Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TopAce on October 08, 2005, 11:17:53 am
-
I was watching the Bulgaria-Hungary football match when we got a goal, which was offside, but the referee did not notice it and the goal was valid. My bro was very annoyed when this happened and almost started shouting. I told him that this offside rule is nonsense and serves the only purpose to have fewer goals.
I want to hear your thoughts about offisides. Do you like/hate/ignore it?
-
Apparently, it's supposed to make the goalie's life easier, because otherwise, teams would just change their tactics so that there'll always be someone near the goal post to score. But I'm a real football noob. :p
And, er, European football? Do you mean soccer?
-
The point of offside is to avoid the keeper of being overwhelmed by having more attacking players as otherwise the midfield would probably become a no man's land.
I like it, it enables the defender to have more options and gives the attacking team something more to worry about. What I don't like is the inability of the referee to use other resources like the game's footage, etc, to make a decision. It's like they want the rules not to be followed.
-
The offside prevents the Keeper from being surrounded by five people, whilst the defence of the offensive team is doing long balls into the 16.
-
it's a rule that must stay - but ghostavo is right, they should be able to do video playback of a goal and see if there was an infraction
-
If the offside rule was removed 6 players would be standing on the goal line and 5 would be in the other half of the pitch, and long balls would be blasted from end to end, and all matches would end 0-0 or 1-1 at the most, since the attackers wouldn't be able to get past the wall of players on each goal line.
-
Kie pretty much nailed it. You can't remove the offside rule without turning the game into a "punt-it-long" game of luck.
**** off with football just now anyway, Scotland just went out of the world cup. :sigh:
-
Tug tug. They pulled Offside out of hockey years ago and the game's vastly better for it.
-
hockey != football
It would be like comparing chess with checkers.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
If the offside rule was removed 6 players would be standing on the goal line and 5 would be in the other half of the pitch, and long balls would be blasted from end to end, and all matches would end 0-0 or 1-1 at the most, since the attackers wouldn't be able to get past the wall of players on each goal line.
EchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEcho
Though it's incorrect.
The scores would be 24-50 or something like that. Okay, maybe not that high, but in the 10's and 15's for sure.
-
Having seven years of soccer refereeing under my belt and being a class 4 (I had to do a course and all that jazz) recreational refree for most of that time for five different local soccer leagues I've seen my share of offside plays.
The rule is absolutely essential for the flow of the game and also one of the least well understood and misinterpreted rules of the game.
Offside prevents the attacking team from leaving all of their guys hangng around the 18 yard box waiting for someone to hoof the ball to them at which point it just becomes a shooting gallery.
This would segment play on the field so much that it'd make having midfielders essentially useless. You'd slow the game down quite a bit and change the dynamic.
Its a core and essential part of the rules. You may hate it from time to time but its a very important rule to have to keep the game flowing as it does.
As for the referee not seeing it...thats what the assistant referees are for. And let me tell you that both jobs are hard and when you have a 5 man break down the field with multiple attackers and defenders...the line between it being offside and offside position (which is NOT offside and does not illicit an offside call) is very hard to draw.
-
kie is right; removing the offside rule would turn the game into a long-ball travesty, with both teams packing the penalty boxes and ignoring the midfield.
It's worth noting...for every dodgy decision against you, there's a decision that goes for you.
I'm not for TV evidence; I think it'd slow down the game to do instant replays, even if just after the goal.
One of the advantages IMO of footie is that after a goal, you have kick-off within minutes and usually the conceding team giving it laldy; I think if you use replays even at that stage, you'd lose that momentum (although use for tech to instantly decide offside / over the line could be useful).
I'm pretty much opposed to the widespread use of TV replays during play because I think they'd spoil the flow.
Oh, and 'almost' started shouting?! :wtf: You should see (hear, rather) your average Scottish game.......
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
hockey != football
It would be like comparing chess with checkers.
Well, sure, soccer is simpler, but the differences are pretty minimal otherwise.
(Note I'm talking proper hockey here, not that Ice hockey rubbish).
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
EchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEcho
Though it's incorrect.
The scores would be 24-50 or something like that. Okay, maybe not that high, but in the 10's and 15's for sure.
I don't think so. Not with modern tactics; teams wouldn't push the bulk of their defense forward for fear of leaving a gap for the oppo attack; even if one team was willing to push up, they wouldn't be able to for fear of the opposition shoving a lone forward up top and hoofing it into the space.
At the time the offside rule was introduced, the game only was the long ball; stuff like passing and dribbling didn't exist as useful skills, really, because you didn't need to work through the field. Nowadays, passing is probably the most important asset you can have......
Besides which, even if dropping the offside rule led to 10-12 type scorelines....all the goals would be ****e.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
(Note I'm talking proper hockey here, not that Ice hockey rubbish).
Rubbish? :lol: I've seen what you consider to be "hockey," and in this country, it's only played by high school/college girls wearing short skirts. :p Ice hockey is pretty much the most badass of any sport. Just think about it: the league makes its money off of guys slamming other guys into the boards and fistfights that break out during the games. Doesn't get much better than that :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't think so. Not with modern tactics; teams wouldn't push the bulk of their defense forward for fear of leaving a gap for the oppo attack; even if one team was willing to push up, they wouldn't be able to for fear of the opposition shoving a lone forward up top and hoofing it into the space.
No.
As IceFire said, it'd be a shooting gallery. Goals would be bound to be in abundance. Game lasts 90 minutes. No time loss between shooting at the goal, because it'd be "Long ball-shoot-long ball-shoot".
There is only so much room around the goal you can cover.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
No.
As IceFire said, it'd be a shooting gallery. Goals would be bound to be in abundance. Game lasts 90 minutes. No time loss between shooting at the goal, because it'd be "Long ball-shoot-long ball-shoot".
There is only so much room around the goal you can cover.
Ever watched Chelsea with a one-nil lead? You're assuming that teams would push men forward. Besides which, all the old scores I looked up (from a book which I have...signed by Ally McCoist and Chris Woods, oddly enough) from the early days of no-offside and 2-4-4 (etc) describe scorelines about the same as today.
Anyways, you're describing the death of skill in the game. Hump, run, hump, run, hump, run, head, shoot, hump, run.........the ability of, say, Brazil would be worthless.
-
But each player's penalty skills would shine. Just with obstacles.
I doubt that even with a full 11 back, you would still have goals.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Kie pretty much nailed it. You can't remove the offside rule without turning the game into a "punt-it-long" game of luck.
**** off with football just now anyway, Scotland just went out of the world cup. :sigh:
Top of our group, baby!
:thepimp: :thepimp:
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
But each player's penalty skills would shine. Just with obstacles.
I doubt that even with a full 11 back, you would still have goals.
Who would score them if all 11 players are back?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's worth noting...for every dodgy decision against you, there's a decision that goes for you.
eye for an eye? that doesn't work very well in sports now does it? :p
I'm not for TV evidence; I think it'd slow down the game to do instant replays, even if just after the goal.
One of the advantages IMO of footie is that after a goal, you have kick-off within minutes and usually the conceding team giving it laldy; I think if you use replays even at that stage, you'd lose that momentum (although use for tech to instantly decide offside / over the line could be useful).
I'm pretty much opposed to the widespread use of TV replays during play because I think they'd spoil the flow.
Imagine a group of people watching the game in a TV and sending messages to the referee for example. It won't slow down the game. Besides, it's a bit odd, when every person in the stadium sees a faul and nothing is done about it (which is probably why I like chess more, less fauls, more playing, and no luck that the referee didn't saw a faul stuff).
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Who would score them if all 11 players are back?
The opposing team.
-
Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.
-
You can't remove the offsides rule... it's part of what defines the game.
-
[q]eye for an eye? that doesn't work very well in sports now does it?[/q]
It's true, though; fans will moan about decisions against them and the unfairness about it all, but when they get a dodgy penalty...........
[q]Imagine a group of people watching the game in a TV and sending messages to the referee for example. It won't slow down the game. Besides, it's a bit odd, when every person in the stadium sees a faul and nothing is done about it (which is probably why I like chess more, less fauls, more playing, and no luck that the referee didn't saw a faul stuff).[/q]
Well, every person in the stadium sees a foul for their team being missed by the ref.......besides which, there are countless times you watch the match on the telly in real-time and can't tell how good a decision is. It's worse now with some of the diving that goes on.
Ultimately a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions doesn't deserve to win. Take the example at the start of this thread; Hungary lost 2 nil to goals on 30 and 55 minutes. It's not like they were sucker-punched.
[q]Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.[/q]
And hence holding the vast majority of their team back. This is exactly what I meant; with offside a team can afford to push the back line up the pitch, all the way to the half way line. Without it, they can't lest someone just stand on the D and wait for a punt.
-
On the upside, it might stop Peter Crouch being absolutely useless.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.
Not really.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
Not really.
why?
-
i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other
they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...
also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)
ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand
and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)
they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..
thats my few cents..
also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.
-
Originally posted by psycho_fergo
i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other
they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...
also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)
ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand
and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)
they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..
thats my few cents..
also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.
So, in other words, you're a violent wankpot whose main investment in sport is how much damage he can do to the opposing players?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's true, though; fans will moan about decisions against them and the unfairness about it all, but when they get a dodgy penalty...........
But it leads to a team having an unfair advantage over another as it is pretty rare for the referee to miss fauls equally and of equal oportunity
Well, every person in the stadium sees a foul for their team being missed by the ref.......besides which, there are countless times you watch the match on the telly in real-time and can't tell how good a decision is. It's worse now with some of the diving that goes on.
Ultimately a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions doesn't deserve to win. Take the example at the start of this thread; Hungary lost 2 nil to goals on 30 and 55 minutes. It's not like they were sucker-punched.
It may not be the perfect referee system but it will reduce the number of missed fauls significantly.
As for a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions, I'd remind you of Maradona's hand of god if you weren't scot :p but still... a couple of penalty shots and red/yellow cards can seriously change the match, in one way or another. Each change is significant no matter how tiny it seems.
-
Yes, sometimes referees make enormous, world shaking mistakes, but the problem with European football, as opposed to American football, is that the game is pretty slow anyway, so, for example, stopping to look at footage every time someone calls a foul, would add yet more time to overtime and injury time. This messes about with costs and profits, which the sponsors don't want, if anything, they want a way to have more goals in a football game, and make them shorter. This is why 5-a-side is gaining in poplularity.
Personally, I'm bored with football, it's all Prima-donnas whining about the fact that the 300,000 cheque they recieved this month isn't enough for someone as good as them etc. Personally I think, as cricket and rugby start to gain interest (possibly because the people who play it are more 'human' seeming than footballers) I can see Football dropping into a big hole for a while, and it will deserve it.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
But it leads to a team having an unfair advantage over another as it is pretty rare for the referee to miss fauls equally and of equal oportunity
I mean across seasons.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
It may not be the perfect referee system but it will reduce the number of missed fauls significantly.
At what cost, though? Would you want to see the game brought back every 5 minutes for a missed infringement - like a shirt tug - the ref missed but has just been viewed on the replay?
So often you end up with 'maybes', anyways; not every foul (or non-decision) is obvious on TV.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
As for a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions, I'd remind you of Maradona's hand of god if you weren't scot :p but still... a couple of penalty shots and red/yellow cards can seriously change the match, in one way or another. Each change is significant no matter how tiny it seems.
Aye, with Maradona it;s worth noting he then went on to score one of the best goals in history, so it's not like that was the winner....
Yeah, you can get big decisions that change games; but at the same time a team has to be able to react to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong. If a team concedes a penalty, etc, it doesn't matter if it was a dodgy decision; they just have to get up, and play on.
-
Originally posted by psycho_fergo
i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other
they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...
also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)
ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand
and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)
they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..
thats my few cents..
also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.
I am never, NEVER, NEVER gonna play hockey with you
-
Originally posted by psycho_fergo
ind in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)
You sure your name isn't Happy Gilmore? :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
why?
Well for one, because they have 11 people as well, which can be divided, and assuming that the people who play aren't idiots, they'll be able to act accordingly with ball posession.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
Well for one, because they have 11 people as well, which can be divided, and assuming that the people who play aren't idiots, they'll be able to act accordingly with ball posession.
They can't push the back line up, the oppo will have the same situation, so they'll need to forego the midfield to compete for numbers in the penalty box.... plus there's no need for slick passing, because no team would leave a gap at the back as they would playing the offside trap.....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I mean across seasons.
And how would that work out? Decisive games exist, cup games, direct rival games, etc... Mistakes can't be allowed to happen... frequently.
At what cost, though? Would you want to see the game brought back every 5 minutes for a missed infringement - like a shirt tug - the ref missed but has just been viewed on the replay?
So often you end up with 'maybes', anyways; not every foul (or non-decision) is obvious on TV.
I admit it would up the costs quite a bit of having the referee team's numbers doubled, trippled or perhaps more, but there wouldn't be delays. It would be real time. Costs would be the only thing in the way. At least it would be a fair sport.
Yeah, you can get big decisions that change games; but at the same time a team has to be able to react to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong. If a team concedes a penalty, etc, it doesn't matter if it was a dodgy decision; they just have to get up, and play on.
That may work out if the teams are unbalanced, but what happens when the teams are nearly of the same capacity? A single bad decision may end up screwing a team.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
And how would that work out? Decisive games exist, cup games, direct rival games, etc... Mistakes can't be allowed to happen... frequently.
They don't. If they did happen frequently, then they would either be a) an accepted part of the game or b) been addressed in some way.
How many specific refereeing errors can you name that changed games this season so far in, say, the European Cup?
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I admit it would up the costs quite a bit of having the referee team's numbers doubled, trippled or perhaps more, but there wouldn't be delays. It would be real time. Costs would be the only thing in the way. At least it would be a fair sport.
What makes you think you can even do that in real time? I've said countless times there are incidents that aren't even apparent in repeated replays from multiple angles, in real time it's not going to be any different.
Hell, from the sort of distances most TV cameras record at, the view's worse. And if you go close in, then either you have 22 cameras for 22 people and 22 refs on the touchline, or you miss action in fast play.
And that's not even including the diving, especially on the continent.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
That may work out if the teams are unbalanced, but what happens when the teams are nearly of the same capacity? A single bad decision may end up screwing a team.
May. Is that a good reason to fundamentally change the game?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
They don't. If they did happen frequently, then they would either be a) an accepted part of the game or b) been addressed in some way.
How many specific refereeing errors can you name that changed games this season so far in, say, the European Cup?
I've given up on football at the moment, so I can't say much about this season, but last season, Chelsea lost a game to Liverpool because of a goal that may or may have not happened. Carefully placed sources of information could be put in order to see if a goal is a goal or not.
What makes you think you can even do that in real time? I've said countless times there are incidents that aren't even apparent in repeated replays from multiple angles, in real time it's not going to be any different.
Hell, from the sort of distances most TV cameras record at, the view's worse. And if you go close in, then either you have 22 cameras for 22 people and 22 refs on the touchline, or you miss action in fast play.
It can be done in real time with properly placed cameras. The shots you normally see on the TV is for the people watching to see the game developing, they are not properly placed for a referee to make a decision. And I'm not sugesting that there aren't going to be times where an incident is inconclusive, but the aid of other sources of information would prove to be valuable deciding most current situations where the referee has doubts.
And that's not even including the diving, especially on the continent.
Most dives can be clearly seen on the TV, so why not?
May. Is that a good reason to fundamentally change the game?
And it may (or not) work on unbalanced teams :p so I'd say definatly.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I've given up on football at the moment, so I can't say much about this season, but last season, Chelsea lost a game to Liverpool because of a goal that may or may have not happened. Carefully placed sources of information could be put in order to see if a goal is a goal or not.
Yeah, and no-ones definitively said whether Luis Garcias goal crossed the line; despite the use of many replays, close up zooms, etc. So they couldn't even decide that one with plenty of time after the match.
Besides which, crossing the line is a different issue altogether - and one they're already trying technological solutions to.
It can be done in real time with properly placed cameras. The shots you normally see on the TV is for the people watching to see the game developing, they are not properly placed for a referee to make a decision. And I'm not sugesting that there aren't going to be times where an incident is inconclusive, but the aid of other sources of information would prove to be valuable deciding most current situations where the referee has doubts.
The aid? So you're suggesting the referee holds up play and waits for a decision?
Most dives can be clearly seen on the TV, so why not?
Because they can't be clearly seen in real-time. You're talking about contact that takes place (or does not) in a split second. You'd need a perfect angle and superhuman reactions to be 100% certain.
And it may (or not) work on unbalanced teams :p so I'd say definatly.
Eh? I don't get you. I think it'll break up the play in the same as TV evidence does in any other sport I've seen it used within.
-
For the last time, I'm sugesting something in real time, no slowing down the game. If I say the referee receives aid of other referees on the field do I mean it slows down the game? Of course not. It would be an independant process from the main referee, they would only contact the referee in case of a faul, or miss faul.
Eh? I don't get you. I think it'll break up the play in the same way as TV evidence does in any other sport I've seen used within.
I only consider something a sport if it is fair for all teams, no outside influence (especially something as powerful as the referee) should be able to actively influence the game in favor in one of the teams. If not, it's not a sport, just a gladiatorial arena match where they throw a team at the lions. Besides, it's not like football is the most interesting thing right now with all the missed fauls, and non-existant offsides given (at least here).
-
Says you. I very rarely see a match changing mistake; offhand, I can only think of a penalty that Rangers could have got vs Hearts for handball (by Webster IIRC); even in that case it was debatable as to whether it'd be ball-to-hand or vice versa, and Rangers didn't deserve to even draw that match anyways (they were ****e).
I think you'd see bugger all actual difference in 'good' decisions (because it's just as hard to tell in real time on TV as on the pitch), combined with the possibility - strong IMO - that constant interjection would break up the flow of the match with niggly fouls that mean nothing in the overall context of the game. So long as you have any referee, you can consider that an outside influence.
The implication here is almost of bias, which becomes even more likely - albiet in a diluted sense - the more officials you have. Because I've never seen any evidence that more eyes mean better decisions; and what happens if the sideline refs disagree?
Of course, there's the other barrier; how are you going to implement this for all teams (level playing field across all divisions). I can't see 10 or 20 cameras turning up at Cliftonhill, afterall (glorified mud pit).