Huh, I missed that. (I’m supposed to be working). So Tunisia acquitted themselves pretty well, finishing 1-1-1.
To think that…it’s possible Germany will finish at the bottom of its group for two consecutive World Cups. Strange world.
Not as strange as Italy missing two consecutive World Cups, tbh.
Frankly, I don’t know what’s worse, failing to qualify or being demolished in the group stage. Germany qualified for every WC since 1954, but not making the knock-outs also is a big disgrace. We’ll see tomorrow.
That is a very readable link, thank you!
And again it leads to the Shame of Gijón…
Failing to qualify, I think. USA missed the last one and it was honestly very embarrassing. I see Italy has not qualified for this and really anyone in the tournament has made it past them.
The Gijón newspaper printed the match report in its crime section.
That was good. Just my kind of subtle humour.
Also if you qualify you can dream at least until the first match, if you don’t… it’s all sadness for 4 years.
[Should…shouldn’t…should…shouldn’t…should…shouldn’t…ah, screw it. 
]
Re. the Video Assistant Referee. I definitely see the reasoning behind it…so many bogus fouls, goals called back that shouldn’t have, blatant flops being rewarded, ticky-tack yellows, attempted murder non-yellows, and on, and on. It’s not a perfect solution, of course, but it solves the problem of one official having way too much power and zero accountability and introduces a 100% impartial element that will help in getting more consistent rulings. I’m a little surprised that it got implemented, given that the prevailing attitude behind soccer is “Everything is perfect as it is and anyone who doesn’t like it can pound sand” (and let’s not even get into FIFA), but now that it is, I think that it’s here to stay. Per my usual procedure, I’m going to be cautiously optimistic for now and adjust my POV based on later developments.
Now then, re. offside. I’ve asked this before, definitely more than once, and never got a response. I will try one more time. Ahem. Just to be clear, I still don’t understand why the sport needs all these measures to make it virtually impossible to score. Look, I can appreciate a sport where it’s difficult to score, like hockey or wrestling or cornhole, but not one where putting one point on the board is a miracle of miracles. I guess I could see it having some benefit at the youth level, so you don’t get runaway scores, but there’s no reason the children’s leagues can’t have different rules than the professional level like in any other sport. But fine. I’m not going to fight it anymore. Offense bad, long passes bad, keeping defenders honest bad, using the whole field bad. I give up. You all win.
That said, where is the logic in offside being determined by the defender’s position? I’m not even going to touch all the atom-splitting over which hundredth-of-body-part or blade of glass is supposed to determine what, I just cannot understand how letting the player determine the violation makes any sense whatsoever. Even worse, this leads to shenanigans like the “offside trap” becoming not only viable but fundamental defensive strategy. In football, if the defender “traps” an opponent into jumping offside, that’s called neutral zone infraction and the defender is not rewarded. I can’t imagine any respectable league where “You’re-good-oops-psyche-no-you’re-not” would get tolerated for more than a season.
So why doesn’t soccer do the incredibly simple, natural, obvious thing and draw a line? Heck, there’s a midfield line, sidelines, goal lines, penalty box lines, and even corner kick lines, so it’s not like the sport has some ingrained opposition to geometry. Hockey has used lines to determine offside for its entire existence and I don’t recall anyone having a problem with it. No amount of shucking or shimmying or jiving or hotfooting is going to move that blue line a micron, which means that the defender actually has to defend, and that’s how everyone likes it. A definite line would also be much easier to set up a camera over and make the VAR’s job all the easier.
Good on our boys for never giving up and making it out of round robin, though this is where the ride generally ends and I have no reason to believe that won’t be the case here. Good on Argentina for springing back from that shocking opener loss…that’s starting to become a trademark for them. I’ll celebrate along with everyone else if Messi finally gets his ring. Germany has been the most consistently oh-so-close team for ages and is now seemingly feast or famine every time, dunno why. France has betrayed vulnerability, but don’t count the champ out until he really is out. South Korea is about to be dismayed to learn that, yes, the party is still over. Qatar did exactly as well as expected.
You kicked that strawman’s ass.
I have no interest in kicking anything’s…anything here. I just want to know why offside in soccer wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) work with a line.
The midfield line is also an offside line.
MLS used a 30 yard (I think) line for a handful of years. People didn’t like it.
I’m not sure an offsides line would work in soccer the same way it does in hockey. Hockey players move fast and turn on a dime, so the player with the puck can avoid defenders and skate into the offensive zone. Failing that, they can just hit the puck into the zone and hope a teammate gets to it as it slides along the boards.
If there was a blue line in soccer, I think the defenders would just closely mark any offensive player close to the line. If it’s hard to bring the ball into the offensive zone, it’s going to be even harder to score.
Second worst German team of the modern era.
The worst was the 2002 side.
Both reached the final, regardless.
I will always be shocked that a side where Gerald Asamoah was marking…Ronaldo, got to a final.
Its only offside if the player is offside at the moment the ball is played. There is a solution to the said trap. Have a forward who can “hang off the shoulder” of the last defender, ie remain just on-side. In the Saudi-Argentina game, the Argentines tried that, but they failed since they didn’t have any forward taller than 5’8 and no one who could deliver accurate long balls.
And as everyone else has pointe out, soccer does have a offsides line, you cannot be offisides in your own half.
Good!
Each team has one side of the field, the limit is the line in the middle. Each team gets more space to attack, and this is done dynamically: the ball the attacking player has under control increases that space for the other attacking players without the ball. As the defenders are going to position themselves between the ball controlling attacker and the goal (if they can, in a counter attack that may not be possible), the rule is that two defenders increase that space available for an attacker without ball. One of those defenders is usually the goal keeper, thus the VAR draws those lines on the position of the last defender, but this is not always the case, as was seen in the first goal of the tournament, the one not conceded for Ecuador against Qatar.
The idea is that one team should not just leave one attacker lingering around the penalty kick point while the other team is attacking, so that a simple long pass could leave him alone in front of the goalie with no defender to assist. That would make football tactically boring.
The idea is also that football becomes a low scoring sport, so that an outsider (see Saudi Arabia) has a little chance against a favourite (Argentina). Otherwise, football being a relatively slow sport (how else could you play for 90 minutes on that enormous field?) with lots of space and few interruptions, without the off-side rule the better team would always win. It would become boring again, like basket, where the better team has an enormous advantage , only even more so.
It does, in the middle of the field. And then it does it again, dynamically, for which you need some sense of the game and a little capacity for abstraction. You could get this with practice, if you wanted.
But hockey is a completely different game. For starters, it is extremely fast. A dynamical off-side rule woud not work against an attacker that comes after a fast ball with some speed. A dynamical off-side rule allows a standing defender in football to have a chance against a running attacker. If an attacker can control the ball and run with it without losing pace (see Messi, for instance) he is considered great and is a joy to behold. But usually the defender has a chance, and that is based on a principle of fairness. And that, I am afraid, is the element you don’t recognize in football. And I fear I have not explained it well enough to make you understand what I mean, have I? Aw, shucks!
Nitpick: There are no rings in football, except perhaps the rings he runs around some defenders and the one he wears when not playing because he is married. The winners will get a cup for the team, a cup they will have to return in four years time. They will also get a medal each, that one they may keep, and a luke-warm sweaty handshake from Gianni Mafiantino personally.
It’s not hard. No offside means strikers just stand next to the goal the whole game, and get balls lobbed at them. It’s Very Boring. That’s it. This is a game of skill, it’s what makes the game exciting. You have to trust everyone on this.
Without offside the game would be more defensive and static.
Strikers would camp out in the opponents’ box, tying up 1 or more defenders, the whole midfield would become flyover country. They’d use less of the field.
I dislike the current implementation as well, but that doesn’t mean the rule is bad.
(I would prefer something that favors the attacker slightly more and is possible for players on the pitch to see: your head has to be completely past the head of the last defender, I hate that now your toes can be offside: how is a human on the pitch supposed to see that?)
So David will not start for Canada, and Eustáquio is unavailable also. Kaye starting makes me nervous.