All defenders take advantage of the offside rule. They intentionally go forward just to get a striker offside. And it works most of the time. Instead of playing defense, they focus on offside position. I think that this really hurts the game. Does this seem like elegant play to all of you? A game where defenders play in a way that appears completely unnatural... it just seems so lame. Watching a line of 5+ players far more upfield than where you think they should be. It almost makes me want to watch hockey or something like that instead. I love this sport... I'm just going over something that consistantly bothers me. For those that will flame me - please at least explain WHY play is better this way with the current offside rule. Does anyone else have a similar problem with this?
No. Why does the offside rule NOT bother me? Well, I've played in one-day tournaments where there was no offside in order to "increase scoring." I don't really think it did that at all, but what it did do was create some really, really ugly soccer. Basically, with no offside rule, you have attackers hanging around the edge of the penalty area, with a defender or two hanging around with them. Hence, you take a defender or two out of the attack, which actually takes away from the attacking soccer that the no-offside rule was supposed to create. It also favors the soccer equivalent of the dump and chase, which is far, far more inelegant than the current offside rule. As to attackers being tricked by the offside trap... well, good. It's part of the game, and it makes the game hard, which is part of the game's appeal. If you get ticked off seeing the flag go up on to kill a breakaway, don't get mad at the rule, get mad at 1) the referee's assistant if he blew the call, 2) the attacker who mistimed his run or 3) the player who held on to the ball too long and allowed the trap to work. By the way, part of "playing defense" is focusing on the offside position... which is actually pretty hard to do. Similarily, part of attacking is focusing on the offside position, too. It's like that at both ends of the field. The team who works with it better is the team that has a better chance of winning the match. Seriously, if you've ever watched or played soccer on a full field without an offside rule, you'd really appreciate the law more.
In few words, No offside means: A group of people standing by one goal and another group of people standing by the other goal. The midfield is almost completely eliminated because there's no need to "break down" the defense with passes because the defense is all the way by the goal next to the 2-5 forwards standing waiting for the ball.
When the defenders move forward for the trap, he actually exposes his back. It actually gives the offensive player more space to attack if he beats the trap. The offensive players got 20 yards or more of opened field in front of him because the defense moves forward. The attacker then can dribble or pass to beat the defenders. Moveover, the defenders tended to leave his man so he can set the trap. The defenders will not mark his man as tight because he needs to move away and leaves his man inside the trap. Thus, the attackers again got more space to roam. Of course, the attackers must beat the offside trap to benefit from the space. If you take away offside, the forward can go deep into the team's terriotory. Yes, he is much closer to the goal. But no team will leave an attacker with a 1-on-1 situation with the keeper. At least one defender will stay 100% of the time well inside the box. He will always stand between the attackers and the goal. Basically, some defenders simply never leave the box. Some intramural games I played in had no offside. In freekick situation, I tended to stand right in front of the keeper to disturb him. In a real game, the defenders just leave me alone in the box and I will be offsided when the ball is kicked. Without offside, the defenders cannot do anything. The defenders can only push me out us in basketball, but they cannot foul me or I got a penalty kick. If we had three to four guys in front of the keepers, the defense will be short of men to mark everybody out. Why? Because they need to use players for the wall. If they mark the players out, the wall will be short. We jcan ust shoot the ball straight at the goal. If they ignore the attackers and set the wall, we will have somesone wide-opened inside the box.
All good answers, King. Have you ever seen lacrosse? A sport that ought to be similar to soccer, yet there is no midfield play in the game, everyone groups down in the attacking halves (and they can run behind the goal). That's really boring to me. The offside rule is integral to the game much like the very notion of a strike zone is to baseball. I hope you can put aside your distaste, because you right, defending is predicated upon the offside rule, and you'll never appreciate defense if you care so little for the rule.
I think it needs fixed. I'm sick of seeing attackers punished for trying to play attacking football. If defenders cannot be bothered and need to rely on stepping up, then they deserve to be caught out. Attackers are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, but it never happens (unless Henry is playing...). Another side issue. It is physically impossible for a human to watch the position of moving players and also the watch for the split second the ball is hit. Therefore, why do we continue to use a rule that is impossible to properly enforce? It makes no sense at all!
The offside rule forces the side with the ball to be more creative, to be quicker and to time their runs better. Basically, it forces the side going forward to think of better ways to get through the opposing defence, than simply parking a striker in front of the goalie and waiting for the ball to land at their feet. The offside rule is therefore good for football, for the reasons stated above.
But how can it be if it is impossible to enforce fairly? I'm all for the rule, but not with current linesmen/assistant referees/cardboard cut-outs...
Refs, linesmen etc, is more of a seperate issue to me- if they were better, than everything, not only the enforcement of the offside rule, would be better too. Former players would make good refs, as (as one manager whose name escapes me put it, and I'm paraphrasing a bit) 'current refs know the rules, but not the game.'
I see how it could be worse without an offside rule, especially after these explanations I wish there was some sort of modification to the rule - but I don't really have much of an idea of what would be a good modification. I'd like to say that they should change the line from the last defender to 5-10 yards past the last defender... or something like that. But if defenders played the same way with that rule change, then the rule would be even harder to enforce correctly. I guess it would work IF the style of play allowed those calls to be fairly clear. What does the rule mean, by being past the last defender? Lately I've seen a lot of offside calls where the attacker's head was maybe a foot closer to the goal than the last defender's head. A really annoying part is when an attacker gets called offside when the ball and field of play is all inside the box (outside box). Maybe something like... no offside after the ball passes a certain line on the field could make sense? Like, at the point where the outside box starts? (Sorry I don't know the name of it.) I know the likeliness of anything actually being changed is extremely unlikely - but still interesting to talk about. (thanks for all the replies so far, by the way... it's good reading)
In my opinion, they should have kept the original offside rule, not this silly new one. You can't have that. Try playing in defence then see if you still want that rule. It's the players chest which is supposed to be looked at. It may seem that the offside rule makes football uglier and a team who play offside traps too much certainly make an ugly game but the alternative is too horrible to think about. It also forces attackers and midfieders to be more creative. Imagine a game with no great runs in behind the defence or no defence splitiing passes from the midfield.
I'm not really out to change the rules. But, if they did I'd like to see what it would look like if they adopted hockey's version of offsides. Basically, there is a line at the quarter mark and nobody on the offense can cross it until the ball has.
An offside trap is a "risk/reward" gamble. If it works, great, you stopped an attack, which is what defenders are SUPPOSE to do. If it fails, well you just sent the attacker in free and clear. What more could you ask for? a trap, is not that hard to beat, as long as the "trapped" attacker sees it and notices, he simply doesn't play the ball and a teammate comes from on side to run onto the ball. Just like the USWNT did in the olympics. Defenders are then caught standing still or going the wrong way and an onside player is on the run, once that attacker touches the ball offside is reset and it easily could be two on the keeper. Most if not all refs are ex-players.
well, there is a way. video.. if it's close, let the game continue, and a fourth offical checks the video recording and tells the ref if the goal should stand or not or whatever. same thing for penalties etc
How is the video cameraman going to be in line with the 2LD? What new rule? Do you mean the current interpretation on offside involvement, which restores things to the way the Law is written? Which original rule? The one that if you're ahead of the ball, no matter where the defenders are, you are in offside position? Or the later original rule, that 3 defenders defined offside? Or the immediate past rule, where even with the 2LD is off?
my only problem with the offside rule is how it is has been enforced... As a ref/linesman (you know, the important part of the call here..), they are much to quick to save their own ass, and call a borderline play offsides, than risk allowing a controversial goal.. Of course this doesnt happen all the time, but I have seen it happen way too many times not to notice it... The ref hedges his bet, and goes the safe route. Yes, he might get reprimanded about the call after the fact id he was wrong, he will get much less of a reprimand than if he let the play conitnue and a game-deciding goal was scored.. I think they refs should adopt a "anything close to a 50-50 call goes to the attacker" policy.. This would also keep the damn defenders from raising their hand begging from a call anytime an attacker is with the ball, and near them..
where do you live? ever heard about computers? the technology for that exists for quite a while already
They are stressing this in recert classes now, any doubt goes to the attacker and for offside to be called, they have to be "actively involved" basically they have to play the ball. I agree some AR call it to quick, but education is the key to fixing this. Video replay will just destroy soccer. American Football has it and it ruins the flow of that, soccer would be much worse, there are no natural breaks in soccer to get the replay as there are in football. Letting a play continue, then calling it back would be horrible. Offside is NOT messed up as often as many people think. In almost all controversial calls I have seen lately, replays show the officials got it right more often than not.
My experience as a fan is that the officials get it right about 50% of the time. When the call goes in favor of my team, it's right. When it goes against my team, it's wrong.