Would basketball "work" with soccer offside rules?

The Game Room
21

Im one of those who thinks the offside rule in soccer is a silly rule with roots going back to a different game in the 19th century.

I get you need rules to protect the goaltender, but if a manager is stupid enough to put 10 players in the box on a play, and allow the goaltender to boot it to them hoping for a pooch goal, surely this strategy will fail when one of the 10 defenders steals the ball and runs it down the field to score a one on one goal.

As a result, after a few 11-10 defeats, the stupid manager will discover that more evenly spreading out his players on the pitch will be a sounder strategy, as well as the other manager.

I get theres a fear both teams will plant 2 or 3 strikers in the penalty area and keep punting the ball to them for an easy goal, but why not let the economics of pitch management work that out over time?

I cant STAND when a great goal has to be called back because the linesman raises his flag. This is soccer, not the NFL!

As for the whole “cherrypicking” argument, so what? If that is what pure soccer is supposed to be, let the game evolve!

22

As for basketball, Id say the same thing even mores: the court is so small, it was never a game meant for offside rules. Again, its a sport who strategists have worked out how to deal with big men camping out under the basket (and Id be OK with a compromise of soccer players only being allowed, lets say 10 seconds in the box, or 1-2 in the box before the ball gets to a certain point near the goal)

23

I could actually see soccer working fine without offsides. It changes the game of course, potentially changing the spacing and taking a couple of players out of the action, but that’s not necessarily ruinous. It allows for some risk taking, do you cover cherry pickers 1-1 or play a man up on offense?

It also changes defensive strategy requiring a ‘get your ass back’ mentality, vs being able to trust that there are no offensive players behind you who can legally make a play. It also changes offensive strategy to a ‘get and go’, where change of possession immediately suggests the ability for a breakaway. Even if you’re not cherry picking, when your guy gets the ball, you get your ass moving to accept a pass. It has the potential to be thrilling, and the potential to result in a LOT of long bad passes that ruin the flow of the game.

24

Completely disagree.

Due to the size of the pitch and the ease of turnovers the game would become utterly zonal, with each position having a zone that they would rarely leave.

That’d be a game with a ball kicked by the feet, but it wouldn’t be football.

25

I’m not seeing the problem. The players can’t all be in the center of the field, stuck in zones, and camping around the goal at the same time. If it’s been tried and the game got worse (I can’t imagine how it could) then fine, but I can’t believe players can’t develop new strategies to deal with it. And that doesn’t work start changing other rules until the ball starts going into the net more often. If you want to leave all the other rules make the cage bigger.

26

Most people grow up playing informal games with officials. They’ve seen what the game can be like without the offside.

27

But anyway, no ones is going to professionally formally try it as it is such a fundamental change to the game, a game that is played everywhere using the same rules, that you’d screw your national team and national league by playing what is a different game.

And I’m sorry but you not seeing the problem shows how little you know about the game, how leagues are structured internationally and, frankly, a myriad of other things about the game.

Basketball: why don’t they let you run with the ball everywhere?
American Football: why don’t they let you stand anywhere on the field at the snap?
Ice Hockey: why don’t they let you pick the puck up and hit it it?
Cricket: why do they have lbw?

Just a few examples. The answer is ‘the game would be worse that way’ and if you don’t understand why you simply don’t understand the game.

28

Oh and there were trials of removing the offside from set pieces, a much smaller change, and even that was deemed a bad idea.
http://twohundredpercent.net/six-of-the-worst-footballs-failed-rule-change-experiments/

29

I am of this opinion as well. The lack of offsides would be a self-solving problem.

BTW, is there any soccer league in the world that doesn’t use offside?

30

Any rule change in any sport could be adjusted to strategically. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

31

Jackknifed Juggernaut - Okay, I kinda get where you’re coming from, but there are some fundamental things you need to know about basketball.

  1. It’s fast-paced.
  2. Transitions can happen very quickly.
  3. The court is much, much smaller than a soccer field (and the effect is even more dramatic when you consider the relative sizes of the players).
  4. Fans actually like frequent scoring.

If you watch an entire soccer game on pretty much any level, one thing that really stands out is how slow and methodical it is. Work up the field, frequent side- and back-passes, an occasional challenge, and if the ball doesn’t go out of bounds the attacker sets up a shot, and may or may not get it off. Football is kind of like that too, but nearly every game has its share of big plays and dramatic turnarounds…the 50-yard bomb, the pick six, the huge kickoff return, the blocked punt. (In fact, this is one of the biggest problems college stars like Reggie Bush and Johnny Manziel face entering the NFL, having to break out of the big play mentality and learn how to steadily work down the field.) Aside from the rare blooper reel highlight, this is unheard of in soccer. Ever notice that whenever someone blasts the ball downfield, 9 times out of it 10 it just comes right back? Soccer is a sport where scoring is extremely difficult, extremely rare, and astounding amount of work, and that’s how they like it. So of course you need something like offsides to prevent any easy shots on goal. Personally, I think the rule as it exists lends itself to way too much chickenscratch defensive playcalling, and the sport would be much better served by drawing a line…y’know, like hockey’s done for its entire existence and I don’t recall anyone complaining about it…but I can understand the need for some kind of restraint.

In a basketball game, things move, and things change. Repeatedly, constantly, rapidly. There are plenty of things that can lead to a quick score: a downcourt pass being picked up, a defender leaving the space beneath the basket open, a lost dribble, an offensive rebound. And then there are free throws, which give an opportunity for a player to score completely unopposed. This isn’t considered a bad thing because both teams get the same opportunities and one score isn’t going to drastically change the outcome of the game. In fact, the entire evolution of the game up to at least the 90’s has been an increasing emphasis on scoring and more leeway given to the offense. Think of all the big rule changes. Goaltending. The back pass violation. The 10-second violation. The shot clock. Dunking being legalized. The 3-point arc. Illegal defenses. Hand checking being outlawed. All to make the game faster, more fluid, more offense-minded…y’know, more exciting.

So not only would an offsides rule in basketball be just about unenforcable due to all the transitions and movement, if you ask me, it’s completely pointless. Camping under the basket was effectively kiboshed by the 3 second violation, and playing 4 against 5 is just too much of a disadvantage for most teams to consider int he first place. The key to the fast break isn’t a “cherry-picker”, its someone fast enough to outrun the defenders and get to the basket first, and with sure enough hands to grab the downcourt pass on the run.

32

There would be about 15-20 offsides calls in basketball per game. Fans would mutiny.

33

It would effectively eliminate the Alley Oop. Not worth it.

34

Oddly enough, noted terrible owner Vivek Ranadive of the Kings wanted to use cherry picking as a strategy.

His coaches have dissuaded him thus far.

35

That’s an odd example. I would think you’d have said “Why don’t you remove offsides?”

36

I was trying to find different examples but still game changing. This was inspired by making it more like hurling.

37

While he certainly hasn’t been successful in the NBA, much of his personal success in other areas of his life are based on counter intuition. He was featured in a Gladwell book. Good article about him here: How David Beats Goliath | The New Yorker

Problem is, there’s no guarantee that any of this is transferable to the NBA.

38

As has been kind of alluded to but not explicitly stated, hockey has an offside rule too, and for exactly the same reason as soccer. So does lacrosse, for that matter. It’s quite common among that genre of sport. In football, the line of scrimmage is the same idea.

The reason is that without the rule forwards would stay near the opposing goal and deflect shots straight into the goal.

Basketball has certain features that make this problem go away. But it is rather the exceptional sport as far as this is concerned.

39

I still don’t see why soccer couldn’t have a rule like hockey and the blue line instead of this floating line system.

40

If there were a desire to “fix” the offsides “problem” (I don’t know enough about the sport to have an opinion either way), I would think the first thing to try would be a static blue line like hockey.