What is your position on the offsides rule (Soccer)? | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

What is your position on the offsides rule (Soccer)?

What is your opinion of the offsides rule?

  • Total voters
    30
ckb2001 said:
Well, (and this is how it remotely has something to do with this discussion :wink: ), you'd HAVE to get rid of the offsides rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, everything is mostly the same... though you could put maybe 13 players on the field or so.
Click to expand...

Please, just listen to my friends right here :wink:

niceprotest27wz-1.jpg
 
BigDogsHunt said:
Its global success has more to do with the economics of the game...(little investment needed to play the game...find a ball, create a goal area, define OB, and perhaps find protection for your shins...and whalllaa you have a game)...then the style and excitement of the game in its current form.

That however does not imply that its current rules shouldnt be modified or improved, and not just for US interests. The game will survive regardless of US success. I would point out, that for every international proponent of the game, they are often the same voices who are most upset by the refs and calls on the field of play. So if folks arent 100% thrilled with the game in its current form, perhaps rules can be tweaked to improve it.

Consistency of the calls on the field, and when necessary removal of "human error" as much as possible is what makes games great, its what makes sports great. Thats what most folks are simply asking about soccer.

Adjust the rules to allow for the game to be played at its highest form within the rules.
Click to expand...

With every new rule, will come new complaints.
 
BigDogsHunt said:
Its global success has more to do with the economics of the game...(little investment needed to play the game...find a ball, create a goal area, define OB, and perhaps find protection for your shins...and whalllaa you have a game)...then the style and excitement of the game in its current form.

That however does not imply that its current rules shouldnt be modified or improved, and not just for US interests. The game will survive regardless of US success. I would point out, that for every international proponent of the game, they are often the same voices who are most upset by the refs and calls on the field of play. So if folks arent 100% thrilled with the game in its current form, perhaps rules can be tweaked to improve it.

Consistency of the calls on the field, and when necessary removal of "human error" as much as possible is what makes games great, its what makes sports great. Thats what most folks are simply asking about soccer.

Adjust the rules to allow for the game to be played at its highest form within the rules.
Click to expand...


I know your argument sounds plausible, but economics probably plays a very small role in the popularity of soccer today. It has more to do with the British Empire being so large, soccer being "first" in being introduced in places and the politics (in many ways successful) of FIFA in deliberately growing the game elsewhere. You don't see the NBA or MLB trying this on a worldwide scale.

Here's one link (just the first I found) that explains a bit, but of course this is just a simple write-up not a scholarly paper. Still, the fact it's so easy to play from an economic point of view is probably not as important as one might think at first glance.

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/sports2000/trends/159666.html
 
ckb2001 said:
I know your argument sounds plausible, but economics probably plays a very small role in the popularity of soccer today. It has more to do with the British Empire being so large, soccer being "first" in being introduced in places and the politics (in many ways successful) of FIFA in deliberately growing the game elsewhere. You don't see the NBA or MLB trying this on a worldwide scale.

Here's one link (just the first I found) that explains a bit, but of course this is just a simple write-up not a scholarly paper. Still, the fact it's so easy to play from an economic point of view is probably not as important as one might think at first glance.

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/sports2000/trends/159666.html
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible....is plausible....is reality. The likes of Nike, and Addias, wouldnt keep creating images of bare-footed kids in tiny villages, dirt pitches without a lick of grass, without a true Goal (with posts and crossbar) creating a game out of nothing if infact in reality this wasnt actually taking place every day around the globe.

Now, it clearly isnt the only reason, but you wont find "corporate" image campaign built around this "game out of nothing but a dream" in Baseball, Football, Hockey ads. Soccer is perhpas the easiet pickup game to create when it comes to equipment needed....it can be played by each and everyone one of us. Thats the global appeal.

Yes, the British Empire's global reach influenced alot about the adoption of the game but that alone doesnt equate to its global continued adoption and acceptance. Ultimately, in non USA locals, this is the only game and greatest game for its simplicity.

I love it for that, but hope it continues to modify its rules to maximize its appeal to USA.
 
Nothing wrong with the offside rule, just the crappy refs. :rolleyes:
 
BigDogsHunt said:
Sounds plausible....is plausible....is reality. The likes of Nike, and Addias, wouldnt keep creating images of bare-footed kids in tiny villages, dirt pitches without a lick of grass, without a true Goal (with posts and crossbar) creating a game out of nothing if infact in reality this wasnt actually taking place every day around the globe.

Now, it clearly isnt the only reason, but you wont find "corporate" image campaign built around this "game" out of nothing but a dream in Baseball, Football, Hockey even. Soccer is perhpas the easiet pickup game to create when it comes to equipment needed.

Yes, the British Empire's global reach influenced alot about the adoption of the game but that alone doesnt equate to its global continued adoption and acceptance. Ultimately, in non USA locals, this is the only game and greatest game for its simplicity.

I love it for that, but hope it continues to modify its rules to maximize its appeal to USA.
Click to expand...


The question isn't what the state of soccer is today, especially in 3rd world countries. Yes, because the reality is a lot of poor people play soccer, corporate sponsors can show those images.

But, that isn't important when trying to answer the question of how soccer got to where it is today in popularity. That's a question one could write a thesis over, and in answering that (or before looking up an answer to that), I think it's likely the economics of the game isn't one of the major reasons for its popularity.

I can look to see if anyone has a well-written article on this (you'll have to give me some time to look of course), but just because an argument is plausible doesn't mean it's correct.
 
Prime Time said:
You'd have a guy in the box sitting there, waiting for long balls all day. The Defender would mark him, thus taking away another attacking threat for your team. And If he beats the Defender, it is 1 on 1 against the GK...then everyone would be kicking long balls and Soccer would turn into Kickball.
Click to expand...


That is why a modification of the rule would probably be the best alternative.
 
ckb2001 said:
The question isn't what the state of soccer is today, especially in 3rd world countries. Yes, because the reality is a lot of poor people play soccer, corporate sponsors can show those images.

But, that isn't important when trying to answer the question of how soccer got to where it is today in popularity. That's a question one could write a thesis over, and in answering that (or before looking up an answer to that), I think it's likely the economics of the game isn't one of the major reasons for its popularity.

I can look to see if anyone has a well-written article on this (you'll have to give me some time to look of course), but just because an argument is plausible doesn't mean it's correct.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt be surprised to find that someone wrote a thesis on this....LOL.

But at the end of the day, when it cost very little to produce what is needed to play a game, that has to have a lot of weight on its earliest ability to be learned, taught, played and loved.
 
finsmx said:
Please explain
Click to expand...


I say...keep the offside rule intact unless possesion of the ball is attained below the goal box line...then no offsides.

Fair enough?
 
Section126 said:
I say...keep the offside rule intact unless possesion of the ball is attained below the goal box line...then no offsides.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Uhm ok

But if you recover the ball so close to the goal, you pretty much are just 1 on 1 with the GK and just shoot to score
 
It doesn't need to be modified, it needs to be explained properly and carried through properly on the pitch. The rule is perfect, save for the 'player not intefering with play'. That leads to huge problems. Anyone offside when the ball is played should be offside, regardless of whether they're intefering with play or not.

Then there's no issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom