already have. Over & over.

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
This is what people are trying to elicit from you; any indication that you actually know and understand the game and have some real idea of what you’re trying to fix, as opposed to a superficial distaste because it’s just not wham-bang enough for you.

If you respond to any of my post, please respond to this last bit. It’s the crux of the matter, for me.
[/QUOTE]

You mean that condescending bit where you want me to prove my credentials to you? LOL. “Superficial distaste”? What crap. I’ve watched hundreds of games at all level. Played a bit too.

But what is more superficial than the reaction that you get from fans when they hear the criticism that “there’s not enough scoring”. “I’ve seen exciting 0-0 games!!!111”. Indeed.

Let’s me try a couple more questions:

What is the most exciting thing that can happen in a game?

Is it ever possible for the game to get too defensive?

146

As an American who plays and refs soccer, I can say that the offsides rule can be a pain.

Since I mainly ref at a low level, where crowds are small, I can listen for the ball being played forward, letting me keep a better eye on where the players are in relation.

The change that I’d like to see in soccer is better enforcement of the existing rules. Call players for cheating up on the wall after being positioned, and call the dives. I know refs don’t get the benefit of instant replay, and I don’t think they should, but it gets ridiculous some times.

I would like to see some trial matches with a fixed line ala hockey.

147

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
we seem to be concluding that actually, this 2-0 deficit which was cited as being too difficult to overcome in football is actually not that insurmountable, and that by contrast leads are pretty defensible in NFL.
[/QUOTE]

A questionable conclusion, based as it is on comparing a relatively small number of NFL games to an enormous number of soccer matches. It would be better to measure the proportion of 0-2s in soccer that were overturned by the trailing team, compared to the proportion of 28-point deficits (or whatever goal-to-point ratio) that were turned into a win in the NFL.

In other words, I am not convinced that mhendo has in fact shown that “coming back from a 2-0 deficit is much more common in soccer” (than coming back from a 28-point deficit in the NFL).

148

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
I believe I already have. Over & over.
[/quote]
Well, you are wrong. You have not. You have simply reiterated, “over and over”, your utterly inane suggestion that more goals would be better. And frankly, I don’t give a shit any more. I give up. Fuck it. Other people have been willing to suggest game alterations, and they’ve been answered with genuine interpretations of how their suggestions would affect the match. I’m just sick of countering this utterly insipid insistence that somehow the numbers just aren’t enough. It betrays an almost total incomprehension of what sport is, and what scoring’s purpose is. You have ignored every substantive point that has been put to you, and resorted instead to an utterly annoying insistence that we are somehow simply resistant to change, therefore you should be taken seriously. Well, sod that.

Show me how goalscoring could be increased without commensurately decreasing the spectacle of a goal, and I’ll listen. Otherwise, I simply don’t give a crap; not only do you not understand football, you don’t understand sport. I don’t give two hoots how many games you’ve watched or played. Hell, the England manager doesn’t know what game he’s playing, and he’s been at it all his life.

This bit betrays your entire wrong-headed outlook:

Why? For the love of God, why? Why would you want to guarantee a result? Isn’t the whole point of sport that there’s an even contest of talents? What the fuck is the point of defending if someone has decided that that’s not enough fun, and that defensive teams must automatically lose? What’s the point of attacking better, for that matter, if the times when you fail to win are being “eliminated if possible”? You haven’t answered a single one of these questions, though they’ve been posed almost incessantly. And I’ve had it. I don’t care what your answer is, because it just doesn’t matter. I’m more than happy to chat about the sport to people who apparently want to discuss openly, like bordelond, Quercus and Ellis Dee - but I’ve utterly had it with this mindless insistence that something is fundamentally wrong with the most popular game in the world. And you say we’re defensive? No shit! If I’d been banging on for three pages about how crappy NFL was because there were simply too many points, I’d expect to be getting ripped a new asshole. And yet despite addressing no specific game mechanic in football, you still seem affronted that people aren’t taking you seriously. It boggles the mind, it really does. And here, even, you manage to stumble across my ENTIRE BLOODY POINT, and yet STILL come away with the wrong idea:

YES! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING! But where you completely and utterly and quite unbelievably fail to get the point is that this NECESSARILY ENTAILS A DECREASE IN THE SKILL REQUIRED TO ATTACK. And you said you LIKE attack. You said you’re EXCITED by it. So why the haemorrhaging fuck would you want to make it more rubbish? Why, O God why, do you apparently want to make it possible for every dickhead who can lump the ball goalwards to score a bloody goal? Do you WANT to see the elimination of flair players from the game? Can you not SEE the ramifications of the change you demand? It would be funny, if it weren’t so utterly dispiriting. As it is, it makes me want to cry it’s so obvious, yet so utterly, profoundly opaque to you.

Darth Sensitive, I am entirely with you on set play encroachment and all that bollocks. Professional players have become entirely too good at playing the referee, and I want it stopped. Lump in crowding the ref, demanding the booking of opponents, the ludicrous territory stealing on throw-ins, and I’m right there with you. If I had my way, any player who demanded the carding of an opponent would be given precisely the punishment they demanded. Yellow card everyone who rushes the ref for a season - see how much they go screaming at him then. It’d be brilliant. Utterly brilliant, I tells yer.

Mods: while I am quite clearly annoyed, I have tried to ensure that my swearology is not directed specifically at other posters. If I have not succeeded, I apologise. If it’s too much for CS anyway, I likewise apologise, and will take it to the Pit if necessary.

149

[QUOTE=Usram]
In other words, I am not convinced that mhendo has in fact shown that “coming back from a 2-0 deficit is much more common in soccer” (than coming back from a 28-point deficit in the NFL).
[/QUOTE]
Well, no; neither am I. Nor, however, am I even slightly interested in the final outcome of this question. My point was that saying “2-0 is too difficult to come back from” is a statement so profoundly meaningless in its inception that one might as well say, “trouser syrup assaults fish heads nightly,” and pretend to have solved cold fusion.

And by God, I’m right.

150

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
C’mon, you’re weaseling out of answering. Do you think there are more exciting 0-0 than 3-2 games?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not fucking weaseling out of anything. I gave you an answer, which you didn’t like, but either because it might sink in the second time or because it’ll just piss you off more: NO, THE SCORE DOES NOT IN ITSELF TELL ME HOW EXCITING THE GAME WAS.
Jesus Christ, you want examples of exciting defensive games, try Liverpool losing to Barca 1-0 and still winning (it was this time last year, I think?). And the whole match being bloody fantastic because it was a tight close contest that could have changed at any one point.

151

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
My point was that saying “2-0 is too difficult to come back from” is a statement so profoundly meaningless in its inception that one might as well say, “trouser syrup assaults fish heads nightly,” and pretend to have solved cold fusion.
[/QUOTE]

I can understand the proposition “2-0 is too difficult to come back from” perfectly well. It seems to me to have meaning.

152

[QUOTE=Usram]
In other words, I am not convinced that mhendo has in fact shown that “coming back from a 2-0 deficit is much more common in soccer” (than coming back from a 28-point deficit in the NFL).
[/QUOTE]
As i noted above, teams have come back from a 28-point (or greater) deficit exactly twice in the whole history of the NFL. That’s over half a century.

How many comebacks from a 2-goal deficit would you need to see, in order to satisfy you?

Because i’ve found two Premier League games in the past two months in which teams have come back from a 2-goal deficit to tie the score. On October 1, Tottenham were down 4-1 to Aston Villa (that’s 3 goals), and the game ended 4-4. And on September 1, Fulham were down 2-0 and then 3-1 to Tottenham, and the game ended 3-3.

Go back a few months more, to the end of last season, April 28, and you’ll find a game where Everton went up 2-0 at home to Manchester United, and ended up losing 4-2. And a couple of months before that, on March 4, West Ham went up 2-0 over Tottenham, and ended up losing 4-3. Not only that, but after Tottenham tied the score 2-2, West Ham took the lead again with 5 minutes left, only to see Tottenham score 2 goals in the last two minutes.

That’s four games in well under one season, in one league.

You say that i compared “a relatively small number of NFL games to an enormous number of soccer matches.” Pop quiz: which of these numbers is larger:

a) the number of NFL games played in the whole history of the sport

b) the number of English Premier league games played since March 4, 2007

???

153

And in any case, it’s an entirely stupid question because of the crushingly moronic conclusion that’s being set up, should you give the answer being fished for.

Hey hey! What’s more exciting in NFL; a 13-10 mudfest, or a 53-47 TDfest? What’s that you say? The TDfest? Well then, let’s change NFL to ensure that’s what always happens! After all, you can legislate fun in Sporting Fantasyland! Simply increase the numbers, and everyone gets more excitement! That’s how it works, you see? If you can count it on your toes, it’s shit! Speaking of which, can you go buy me 15 more hotdogs?

Gah! God and bloody damn it, how has this “logic” from hell survived three pages on a board where ignorance is supposedly anathema?

It appears to have meaning on the face of it, but it is nonetheless utterly vacuous. The proposed remedy is that a higher lead should be required for the same likelihood of defending it. So let’s decrease the difficulty of scoring. But now we’ve decreased the difficulty of obtaining the lead in the first place. And now the team that obtained the 2-0 lead has probably got itself a 5-1 lead instead, and it’s just as difficult to overturn. And we’re back where we started, but with bigger numbers. How can we pick what is an entirely arbitrary deficit, and say it’s “too difficult” to overturn? What meaning can possibly be contained in such a statement?

I’ve said this so many times I’ve actually worn out certain keys on my keyboard. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about it. It’s as obvious as something that’s really obvious indeed that has been stapled to your forehead, along with a handheld mirror and a Guide To Reading Backwards For Dummies.

I’m sorry; I’m not annoyed at you, I’m just beginning to wonder whether I’m typing in Swahili or something.

154

[QUOTE=mhendo]
As i noted above, teams have come back from a 28-point (or greater) deficit exactly twice in the whole history of the NFL. That’s over half a century.

How many comebacks from a 2-goal deficit would you need to see, in order to satisfy you?

Because i’ve found two Premier League games in the past two months in which teams have come back from a 2-goal deficit to tie the score. On October 1, Tottenham were down 4-1 to Aston Villa (that’s 3 goals), and the game ended 4-4. And on September 1, Fulham were down 2-0 and then 3-1 to Tottenham, and the game ended 3-3.

Go back a few months more, to the end of last season, April 28, and you’ll find a game where Everton went up 2-0 at home to Manchester United, and ended up losing 4-2. And a couple of months before that, on March 4, West Ham went up 2-0 over Tottenham, and ended up losing 4-3. Not only that, but after Tottenham tied the score 2-2, West Ham took the lead again with 5 minutes left, only to see Tottenham score 2 goals in the last two minutes.

That’s four games in well under one season, in one league.

You say that i compared “a relatively small number of NFL games to an enormous number of soccer matches.” Pop quiz: which of these numbers is larger:

a) the number of NFL games played in the whole history of the sport

b) the number of English Premier league games played since March 4, 2007

???
[/QUOTE]

OK, sorry. Now I am convinced. Although, does it explain somewhere in this thread why we decided that one goal = two touchdowns?

155

[QUOTE=Usram]
OK, sorry. Now I am convinced. Although, does it explain somewhere in this thread why we decided that one goal = two touchdowns?
[/QUOTE]
Well, let me say first that i agree with Dead Badger that all these attempts to compare the relative value of goals and touchdowns is a rather pointless exercise. The two games are so different in so many ways that trying to find perfect congruence between them in terms of score values is completely nonsensical.

That said, the reason i came to the conclusion that 1 goal might be roughly equal to 2 touchdowns is that this season the English Premier League (a limited sample size, i know) has averaged about 3 goals per game, and the NFL has averaged about 42 points (or 6 converted touchdowns) per game.

As Snarky_Kong pointed out, though, that’s not an entirely fair comparison, given that it’s much easier in the NFL than in soccer to keep the ball away from the other team, and thus probably harder to come back late in the game from a deficit.

Anyway, this all ends up going in circles. Comparing the scores themselves is essentially pointless; in the end, it’s just going to come down to whether you think the game is exciting, or it’s not. Suggesting some tweaks to improve the game as it stands is fine, but some folks seem to want to turn it into a fundamentally different game, and also argue that the refusal of fans to countenance such radical changes is nothing more than hide-bound stubbornness.

156

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
The proposed remedy is that a higher lead should be required for the same likelihood of defending it. So let’s decrease the difficulty of scoring. But now we’ve decreased the difficulty of obtaining the lead in the first place. And now the team that obtained the 2-0 lead has probably got itself a 5-1 lead instead, and it’s just as difficult to overturn. And we’re back where we started, but with bigger numbers. How can we pick what is an entirely arbitrary deficit, and say it’s “too difficult” to overturn? What meaning can possibly be contained in such a statement?

I’ve said this so many times I’ve actually worn out certain keys on my keyboard. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about it. It’s as obvious as something that’s really obvious indeed that has been stapled to your forehead, along with a handheld mirror and a Guide To Reading Backwards For Dummies.

I’m sorry; I’m not annoyed at you, I’m just beginning to wonder whether I’m typing in Swahili or something.
[/QUOTE]

I think the idea is that by increasing the granularity of the scoring, you iron out some of the arbitrariness of soccer’s scoring. Goals/baskets/runs/touchdowns/tries often happen by luck as much as judgment. A sport in which scores are less likely to happen is therefore more prone to unfair results. I realise that non-granular scoring has its advantages when it comes to excitement, sudden changes of fortune etc.

157

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
Would taking 1-2 players off of each soccer team “fundamentally alter the game”?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.

Some Americans are always hootin’ and hollerin’ about changing a game that most Americans don’t understand or care about anyway. If you don’t like the game the way it is just go watch some baseball or *Judge Judy *or Maury or whatever.

The world doesn’t need to change soccer to suit American’s needs. Soccer isn’t Iraq. Besides, about the only rule change in soccer that would satisfy Americans microscopic attention span and their “win or lose at any cost! If you’re not with us you’re against us!” mentality would be to eliminate the first two halves and extra-time of knock-out round play and go directly to the Kicks from the Penalty Mark. That’s the kind of black-and-white simplicity that the American mind thirsts for!!

To the “rah-rah, ties are like kissin’ your sister!” chumps who don’t get it I say: l just leave the Beautiful Game alone. Go back to your Velveeta cheese and Wonder Bread. The game is a taste not recognized by your palettes.

158

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
To the “rah-rah, ties are like kissin’ your sister!” chumps who don’t get it I say: l just leave the Beautiful Game alone. Go back to your Velveeta cheese and Wonder Bread. The game is a taste not recognized by your palettes.
[/QUOTE]
Way to make me hate Europeans. Nicely done.

This is an excellent point, and I was thinking about that very 13-10 mudfest in the context of this thread just this morning.

I am a fan of defense; any game where it’s all offense all the time offends me on a visceral level. The two greatest (NFL) games I’ve ever seen ended 15-13 and 20-19. The worst game I ever saw was the puntless debacle in Kansas City a few years ago.

But that Giants-Dolphins snoozefest last Sunday was probably the worst game that will be played in the NFL all season. (A season has 256 games.) The difference between “low scoring because of good defense” and “low scoring because of inept offense” is vast.

I have no idea which category soccer falls under.

159

However - I got the impression from the Giants - Dolphins game that many Brits aren’t in favor of just running the clock out. I enjoyed hearing them boo the Giants as they took a knee.

160

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
I enjoyed hearing them boo the Giants as they took a knee.
[/QUOTE]
That was as ignorant as any idea proposed in this thread to change soccer.

Even moreso if you factor in the Miracle at the Meadowlands.