Jump to content

Dalla Costa: Offside rule taking away from game


Grizzly

Recommended Posts

Fire away!

Offside rule taking away from game

Soccer's goal has long been to find ways to make the game more attractive in North America and while they're at it, make the game more popular throughout the world.

There's no question soccer is the world's most popular sport. But those in charge of the game would love to really sell it in Canada and the United States, where the television advertising revenue is huge and the fan base relatively untapped.

Even though the sport's popularity is growing in the United States, it's still nowhere when it comes to really making big money on the airwaves. In North America, it's considered too slow, with not enough scoring.

Those are the main reasons the sport won't sell here, but North Americans are by no means the only ones complaining about the state of the game.

Commentators and fans in nations where soccer reigns supreme often bemoan the lack of scoring and action.

There is one rule more than any other that puts the shackles on scoring, annoys fans and players like no other and turns off potential fans with its complexity and by how it stifles the flow of the game.

It's the offside rule.

Changing the rule would go a long way toward selling the product and, more importantly, making the product more enjoyable.

Usually, sports have a defined offside rule. In hockey and football there are lines. In soccer, it's this invisible line that moves with the movement of the last defender when the ball is kicked.

If that isn't complicated enough, the linesman calling the offside has to judge when the ball is kicked and where the offensive player is at that moment.

But it's more complicated than that.

Soccer was developed in England as a game for gentlemen. The offside rule was developed to prevent players from standing in front of the opponent's net and doing nothing except try to score goals without doing any running, dribbling or other soccer moves.

Being offside was considered a form of cheating.

You can never be offside in your own half of the field if you are dribbling the ball or if you are behind a ball that someone else is dribbling.

But if a pass is made to you when there are not at least two opponents between you and the goal you are attacking (the goaltender and another player), you are offside.

Confused yet?

That's not all. There are many other rules that tell the referee when to make an offside call. Most people only know one to two of these.

It used to be even more stringent.

There was a time when being even with the second player between you and the net was an offside.

Now, if you are even with a player, play continues.

There was also a time when any player in an offside position would cause the play to stop whether he was involved in the play or not.

Now, if you don't affect the outcome of the play, the play will stand.

Do us all a favour and make some changes. If you don't want to remake the entire rule, then clear up the mess in the penalty area where the offside rule negates scoring chances.

It would be easy to do. There is no offside on any play that begins inside the 18-yard penalty area.

Try it, you'll like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An off-size amnesty zone in the attacking half? Think I'll pass on that one.

As much as I dislike the current tweekings on the offside rule, mostly because I think it's unrealistic and puts too much onto a linesman who more than often enough is at least 30 yards away from the play and has to see through 10 bodys in trying to do his job, I'd prefer the status quo to a offside-free zone.

Been trying to explain offside to a couple of the brother-in-laws and they're actually catching on. But it took baby steps. They've got the basics, the nuances seem to be a bit harder to grasp but they'll get them yet.

Not even going to try to get into the "having a player offside intentionaly as a tactics" discussion with them for at least another year. Or not. Depends how much of the WC they get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

Morris, you're an idiot.

I'll second that. I especially find annoying the bit about how the world should placate to the supposed desires of canadian and american fans. It not like Americans and canadians invented the game and I do see any calls from the rest of the world about how gridiron football, for exmple, should be dramatically alterred to suite the needs of the rest of the world. I'd like to know what statistical evidence he has to support this wide spread sentiment in North america that the game is too slow and low scoring. In about two weeks the sports biggest event kicks off and millions will be following it in both the US and canada. If there was any wide spread support for his claims then you can bet that the sports channells would not be making all 64 gams available on the the air and would not fork out the $$$ that they did to carry these games.

Those who think the game is too slow or too low scoring will not change their mind regardless of the rule changes that you make. Having said that, I do agree that there are issues relating to the Off sides. Specifically, its too hard to accurately call and thus lends itself to corruption and outside influence of referees. I saw this with matches involving Korea in the last world cup and I do believe that if this rule was a little more "black and white" then you probably would not see the kind of refereeing scandal that we are now seeing in Italian soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

An off-size amnesty zone in the attacking half? Think I'll pass on that one.

As much as I dislike the current tweekings on the offside rule, mostly because I think it's unrealistic and puts too much onto a linesman who more than often enough is at least 30 yards away from the play and has to see through 10 bodys in trying to do his job, I'd prefer the status quo to a offside-free zone.

Been trying to explain offside to a couple of the brother-in-laws and they're actually catching on. But it took baby steps. They've got the basics, the nuances seem to be a bit harder to grasp but they'll get them yet.

Not even going to try to get into the "having a player offside intentionaly as a tactics" discussion with them for at least another year. Or not. Depends how much of the WC they get in.

I was watching some NASL stuff today and was checking out the 35 yard line. For those who don't know, it decreased the field area in which offside took place to between the goal line and the 35 instead of midfield giving attacking teams roughly 20 yards of additional space in which they didn't have to worry about offsides.

I suppose it worked but it's not like it changed much. Instead of a lone striker and lone defender holding hands at midfield, they did it at the 35.

The offside rule has its value as we all know despite the fact that it gets pretty bloody annoying sometimes. Ya, it's one tough call for a linesman to make sometimes (sorry referee's assistant).

I'm surprised Morris didn't suggest a limited number of offside dispensations. Each team can have three legal offsides per half. That would of course lead to a striker camping out on the opposition penalty spot for 20 minutes with a defender hanging off him the whole time.

Wow, great!

db

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any sport where the refs have to make a judgement call is subject to complaining by the fans and so-called experts who say the rules need to be "fixed".

There are many in Norway who argue that the gold medal in Tippeligaen last year was decided by a bad offside call - Start's Stefan Bärlin was called offside in the final match of the year and probably should not have been. If Start had won or even drawn the match, they would have won the gold - instead they lost the game and the gold by 1 point. As a long-time Start fan, I can say that is without a doubt bullshlt. It was a bad call, but the team did not play well enough to win the game - end of story.

Diving is a much bigger problem than blown offsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'd say diving ranks well above "slow" and "low-scoring" as an obstacle to increasing the popularity of soccer in NA. I love soccer, and even to me it looks incredibly stupid, unmasculine, childish, and unsporting; to a new would-be fan, it's often enough to derail any interest in getting to know and understand the game any further. The rhythm of the game, the skill, all that 'boring' stuff between the goals takes a while to appreciate; the diving makes a big first impression for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I agree. Dust these pussies off and get them on their feet. Go to video evidence after the match of diving and give players cards to carry into their next match if diving is proven. If a player needs to be stretchered off don't let him on for five minutes give him "recovery time" to penalize time wasters and it's not a bad idea if the player is actually injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All valid points I would say. However there are thousands more games which do not have a multitude of maned video cameras available for replay and equally number where substitutes are not limited or limited to a higher number where an injured? player will quickly be subbed by another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...