I have to admit upfront that I'm not a big soccer fan--I'm one of those typical Americans who think it's too frustrating when players are not rewarded properly for skillful play and when luck (e.g. officiating) plays too large a role.

But here's a question for the fans. Why not get rid of the offsides penalty? Sure, this would change the way the game is played because of the possibility for dangerous one-on-ones with the goalie, but so what? It seems to me that this would be a change for the better.

Please enlighten me, and needless to say, Go Bears

to eliminate cherrypicking, for one

why couldn't both teams cherry pick or account for cherry picking?

TummyoftheGB;342227 said:

---

I have to admit upfront that I'm not a big soccer fan--I'm one of those typical Americans who think it's too frustrating when players are not rewarded properly for skillful play and when luck (e.g. officiating) plays too large a role.

But here's a question for the fans. Why not get rid of the offsides penalty? Sure, this would change the way the game is played because of the possibility for dangerous one-on-ones with the goalie, but so what? It seems to me that this would be a change for the better.

Please enlighten me, and needless to say, Go Bears

---

This topic has been talked about for decades. it would change the game completely. I think there is a snowballs chance in hell it will be changed. Also, does the rest of the world really care what Americans think about soccer? It is HUGE in every other country but the US. We only appreciate in your face type of sports and soccer is all about subtleties which Americans really can't appreciate. I hope this rule never changes, though if it did there would certainly be much more scoring.

Why can't they just touch the ball with their hands?

It just is. Don't overthink it

Offsides isn't any harder to call than something like pass interference. Should the NFL get rid of that if their ref can't consistently apply it? For a correctly positioned linesman, this offside call should not have been that hard - the ball and the two players were easily within his field of view - almost in a line. The hard offsides calls are the ones where the ball travels a much longer distance in the air.

ianbearnson;342229 said:

---

to eliminate cherrypicking, for one

---

I think an easy solution would be to eliminate it once the ball is in the penalty box. The intentional defensive ploy of trying to draw a guy offsides seems rather unsportsmanlike, and when the ball is already that close, there's little cherry picking to be had. They won't change it, of course.

Might as well ask why they don't eliminate the handball. Whoops, they did, only they call it rugby.

Off side--simple and detailed:

http://www.soccerhelp.com/Soccer_Tips_Dictionary_Terms_O.shtml#offside_rule

grandmastapoop;342237 said:

---

The intentional defensive ploy of trying to draw a guy offsides seems rather unsportsmanlike.

---

I agree with that, but I also kinda like the fact that if you try and fail, you're totally f***ed.

It's a risky strategy.

NortonBear;342233 said:

---

This topic has been talked about for decades. it would change the game completely. I think there is a snowballs chance in hell it will be changed. Also, does the rest of the world really care what Americans think about soccer? It is HUGE in every other country but the US. We only appreciate in your face type of sports and soccer is all about subtleties which Americans really can't appreciate. I hope this rule never changes, though if it did there would certainly be much more scoring.

---

I think he's asking why the rule exists, not just saying we should get rid of it. It's always fun to consider the reasoning behind rules, which are rarely arbitrary.

In sports like soccer and basketball the rules tend to favor a good flow to the game. I think if there's no offsides rule you'd station a couple of strikers next your opponent's goal, and your defenders' and midfielders' job would simply be to kick the ball towards the goal from half a field away. Defenders would have to stay back to guard those offensive players which would mean little interplay at midfield. Currently defenders can move up the field and stay involved in the action, knowing the field has to shrink with them. I think spreading 11 guys across the whole field would mean a lot of long volleys and a pretty boring game.

I'm not a soccer fan, so take that into consideration when reading my question: what are the details of the upcoming "knockout round"? Is it that if you lose you're done?

I Bear;342244 said:

---

I'm not a soccer fan, so take that into consideration when reading my question: what are the details of the upcoming "knockout round"? Is it that if you lose you're done?

---

Yes. And there are no more ties. If the game is tied after regulation, there are two 15 minutes overtime halves. After that, SHOOTOUT!!!

I Bear;342244 said:

---

I'm not a soccer fan, so take that into consideration when reading my question: what are the details of the upcoming "knockout round"? Is it that if you lose you're done?

---

Win - you advance
Lose - you're out

Why do they have offsides in American football? Why not line up anywhere on the field?

For the same reason there is off-sides in hockey.

when a significant advantage is conferred to the offending team. This is absolutely nothing like a handball (I expected those kind of comments--I should have warded them off in the initial post) which, if allowed, would completely change the essence of the game. I just don't see that the act of being offsides is necessarily a huge advantage for ONLY ONE team.

As other posters suggest, there are possible compromises....and the point is not to make the game more appealing to Americans, but rather to take the essence of the game and make sure the better team on any given day prevails more often than not. There are a few dumb rules in American football and basketball that we can discuss as well...

NortonBear;342233 said:

---

We only appreciate in your face type of sports and soccer is all about subtleties which Americans really can't appreciate.

---

Oh, typical futbol BS. Maybe not everyone appreciates it, but there are about a million more subtleties in American football, and baseball is a very simple game that is almost all subtleties.

Bottom line is we don't grow up with soccer so we don't grow up understanding the subtleties like other countries do. And they don't understand the subtleties of our sports either. I recognize that soccer is a great sport and that I'm missing something in not appreciating it. But its not because I'm an American oaf. I can tell you they are missing out a lot by not understanding and appreciating American football also.

Found this link on the history of the Off-side call in football (soccer). Apparently it's been around since the game began.

link: http://www.corshamref.org.uk/files/offsidehistory.pdf

with the basic answer to the overall question of why found in some of the article's early paragraphs......

[COLOR="Blue"]The word off-side derives from the military term "off the strength of his side". When a soldier is
"off the strength", he is no longer entitled to any pay, rations or privileges. He cannot again receive
these unless, and until he is placed back "on the strength of his unit" by someone other than himself.
In football, if a player is off-side, he is said to be "out of play" and thereby not entitled to play the
ball, nor prevent the opponent from playing the ball, nor interfere with play. He has no privileges
and cannot place himself "on-side". He can only regain his privileges by the action of another
player, or if the ball goes out of play.
The origins of the off-side law began in the various late 18th and early 19th century "football" type
games played in English public schools, and descended from the same sporting roots found in the
game of Rugby. A player was "off his side" if he was standing in front of the ball (between the ball
and the opponents' goal). In these early days, players were not allowed to make a forward pass.
They had to play "behind" the ball, and made progress towards the oppositions' goal by dribbling
with the ball or advancing in a scrum- like formation. It did not take long to realise, that to allow the
game to flow freely, it was essential to permit the forward pass, thus raising the need for a properly
structured off-side law.[/COLOR]

TummyoftheGB;342251 said:

---

when a significant advantage is conferred to the offending team. This is absolutely nothing like a handball (I expected those kind of comments--I should have warded them off in the initial post) which, if allowed, would completely change the essence of the game. I just don't see that the act of being offsides is necessarily a huge advantage for ONLY ONE team.

As other posters suggest, there are possible compromises....and the point is not to make the game more appealing to Americans, but rather to take the essence of the game and make sure the better team on any given day prevails more often than not. There are a few dumb rules in American football and basketball that we can discuss as well...

---

Why do you think it's a dumb rule?

Cheers to that rebuttle.
Very true
.
:beer:

OaktownBear;342252 said:

---

Oh, typical futbol BS. Maybe not everyone appreciates it, but there are about a million more subtleties in American football, and baseball is a very simple game that is almost all subtleties.

Bottom line is we don't grow up with soccer so we don't grow up understanding the subtleties like other countries do. And they don't understand the subtleties of our sports either. I recognize that soccer is a great sport and that I'm missing something in not appreciating it. But its not because I'm an American oaf. I can tell you they are missing out a lot by not understanding and appreciating American football also.

---

I have been watching soccer since my days at CAL in the mid-70's and my stepson played soccer from the time he was 5 until well after HS.There are more kids playing youth soccer than baseball and football combined and have been for the last 20 years. Americans don't like low scoring strategic games. I disagree with your argument that we don't grow up with soccer. BTW, I am a sports junky and am in my mid 50's and really do appreciate soccer as well as football, baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, racquetball. I never played it growing up, but most people 60 and below have been exposed to soccer through their kids participation.

I Bear;342244 said:

---

I'm not a soccer fan, so take that into consideration when reading my question: what are the details of the upcoming "knockout round"? Is it that if you lose you're done?

---

Yup, it's basically like March Madness at this point, only starting at the Sweet 16.

grandmastapoop;342237 said:

---

I think an easy solution would be to eliminate it once the ball is in the penalty box. The intentional defensive ploy of trying to draw a guy offsides seems rather unsportsmanlike, and when the ball is already that close, there's little cherry picking to be had. They won't change it, of course.

---

I would probably make a couple of tweaks:

1. Eliminate it if the pass is being made between two players past the penalty box. Once you're that close in, cherry-picking isn't really a concern. However, I'd also say that you're not allowed to receive a pass inside of the goal area (the smaller box inside of the penalty box) unless onside (i.e., there is another defender between you and the goal).

2. Eliminate it on a pass INTO the penalty box, but only if it's already in your opponents' half of the field. So again, nobody can just launch the ball 70 yards downfield to try and get a cheap goal; you have to advance it past the halfway line first. (Taking a bit of a page from hockey here, with certain "zones" that cannot be crossed unless onside.)

NortonBear;342271 said:

---

Americans don't like low scoring strategic games.

Equating "low scoring" with "strategic" makes no sense to me. I would submit that Soccer is actually one of the more tactical games out there. Pre-game planning is much less important than in many other sports.


I never played it growing up, but most people 60 and below have been exposed to soccer through their kids participation.


Watching kids play is hardly the way to learn to appreciate the subtleties of a game. Americans don't like soccer because our professional soccer players have never been very good.

---

Perhaps our current WC run will change some of this, but I doubt it. At this point I think there is a certain cultural resistance to supporting this "foreign" sport. People like you who like to claim that Americans just don't get it because it is "too strategic" certainly aren't helping.

Just my take.

NortonBear;342271 said:

---

I have been watching soccer since my days at CAL in the mid-70's and my stepson played soccer from the time he was 5 until well after HS.There are more kids playing youth soccer than baseball and football combined and have been for the last 20 years. Americans don't like low scoring strategic games. I disagree with your argument that we don't grow up with soccer. BTW, I am a sports junky and am in my mid 50's and really do appreciate soccer as well as football, baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, racquetball. I never played it growing up, but most people 60 and below have been exposed to soccer through their kids participation.

---

There are more kids playing youth soccer because it is a perfect starter game for kids requiring that they only run around en masse and occasionally kick something. It means nothing. The best athletes turn to the other sports when it matters. Our best athletes are home not in South Africa.

The idea that Americans can't appreciate soccer because it is low scoring and strategic is similar to the argument that men basketball fans can't appreciate the subtleties of womens basketball-like not being able to run jump, shoot, or handle the ball.

Americans don't appreciate it is because it is a more boring, one dimensional game than football, basketball or baseball played by less gifted athletes. I can appreciate some of the athleticism of soccer players but it pales with a centerfielder going back on ball, a running back shedding tacklers or Lebron hitting the lane.

Finally the other drawback is that it is played by wussies. Americans want their athletes to be tough not floppers.

GB54;342285 said:

---

Americans don't appreciate it is because it is a more boring, one dimensional game than football, basketball or baseball played by less gifted athletes.

---

I don't know if you really want to include baseball in that comparison.

I can appreciate not wanting to encourage the long volleys. (I'm not completely convinced that long volleys would be the end result, but I can see that it would be possible). So, as GMP suggests, the compromise solution would be amend the offsides rule. I did think it was dumb that Dempsey's goal was disallowed on general principle. It seems to me that allowing that kind of play would never do grave damage to the spirit or nuances of the game, while still properly rewarding skill. That was the motivation behind my question.

Thanks for the non-dismissive response.

GB54;342285 said:

---

Americans don't appreciate it is because it is a more boring, one dimensional game than football, basketball or baseball played by less gifted athletes. I can appreciate some of the athleticism of soccer players but it pales with a centerfielder going back on ball, a running back shedding tacklers or Lebron hitting the lane.

---

A lot of Americans don't appreciate it because they A) Did not play it or did not continue to play it and/or B) Do not have any exposure to the game. I have converted more fans to watch this sport in my office and with the people I interact with every day thanks to the Cup. Once people form an emotional bond with a team or a player it's very easy to get excited about a match. The athletic skill required to be an excellent soccer player is no more/ no less than any other sport, it is just a different a skill set.

okay this thread is a little too long and my attention span is a little too short (tl;dr), but as was mentioned above, i like that the offside trap is such a risky proposition that if you don't pull it off well, you're looking at an offensive player (or two or three) going against your goalkeeper. the way the rules are set up also allows the outside defenders to make the overlapping runs down the wings and this opens up the game quite a bit, so any rule changes that require more defenders to "stay home" could very well make the game less interesting, whether or not it results in more goals.

my one big complaint with soccer has been the way defenders "shepherd" the ball out of bounds. i don't believe you should be allowed to do this to a ball you haven't played, so if you do this and the ball leaves the field of play, the other team gets the throw-in or corner kick. that's the change i'd really like to see.

gb54;342285 said:

---

finally the other drawback is that it is played by wussies. Americans want their athletes to be tough not floppers.

---

+1776

OzoneTheCat;342292 said:

---

A lot of Americans don't appreciate it because they A) Did not play it or did not continue to play it and/or B) Do not have any exposure to the game. I have converted more fans to watch this sport in my office and with the people I interact with every day thanks to the Cup. Once people form an emotional bond with a team or a player it's very easy to get excited about a match. The athletic skill required to be an excellent soccer player is no more/ no less than any other sport, it is just a different a skill set.

---

Undoubtedly the first part of what you say is true. An English friend of mine argues that cricket which is played by over a billion people is not appreciated by Americans. Also true.

I'm enjoying the world cup, it is fun but I don't think it will make me either turn on or go to a soccer game.

As far as skills go, I would disagree. I don't see how a game that features one skill-using the feet-requires more skill than sports that permit you to using hands, feet and body in combination. A wide receiver has to run down the field at full speed, catch a ball with his hands while at the same time avoiding being crushed and then has to elude people with his feet and body. I don't see anything like this in soccer.

GB54;342297 said:

---

Undoubtedly the first part of what you say is true. An English friend of mine argues that cricket which is played by over a billion people is not appreciated by Americans. Also true.

I'm enjoying the world cup, it is fun but I don't think it will make me either turn on or go to a soccer game.

As far as skills go, I would disagree. I don't see how a game that features one skill-using the feet-requires more skill than sports that permit you to using hands, feet and body in combination. A wide receiver has to run down the field at full speed, catch a ball with his hands while at the same time avoiding being crushed and then has to elude people with his feet and body. I don't see anything like this in soccer.

---

Oh come on. It takes 10x the skill to play soccer than it does to run down the field as a WR. It's the equivalent of a WR running down the field with the ball in his hands, except that he's running on his hands (in a handstand position). I'm being facetious, a bit. But WRs don't use their hands or feet at the same time, in terms of a skill. Soccer you must run while controlling the ball with your feet. That takes a lot more skill than running with the ball in your hands, something even a 5 year old can accomplish.

GB54;342297 said:

---

Undoubtedly the first part of what you say is true. An English friend of mine argues that cricket which is played by over a billion people is not appreciated by Americans. Also true.

I'm enjoying the world cup, it is fun but I don't think it will make me either turn on or go to a soccer game.

As far as skills go, I would disagree. I don't see how a game that features one skill-using the feet-requires more skill than sports that permit you to using hands, feet and body in combination. A wide receiver has to run down the field at full speed, catch a ball with his hands while at the same time avoiding being crushed and then has to elude people with his feet and body. I don't see anything like this in soccer.

---

Wow. That's just wrong....

They won't even last 30 minutes.

sycasey;342289 said:

---

I don't know if you really want to include baseball in that comparison.

---

grandmastapoop;342298 said:

---

Oh come on. It takes 10x the skill to play soccer than it does to run down the field as a WR. It's the equivalent of a WR running down the field with the ball in his hands, except that he's running on his hands (in a handstand position). I'm being facetious, a bit. But WRs don't use their hands or feet at the same time, in terms of a skill. Soccer you must run while controlling the ball with your feet. That takes a lot more skill than running with the ball in your hands, something even a 5 year old can accomplish.

---

Nah. Running and controlling the ball with your feet is like dribbling a basketball-a fundamental skill everyone learns. The wide receiver has to deal with different things-first, tracking the ball while running; second, catching the ball while running and or jumping and diving; third, eluding defenders after catching. In addition he has to deal with something the soccer player doesn't deal with-fear of being hit.