Grrrr - Blowing off steam......

I ran your answer through babelfish to translate it into Greek and then back into English again...it came back as..soccer

Imagine trying to figure out this rule simply from activity on the field with no one explaining it for you.Now include that in MLS soccer here in the States, either the refs don't know the offside rule, or here they have a different version of the rule where only one opposition player need be back.Now add to this that offside players not involved in the play aren't counted as offside.And don't forget that there has to be "separation" for a player to be offsides, whatever that is.This rule is so confusing and so hard to get right it's no wonder it can't be figured out just from observation, and even with explanations this is a tough one. We have some similar rules with sports here in the States. Just where exactly *is* the strike zone in baseball. Why does a time duration of three seconds vary so widely in basketball, reaching approximately a half-hour for Shaquille O'Neill, and if your foot is half in and half out of the paint, are you in or out of the paint? In American football, just what *does*constitute pass interference (the Carolina Panthers are still trying to figure that one out)?--Percy

One opposition player + the goalkeeper is often how it is stated but it amounts to the same rule. Seperation just means that the benefit of the doubt is given to the attacking side - it makes it easier for the linesmen.

Or made full-contact.

Wait a minute here. Either I am misunderstanding this or there is something very insane aboout that off-sides rule you are discussing.Are you trying to say that if my teammates and I have worked hard and played smart to the point that the other team is out of position and we have a clear path to the goal, we have to stop and wait for them to catch up before we can again procede? That is very stupid!What is the point of being in great shape or playing smart? If the other team is being outplayed, they deserve to be scored upon. Making a rule to give them a chance to get back into the play is stupid. No wonder soccer is so low scoring!Verzem

It sounds a bit like "right-of-way" in foil fencing.Me, I always fenced epee. No right-of-way, no reduced target area, significantly less flimsy swords. True, pure swordplay.

Yes, the intentional foul rule is a real dichotomy. The main time it is not called is when it is perfectly obvious to everyone that the fouls are being intentionally committed.I think that for intentional fouls in the last two minutes, the team being fouled should have the option of one free throw and taking the ball out in their back-court with a new shot clock, or the two free throws. Fouls in the back-court in the last two minutes should be treated the same way to give the team that has played better during the game and has earned a lead a better chance to burn more clock.I also think that electronics should play a bigger part in professional sports. If tennis and bowling can use electronics to help officiate their sports, why can't baseball develop an electronic strike zone, for example? In basketball there is probably a way to enforce the three-second rule electronically. Something installed on the soles of shoes that triggers a 3 second timer when a player is in the paint comes to mind.Pass interference in football is a tough one. Calling it the same for both teams is the best thing I can think of. I believe I would instruct the refs to call it much less and let the players fight it out more than they do, especially when the ball is in the air. If the offensive player can get away with pushing off, the defender should have the same right to try to get position to try to intercept. But conisstency on both sides is the best we can hope for, I believe.Verzem

It isn't quite so bad as that. What the offside rule actually says is that you cannot pass the ball forward to a teammate who has no defenders in front of him (not counting the goalie). It keeps offensive players from camping out in front of the goal waiting for their team to gain possession and kick it to them for easy goals. Violations of this rule are ridiculously difficult to accurately observe, and it results in stilted play.I wonder what the rule is if two offensive players break away - can one pass to other, since there's only the goalie in front of them? If the answer is no, then that's just stupid.I think soccer's offside rule is as unnecessary as the NBA's now-finally-defunct "no zone defense" rule. It made almost no difference to scoring when that rule went away. I think eliminating the offside rule would make a larger difference in soccer, likely increasing scoring. Which would be a good thing.--Percy

Percy,Thanks for explaining that to me so I understand it a little better. Still, I don't see why it is a rule for even that. Isn't it a gamble for a team to try that? The player who is camping out by the goal is precluded from being involved in plays in other areas of the field so I would think it is a gamble that a team would only want to try on occasion, like pulling the goalie in hockey or double-teaming someone in basketball. Either of these strategies can come back and burn you quite easily.Verzem

Put simply no. The offside rule allows teams to adopt attacking formations with their defensive players, and adds fluidity to the game. Rather than having a few players standing around the goal waiting for the ball, and a few more players waiting for them to get the ball each attack, or counter-attack, can take players with it as it goes. This gives the game an attractive flowing shape and allows much more opportunity for skill in dribbling and passing as well as allowing for many more defensive options.It probably also helps keep the low score lines which are one of the football's finest qualities.

A different perspective is that it forces all offenses and defenses into a single style of play, so similar among teams as for differences to be indiscernable to the non-expert. There are variations within this style, but too many soccer attacks are based upon trying to spring free a player while avoiding the offside trap.It would be very interesting to see teams balance the risks of bringing defensive players forward when their team is on the attack while leaving opposing players untended except for the goalie. Or to do the contrary, leave offensive players forward while defending. These are choices teams should be permitted to make. The offside rule dominates soccer strategy to an inappropriate degree by taking away such choices.About a half century ago the NBA went to the 24 second clock - after gaining possession, offensive teams have 24 seconds to take a shot. The rule was put in place to prevent soporific stalling once a lead had been gained. Soccer has gone in the opposite direction, putting in place rules that decrease scoring and remove excitement. I know we all love those 1-nil games where one team scores midway through the first half, then drops back into defensive mode for the entire second half.Afficionados may admire the wonderful "flow" of the game under current rules, but you're not going to get people brought up on basketball and American football to seek such subtleties. They'll just change the channel.--Percy

Yes. We Do. We really, really do.The lack of scoring really is one of football's strengths.And I am serious.(Incidently, and this will have to be taken anecdotally since I have no intention of tracking it down, I remember reading an article about some research they did that found that people had higher levels of adrenalin and endomorphins during lower scoring matches and concluded - not just from this, but I forget the rest - that the low scoring games where a big reason in football's massive popularity).

Haven't the same effects been measured in people undergoing torture? Soccer is perceived differently by those who grew up playing the game. As long as soccer has high levels of grass roots participation its long term viability will never be in doubt. But the question was why soccer encounters acceptance problems among those unfamiliar with the game. Too many 1-nil contests is just another reason. Just how many people in the States are going to watch a second soccer game after spending 90 minutes watching 22 people chase a ball around to little apparent result. If you're a soccer novice who can't appreciate or even perceive all the little nuances, and you've just witnessed a game consisting only of little nuances, then you'll come away feeling like you wasted your time.One of the problems with watching soccer (and many other sports) on TV is the narrow field of view. I've gotten to the point where I can actually appreciate some of the mid-field battles for advantage, but the best action is often taking place off-screen and all you see is the ball being kicked, then the camera moves to follow revealing an offensive player catching up with the ball while being pursued by a defensive player. How did things get to this point? Unless a goal is scored or almost scored and they show replays, you'll never know. I hope the wider HDTV sets show more.--Percy

I took virtually no interest in football when I was younger, and only really started watching it in my mid twenties. I think playing regularly with the guys from work made a pretty big difference too. Oh yes! And the foreshortening due to zoom. It is so much easier to see what is going on when you're actually at a match.

I once went to a soccer match, or game, or whatever they call them and fell asleep. Honest.It is very boring and can take the place of Sominex for anyone having troubles in getting to sleep.Verzem