I Said It Before, And I'll Say It Again (World Cup Stuff)

[ProfessorGAC]

I think the stupidest rule in ALL sports is the soccer off-side rule. I watched the England-Sweeden game yesterday. Yep, nearly all 90+ minutes of it.

TWICE England had a defender one on one with the goalie, which is the most exciting part of the game, i think. Well, both times it was offsides.

In looking at the replays (which were both shown at least twice) here's what i made of BOTH of those plays. The Sweedes were rewarded for playing sloppy and inattentive defense, while the English player was penalized for being quicker and having his head up and seeing the opening on the field.

I'm no expert on soccer, to be sure. But, i know bad defense when i see it, no matter the sport, and that rule makes it ok to do something lazy or stupid on defense. TWICE in one game, the favored team lost golden opportunities because not only did the Sweedish defense not notice a guy getting behind them, but they reacted so slowly that the striker could not stay even with them before the pass occurred.

This rule is as stupid as the two line pass in hockey, except they were smart enough to eliminate that rule in international and NHL hockey.

Like i said: I'm no expert, but i'm just sayin'. Any rule that rewards poor defense is stupid.
The Professor

[SixStrings]

1. How dare you criticize a sport that millions of people

worldwide will kill each other over???(Sarcasm)

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Sorry 6String

I thought everything was open to criticism. Silly me!
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

2. Sometimes it's called badly but it's a good rule

If you didn't have offsides as it's written, you could just leave a striker down by the goaltender all game. It would utterly change how the game is played from finese passing and control, to just keeping 3 forwards down in the box and the goaltender or defenders booting it all the way across midfield to them each play. Beyond 'Long Ball'. Midfield would be a desert.

Now, I can see tweaking it by allowing a half second or so leeway for someone to start a run, but you could never just eliminate it. It's crucial to how the entire game is played.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Well, While We're On That Point. . .

. . .i think that another valid criticism is the lack of variation in tactics and style. Aside from the Brazilians, i see every team playing nearly the exact same style of offense and defense. Perhaps the "crucial to how the game is played" is part of the problem. Maybe strikers hanging around the goal would make the defense more active and make the game more exciting than it is. (I find myself enjoying the games, so i don't hate the sport at all.) I kind of think the game lends itself to more one-on-one play than currently exists.
The Professor

[HuckleB]

5. Actually...

The Brazilians play quite similarly to the others. They're promoted as being what they once were, but they haven't been that since 1990. The funny thing is that they began to win again, once they changed tactics. Now, Argentina, in its last match, played like the Brazil of old.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. I'll Trust You

My observations are based upon what i see now, and not so much history. I didn't watch much in the past except when traveling in Europe. So, like i said, i'm no expert. Just making an observation based upon this year's tournament.
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

7. Well there are a few different tactics in play

Especially in the first rounds though most teams tend to play more conservative. Offside Traps and 4 or even 5 back at nearly all times, with only a single striker. I think it's a matter of the announcers explaining what is going on, as well as more experience playing or watching the game which might highlight this more. For instance with Basketball every 'play' looks the same to me. Run it up. pass it around the edges back and forth and then either a) drive it to the basket yourself, b) pass it to some who ran in, or c) take a shot from the outside. Though I'm sure it's more complicated than that, it seems far more simple than soccer.

Soccer though is a game about flow and control. Control the ball, keep it moving between your men, and organically somehow keep the control into a tighter and tighter area at which point get it to the middle and try and put it in the net. Simple. Yet very complex.

Now what you're talking about would remove that entirely. It'd be like allowing goaltending in basketball. Allow that and every team is going to get an 8 foot tall guy to just stand by the hoop forever and all the game will be about would be throwing it as fast as possible from one end of the court to that guy. It would be a different game. The reason they only have those three options I listed above is because they can't just stand inside the box. Offsides in soccer provides the same protection.

I'm not sure what I would suggest to 'liven' up the game though when I think its plenty lively. It's just tactical so those momenents aren't as in your face rat a tat tat meaningless as in high scoring sports.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Can Buy No "Camping" In The Box

That would be unfair, and to extend your B-ball analogy, would be like allowing your 8 footer to camp in the lane on offense too. But, offsides that occurs when the player starts outside the box seems patently unfair to the fastest and most agile.

I guess i see an inherent flaw, no matter the history or tradition, of a rule that, even if only occasionally, penalizes the most skilled and rewards laziness on defense.

But, you know more than i do about it. And, i'm not going to suddenly turn into a soccer afficiando. I was just commenting on what i saw.
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

9. Oh believe me it's not laziness

As someone who played most of my time as a defender and was a defensive soccer coach for a club team for a brief while, I can tell you that what those defender's are doing is hardly lazy.

They have to mark forwards left and right, and while pushing forward to keep the opposition away from your goal as much as possible, be ready for any break from a defender. It's far easier as a defender to sit back closer to the goal than it is to push forward to midfield. The further you get from your goal the more difficult and dangerous it is and the more 'active' and alert you are. It's not lazy to push forward, it's skill.

The forward always has the advantage in that situation as there are set passes that teams have so that a defender never knows when the player he is marking is going to just suddenly fly for the goal. The trick for the forward is to just pay attention to his midfielders or defenders as to when a kick is coming and as soon as that person's leg goes back he's off. The ball could still be 50 feet behind him when he passes the first defender and gets clear on the goalie. Letting him just stand down by the box would take far less skill and speed.

The defender on the other hand by pushing forward has to be ready to react at a moments notice to a variety of players and not only mark the player making a dash, but maybe another one coming in from the opposite side, and judge which to cover, and so on. He's got a ton more variables to deal with.

So I just have to disagree with your contention. I think eliminating the offsides would penalize the most skilled as their speed would be pointless, and I think you underestimate how difficult it is to defend these guys when you're 30-40 yards from your own goal.

Does that make sense?

[Hav]

10. Yep

It makes sense to everybody who knows how football is played.
Absolutely no offense meant to the Professor. The offside rule is often the cause of many discussions. Yet I am sure that it is rarely seen how you see it.
It is simply a false impression that offside is a means to benefit "lazy or poor defenders". It has already been pointed out that it rewards clever and fast strikers or combinations and good defending. And it's true that these fast moves would become irrelevant without offside.

When the English striker ran into the offside because he was so fast, then it was simply his mistake to run into the offside-trap or his teammate was too slow with his pass.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. No It Doesn't Make Sense

And nowhere did i say defenders were lazy. I never said playing defense was easy. I was a defensive specialist in both basketball and hockey in my younger (and unaffected by MS) days.

I said i think the rule protects lazy defenders. That hardly means that i think no defense is played. It hardly means that it's easy to defend someone 20 yards from the goal. And defending against the best and fastest is SUPPOSED to be hard. No?

So, we disagree. No real problem with that. We can disagree, 'round these parts.
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

14. That's allowed

I think if we were in person with a whiteboard and video I could make my case more effectively. :)

[TahitiNut]

17. Good explanation, imho.

The offsides rule, imho, creates a (in psych terms) double-approach/avoidance conflict for both strikers and defenders in terms of distance from the goal and timing of moves set-ups. If the rule were elimnated we'd not only have a huge tilt in the tactics of play, we'd also create a tier of soccer play that would make the sport so hugely different at the club level than at junior and amateur levels it'd lose its connection to the vast array of players.

Soccer, imho, owes a huge part of its popularity to the fact that so many people actually PLAY around the world, instead of merely watch. I think our biases in the US are enormously (and almost subliminally) skewed to the spectator/commerical side. Further, we have this obsession with high scores rather than evenly-matched sides in any sport. We tend to think "evenly-matched" means 110-to-110 rather than 0-to-0. I'd hate to see soccer amplify even more the skills/size of the goal-keeper. It's more than enough, imho, that the goal-keeper has to handle 6-10 SOG ... if it were more like 40-50 SOG I think I'd hate it.

Perhaps more simply stated - I like soccer because of the emphasis on play in the field, particularly midfield, instead of the kind of end-to-end shootout that basketball has become. I just don't want it to be more striker-against-goalie. The goalie already has enough of the job.

[northzax]

11. I think you have it backwards, again

with all apologies. I think the offsides rule rewards good passing and heads up play by the offense, to be able to play a ball into space, and have your player beat the other guy to it by making a good run really opens up the field of play. If there was no offsides rule, there would never be one on ones with the keeper, because no one would ever be able to get separation from the defense. Remember, the moment that counts on an offsides call is when the ball is struck, not when it gets there. as long as you are onside when the pass is made, you can make a run to space to go get that ball. in a well coordinated attack, I can pass the ball knowing that you are making a run to it, but the defender has to guess. to consider another basketball analogy, imagine a no-look pass on a fast break. I can make that pass because I know that you are going to be somewhere, because we play together all the time. The defender has to guess where the ball is going. it makes for better action.

without the offsides rule, no defender would ever allow an attacker to get even close to behind him.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Then We'll Disagree

I read your whole post. I don't think that makes sense. If a defender spent ALL the time preventing someone from getting behind them, then postup and angle attacks would be impossible to stop. It's not that different from hockey.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

20. I think it's key that 'offsides' is "more downfield" rather than ...

... closer to the goal.

I also think the offside rule sometimes 'invites' the goal-keeper to leave the goal. I like that. I like the idea that (s)he'd sometime think it'd be a good move. It creates some fascinating dynamics.

[TahitiNut]

15. I like the offsides rule.

:evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Reply

:*

That is all!
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

18. I just couldn't help myself.

:dunce:

It's one of those very rare times we disagree ... even though we obviously share many very deeply-held and key values. (It's funny how, sometimes, it's pretty clear and indubitable that someone online would almost certainly be a very good friend IRL.)

I understand where your focus is set in decrying the offsides rule ... on the seeming triviality of a step or two and the possible 'gaming' of the rule by a defender, a perceived triviality in comparison to the larger scheme of things. Clearly, it also offers the referee a larger opportunity to screw things up. I see that ... but still prefer it to what I regard as the alternatives.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I Guess I'm A Fast Break Kind Of Guy

My experience in sports is that it was always more exciting to play when defense triggered an all out attack on the other team's goal and caused them to go into scramble mode.

I want defense to be aggressive, not passive. I want defense to be part of the overall attack strategy. (I hate "bend don't break" in our football, too!) And, i want teams that don't play good enough defense to lose.

I guess i'll never see the other side.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, let's you and I play a nice game of bocce, OK?

A little wine; a little cheese; some sunshine; a nice dirt court with benches - we begin by toasting Umberto Granaglia and enjoy the day.

While I tend to prefer the more casual pétanque in a nice, woodsy setting (or on the beach), a little bocce with a good chianti and friendly folks is also my style these days.

[Ravenseye]

23. See I just think you need to watch more Soccer :)

If you got rid of the offsides rule there would be NO fast break in Soccer. The defense in many teams IS aggressive and not passive, and part of the overall attack strategy. Teams that don't play good enough defense definately do lose.

With no offsides rule, any player could stand anywhere on the field at any time. What would happen would be that the 'fast break' would never occur. The game would be about long passes from one end of the field to the other. Going through the midfield would be a rarity and speed would be replaced by strength of leg and physical height. Big distance kicks to tall guys who would then head the ball to the goal. It would be an entirely different game, I assure you, and fast breaks would never exist.

Fast breaks occur in nearly every soccer game BECAUSE of the offsides rule. Defenders push forward to not only keep the attackers away from the goal and long ball passes such as would occur if offsides didn't exist, but also to join the play and help move and keep the ball forward as outlets to the midfielders. Sometimes they get up as far as midfield, or further, often sending one of the defenders far forward to join the attack. The fast breaks happen when a heads up play by a defender or midfielder gains possession, and boots the ball into space, past the defenders, but hopefully not so far that the goaltender will get there first. Then you've got the run for the ball, the fast break. It can also happen by passing up the midfield, and then passing into space ahead of a breaking forward, and you've got a one on one situation. Very exciting plays, some of the most exciting in all of soccer, and they wouldn't happen if there were no offsides rule.

I think part of your feelings comes from, what sounds like, a misconception of how the game is played. I'd suggest watching more, though that will never replace playing the game for a more thorough understanding. If you don't like the rule or the game, that's totally cool, but I think it says something that I wouldn't know any actual soccer player who would honestly suggest getting rid of the offsides rule, other than a few slow 7 foot tall strikers who like the ball put on their heads. Getting rid of offsides in Soccer would be akin to getting rid of both offsides, and goaltender interference in Hockey. What kind of game would hockey be if you could leave a guy down by the opposing goalie all game, getting in his way, blocking his view...It would fundamentally change the game for the worse. Passing, fast breaks, and the like would be out. Why break when you could already be down there just waiting for someone to flip the puck through the air into your area.

It just wouldn't work in hockey, and it wouldn't work in Soccer.

[nickgutierrez]

22. It's not actually lazy or inattentive

You'd be surprised to see how much practice and effort it takes to keep the line as flat as it needs to be for the offside trap to work. The other team's striker is the "inattentive" one, and if he was that much quicker than the defense, he would have been able to start his run level with the defense. It's a matter of timing, as much as anything else, and that's a skill - just like the ability to work the offside trap.

Having the offside rule as it is allows for one of the more interesting tactical decisions in soccer to exist - how high to play the defensive line. Do you play them high, allowing them to play a larger role in the build-up and the attack, or drop them deep a bit more and cut out the counter-attack? Without the rule, this strategic decision doesn't exist, and the game loses a lot of ebb and flow as it becomes a game of "pop the ball up to the central striker and see if he can run behind the defense", the kind of game that is properly regarded as boring.

[manic expression]

24. It's a part of the game, and it needs to stay that way

this has already been covered in depth, but taking away the offside rule would be asinine and completely detrimental. You would see strikers (forwards) sitting next to the goal the entire game waiting for a pass to slot in an easy goal. The offside rule forces players to actually play and get around the defence instead of just kicking a ball over them. The rule forces the game to be played in a respectable and watchable way.

The fact that England kept getting caught offside is part of the game. That's like saying "well, why don't we take away the time limit in the key and make the basket 4 times bigger in basketball, and then have a 10 point line at halfcourt?", it would be just terrible in every way.

The rule forced defenders to be on their toes, as they have to step up AS A GROUP to catch someone offside, and if they mess it up, they pretty much give the other team a goal on a silver platter. If a defender is lazy, they pay for it, and any idiot who knows soccer can tell you that.

Did you ever stop to consider that the Swedish defender knew what he was doing? They aren't the best players in Sweden for nothing, they were trying to catch the English player offside and they did their job. Again, it's part of the game.

[ProfessorGAC]

Then It Shouldn't Be

I think it's ridiculous to never change a rule that could be made better because it's "part of the game". Don't bother trying to convince me. I don't care that much. I was just making an observation, but obviously the soccer afficianados don't take mild criticism of their game too well. Sheesh, folks! It's just a game.
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

26. Well Prof, I don't think people see it as criticsm

Believe me. There are plenty of things to be critical of about the game and Soccer fans will discuss and argue about those things and what needs to be done till the cows come home.

You're saying that one of the key elements that makes up the sport of Soccer should be removed. The thing is we're not reading what you're saying as criticsm but just a general misunderstanding of the game. Does that make sense to you?

What you're saying shows a lack of understanding of the game to the point where you're not being read as making a genuine comment, because it's out of left field. It'd be like me coming in and suggesting that offensive players in American Football should be able to start a play anywhere on the field, such as 30 yards downfield, and yet that doesn't even match the change in play that would occur as to what you are suggesting.

I normally agree with things you say in other topics, but here even you admit you don't care much about this topic, that you don't know much about the game, yet don't seem interested in trying to understand why or how, what you are suggesting would make Soccer a completely different game, and not for the better. You might as well suggest that they be allowed to use their hands and pick up the ball anywhere on the field.

People aren't reacting the way they are because they feel you're being critical of the game of Soccer, they're reacting this way because they want to help you understand the game better and realize that what you are suggesting just wouldn't be a valid change.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Let's Clarify

I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING that each of the people here have said. LEt's not get into a whole thing about the nuance and the strategy and blah blah blah.

That nonsense comes out in every sport where people try to make the tactics and strategy of a game just a little more difficult than controlled fusion. It's not that hard to figure out what's going on in ANY sport. ANY! Soccer is no different.

All the explanations here seem, imo, to be very rooted in "that's the way the game is played". Well, i played hockey and i was the first to applaud the removal of the two-line pass rule, and would be first in line to applaud the NHL if they banned fighting completely. Yet, those two things were the "way the game was played". Well, i think those two things are(were) stupid and they needed to be changed, no matter the "tradition". Nothing is immutable.

It's not that hard to figure out what's going on during a soccer match. (Figuring out an NFL defense isn't that hard either, so i'm not knocking one sport over the other.) I completely understand everyone's lecture to me as to why my idea is bad, but not having played the game is not a reason to suggest that i couldn't possibly know what i'm talking about. Like i said twice already, figuring out tactics and strategy of a team game is simply not that difficult.

I just don't agree with the explanations here. I know enough about sports in general to reject, out of hand, that allowing people to work the open spots in the field without regard to whether a defender is keeping up would slow down the game. That's not logical. Not a matter of soccer knowledge. It's not even logical.

Consider the rule, as it is, in hockey. What would happen? The sports are superbly analogous. Limited range of operation; protective zone for the goalie; same object of putting the ball/puck in the net. What would hockey look like with an offsides rule like soccer's?

It IS a valid criticism unless it's automatically invalid to challenge anything because that's "the way it's always been done". Well, that applies to everything. Why ever try to improve anything?
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

28. That's not most people's objections though

The objection isn't one of "That's the way the game is played" it's one of "That would destroy the game".

Since I played both Hockey and Soccer I don't see rules such as the 2 line pass as anything like what your'e talking about. The analogy would be getting rid of ALL the lines. Allowing a forward to sit down by the opposing goalie all period would be highly detrimental to the game. What you're suggesting for soccer, by removing the offisdes rule, would be the equivalent.

Now, if you were to suggest a compromise rule, I'd be more open. Offsides as it's played, until it's at the level of the box. Once the ball passes the box, say everything is onsides. I could get behind that, because that would open up interesting scoring opportunites. Sort of like adding a blue line to soccer which is at the level of the defenders, until they get back to the box, after which it's open season. I could get behind that as a rule change.

That's not what you suggested though. You suggested the equivalent of getting rid of all offsides in hockey, arguing that you watched a game last night and there were a few great breaks that were stopped because of an offsides call.

And if arguments come down to "That's the way the game is played" maybe it's because these games are rooted in rules, and so many of these games are so closely equivalent that subtle changes can cause drastic changes. Rules and games can be drastically changed for the better (see the forward pass in hockey), but what you're suggesting isn't a subtle change, but one that would drastically alter the game for the worse. Just ask anyone who has played a pickup game with no offsides. You can't. It becomes a different game entirely. Which is fine! Play that if you want to! It's just not soccer.

If you can't see that is what you've suggested, then I'm sorry Prof. but you don't understand everything people have said.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Let's Just Drop It

I'm telling you i DO understand and don't agree. You're calling me a liar.

I'm out.
The Professor

[Ravenseye]

30. I never called you a liar

Peace

[TahitiNut]

31. For the record ...

... I'd never attempt to ascribe your differing opinion (albeit rare) as stemming from ignorance or lack of familiarity. That just ain't you. If there's one thing I respect about folks, including you, it's when they support a position with reasoning and rational stances in an intellectually honest way, even if I disagree with that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises or that the result is desirable. It seems clear that we see (foresee) a somewhat different result and have some additional disagreement about whether the result is desirable. Differing tastes are why so many people can find someone to marry.

I see one additional advatage to the offsides rule that's not been discussed. (We might, of course, disagree that it's an 'advantage.') I think the offsides rule also has a slight "levelling" effect in that it keeps some fairly specialized skills from becoming overwhelming advantages in the match. It seems to me that there's an advantage in keeping a slight mismatch in certain skills from creating a lopsided score. Basketball analogies are popular so I'll merely note that it's a game far too imbalanced in favor of pituitary anomalies - to the point that the pro game bears almost no resemblance to the neighborhood and church games of my youth (Cousy era).

One of the beauties of soccer, imho, is that it's a sport that's played much the same at all levels and that it's 'democratic' in that neither physical size nor affluence take it out of reach of people. I think the offsides rule acts in concert with the consistency in play - keeping it far closer to the barrio game in its tactics than otherwise.

[manic expression]

32. I clearly addressed how it would not be made better

If you actually read my post and comprehended it, you would know why the offside rule is very important. If you looked at my points, you would know why doing away with the rule would be completely detrimental and injurious to the game.

I don't think basketball fans would appreciate people saying that putting trampolines in front of the basket, or allowing defenders to hang on the rim to block away shots, or make team play a man down for minute after a personal foul would make basketball "better". It would just ruin the game and make it ridiculous, bad an worse. I could go on, but you should get my point.

[HuckleB]

33. Soccer has very few rules.

So it's no passing fancy to just change one. American football's rule book is overburdened. Changing a few rules every year makes little difference on the game. What you are talking about is changing a fundamental part of the game of soccer, however.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Then It Shouldn't Be

I think it's ridiculous to never change a rule that could be made better because it's "part of the game". Don't bother trying to convince me. I don't care that much. I was just making an observation, but obviously the soccer afficianados don't take mild criticism of their game too well. Sheesh, folks! It's just a game.
The Professor

[northzax]

35. true

you could, for instance, abolish the forward pass in American football, or blocked shots in basketball, but they'd be completely different games. I think the point people are making is not that offsides is inviolate because it is part of the game, but because it is an integral part of the game, as integral as the offsides in football is. Change it, and you no longer have soccer, you have something completely different.

Sure, you could change the rules of Golf to allow a player to throw the ball, but it wouldn't be golf anymore. and anyone who suggested it would be displaying at the very least, a lack of appreciation of golf. see? you might as well suggest that players be able to pick up the ball and run with it, it might make an interesting game, but it wouldn't be soccer anymore.

[underpants]

34. Well Prof without it you would have lots of "Cherry picking"

at least that is what we used to call not making the trip up the basketball floor, just waiting at the other end. Without the off sides rule you would have at least one forward (and one defenseman) standing at the far end and when a goalie got the ball they would just bomb it towards their guy.

You may not like it but it does make players come back, at least, to midfield.