Prev: "Lord of War" Unsophisticated Prediction Contest
Next: The Best World Cup RSS *contest* so far (bicycle kick now worth 3)
From: Abubakr on 19 Jun 2010 07:52
On Jun 19, 9:47 pm, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com>
> On Jun 16, 12:44 pm, Futbolmetrix <futbolmet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Here I would agree that it's extremely generous to say that RVN is
> > *not* interfering with play. But that's what the new directive is
> > about.
> Thought I'd bump this thread and add a comment. I do agree that the
> whole 'non-interfering player' rule is not helpful and is better
> removed altogether, but I want to speak from the opposite side:I hate
> offsides that are called when the ball is already deep in the
> offensive zone. These calls do nothing to help the game, as they
> don't affect the massive cherry-picking that the rule is intended to
> prohibit. But they're great for ruling out some great goals off of
> poor clearances from crosses, free kicks, corner kicks and whatnot.
> Although it will never happen in a gajillion years, I would like to
> see a variant hockey's offsides -- regular offsides applies until the
> ball is within some range of goal, say the top of the box, within that
> range everybody's onside until the ball is cleared.
> I'd also throw out the minor tweak that you could extend the no
> offsides on throw-ins rule to free kicks as well.
The only amendment I'd make to the offside rule is that so long as the
*ball* is behind two defending players then any attacking player who
should happen to play it in that position should be deemed onside
From: HASM on 19 Jun 2010 09:26
"ken.overton(a)gmail.com" <ken.overton(a)gmail.com> writes:
> These calls do nothing to help the game, as they don't affect the massive
> cherry-picking that the rule is intended to prohibit.
Without arguing your point, I'll argue this. The offside rule is actually
a lot more lax today than it was originally, and the intent wasn't strictly
Both association (soccer) and rugby football didn't originally allowed
players to be ahead of the ball at all, and rugby still does it today. In
rugby, if you're ahead of the ball you have to walk back around in a way
that doesn't even interfere with play or you'll be deemed off-side.
In association football being behind the ball still gives you a free pass
in terms of number of defenders ahead of you, but you can now (where now is
for a long time) be ahead of the ball, as long you have those two
defenders ahead of you.
From: Deeppe on 19 Jun 2010 10:40
On Jun 19, 6:26 am, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
> Without arguing your point, I'll argue this. The offside rule is actually
> a lot more lax today than it was originally,
Make up your mind,
Thought you were simply an argumentative type, thanks for
From: HASM on 19 Jun 2010 10:58
Deeppe <tutall(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>> Without arguing your point, I'll argue this. Â
> Make up your mind, ... Thought you were simply an argumentative type,
> thanks for confirmation.
I wasn't arguing his point/wish for the offside law to be further modified,
just the point that the law was not meant to prevent cherry picking, from
an historical perspective, but a side effect of requiring both sides to
be behind the ball. It's like a war front, you need to play from your
side, not the opponents or off-side.
From that point of view today's law allowing players to be ahead of the
ball, in soccer only not rugby, makes soccer and rugby formations quite
different. Can you imagine a soccer game with players all behind the ball?
Watch a rugby game and try to transplant it over.
That was all,