Offside and attacking play
in [World Football]
|
Prev: "Lord of War" Unsophisticated Prediction Contest
Next: The Best World Cup RSS *contest* so far (bicycle kick now worth 3)
From: Huw Morris on 14 Jun 2010 11:57 Bruce D. Scott wrote: > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played > forward for it to be called) That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is damaging the game. > I actually think many teams are poorly prepared and the basic execution > by the better teams will improve a lot in the next matches. There's a lot of teams/players who are way below what we know they are capable of. It may simply be unfamiliarity with their team-mates, and that will improve over the course of the tournament. It could also be that there are a lot of knackered players after a gruelling domestic season. It could also be that with all the money players earn now, they don't really want to play at 100% for their national team. Huw
From: JK on 14 Jun 2010 12:23 Bruce D. Scott wrote: > Huw Morris (no(a)spam.please) wrote: > > [...] > > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played > forward for it to be called) Couldn't agree more. I hate the passive offsides rule with the passion of a thousand white hot suns. > : It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost > : them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond > : the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily > : have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances > : than every other team combined has created so far! > > : Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup? > > Basic execution. Missing by most teams, evident with Germany before > they did their subs. Time those runs. Hit the pass accurately (another > example is SA's first goal). The Aussies were too slow mentally to play > offside/pressing. Germany timed the runs and passes, the last Aussie > was always too slow pulling up. More mental switching than actual > quickness. I still think Germany will have a lot of trouble with a team > that can press well. > > I actually think many teams are poorly prepared and the basic execution > by the better teams will improve a lot in the next matches. > > The refs are exellent. No overreaction as in previous cups, but not > letting too much go either. > > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: Abubakr on 14 Jun 2010 12:19 On Jun 15, 1:57 am, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote: > Bruce D. Scott wrote: > > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say > > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and > > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played > > forward for it to be called) > > That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is > damaging the game. There has never been a getting rid of the passive offside as this rule has always been in place; one always had to be involved in the play to be deemed offside. The changes in the rules were aimed at making it easier for attackers to beat the offside trap, such as by giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt in close decisions (this a very counter-intuitive principle which is why it's very inconsistently applied) and by allowing a attacker to be in line with the second last defender as opposed to behind him in the older rules.
From: Bruce D. Scott on 14 Jun 2010 14:25 Huw Morris (no(a)spam.please) wrote: : Bruce D. Scott wrote: : > I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say : > the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and : > said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played : > forward for it to be called) : That's basically the point I'm making. Getting rid of passive offside is : damaging the game. We might be misunderstanding each other... what I meant was that the rules _should_ say offside is offside, period. But the ability to decoy and break up the trap possibility is made by the rule that says the player has to be involved in play. Two very damaging places where the rules emphasis referee judgement are this one, and the one about a handball having to be unintentional, which results in certain players (like Per Mertesacker, who did it again yesterday, but got away with it unlike in the German Cup) flailing their arms about "naturally" and complaining that if the ball hits them it was unintentional. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: Deeppe on 14 Jun 2010 14:53
On Jun 14, 11:25 am, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: >, and the one about a > handball having to be unintentional, which results in certain players > (like Per Mertesacker, who did it again yesterday, but got away with it > unlike in the German Cup) flailing their arms about "naturally" and > complaining that if the ball hits them it was unintentional. > Well, the law also states that the arm/hand must be "in a natural position", I was usually pretty harsh with this myself, but yeah, that one can be dicey. A good referee team should have this sort of thing scouted out ahead of time. Gives them an opportunity to call it when it doesn't much effect play and gives the player a head's up he's not going to get away with that sort of nonsense. |