Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:..

Ok so it works kinda like offsides in hockey. In hockey though, once the puck is past the blueline, position is fair game.

*shrugs* ..take your word for it here.

..I think I get what you mean by breakaway attack..err... the rule certainly isn't there to stop quick attacking football

this is really awful quality but you can just about make out what happens ..is this the sort of thing you mean ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlIohPOA4jc&feature=related

This is a hockey breakaway.... Note that while between the bluelines, the player that scores is behind the defenders when he gets the puck.

er...well it seems roughly the same idea/principle anyway.

If you start in your own half then you can't be offside, which seems the sort of thing the hockey game has.

But the summary is on the previous page, it's no real biggie to understand IMO. But it's kind of a recurring joke about women/foreigners/whomever don't "get". British teeth.fat Americans/adulterous Frenchman etc etc kind of cliche.

Iirc there is a 40k quote about foreign travel narrowing the mind.....

The no fun for anyone is the thing.
If someone is just hanging around the penalty box for someone to hoof it up to it would be boring.

Mind you I have seen some deadly dull games where both teams push up to the half way line to bring offside into play. Fortunately it doesn't happen now afaik.

The exciting teams have good movement and one or two touch paces at pace to get in behind the defence to create chances.
Penalty means something very specific in footie, Helgrenze. The defening team are awarded an indirect free kick for offside.
A penatly is awarded to the attacking team if a direct free kick is given in the 18 yard box (penalty area)

so to go off topic but South Africa have just scored a 2nd goal and France have had a man sent off. If South Africa win by 3 goals they may now qualify!
Just had a goal disallowed for off side!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That is my "have to say" line Sebster.

helgrenze wrote:I think its the weird rules system they have. Stoppage time, yellow/red cards, variable field sizes, stuff like that. Of course, other sports have their own weird rules, but most of them are fairly simple to explain, not like Offsides in soccer, which is probably the most complex rule in all sports.

The field is always the same size. In cricket it isn't, you might be thinking of that.

Offside isn't that complicated. Pretty much the whole of American Football is weird, on the other hand. I quite like watching that game, but the rules are really weird.

sebster wrote:

Offside isn't that complicated. Pretty much the whole of American Football is weird, on the other hand. I quite like watching that game, but the rules are really weird.

You mean the sport of Egghand?

The simpliest explanation is that the team with the ball must advance at least ten yards on four tries (downs) in order to maintain possession (but usually coaches will opt to have their team kick the ball on the fourth down to avoid allowing the other team a closer position to their respective endzone). The objective is to get it into an area called the endzone, where in they score 6 points. Then they kick it through two upright poles for an extra point, or get it into the endzone again for 2 more. Kicking the ball through the uprights before reaching the endzone nets 3 points, and being tackled in the opposing team's endzone nets the defending team 2 points. The ball can only be passed in a foward motion per 1 down, and can only be thrown behind the line in which the ball rested before the down. Each time points are scored, the ball reverts to the other team after a kick off.

There are more rules and such, but the basic objective of the game is to advance that ball to your endzone and stop the opposing team from scoring.

You are also allowed to backwards pass during any play even if having advanced beyond the line of scrimmage.

sebster wrote:
The field is always the same size. In cricket it isn't, you might be thinking of that.

According to the Laws.... odd that, every other sport I know has Rules, but Soccer has Laws.....
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

Dimensions
The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.
Length (touch line): minimum 90 m (100 yds) - maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width (goal line): minimum 45 m (50 yds) - maximum 90 m (100 yds)

International matches
Length: minimum 100 m (110 yds) - maximum 110 m (120 yds)
Width: minimum 64 m (70 yds) - maximum 75 m (80 yds)

Looks variable to me. The Laws go on to say as long as the field is not square.....

Cricket has laws too.

helgrenze wrote:Offsides in Ameican football- when a player on the defense crosses the line of scrimmage, (a line drawn across the field through the spot where the ball is placed) prior to the ball being put into play by the center.

Actually that's encroachment, not offsides. Offsides is when the offensive player crosses the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped by the center.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:You are also allowed to backwards pass during any play even if having advanced beyond the line of scrimmage.

And here is the best example of this in action, Cal vs Stanford in 1982...

Yup
Footie pitches are of variable size, there are minimum dimensions as stated.

It makes the game more diverse imho rather than having a standard size. Of course the centre circle, penalty areas, penalty spot and goal sizes are standard.

helgrenze wrote:Offsides in Ameican football- when a player on the defense crosses the line of scrimmage, (a line drawn across the field through the spot where the ball is placed) prior to the ball being put into play by the center.

Its more complicated than that. Any player who is over the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped by the center is offside. This is most often called on the defense, but is also a fairly common penalty for receivers and, in some blocking schemes, guards. Encroachment is the penalty called on the defense for crossing the line of scrimmage and striking an offensive player prior to the ball being snapped. It is necessary to differentiate these two infractions, as the defense is not required to remain set after becoming so. They can jump offside, and the return onside with no penalty; provided it isn't repeated in such a fashion as to warrant an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Conversely, if the offense sets up offside, a false start penalty would be called should they attempt to relocate. This is why the officials will work with receivers far away from the ball to indicate an official line of scrimmage.

Its also worth noting that there additional rules regarding the offense being too far from the line of scrimmage, in effect regulating whether or not a player is 'too far' onside.

helgrenze wrote:
Offsides in Hockey- When a player crosses the opposing blueline prior to the puck crossing the same line.

Its more complicated than that. In the NHL the offside rule is based on a tag-up rule whereby, if the puck is played ahead of the offensive team, any offensive player ahead of the blue line may come back to the blue line in order to be considered onside for the play. An infraction is not considered to occur unless an offside player touches the puck, or the puck is carried in by a member of the offensive team while one of his fellow players is offside.

helgrenze wrote:
Now explain offsides in soccer in a single simple sentance.

Its impossible to fully explain the rules for being offside in any sport in a single, simple sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Cricket has laws too.

So does rugby.

Dogma, try reading the WHOLE thread before picking apart a single post that was made hours ago. The discussion was well beyond the above point several posts ago.

helgrenze wrote:Dogma, try reading the WHOLE thread before picking apart a single post that was made hours ago. The discussion was well beyond the above point several posts ago.

I did indeed read the whole thread, I found your post to be the most intriguing for its inaccuracy. Seeing as there are only two pages, and the format is such that we are not involved in a live chat, the matter of 'hours' seems irrelevant.

The point I was trying to make was that it is somewhat easier in both American football and hockey to tell what an offsides penalty is when compared to soccer.

Yes, I realize that, I simply don't agree.

Also note that there is always a distinction between being offside, and being penalized for being offside.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:When we were kids playing without offside rules there would always be some annoying git just waiting around in front of goal - a goalhanger as they were called. I assume this is why the rule was introduced.

It means strikers just have to time the run to get beyond the defender.

We didn't even have goals when i was a kid and just had two jumpers and had to guess how high the crossbar was and spend HOURS arguing if it missed

Yep! That's the game!
Ah! Happy days!

helgrenze wrote:The point I was trying to make was that it is somewhat easier in both American football and hockey to tell what an offsides penalty is when compared to soccer.

For you, because you don't understand soccer. But hey, don't feel bad.

How "easy" it is to tell if somebody is offsides also has two dimensions...

1) How easy is it to understand the offside rules.
2) How easy is it to observe if a player is offside at game speed.

In that respect, 1 is fairly irrelevant, since it can be figured out eventually, and any ref will certainly understand (Malian refs in US World Cup games, notwithstanding).

Number 2 is more relevant, since any sport that can't be accurately and consistently refereed is a sport with a problem.

Football is probably the most complex when it comes to #1, but it's probably the easiest to enforce when it comes to #2. There's all sorts of variations on who is where, who they touched, who caused who to move, etc. etc. But ultimately a ref can just line up on scrimmage and watch the snap.

By comparison, soccer is pretty straightforward in terms of #1, but very difficult in terms of #2, since you have to be watching when the ball is kicked AND see if a player is offside at that moment, AND be running around at game speed to keep lined up with the rearmost defender, etc. etc.

The real issue I have with soccer, is that there is so little scoring, that one blown call can have a MASSIVE impact on a game.

In general, I think the past few World Cups have given a very, very poor impression of soccer. It's just not a viable sport at this point, IMO. If you can't play a game without constant drama with the refs, and without frequently resorting to pentalty kick tie breakers, it's just not a valid sport.

A lot of people say "there needs to be more scoring!" That's true, IMO, but not for the reasons people mean. The reason there needs to be more scoring isn't because it's "boring" to watch people play the game... It's because when your scores are 1-0 and 0-1, things are so granular, it's hard to really measure the teams against one another. It causes bad luck and referee mistakes to mean too much, and leads to shootouts.

Hockey, for whatever good fortune of game balance, ends up being a 5-10 goal a game affair, which allows for a clear winner and loser. It's a very similar game to soccer in terms of layout and gameplay, but it ends up with a few more goals.

I wonder if the offside system in hockey wouldn't benefit soccer?

The only other things I'd change about soccer are some of the stupid administrative cuteness it has. Clocks that go the wrong way, arbitrary "stoppage time" etc. etc. etc.

WarOne wrote:You mean the sport of Egghand?

The simpliest explanation is that the team with the ball must advance at least ten yards on four tries (downs) in order to maintain possession (but usually coaches will opt to have their team kick the ball on the fourth down to avoid allowing the other team a closer position to their respective endzone). The objective is to get it into an area called the endzone, where in they score 6 points. Then they kick it through two upright poles for an extra point, or get it into the endzone again for 2 more. Kicking the ball through the uprights before reaching the endzone nets 3 points, and being tackled in the opposing team's endzone nets the defending team 2 points. The ball can only be passed in a foward motion per 1 down, and can only be thrown behind the line in which the ball rested before the down. Each time points are scored, the ball reverts to the other team after a kick off.

There are more rules and such, but the basic objective of the game is to advance that ball to your endzone and stop the opposing team from scoring.

Yeah, I get the general idea of the game. I've watched it on telly a bit and it looks a fun game. It's more the technical side of things, what's pass interference and what isn't. That's a lot weirder than any offside rule, and there's a lot of those kinds of weird rules in soccer.

Phyrxis that is a neat Analysis but if you want scoring ebert 5 seconds watch basketball.

To me that is boring - Team A attacks scores, Team B attacks scores, Team A attacks.... you get the idea

Please if you love B Ball that is cool, is just personal preference on my part.

Some of the most exciting games I have seen have been 0-0 draws. The quality of the football played and intensity of the game is more important than the result ultimately in my opinion. Note that most of the world disagrees with the general American take on soccer.
It is purely a cultuaral thing that the game did not develop in the USA.

There is a footie game called Subbutteo which has a shooting area, approximately half way between the penatly area and halfway line. iirc you were onside outside the shooting area. This may help but tbh as I said earlier the game doesn't tend to get compressed to the half way line anymore.

To return to the original question I can see how a conservative (in the American sense) would dislike football because it is very much a foreign game in the states. All the posts about certain rules being wrong or silly, purely because thy are different, proves this. However there are plenty of reasons for hating football besides being a racist.
I play in a 5 a side league and enjoy it, however I would rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than watch other people play a game. I far prefer Rugby, where the tension builds as a team aporaches the try line and the whole team are envolved in good tactical play. Compared with this football seems more like pinball.

Phryxis wrote:
By comparison, soccer is pretty straightforward in terms of #1, but very difficult in terms of #2, since you have to be watching when the ball is kicked AND see if a player is offside at that moment, AND be running around at game speed to keep lined up with the rearmost defender, etc. etc.

That's why there are multiple officials. They follow the play and raise the flag to inform the ref of an infringement.

The real issue I have with soccer, is that there is so little scoring, that one blown call can have a MASSIVE impact on a game.

Drama. Drama is exciting. Entertainent should be exciting. Sport is entertainment.

In general, I think the past few World Cups have given a very, very poor impression of soccer. It's just not a viable sport at this point, IMO. If you can't play a game without constant drama with the refs, and without frequently resorting to pentalty kick tie breakers, it's just not a valid sport.

Christ, you're arrogant. Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't care that you think football isn't a valid sport. Football is by the far the most watched sport in the world, Premier League matches sometimes get upwards of 1 Billion viewers. Not that it matters of course.

Face it, you don't understand the game. That's fine. I personally don't understand the attraction of Baseball or American Football. I find it artless.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. Last I checked, Obama's jackbooted FEMA stormtroopers aren't rounding people up into camps and forcing them to watch the World Cup.

A lot of people say "there needs to be more scoring!" That's true, IMO, but not for the reasons people mean. The reason there needs to be more scoring isn't because it's "boring" to watch people play the game... It's because when your scores are 1-0 and 0-1, things are so granular, it's hard to really measure the teams against one another. It causes bad luck and referee mistakes to mean too much, and leads to shootouts.

Why do you keep talking about 'shoot-outs'? They usually only occur in the knock-out phases of tournaments. Again, lower scoring games make for more drama, as every point counts. And Football isn't just about scoring goals - as someone once said 'the play's the thing'. I'm paraphrasing, but it still applies. I find it more exiting to see a player like Messi or Zidane bring the ball out of midfield and dance past 4 players on his way to smashing the ball against the post, than to watch a sport in which points are scored every 5 minutes or less. That just strikes me as pedestrian.

Christ, you're arrogant.

Who's being arrogant? I was criticizing soccer, and somehow that makes me arrogant?

But thanks for turning it into insults. I give an opinion on soccer, you give an opinion on me. You must have won, huh?

Face it, you don't understand the game.

Standard excuse of a soccer apologist. "It's too sophisticated for you." I understand the game just fine. I think it can be fun to watch. The problem isn't whether or not it's fun to watch, even though that's the only argument you can think of to make.

The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup. Over a long season of league play, things even out, and ties make sense in the overall points total. When you're trying to run a relatively short elmination tournament, you end up with too little time to create space between teams, and stopgap measures like shoot outs.

But, please, feel free to scream some more about how it's fun to watch, as if I ever said it wasn't.

I played soccer all the way through high school. I understand the game just fine. I enjoyed playing it. I never said it's not fun to watch. I said it's been given a poor impression by the World Cup.

I personally don't understand the attraction of Baseball or American Football. I find it artless.

Does this mean you're "arrogant" too? No, it means you're both unaware of the definition of arrogant AND a hypocrite.

You're also just another one of these soccer fans who can't hear somebody criticize the sport without frothing at the mouth. I happen to like American Football. It's my favorite sport to watch on TV. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not gonna get all upset and start throwing around insults about it.

I think Shakespeare was speaking about soccer fans when he wrote "the lady doth protest too much."

The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup

oh dear.
According to your theory the long running FA Cup is also hopeless.
The problem is that some Americans have an "I don't care about footie so it is not a worthwhile sport" attitude .
As already pointed out is that the rest of the world disagrees, and will party regardless.

You may know how to play the game, but you sure as eggs don't understand it. Two different things mate.

Phryxis wrote:
Hockey, for whatever good fortune of game balance, ends up being a 5-10 goal a game affair, which allows for a clear winner and loser. It's a very similar game to soccer in terms of layout and gameplay, but it ends up with a few more goals.

I wonder if the offside system in hockey wouldn't benefit soccer?

Its worth noting that most hockey games are decided by 1 or 2 goals. There's more scoring, sure, but the average margin of victory is comparable to that of soccer. Moreover, luck plays a pretty big part in determining who wins on any given night; note how San Jose lost an overtime game by scoring on themselves.

Additionally, the offside system in hockey can be easily exploited in order to create a trap effect along the demarcation line, as the dead puck era illustrated so annoyingly well.

Phryxis wrote:
The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup. Over a long season of league play, things even out, and ties make sense in the overall points total. When you're trying to run a relatively short elmination tournament, you end up with too little time to create space between teams, and stopgap measures like shoot outs.

Ultimately, no matter the structure of the tournament, the victor will always be the better team given the format and time of competition. Things like shootouts aren't stopgap measures, they're an element of the game as defined by the rules. If a team loses in a shootout, then they weren't as good as the team that beat them in the context of the competition.

You may know how to play the game, but you sure as eggs don't understand it.

AGAIN, with this. It's amazing how a soccer fan can be told that we're onto this trick, and they just keep doing it. It's like an involuntary reflex. "If him not like soccer, him not understand!"

You're wrong. On more than one level.

I never said I don't like soccer. I said it's not well suited to short tournaments. But like all soccer cultists, if you hear "soccer" and a negative adjective in the same general vicinity, you start accusing the speaker of ignorance.

Even if I DID say I don't like soccer, that doesn't mean I don't understand it. It means I don't like it. People are capable of disliking things they well understand. Contrary to what you may think, it's not impossible to love soccer. Albatross doesn't like MLB or NFL. Maybe he understands the sports, maybe not. He didn't say. He just said he doesn't like them. Fair enough.

Its worth noting that most hockey games are decided by 1 or 2 goals.

Sure, but they're much more often decided. There are a lot more ties in soccer.

And, just for the fun of saying it AGAIN... That doesn't make soccer a bad game to watch. It makes it a bad game to try to pick a winner in a relatively short period of time. It makes it a much better game for a long season.

Compare that to American football. It's so violent and dangerous that teams can't play more than once a week, can't play more than 20 games a season, and there are constant injuries and other impediments to enjoyment. That makes it impossible for all the teams to play, other problems like that.

Things like shootouts aren't stopgap measures, they're an element of the game as defined by the rules.

Sure, it's all fine by the rules, but it's not soccer. Soccer fans want to see soccer played. They want to see their "beautiful game." Penalty kicks are a boring, pointless sideshow compared to real soccer.

Phyrxis enough already, you are just embarrassing yourself.
I neither commented on you liking footie or not
Read what you said then what I said.

You claim that a competition that has run for donkeys years is unfeasible!?! Like the FA Cup? or the European Championship? Yeah they don't work as tournaments either. Are they unfeasible as well?
You really are showing your ignorance and doth protest too much.

If you make statements like this you clearly have no idea what football is all about!

Again, there is a difference between understanding the game and knowing the rules. I say that to you not as an American, but to you as someone talking silly stuff.

Okay so I am a soccer cultist? If you want me to take on that role, which is a massive and incorrect assumption on your part. I can play the part just to please you.

"How many years have you stood on concrete terrace in all weathers to follow your local team, through more downs than ups? A team you support with passion and pride whatever they go through! Older English members will laugh at me when I say I have done just that at St, Andrews but will also know what it means. Many may well support teams with even less success than Brummagem have had over the years.

To quote Shakespeare, PAH! you sirrah are indeed a fairweather gadfly, a flibberdegib of nothingness in a pisspot of delusion.

You know bugger all coz it ain't in your heart and soul pal, nothing to do with soccer or Americans. Now button it unless you' have something worthwile to say!"

There, did that fit the bill?

ps Shakespeare was also a Bluenose

From what I've seen, most basketball games are decided by 102 or 103 points vs 101 or 102.