[TopAce]

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?

[General Freak]

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.

And, er, European football? Do you mean soccer?

[Ghostavo]

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.

[BlackDove]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Kie99]

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.

[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.

[Black Wolf]

Tug tug. They pulled Offside out of hockey years ago and the game's vastly better for it.

[Ghostavo]

hockey != football

It would be like comparing chess with checkers.

[BlackDove]

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.

[IceFire]

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.

[aldo_14]

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?!  You should see (hear, rather) your average Scottish game.......

[Black Wolf]

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).

[aldo_14]

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.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
(Note I'm talking proper hockey here, not that Ice hockey rubbish).

Rubbish? 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. 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

[BlackDove]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[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.

[Rictor]

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.

Top of our group, baby!

:thepimp: :thepimp:

[Kie99]

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?