|
||||||||
I understand the off side rule, but WHY does it exist ? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,234
|
The rule exists to stop 'goal hanging '
When you played football as a kid in the school yard you would be accused of goal hanging if all you did was stand by the goal waiting for the ball and then tap it into the net . One of the best rules in football even if the current interpretation can cause controversy at times |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,534
|
I can understand why it is obvious you cannot be offside from a corner kick but why also make the exception that you cannot be offside from a throw in? Perhaps also change it so you cannot be offside from a free kick?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,589
|
Quote:
The rule exists to stop 'goal hanging '
When you played football as a kid in the school yard you would be accused of goal hanging if all you did was stand by the goal waiting for the ball and then tap it into the net . One of the best rules in football even if the current interpretation can cause controversy at times |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,915
|
Quote:
No more than two behind square on the batsman's off side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I can understand why it is obvious you cannot be offside from a corner kick but why also make the exception that you cannot be offside from a throw in? Perhaps also change it so you cannot be offside from a free kick?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
In NFL they have a strange mythical beast called an ONSIDE KICK. The teams rarely have the courage to do it. NFL remains the best sport in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,848
|
I have always thought that if the USA took football seriously they would be unbeatable. However there will then be immense pressure for multiple refs, video replay etc. I think there would be a lot of pressure to stamp out penalty box fouling, and so on.
US sport is scrupulously fair. US Football, baseball, basketball, hockey. They don't get many refereeing decisions wrong. Football (soccer) may be the most watched came around, but to me it is spoiled by the blatant cheating and incompetent refereeing. Getting decisions correct would not make it a worse game. Fifa are slowly but surely being dragged into the world of video replays, whether they like it or not. Too many high profile important mistakes are causing that to happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,843
|
Not that I'm complaining, but the Seahawks benefited from a catalogue of poor refereeing decisions last year. Everything's more scrutinised, but you'll never remove human incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,763
|
Quote:
I have always thought that if the USA took football seriously they would be unbeatable. However there will then be immense pressure for multiple refs, video replay etc. I think there would be a lot of pressure to stamp out penalty box fouling, and so on.
US sport is scrupulously fair. US Football, baseball, basketball, hockey. They don't get many refereeing decisions wrong. Football (soccer) may be the most watched came around, but to me it is spoiled by the blatant cheating and incompetent refereeing. Getting decisions correct would not make it a worse game. Fifa are slowly but surely being dragged into the world of video replays, whether they like it or not. Too many high profile important mistakes are causing that to happen. We also see from pundit discussions that even with video replays many decisions aren't completely clear cut even from multiple angles. How long do you allow the game to be stopped to make this decision, Even a single angle takes atleast 30 seconds for it to be reviewed. Are we going to end up like American Football where each 15min quarter takes around 45mins to complete which would mean matches take over 4 hours to complete. In a free flowing game without the natural breaks that American Football, Cricket, Tennis has then imho any tech need to meet the same requirements that Goal Line Tech has and that's it needs to be almost instant, fair and definitive |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,106
|
Quote:
The problem with video replays is they can only be used to correct decisions when the ball goes immediately dead. There's as many incorrect decisions where the ball doesn't go dead. Imagine the uproar if we had video refs now and in the Final David Luiz tackles a player in the box, the ref doesnt give a foul and Brazil break and score. A minute later the 4th official tells the ref that Luiz actually fouled so the goals ruled out and a penalty given to the opponent.
There will always be hypothetical situations like this where it might not work perfectly but I think in general using technology to help decide on major decisions should work fine and would vastly reduce the amount of wrong decisions. For close offsides the ref should just allow play to continue for a few seconds. If a goal is scored or its a corner the ref can then review the replay and award either a goal/corner or offside. If the ball doesn't quickly go out of play, play should just continue and no harm is done. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,848
|
Quote:
The problem with video replays is they can only be used to correct decisions when the ball goes immediately dead. There's as many incorrect decisions where the ball doesn't go dead. Imagine the uproar if we had video refs now and in the Final David Luiz tackles a player in the box, the ref doesnt give a foul and Brazil break and score. A minute later the 4th official tells the ref that Luiz actually fouled so the goals ruled out and a penalty given to the opponent.
We also see from pundit discussions that even with video replays many decisions aren't completely clear cut even from multiple angles. How long do you allow the game to be stopped to make this decision, Even a single angle takes atleast 30 seconds for it to be reviewed. Are we going to end up like American Football where each 15min quarter takes around 45mins to complete which would mean matches take over 4 hours to complete. In a free flowing game without the natural breaks that American Football, Cricket, Tennis has then imho any tech need to meet the same requirements that Goal Line Tech has and that's it needs to be almost instant, fair and definitive Actually i think they do not have video replays in baseball, and the in/out decisions are really tight, but the base judges seem to get them right. What they do have is loads of refs watching everything, and they are not scared to call offences. Last night they were showing suarez being held tight by an italian defender. Shearer and lineker saying that happened all the time. Thats the problem. Even in basketball fouls get called. Football (maybe ice hockey) is the only sport that does not CONSISTENTLY call foul play. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,931
|
Quote:
I can understand why it is obvious you cannot be offside from a corner kick but why also make the exception that you cannot be offside from a throw in? Perhaps also change it so you cannot be offside from a free kick?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:15.


