A question was asked on BBC radio sparking an interesting debate.
The question was what single rule change would improve your sport. When the topic of Football was brought up someone suggested getting rid of the offside rule as they did in hockey.
Do the ites believe football would be improved if the offside rule was scrapped or adjusted???
_________________________
They make the world so hard
A question was asked on BBC radio sparking an interesting debate.
The question was what single rule change would improve your sport. When the topic of Football was brought up someone suggested getting rid of the offside rule as they did in hockey.
Do the ites believe football would be improved if the offside rule was scrapped or adjusted???
This is all about Sepp Blatter and his 'madness'.
The rules are now changing to going back to what they originally were before FIFA became so political to try to win votes from the competing federations.
The rule changes that have benefited the game were the 'no back pass rule' after WC 1990, and the limits on the 'studs up' tackling and unrestricted challenging of and by the goalkeeper which probably came as a result of Harald Schumacher almost killing Patrick Battison in the 1982 WC semi-final between France and West Germany.
This fiddling with the offside rule has been nothing but Blatter politics that has confused the game and scrapping the law altogether would destroy the modern game.
I hope world football can find another head for FIFA in the next presidential elections and if it is Platini or Jack Warner, that either of them will prove more sound and sane than Sepp Blatter.
The best rule change to benefit football would be to giving back 'discretion' to the referee to call the game as he sees it on the field of play at the time and scrapping this 'penalty and blame' culture that the British culture has burdened the game with.
We in England already live with the govt's enforcement of that culture every single day of our lives; rid football of it and we can enjoy the game again for its own sake.
Every time two players clash or go to the ground, a foul must be called because someone has to be 'blamed' in what is a physical contact sport where players being knocked down has and will always be part and parcel of football.
The referee in the Carling Cup final played the discretionary rule when Vidic tackled Agbonglahor fairly and it should be firmly re-established in football again and take govt 'political correctness' out of the game once and for all.
I have been waiting for this conversation for the past 20 years. If I had the power I would get rid of the offside rule, or at least adjust it. My rule would state that there is no offside 1/3 of the pitch on either side of the center line. If a player picks up the ball anywhere on his side of the field or 1/3 into the opponent side of the field he is onside no matter where the last defender is. I will also implement a rule that as long as a defending player is in the 6yd box an attacking player would not be offside even if he is behind the defender.
I have been waiting for this conversation for the past 20 years. If I had the power I would get rid of the offside rule, or at least adjust it. My rule would state that there is no offside 1/3 of the pitch on either side of the center line. If a player picks up the ball anywhere on his side of the field or 1/3 into the opponent side of the field he is onside no matter where the last defender is. I will also implement a rule that as long as a defending player is in the 6yd box an attacking player would not be offside even if he is behind the defender.
I see the rationale behind your suggestions; how much different is that from the original offside rule or the way the game is actually played ?
1. There can be no offside if the ball is played from the passing player's side of the pitch, regardless of where the receiving player is when the pass is played.
2. The original rule was 'a player is offside if he is behind or in line with the last defender, when the ball was played'.
Originally it meant all attacking players, not just the player receiving the pass so all attackers needed to be aware of their positioning in relation to the last defender. This being in an 'offside position but not interfering with play' was a later adjustment that befuddled things to where they are today.
If anyone has ever played football, particularly as a defender, they will know that an attacking player cannot be in an offside position without interfering with the play simply because every attacker is attracting the attention of the defense as a unit and this influences how the defense copes with an attack.
3. Most offside calls are made in the 2nd of your 3 zones when the play is building, a lessor percentage is made in the 6 yard box because by then, the attackers have beaten the defense, including their offside trap and a tap-in goal or glaring miss is usually the result.
If the rule is scrapped altogether, it will result in a total long-ball game to an attacker waiting behind the defense constantly or a massing of the defense in and around the 6-yard box to prevent attackers getting in goalscoring positions for that long pass.
Any astute student of the game will know that the reason offside was introduced to the game in the late 1800s was to prevent those two tactics from becoming a regular part of the game to start with !
Either way, it completely ruins the game as a spectator sport as we know it. You might as well call football 'basketball' with the feet for all intents and purposes.
The object of football has always been its difficulty to score goals, not judging the game by how many goals are scored.
This whole rigmarole is still Sepp Blatter's final push to change football to sway the mainstream sports market for selling the game to the main TV networks in the USA and this is nothing new.
The decision to leave 'goal-line technology' out of the game for the time being is an indication of how this suggested offside scrapping idea will go.
Into 'File 13', hopefully along with Blatter come next FIFA presidential elections.
Ric, I don't see the spectacle of players launching long balls into the box happening in today's game. Maybe in the late 1800s it was necessary to implement rules to prevent that due to the lack of talent particularly on the defensive end, but I don't see it happening in today's game. Actually today we have the total opposite. We could use some of those long balls every once in a while in today's game. Football has become an unnecessary passing around of the ball in the midfield with no purpose. If I see one more game where the losing team end the half or unthinkably the game with the ball been box around the midfield I am going to pull my hair out. Not even an attempt to launch a hail mary pass towards the box to try to score. You have some players in the highest leagues who have never attempted a forward pass in their whole career. As soon as the ball get to their feet they instinctively turn around to kick it back to the goalie. The goalie is suppose to be a relief valve, not this crap I see taking place at an alarming rate. I played defense and goalie and I swear if I was goalie and a man just turn around and kick the ball to me without looking for other options I would allow the ball to trickle into my own net.
Other times the team that is losing get a corner kick or a free kick close to the end of the game and they linger around wasting time. I am going what the f--k is wrong with these players, if I was the ref I would blow the final whistle and not allow them to take the kick.
If as you say, the objective of football has always been its difficulty to score goals. Then I would say the beauty of the game is in trying to manufacture those hard to come by goals. A major problem I see today is that teams are not trying to manufacture those hard to score goals. The game has become too methodical. All the star players are concentrated in the biggest leagues in Europe yet we can only point to 2 teams who play enjoyable football, and even those 2 teams become boring and methodical at times with their overpassing. If the biggest stars are not playing enjoyable football then who is suppose to do it?
The only way I enjoy a game today is if the bigger team is behind in the score. At least that way I am assure to see some purposeful football.
This is from someone who does not object to a team going defensive as a strategy to defend a lead or get a needed result. You won't hear me spouting that corny line that a good defense is a good offense.
I won't even get into the there is no offside if the offside player does not interfere with the play. As you said it is silly to say the player did not interfere with the play. There is a lot more to interferring with a play than chasing after the ball.
I have been waiting for this conversation for the past 20 years. If I had the power I would get rid of the offside rule, or at least adjust it. My rule would state that there is no offside 1/3 of the pitch on either side of the center line. If a player picks up the ball anywhere on his side of the field or 1/3 into the opponent side of the field he is onside no matter where the last defender is. I will also implement a rule that as long as a defending player is in the 6yd box an attacking player would not be offside even if he is behind the defender.
I see the rationale behind your suggestions; how much different is that from the original offside rule or the way the game is actually played ?
1. There can be no offside if the ball is played from the passing player's side of the pitch, regardless of where the receiving player is when the pass is played.
You sure bout that? I understand the rule to say that as long as the receiving player is in the opponent's half he can be called offside, except if the ball is from a goal kick, throw-in or corner kicks, and of course if an opposing player kicks it to him why he is offside.
I think the use of goal line technology is banned by Fifa in league play... so I would say to introduce goal line technology into the the sport would be pretty interesting then referee's could focus more on the actual game
_________________________
Vegas will always be Vegas. That won’t change. Las Vegas will be the market of markets for MLS.
I have been waiting for this conversation for the past 20 years. If I had the power I would get rid of the offside rule, or at least adjust it. My rule would state that there is no offside 1/3 of the pitch on either side of the center line. If a player picks up the ball anywhere on his side of the field or 1/3 into the opponent side of the field he is onside no matter where the last defender is. I will also implement a rule that as long as a defending player is in the 6yd box an attacking player would not be offside even if he is behind the defender.
I see the rationale behind your suggestions; how much different is that from the original offside rule or the way the game is actually played ?
1. There can be no offside if the ball is played from the passing player's side of the pitch, regardless of where the receiving player is when the pass is played.
You sure bout that? I understand the rule to say that as long as the receiving player is in the opponent's half he can be called offside, except if the ball is from a goal kick, throw-in or corner kicks, and of course if an opposing player kicks it to him why he is offside.
To be truthful, the only people in the game who understands the offside rule in the modern game are the officials who call the play and as I see it, they make the rules up as they go along !!
The last rule change regarding offside was that if there was any doubt, the benefit of the decision should go in favour of the attacking team.
Someone sure failed to inform these British refeering teams of that !! According to the rules, John Carew's first goal today should have stood but these little pompous British officials take the greatest pleasure in raising the offside flag at the slightest suggestion; to hell with giving the attack the benefit of the doubt.
I completely agree with you about the over-elaboration of passing the ball in a less than attacking way when the attacking pass is there to be made; it truly makes me mad as hell when I see it too.
That's why I root for the underdog team to score first most times so that we can watch a game of football !
I don't see scrapping the rule altogether as the answer to the problem though.
When you look at today's two FA Cup qtr-final matches, you saw the underdog team have a right go and push the big team all the way to the final whistle.
A game of football should be about fighting to win the match, regardless of the odds.
I think two simple changes can have a very big impact:
1 Make football 10 a side. Players fitter, faster and covering way more ground than ever before. Yet field sizes have remained the same. So 10 v 10 is a simple change that can be implemented World Wide. Cheap!
2. Give points for goals scored as well as for a WIN. This way if a team is losing 3-0, they may still pick up points by going for goals. If the game ends up 3-2 the winning team gets 6 points, losers 2. It may have an impact by making games more open. Again easy to implement
Even a basic student of the game's history and evolution would now that it is the offside law that has influenced how football's thinkers have formulated tactics and approach to the game.
Remove this law and you create an entirely different sport.
What needs to be introduced in football with regards to laws and officiating etc.. is:
1) All players are penalised as being offside regardless of whether or not they are "interfering".
Stay the hell ONSIDE!! If you are not interfering with play then you should not be on the pitch.
2) Penalising fouls for what occured not WHERE they occured.
Numerous trips and nudges are awarded in the centre circle but miraculously are let go when done in or around the penalty area.
One of the most common examples of this is when balls are going out for a goal kick and the defender does nothing but aim to impede an attacker from getting to it by blocking them off with their body. I'm not talking about if it is done in a small area but sometimes the defender will do it for all of 10-15 yards!
You CAN do this in the centre circle, for example, but within seconds you would have to get the ball under your control or the ref would blow you up for obstruction.
3) Reward players who try to stay on their feet.
How many times have you seen a player fouled in the box, try to stay on his feet and lose out because he lost his momentum but not get the penalty he would have got had he gone down?
And then we complain when players dive because they know it is the only way to force the ref's hand to give a penalty.
4) Seriously enforce that goalkeepers stay on the line at penalties AND defensive walls stay 10 yards away at all times.
5) All free kicks are direct and thus all fouls in the penalty area are penalties.
I could think of more but time is limited.
You would think from all this clamour to change the laws of football that it is not te world's most popular sport!!
The offside rules need to be adjusted so that defenders can go back to playing defense and attacking players can go back to playing offense. That's what football is about and should be about.
One thing all tacticians and thinkers have in common is that if left to their own devices they will eventually end up wringing the fun out of their chosen profession. You have to save them from themselves. Their whole intention is to shorten the field of play so they can control every action taking place. That is excellent planning, but very bad for the enjoyment of the game. With the amount of money in the game today people are forfeiting their responsibility to put on an enjoyable product and are just concentrating on winning, and I can't fault them.
It is these evolutionary tactics and approaches that are causing all this fuss. The games appears boring because these tacticians are concentrating on shortening the field and making the game a midfield stalemate to the point where people are thinking about changing from 11 to 10 players a side. This wouldn't solve much because the players already show up to tournaments looking dead tired and beat up.
How many times we observe the play been tilted to one very small area of the field creating a bottleneck while the whole other side of the field is wide open. Bottlenecks on the field seems to be more of the players doing than a function of the field not being big enough.
Let these tacticians formulate tactics to open up the field instead of the other way around.
pelepapa I agree with much of what you say, but removing the offside law all together would have an opposite effect. The tacticians will remain and they will adjust to the laws of the game. Weaker Teams will defend even deeper and that will cause strong teams to pass the ball around more in an attempt to draw them out, defenders will have less room to attack and run at opponents etc etc
Maybe just maybe an adjustment is all that is needed. I really did not see much wrong with the old "the player receiving the ball should not be in an offside position when the ball was played." (simple and clear). I also liked when the law stated that the attacker COULD be in line with the last defender (simple and clear). Not if his head, leg or belly (if it's mine) is ahead of the last defender. Way to complicated and difficult for the assistant referee. Personally I like the game as it is, its just the offside is confusing at the moment. For the purpose of discussion what about this.
1. Keep the offside rule but make it clear and simple. 2. Once the ball is inside the penalty area the offside rule no longer applies.
PS: I would like to see FIFA expand the areas where corners are taken (maybe make it 3 yards). The sign boards are a problem and it may improve more effective delivery
2. Give points for goals scored as well as for a WIN. This way if a team is losing 3-0, they may still pick up points by going for goals. If the game ends up 3-2 the winning team gets 6 points, losers 2. It may have an impact by making games more open. Again easy to implement
Now thats a wicked rule change....
_________________________
They make the world so hard
pelepapa I agree with much of what you say, but removing the offside law all together would have an opposite effect. The tacticians will remain and they will adjust to the laws of the game. Weaker Teams will defend even deeper and that will cause strong teams to pass the ball around more in an attempt to draw them out, defenders will have less room to attack and run at opponents etc etc
Maybe just maybe an adjustment is all that is needed. I really did not see much wrong with the old "the player receiving the ball should not be in an offside position when the ball was played." (simple and clear). I also liked when the law stated that the attacker COULD be in line with the last defender (simple and clear). Not if his head, leg or belly (if it's mine) is ahead of the last defender. Way to complicated and difficult for the assistant referee. Personally I like the game as it is, its just the offside is confusing at the moment. For the purpose of discussion what about this.
1. Keep the offside rule but make it clear and simple. 2. Once the ball is inside the penalty area the offside rule no longer applies.
PS: I would like to see FIFA expand the areas where corners are taken (maybe make it 3 yards). The sign boards are a problem and it may improve more effective delivery
Observer I didn't call for abolishing the offside rule all together, I listed the adjustments I would make to it.
I like the suggestions you mek. The extra points for goals is a wicked idea like JT said. I don't know if they would ever implement it, but it would eliminate/reduce what I think is the most annoying aspect of the game.
The laws of the game should not be populist or aim to make the game a better VIEWING spectacle. That is not what they are there for. They should be fair, as easy as possible to police and reasonable.
There is no need to reward anyone extra points for goals scored any more than they should be deducted points for conceding.
This distorts outcomes of leagues almost as bad as poor decisions do.
The team that is hopeless at defending but loses a game 3-2 gets rewarded with points whilst the team that works hard but loses to the late goal at 1-0 receives none? Makes no sense whatsoever.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
The laws are there to frame the way the game is played and to protect players from harm etc...
They should not in anyway aim to mould how coaches set out their teams tactically etc...
If a coach wishes to send a team out to hold on to a 0-0 and escape from its superior rival with a point to fight another day, there should be nothing in the laws of the game to stop him.
If fans or the viewers are upset with that, that is their prerogative but that is a local issue of no consequence to the lawmakers.
If individual leagues with the consent of their members wish to institute points for goals that is another matter albeit a foolish one.
Goals are mini events as a means to an end i.e. winning the game.
How the hell can you penalize a team for having an injured player?
An injured player should be allowed a sub. How many games have you seen a team play a man down because an opposing player injured one of their players.
Actually.. What the hell .. leggo di subs
Make limited subbing possible and make subbing players back in legal.
When I say limited subbing I really mean unlimited subbing but time restrictions that prevent teams using this to slow the game.
