Now that there’s so much European soccer on US tv, and I watch pretty much all of it, I naturally start spotting offsides when watching the NBA or college basketball. I now feel like it would be an interesting game if basketball were played with soccer offside rules. Whaddya think?
I don’t know the intricacies of the soccer offside rule. How would it change basketball? Would it cut down on breakaways or fast breaks?
If so, no thanks.
There would be no cherry picking, because you wouldn’t be able to pass the ball to any offensive player who’s ahead of the last defender. There’s no goalie, so the rule would be just slightly different.
ETA: but this is just at the instant that the ball leaves the passer’s hand. The player receiving the pass could catch it well ahead of the last defensive player.
Okay, so about what I thought. Nope. What would be the appeal?
I would propose the opposite. Why doesn’t soccer get rid of the offsides rule?
It would ruin the game with more scoring.
I’ve always wished to see what the reverse would be like - soccer played WITHOUT the offside rule.
As a big sports fan but a casual soccer fan, I have never understood why the rule exists. Sports like basketball and Australian rules football have similar game mechanics to soccer, but don’t seem to suffer from a lack of an offside rule.
I think the rule was implemented because the game didn’t work as well without it.
Which should be obvious to anyone who actually watches soccer.
How is soccer different from basketball and Australian rules football, such that an offside rule is warranted in soccer, but not the other two?
You need an offside in soccer for the same reason you need a line of scrimmage in football, if you could just put your players anywhere they’d just camp the end zone and completely change the dynamic of the game. It would also not lead to more scoring as the teams would have to turn a lot more defensive in order to deal with the new rules.
Where can I go to get the authoritative answer on why the offside rule exists in soccer?
There’s very little less scoring possible in this game so what difference does it make?
You do realize Tripolar was being sarcastic, also wrong but mainly sarcastic.
To keep players from hanging out in front of the goal in an attempt to head in balls lobbed to them by their teammates. You’d have little but a dozen or so players hanging out in front of the goal.
As I understand it, the rest of the world is more “purist” and likes low-scoring games, while Americans like high-scoring shootouts.
But the offside rule prevents “camping.”
Soccer is low scoring with many non-scoring changes of possession. Thus, it makes sense for a player to camp out in order to take advantage of such a change in possession. The likelihood of success means the offense must take players off their side to defend against it. Not having soccer offsides would also change the way players space themselves on offense.
In basketball, it’s a high scoring game with few non-scoring changes in possession where offsides would make a difference. When there is a breakaway, it generally represents a high probability scoring opportunity vs. medium probability, netting perhaps 1 additional expected point per occurrence, against a normal score of around 100. Given the dynamics of the game, there is no camping out when on defense, so the lack of offsides does not appreciably impact game play.
Breakaways are also among the most entertaining plays in a game.
In the rather obvious comparison of basketball, the court is very small by comparison. The time and space granted to a player who tries to move ahead to the basket is minimal, and he’s easily covered. An offensive player passing the ball to a cherry-picker must also be precise; if the ball is loose at all, the opportunity’s going to be lost 99.9% of the time. The execution must be perfect or it won’t work. If the defender is guarded at all, it’s hard to sink a basket.
So, as we see in actual practice, basketball teams generally don’t try cherry picking as a strategy. It’s too easy to deal with.
In soccer, the absence of an offside rule means that cherry-picking would be a necessity; the pitch is large enough that the cherry-picker, sent the ball, will always have the time and space to arrange a shot with an incredible high chance of going in - and this being a sport where 1-0 and 2-1 games are the norm, that basically decides the game. Thus, game theory kicks in, and, holding a defender back to guard against the cherry-picker is absolutely necessary. So I send in a second cherry-picker, and you hold back tow defenders. So I send a third guy to just past midfield to be ready to break in to make it a 3-on-2 play, and you send back a midfielder to guard him…
Allowing offside play in soccer would therefore NOT result in fast breaks, it would just result in both teams being perpetually stretched out along the entire field. You’d never have more than four or five guys involved in the play wherever the ball was.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
As I understand it, the rest of the world is more “purist” and likes low-scoring games, while Americans like high-scoring shootouts.
[/QUOTE]
This is silly. The notion Americans like high-scoring games and the rest of the world does not is simply not supported by even a cursory examination of the facts. Americans do not like cricket, but many other nations do, a sport where scores go well into the hundreds and the batsman is likelier to succeed than fail (as opposed to the American equivalent, baseball, where the batter is likelier to fail.) Basketball is of course immensely internationally popular as well.
American sports are not overly high scoring aside from basketball. Baseball teams usually score just over four runs per game. Football teams do not engage in that many scoring plays, either; the scores look big because multiple points are awarded for most scores to reflect their relative importance. In the last Super Bowl there were a total of ten scoring plays, and that includes two extra points no one considers exciting.
No, the reason cherry-picking doesn’t work in basketball is because it has only five players and you need all five players to effectively defend the five attackers. If a team has a player just hang out under the other team’s basket, they’re letting the other team’s offense play five-on-four and giving up huge numbers of free points to them. In fact, they’d give up far more points due to being one defender short than they’d gain from the times they could pass to the cherry picker after a turnover.
In soccer, in contrast, there are far more people, and ten (or nine, if you don’t count the keeper) players can easily defend eleven (or ten) attackers without giving up much, while gaining a huge advantage from passing to the cherry picker [after all, that’s what teams do now, they just have to keep their cherry picker(s) at midfield].
In other words, the offside rule fixes a problem that basketball doesn’t have.
To be clear, the OP was more of a question of what an NBA game would be like if it was a rule, not really a rule change suggestion.
And come to think of it, while I trust the soccer gods who determined the current rules, when I picture a soccer game without the rule it doesn’t seem that bad. It would definitely be a different game, but not necessarily un-entertaining. I think the field would be wide open and much more spaced out, allowing good players more space to display individual skill. It wouldn’t be so easy to have 3 defenders attack Messi and make him pass.
You’d take away a lot of entertaining plays, like the outlet pass, the fast break, and finding a guy alone on the baseline in the corner. I’m not sure what you’d gain in return.
The basketball rule against cherry picking is the three second rule. I don’t think anything else is necessary.