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: Bruce D. Scott on 14 Jun 2010 15:42 Deeppe (tutall(a)hotmail.com) wrote: : 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. This allows clever players to play with their arms out therefore increasing the cross section of an interception. If they're clever enough they can sell it as a "natural" movement or positioning. This is why I think they should call it regardless. The sign of it as an increasing problem is the (recently) vastly increased frequency of occurrence of these "was it a handball" situations, and the clear fact that they are not called consistently (again, e.g. Baggio 1998 against Chile on the one hand and US/Ger 2002 on the other). -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: Quincy on 14 Jun 2010 19:31 On 14 Jun., 20:25, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > 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. > > 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. When I was a teenager we got a penalty after the ball jumped to my arm *attached* to my body (so the Mertesacker action was much much much worse). It's over 20 years now ago and I am still furious about it.
From: Mehdi on 14 Jun 2010 20:51 > Subject : Offside and attacking play > From : Huw Morris > The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered. A defence > cannot push up and compress the midfield because they will be caught out be > a clever pass down the wings. So the defences are having to stay back, often > in a line of 4 or 5, and the defensive midfieldiers have to drop back and > for a line 10-20 metres in front of the defence. Very often, when a team > attacks there are 8 outfield players defending against no more than 2 or 3 > attackers. There is simply no space in and around the edge of the penalty > area, and no space for attackers to run into. > > 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? > > Huw I've been very critical of teams that play with a high line for years. It's a stupid tactic, it's suicide precisely because a well time ball over the top will shred a defence. It's much more difficult to break down teams that defence deep, Germany succeeded because they had the patience, movement, technique and pace other teams have lacked. -- http://soccer-europe.com Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
From: Mehdi on 14 Jun 2010 21:58 > Subject : Offside and attacking play > From : bds(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de > 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) The game would be better if teams learned how to play football instead of relying on the ability of their forwards to chase down balls over the top. Teams can't pass through defences that park the bus because of a lack of imagination and skill. How many great playmakers are there in the game today and I mean real #10s that play just off the front man? -- http://soccer-europe.com Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
From: Bruce D. Scott on 15 Jun 2010 00:13
Mehdi (Benny(a)soccer-europe.com) wrote: : > Subject : Offside and attacking play : > From : bds(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de : > 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) : The game would be better if teams learned how to play football instead : of relying on the ability of their forwards to chase down balls over the : top. Teams can't pass through defences that park the bus because of a : lack of imagination and skill. How many great playmakers are there in : the game today and I mean real #10s that play just off the front man? Wesley Sneijder. I still think we should have bought him along with Robben. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ |