Soccer Thread
-
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
That's the one. It used to be legal, until it became a ridiculous time wasting technique, and they outlawed it about 20 years ago:
The back-pass rule was introduced in 1992[3] to discourage time-wasting and overly defensive play after the 1990 World Cup was described as exceedingly dull, rife with back-passing and goalkeepers holding up the ball. Also, goalkeepers would frequently drop the ball and dribble it around, only to pick it up again once opponents came closer to put them under pressure, a typical time-stalling technique.
-
Wow, I just thought that was always a rule (introduced the year I was born). I can't imagine the game with out that rule
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The way I see it is that you have to be suspect of any sport in which the two teams playing for the world championship are France and Italy and the final score is 0 to 0.
WSS
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
True.
Of course the Super Bowl is specifically for American football.
The World Series, of course, has at least one non American team, right? Is Canada still a British colony ?
WSS
-
So more than half the planet watches the game or plays the game in some capacity, but they're all wrong and you're right? I can see you've already had the major points made to you but you stubbornly refuse to change your mind, so there's no point going through it all again, but rest assured, soccer is better with the offside rule in place. And the passback rule. And the advantage rule. And all the other changes that have been made to make it better including formations and tactics. It's not changing just to accommodate you, or other instant-gratification types - it seems to be doing well enough in the states as it is, and you're pretty much the last country to catch on.
So more than half the planet watches the game or plays the game in some capacity, but they're all wrong and you're right? I can see you've already had the major points made to you but you stubbornly refuse to change your mind, so there's no point going through it all again, but rest assured, soccer is better with the offside rule in place. And the passback rule. And the advantage rule. And all the other changes that have been made to make it better including formations and tactics. It's not changing just to accommodate you, or other instant-gratification types - it seems to be doing well enough in the states as it is, and you're pretty much the last country to catch on.
And we don't fucking care. If the rest of the world enjoys the snore fest, more power to them then. Enjoy your 0-0 games that are decided by a gimmick shootout.
To me I would think that a purist like you would object to such gimmickry as the shootout. It would be like having a Football game being decided by a Field Goal kicking contest.
It is absurd.
(But what is worse is the College Football Overtime Rules....another major fucking gimmick way of deciding a game. Trust me....for soccer I am merely making suggestions on how to make it more entertaining. If you want the game to stay in medieval times...so be it. For college football, now that is an area that angers me.)
-
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
OK, how about this: Keep the offside rule....eliminate the goalie. Do something comparable to the 3 second rule in basketball. Create a perimeter in which no defender is allowed in for more than x number of seconds.
FYI....eliminating the offside rule is nothing radical on my part. As noted.....there is no offside rule in Indoor Soccer. So it would not be that radical.
-
Wow, I just thought that was always a rule (introduced the year I was born). I can't imagine the game with out that rule
Wow, I just thought that was always a rule (introduced the year I was born). I can't imagine the game with out that rule
Here is a clue for you: In college basketball,there was no shot clock until 1985. That was also the same year the 3 point shot was instituted.
So, radical changes to a game can be made to make it more entertaining, to speed more action, to encourage more interest.
-
The way I see it is that you have to be suspect of any sport in which the two teams playing for the world championship are France and Italy and the final score is 0 to 0.
WSS
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
To my knowledge no sport in this country professes to claim its championship to be a World Championship.
We do have the World Series, but that is more of an ancient moniker that tradition has just held.
Though, I will say this: though they are not called that, the Baseball World Series, The Super Bowl, the NBA Championship, and the Stanley Cup/NHL Finals probably indeed are de facto World Championships....for at least 2 reasons:
A. Almost all the best players in those sports play in those leagues. Not all, but nearly all.
B. The winner of those titles would almost assuredly be the best team in that sport in the world.
Now, there are some good teams in Japan in Baseball, but the US teams would still probably be better. The same for some European League Basketball and like Russian League Hockey. Those teams probably play at a pretty high minor league level.
(note....the MLB put a team in the Dominican Republic...and said that that team must be made up of all the best DR players...it would probably be the best team around)
-
Wow, I just thought that was always a rule (introduced the year I was born). I can't imagine the game with out that rule
Here is a clue for you: In college basketball,there was no shot clock until 1985. That was also the same year the 3 point shot was instituted.
So, radical changes to a game can be made to make it more entertaining, to speed more action, to encourage more interest.
My thinking was that soccer has been around forever and that's a pretty big rule change pretty recentlyHere is a clue for you: In college basketball,there was no shot clock until 1985. That was also the same year the 3 point shot was instituted.
So, radical changes to a game can be made to make it more entertaining, to speed more action, to encourage more interest.
-
As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.
That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.
Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?
OK, how about this: Keep the offside rule....eliminate the goalie. Do something comparable to the 3 second rule in basketball. Create a perimeter in which no defender is allowed in for more than x number of seconds.
FYI....eliminating the offside rule is nothing radical on my part. As noted.....there is no offside rule in Indoor Soccer. So it would not be that radical.
OK, how about this: Keep the offside rule....eliminate the goalie. Do something comparable to the 3 second rule in basketball. Create a perimeter in which no defender is allowed in for more than x number of seconds.
FYI....eliminating the offside rule is nothing radical on my part. As noted.....there is no offside rule in Indoor Soccer. So it would not be that radical.
Lol , if there was no goalie the games would be stupid. The best players in the world could shoot from damn near anywhere and score. It would completely break the game
Indoor soccer isn't outdoor soccer perfectly scaled down, it is a different game. Like flag football to football. There are no offsides because of the small field. There is no need basically. Every player pretty much plays the whole field and losing a guy behind you isn't as much of an issue. There is also less room to work with, which would make it harder to work with an offsides.
Forwards who do play far up though in indoor, in a technically offsides position, those guys are called cherry pickers and they're assholes
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The way I see it is that you have to be suspect of any sport in which the two teams playing for the world championship are France and Italy and the final score is 0 to 0.
WSS
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country
Then, uh, why the fuck are you here? See how we're not on some soccer forum because the rest of the world likes it?
-
Then, uh, why the fuck are you here? See how we're not on some soccer forum because the rest of the world likes it?
I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.
-
OK, how about this: Keep the offside rule....eliminate the goalie. Do something comparable to the 3 second rule in basketball. Create a perimeter in which no defender is allowed in for more than x number of seconds.
FYI....eliminating the offside rule is nothing radical on my part. As noted.....there is no offside rule in Indoor Soccer. So it would not be that radical.
Lol , if there was no goalie the games would be stupid. The best players in the world could shoot from damn near anywhere and score. It would completely break the game
Indoor soccer isn't outdoor soccer perfectly scaled down, it is a different game. Like flag football to football. There are no offsides because of the small field. There is no need basically. Every player pretty much plays the whole field and losing a guy behind you isn't as much of an issue. There is also less room to work with, which would make it harder to work with an offsides.
Forwards who do play far up though in indoor, in a technically offsides position, those guys are called cherry pickers and they're assholes
Lol , if there was no goalie the games would be stupid. The best players in the world could shoot from damn near anywhere and score. It would completely break the game
Indoor soccer isn't outdoor soccer perfectly scaled down, it is a different game. Like flag football to football. There are no offsides because of the small field. There is no need basically. Every player pretty much plays the whole field and losing a guy behind you isn't as much of an issue. There is also less room to work with, which would make it harder to work with an offsides.
Forwards who do play far up though in indoor, in a technically offsides position, those guys are called cherry pickers and they're assholes
Ergo....indoor soccer is a much more exciting....interesting game. As for the cherry pickers, I told you how they can be dealt with:
A. If someone cherry picks, then they are weakening the defense. Kind of like giving the team a power play on every offensive attempt.
B. In basketball, cherry pickers are the ones that get elbows to the neck. Give the cherry picker an elbow to the neck and let him know why he got the elbow to the neck and problem solved.
-
Then, uh, why the fuck are you here? See how we're not on some soccer forum because the rest of the world likes it?
I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.
I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.
What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.
As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.
Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?
Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?
(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).
-
I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.
What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.
As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.
Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?
Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?
(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).
What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.
As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.
Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?
Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?
(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).
OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:
- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?
- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.
- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.
- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?
- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.
Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.
As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.
Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.
-
It is more interesting and exciting in your opinion. As Chris noted the average America craves the big play, the high scoring game, highlight reel material, etc.
A. It doesn't exactly work like that, especially in a full 11 v 11 game. You agent going to leave a guy by himself 1 on 1 with the goalie.
B. Stuff like that would happen. Stuff like that does happen now (maybe not as blatant). Using that as a failsafe against a broken game mechanic is dumb though.
-
The player taking the shot in a penalty kick (shootout) is not violating the offsides rule, FYI.
-
Seems the most appropriate place for this:
-
What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.
As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.
Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?
Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?
(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).
OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:
- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?
- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.
- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.
- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?
- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.
Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.
As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.
Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.
OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:
- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?
Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)
- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.
Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).
- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.
Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)
- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?
Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.
- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.
That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.
If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.
The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)
Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.
As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.
Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.
I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.
It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.
I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.
It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.
Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.
Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.
-
Playing for even longer than two hours will just continue to degrade the level of play as players become more fatigued. They don't have multiple back ups at every position.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login