PDA

View Full Version : The Offside Rule = Stupid



Imperator X
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 10:20 PM
I have been watching the world cup and here are the few observations I have made as a yank in America.

I personally usually do not root for the US except perhaps, out of pity. I primarily root for my ancestral countries which qualified, seeing as Ireland didn't make it, this means England and Germany, and to a lesser extent Holland.

I was watching the Germany - Poland match today and one of the rules of football I cannot stand is the offside penalty. I had to sit through 90 minutes w/o any scoring! (until stoppage time, when Germany won, thank God) There would have been many more opportunities if the damned offside rule didn't exist. Why is it illegal? Because perhaps it would make the game a little more exciting? What the Hell difference does it make which angle a player strikes from?

And why the hell is it illegal to be in front of the defender when receiving a pass on a drive towards the goal? If the defender doesn't want him in front, be quick and don't allow him to be! I thought that is what sport is all about.

Other gravamans I have with the game's rules.

Why the Hell did Odonkor's goal not count? The ball was still live.
Also, I don't care if it's a friendly or a normal group game, or the championship. People paid damn good money, the people should be awarded after having to sit through a game where the ball goes back and forth tediously for 90 minutes and then the score is 0-0. If it is a tie, and especially if it ends 0-0, there should be penalty kicks, always, no exceptions.

I would like to get this cleared up as to why these stupid rules exist.

Galaico
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 10:59 PM
If it wasn't for the offside, the centreforward would spend all the match next to the rival's goal waiting for long passes, and deffenders next to him, the middle pitch would disappear and with it all the interesting and beautiful moves.

Why the Hell did Odonkor's goal not count? The ball was still live.
A previous offside.

I understand you may find football boring as it is much less offensive than American football, but f.e. I find really boring American football, being stopped the match all the time, changing from attack to deffense depending on the move.

I think the match was really exciting, Germany almost did the impossible to win the match, and after numerous opportunities, it obtained its reward. Congratulations Germany!

Imperator X
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 11:24 PM
If it wasn't for the offside, the centreforward would spend all the match next to the rival's goal waiting for long passes, and deffenders next to him, the middle pitch would disappear and with it all the interesting and beautiful moves.

A previous offside.

It still sucks. And offside takes away more interesting and beautiful moves, not to mention GOALS than not allowing them.

Consider the Following article.

OFFSIDE: WHO NEEDS IT? - October 1996

Here's a quick quiz for you. What's the most revolting sight in football? Is it a cynical professional foul, committed by a thuggish clodhopping centre-half on a mercurial winger bearing down on goal? Is it, perhaps, fully-grown men spitting petulantly at each other like witless schoolboys? Is it Steve Bruce? Or is it, in fact, the flat, hit-by-a-bus face of Tony Adams as he moans plaintively towards the referee, arm raised in a neo-Hitler salute, the craven cry of the defeated: "Offside!"?
If you said anything other than the last one, of course, you're wrong. What could possibly be more contrary to the whole spirit of the best game in the world than the offside rule? What could possibly be the excuse for more injustices, more shattered dreams, more cynical play and more gutless whinging than the offside rule? And yet, despite years of tinkering gratuitously with the very building blocks of the game (right down to the size of the goals, for Pete's sake) what could be a more inexplicable omission from FIFA's ever-growing list of pointless rule changes than the offside rule? I'm buggered if I know.
EH? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE OFFSIDE RULE?
Here's what's wrong with the offside rule. Football is, I'm sure we're all agreed, the best game in the world. One of the major reasons it's the best game in the world is that, essentially, there are only three rules - kick the ball into the net, don't use your arms, don't beat up the other players. Anyone can understand football in seconds, which is why it's so universally played and loved.
Offside sits about as comfortably with this notion as Paul Gascoigne at the opera. It's artificial, unnatural, and technical. It encourages cynical, defensive play at the expense of fast-moving, end-to-end all-out attacking (and I presume no-one's going to tell me they fell in love with football after seeing a particularly well-worked offside trap at Highbury when they were six). Its roots lie in the most pitiful childish it's-my-ball-so-you-have-to-let-me-win whining - "Aw ref, he's three inches closer to our goal line than we are. That's cheating. Please, make him come back. We can't run as fast as him."
And it's impractical, too - how many times in your life would you estimate you've seen an offside decision given (or not given) which was then proved by TV evidence (or whatever) to be incorrect? A hundred? A thousand? Let's say, conservatively, that there are just two wrong calls in an average match - you do the sums. It's an absolute nightmare for officials - by the rule's very nature, they have to be watching three things at once; the potential offside victim, the defence, and the bloke who's actually kicking the ball (not to mention the rest of the game). If those three things are more than about 15 yards apart, only a crow could actually do the job properly. Every wrong offside call drives a nail through the very heart of the game - what's the point in playing skilfully if some outside force (sheer chance, basically) is going to screw it all up for you? What's the point?
The answer is, clearly, that there isn't one. Offside is for cheats and losers. If you want to see how it really fits in with the true spirit of football, try it in a playground game and see how far you get before a gang of angry little boys chases you out into the street, their jeers of derision ringing in your reddened ears. But for the sake of democracy, let's examine the arguments in a fair and rational way.
REASONS TO KEEP THE OFFSIDE RULE
(and why you should be watching some other game if you adhere to them)
1. "Ah, but it stops goalhanging."
Right. I see. You don't like goals, then? Why not bugger off to Eton and watch THE WALL GAME (bizarre, brutal toff's game involving a giant scrum against a wall, and much shoeing), then? I believe no-one's actually scored in that since about 1891 (true). The goalhanging argument is rubbish - if a forward spends the whole game loitering, his team are a man short in the rest of the pitch, which hardly gives them an advantage. And anyway, even if it did, all the defence has to do is put a defender on him and man-mark - advantage cancelled.
2. "Ah, but it stops the ball just being continually punted back and forth over the midfield for the whole game."
Don't be stupid. You've still got far more chance of getting the ball usefully to a forward by close-control, passing play up the pitch than by hoofing it 70 yards in his general direction and hoping for the best. And even if there are a couple of forwards goalhanging (with attendant defenders), that's just going to make more space in the centre of the pitch for the rest of the players, preventing the appallingly dull 20-man midfield stalemates we still see far too many of. If midfield stalemates are your bag, it's AMERICAN FOOTBALL for you, matey.
3. "Ah, but it all evens out over the course of a season."
Oh, what, and that makes it alright, does it? The fact that two games get decided by an unfortunate mistake by the referee instead of one? (Even assuming that the statement isn't patent statistical bollocks in the first place, which it is.) Why not just TOSS A COIN at the start and have done with all that tedious football-playing business altogether? And anyway, that argument's a fat lot of use if it happens to you in the Cup Final, isn't it?
4. "Ah, but controversial offsides make the game more exciting."
Oh dear. I think you've taken a wrong turn on the way to the WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION show, son. Football's supposed to be about what the players do, not whether the referee cocks up or not.

You see? You're all wrong. Offside is an entirely negative aspect of the game, adding nothing to the game and taking away much of what makes it great. You want proof with that? No problem.

TOP SIX THINGS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED BY THE OFFSIDE RULE
1. Breaking up the flow of the game, stopping the build-up of excitement and momentum.
2. Cancelling out the difference between skilful players and crap ones, by handicapping fast-moving attackers with a purely defence-orientated rule.
3. Creating more 0-0 draws. Cheers.
4. Providing more opportunity for time-wasting via free kicks.
5. Provoking riots among fans who've just seen a perfectly good match-winning goal chalked off/illegal match-losing goal allowed.
6. Tony Adams.
"Now it's all very well and easy to criticise. What about some constructive suggestions?" That's what you might be saying at this point. But you can shut it, right, because I've got that one covered as well. Basically, there are only three options as far as offside goes - keep it as it is, throw it out altogether, or change the boundaries at which it operates. (All the other variables - number of defenders, being in front of or level with the last man, interfering with play or not - have been fiddled with already). Most of them have already been tried out by FIFA somewhere, with limited success. There's only one option which hasn't had a fair crack of the whip. Can you guess what it is yet?
TOP FIVE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESENT OFFSIDE RULE
NO OFFSIDE WHEN THE BALL IS KICKED FROM YOUR OWN HALF - This one was tried out in the League Of Wales a few years back, where it caused unfettered chaos and confusion. It's a reasonable theory, except that (a) it actually encourages the tedious big punt from defence, and (b) it's an impossible nightmare for linesmen, who have to be continuously watching half the pitch at once.
NO OFFSIDE IN THE LAST THIRD OF THE PITCH - If our memory serves us correctly, this was the system operated by the ill-fated NASL in the USA, where a line was drawn 35 yards from each goal-line (the line was also used in their innovative version of a penalty shoot-out), outside which you couldn't be offside. The main drawback here is the drawing of ungainly new lines on the field (the design of which has remained unchanged practically since the game's inception), and the fact that it's an even more artificial addition to an already-artificial and unnatural rule.
NO OFFSIDE IF YOU PLAY FOR RANGERS - This system has been undergoing a trial period in Scotland for the last 105 years, although the SFA are still "collating information" before deciding whether to expand the plan to include other teams.
NO OFFSIDE OUTSIDE THE PENALTY AREA - The most obvious option if you really want to keep the offside rule in operation. It's comparatively easy to police (the lines are there already), and it doesn't encourage goalhanging, in as much as that if you're in what's (today) an offside position, but still outside the penalty area, you've still in all probability got quite a bit to do to get the ball into the net. (A variant on this rule was tried during the Anglo-Italian Cup (the offside line there being an imaginary extension from the corners of the 18-yard box to the touchline), but the lack of pitch markings made it difficult to execute properly.)
NO OFFSIDE AT ALL - It's THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION. Otherwise, why don't you just piss off and watch basketball or something?So there, quite conclusively, you have it. Offside is crap, and has been scientifically proven to be Killing Football. It's GOT TO GO. You can bluster and complain all you want, but next time YOUR team gets knocked out of the FA Cup by some useless Vauxhall Conference outfit playing nine at the back, offside trap and breakaway goal in the 89th minute of a coma-inducing slog through a mudpile of a pitch in January, don't come running to me, alright? YOU'RE the one who wanted it that way.


From http:theworldofstuart.excellentcontent.c om

Graumahd
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Im just fucking glad that we won!

It was a very exciting game, though the decisions of the referee were more than strange.


But however, Germany continues its road to be the champ :D

Galaico
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 11:32 PM
It is an interesting and funny point of view, but I could not assimilate football without offside, and if you like this sport you accept and like that rule. Offside is part of football, without it, it wouldn't be football anymore.

Sigurd Volsung
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 11:44 PM
If there was no offside rule, then you would be left with "goal hangers" (those who loiter around the box, waiting for a ball to fall into their path). Although it would be exciting to see a lot more goals, the whole meaning of football would be diminished, as, especially at this World Cup tournament, a lot of determination and teamwork is needed to score. It would just seem like scoring a goal would be effortless without this rule, and, although the amount of goals would be plentiful, it would gradually get dull to watch so many goals fly in (sounds like basketball to me, haha).

Honestly, there isn't many feelings that a football fan can have better than when a long-awaited goal is scored in the dying moments of the half - the relief, the joy, the goal! Surely you can understand this notion? ;)

Gothmog
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 07:13 AM
It's interesting how angry everyone gets when an american criticizes football... But I think Imperator X has a point. I'm not saying the offside rule shouldn't exist, but it is clearly misinterpreted by the referees. When a player is at the same line of his opponent, there's no offside. Well, if the players are so close as to put the referee in doubt, he should let the play continue. I don't know how it works out there, but here in Brazil the TV networks use computer generated graphics to see how many centimeters the attacker was ahead of the last defender! Then, the "specialists" congratulate the auxiliar referee if he saw the attaker 15 cm ahead and stopped the game! This is ridiculous! The human eye can't detect a difference like this, at a distance, with moving targets! I repeat, if the referee is in doubt, this means the players are so close that there's no offside: they're at the same line! And this is the FIFA recommendation! And if this recommendation was implemented, there would be a lot more goals! And with a lot more goals, the game would be a lot more interesting! And although americans don't know anything about football, they sure know how to get things interesting!

Imperator X
Friday, June 16th, 2006, 06:05 AM
If there was no offside rule, then you would be left with "goal hangers"

The article which I found from "the world of stuart" explains that if there are goal hangers, this puts the offensive team at a disadvantage, besides, the defense can just employ someone to man these 'goal hangers'. I don't understand why a defenseman should be allowed to bitch about a microscopic negligible difference. This would be like penalizing an offensive basketball player because he knows what kind of move he's going to do before he does it. It is the defender's responsibility to make sure the striker does not get ahead.

Siegfried
Friday, June 16th, 2006, 08:30 AM
Also, I don't care if it's a friendly or a normal group game, or the championship. People paid damn good money, the people should be awarded after having to sit through a game where the ball goes back and forth tediously for 90 minutes and then the score is 0-0. If it is a tie, and especially if it ends 0-0, there should be penalty kicks, always, no exceptions.

I find the penalty shootings a fairly lame way of settling the game, and favour "sudden death".

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, June 19th, 2006, 10:31 PM
The article which I found from "the world of stuart" explains that if there are goal hangers, this puts the offensive team at a disadvantage, besides, the defense can just employ someone to man these 'goal hangers'.

Which was the whole point, you would just have 2 groups of people hanging around each goal mouth. There would be no midfield play, no buildup, no need for finesse, in short, there would be no point in the football match to begin with.


I don't understand why a defenseman should be allowed to bitch about a microscopic negligible difference.

I'm sorry, but you're making it blindingly obvious you have never played football in your life. Removing the offside rule would fundamentally change the game of football ino something much more pointless. It's not negligible at all.

As Volsung pointed out before, it's the fact that goals actually have to be worked for that makes football such a popular sport. All of the popular American sports are high-scoring affairs, so i understand where you're coming from. But it's also obvious that all of the popular American sports combined don't come anywhere near the popularity of football. So i don't think FIFA should be taking pointers off of sports that have much smaller followings.

;)

Imperator X
Tuesday, June 20th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Well then perhaps it should be implied, yet never called b/c no-one can tell what is offside anyhow. In basketball, there is nothing comparable to "offsides" and yet, you don't see players hanging on the other end of the court waiting for their side to get possession so that they can fling it to the other end. Why? B/c to do so would still give the defending team a disadvantage, as it would in football also.