What are the dumbest rules in sports?
- Thread starter shotgunDawg
- Start date
- Status
I've discussed this very rule with English soccer fans, and there are 2 prevailing schools of thought on the rule... One side says that it should be kept, and the other side hates the rule for the reasons outlined. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this question, and neither did my buddies in England. I DO think that maybe a minor European league (or even MLS) should do away with the rule and see what the consequences are. If it doesn't work out, bring it back. I could see MLS doing this before anyone else though, b/c one of the main reasons Americans don't take to soccer is that there isn't enough scoring.
impossible to make the comparison because of the size of the players (guys like lebron take like 10 steps to go end to end) + the number of players per sq foot of court is much much higher than soccer. in basketball, guys can get a fast break and still be caught due to the inherent density of the players on the court. due to the inherent lack of density on a soccer field, the concept just doesn't work.missouridawg said:
fast breaks that result in offsides and I can't figure out for the life of me what anyone did wrong. I get that offsides is called when the ball leaves the foot of the passer and the receiver of that pass is behind the defender. I understand the rule completely... but I still don't get what it does for the game. It seems to punish great athleticism and reward ****** defense.
at the Arsenal game I went to in April was agreeing with most of my points. He could've just been being nice though.
Taking the rule away would definitely help with scoring. Would love to see the MLS do it. I may actually go to a Dynamo game then.
Taking the rule away would definitely help with scoring. Would love to see the MLS do it. I may actually go to a Dynamo game then.
i disagree that it would help with scoring. defenders would never ever ever leave defensive 3rd, thus clogging any potential counter attacks AND eliminating the offensive hlep that defenders provide.
The offside trap is a tactical aspect of the game. It takes all four defenders to be in sync at the same time. If three defenders play the trap, and one keeps a player onsides, then its an easy goal. Its not bad defense generally, its usually designed to play that way. And they only play that way due to the rule. If it would change, then the defensive philosophy would change also.<div>
</div><div>I will say this, though, there are instances that a defense does get a break on an offsides call. It's just part of the game though and has been for a long time. If it gets changed, then the entire game of soccer would change.</div><div>
</div><div>As the previous poster said, though, I would be OK with trying out no offsides in an unimportant league just to see what happens, but I really believe the game would take a step backwards.</div>
</div><div>I will say this, though, there are instances that a defense does get a break on an offsides call. It's just part of the game though and has been for a long time. If it gets changed, then the entire game of soccer would change.</div><div>
</div><div>As the previous poster said, though, I would be OK with trying out no offsides in an unimportant league just to see what happens, but I really believe the game would take a step backwards.</div>
would be a 5-10 foot cushion in favor of the offensive player. A lot of the calls are made when a ghey defender jumps up right at the point of the pass putting the player offsides. A 5-10 ft zone would force the defender to stay with the forward and make speed a bigger factor. It would also deal with snowbirding
Of course in the penalty box there would be no 5-10 ft cushion because of the proximity to the goal.
ETA snowbirding, not snowboarding
Of course in the penalty box there would be no 5-10 ft cushion because of the proximity to the goal.
ETA snowbirding, not snowboarding
i feel like eliminating offsides would make soccer nothing more than something like isolationthat dominatesthe NBA today. you'd get a muscled up forward who'd just post up a defender, feed him the ball, let him muscle the defender and try to get off a shot. there would be no offensive movement or chemistry.
requiring professional golfers to keep their own scores. And not only theirs, but those of their playing partners. To make if even worse, they are disqualified for signing an incorrect score card. No other sport (or game since this is golf) that I can think of has a rule like this.
that'd be more difficult to call than current offsides. at least under the current rule you have somewhat of a measuring stick (the deepest defender) to make the call vs just quickly guestimating whether someone was 4 or 6 feet past the deepest defender.
should be irrelevant. I mean if you're running you can drop the ball as soon as you cross the goal line.
Croom also lost the Maine game due to this stupid and unnecessary rule. I've never heard a resonable explanation why it ever started. It makes NO sense. Give the offense the ball at the 5 yard line, just don't give it to the defense.
I think it's so stupid that calling a timeout allows you to advance the ball in the NBA. It just makes no logical sense. The obvious argument for it is that it increases the odds of a buzzer beater, which is a good thing. But there are plenty of things you can do to increase the odds of a buzzer beater that you would never do because they make no logical sense. <div>Seshomoru said:
</div><div>I don't necessarily think it's the worst rule, but I do think it's among the dumbest, which is what was asked.</div>
Anywhere else on the field, if a runner fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds, the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble (I'm pretty sure. Correct me if I'm wrong). It makes no sense at all to change that once the end zone is in play.
Because the game isn't the same game without it. Ive played in no-offsides leagues. All it is long balls (long kicks ahead to the forwards) and cherrypicking. Soccer bills itself as the Beautiful Game. It isn't supposed to be a track meet. Goals should be earned through not only athleticism, but also timing, creativity, and skill. Offsides ensures this to some degree... And also has other benefits that others have mentioned.
MissouriDawg.... You've obviously just started watching the game. Great! Keep watching! But don't act like an expert.
MissouriDawg.... You've obviously just started watching the game. Great! Keep watching! But don't act like an expert.
I still like the rule though.... one should never, ever, ever fumble the ball... unless he gets knocked the 17 out!
2 feet in plus you have to maintain possession of the ball all the way to the ground, even ifcontinuation of the play takes youout of bounds. Thetouchdowncatch, or lack there of,in game one of the 2010 season on Calvin Johnson was stupid, and I believe it might have been Jerome Simpson for the Bengals last yearthat caught a ball at the pylon, had both feet in, took two steps out of bounds with control of the ball, then hit the ground and the ball came out. It was ruled an incompletion. Dumbest thing I have ever seen.
I don't understand how a RB can break the plane of the goal with the ball, have it knocked out while in mid air and still get a TD while a WR must get two feet in and maintain possession of the ball all the way to the groundeven aftertheir feet have been established in the field of play and even if continuation of the catch leads them out of bounds. That just makes zero sense to me. </p>
I don't understand how a RB can break the plane of the goal with the ball, have it knocked out while in mid air and still get a TD while a WR must get two feet in and maintain possession of the ball all the way to the groundeven aftertheir feet have been established in the field of play and even if continuation of the catch leads them out of bounds. That just makes zero sense to me. </p>
One thing soccer could do to increase scoring for sure and not change the game drastically; make the goal 10x10. Much larger target and area for keeper to cover. You would see longer shots and more reach the net.
How the hell does the defense get rewarded with not only the ball, but also 20 free yards of field position for NOT recovering a fumble??? It just blows the mind to think that someone actually came up with that rule in the first place and then got it adopted.
You almost never see a goal scored where offside should have been called. You see an incorrect offside call kill a good scoring opportunity every game though. It's like fouls in the penalty box. It has to be a blatent foul for a ref to call a foul in the penalty box. In both cases, the refs are so afraid of giving a team an unearned goal they go to the extreme in the opposite direction and call everything that's close in the defense's favor. There should be a 2-yard cushion on the offside call. The refs would still overcompensate, but they'd wind up calling it like it should be called today.
10 what by10 what? What units are we talking here? Or was that a typo? Because the goal is currently 8 feet by 24 feet. That's 8 feet by 8 yards, so maybe you're talking 10 feet by 10 yards.....MaroonedNdaRock said:
is a bigger goal. 10 feet by 10 yards would be ideal. You'd see a slight increase in scoring but not too dramatic and the game itself would be pretty much unchanged. I'd guess scoring would go up from the current 3 goals per game average to about 4 goals per game.
- Status