I still disagree. Hard to make a good analogy between American football and "futbol". You have a good point about soccer being a fluid game though, and that's why I think it's more like 1) ball gets snapped 2) receiver runs behind secondary 3) 50 yard TD pass 4) Offside call brings the play back. In any case, I see what you guys are saying about the point that the rule serves, so maybe it shouldn't be completely thrown out, but just tweaked. I remember the U.S. getting completely HOSED 2 years ago on some bogus offside calls in the World Cup.
What are the dumbest rules in sports?
- Thread starter shotgunDawg
- Start date
- Status
JxnDawg39211 said:
at least being debatable, a guy is no more than a half step or so offsides. basically a fraction of a fraction of a second. but it keeps strikers from just standing in the box waiting for a ball to get booted down the field. it also allows teams to let their defenders move up the field to assist in advancement of the ball and on the attack instead of just standing in the box to make sure there opponent doesn't get an easy goal.
and just because it has the same damn name as a penalty in football doesn't make them comparable.
Offsides in soccer encourages defenders to not play defense. It also penalizes offensive players for being faster than their defenders. That is not a good rule.
Offsides in soccer encourages defenders to not play defense. It also penalizes offensive players for being faster than their defenders. That is not a good rule.
because when I started to first get into soccer, I absolutely HATED the off sides calls. But now I guess I understand they are a necessary evil. Could some tweaking help? Maybe. But you do have to realize soccer has been around since the early 1800's (under current style rules). If there was a tweak you could make, you would think they would have thought of it by now.
comparing offsides in soccer to american football is pretty pointless. however, the closest analogy i could make would be the WRs could go stand in the end zone to start the play and obviously the defenders would have to go stand with them too, and now you just have a bunch of guys standing all over the field instead of actually running an offense and defense.</p>
A few
1. Like others have said, I think you should have to be in the field of play in baseball to make a catch. The clip where the goal dove over the outfield wall to rob a HR 2 weeks ago was awesome, but I think that should have been a HR since he wasn't in the field of play.
2. Instant replay should be available in every sport
3. The maintaining control of the football rule is awful. The play that took a touchdown from Calvin Johnson after he had already landed on both feet was garbage.
4. I don't like the fact that you can advance the basketball to halfcourt after a timeout. That gives too much of an advantage to the team that is losing, and it is only there to increase the chances of a buzzer beater. While exciting, it doesn't seem fair to me that they don't have to bring the ball up the full court.
5. PKs to end a soccer game is not a just system. However, I don't know what can be done to improve that. Maybe make them play 8v8 in overtime or something to increase the chance of a goal.
6. Continuous rule in NBA
As others have said, offsides is essential in soccer. If they took it out then, the defense would be forced to remain in their box the whole game and speed would play no effect in the game. I also think the new playoff rules are fair, though, to an extent. I think college overtime is best, but move it back to like your own 40. A coin flip should not determine a game.
1. Like others have said, I think you should have to be in the field of play in baseball to make a catch. The clip where the goal dove over the outfield wall to rob a HR 2 weeks ago was awesome, but I think that should have been a HR since he wasn't in the field of play.
2. Instant replay should be available in every sport
3. The maintaining control of the football rule is awful. The play that took a touchdown from Calvin Johnson after he had already landed on both feet was garbage.
4. I don't like the fact that you can advance the basketball to halfcourt after a timeout. That gives too much of an advantage to the team that is losing, and it is only there to increase the chances of a buzzer beater. While exciting, it doesn't seem fair to me that they don't have to bring the ball up the full court.
5. PKs to end a soccer game is not a just system. However, I don't know what can be done to improve that. Maybe make them play 8v8 in overtime or something to increase the chance of a goal.
6. Continuous rule in NBA
As others have said, offsides is essential in soccer. If they took it out then, the defense would be forced to remain in their box the whole game and speed would play no effect in the game. I also think the new playoff rules are fair, though, to an extent. I think college overtime is best, but move it back to like your own 40. A coin flip should not determine a game.
In reality, it requires offensive players to be faster than their defenders. Otherwise you could never get any separation since you can't camp out at the goal, or use trickery to get the "jump" on your defender before the ball is played ahead to you.
humpback said:
I could not agree more with this. I am a fan of soccer but the rules around the penalty need to be adjusted. Just to add to it...you can be on a clear breakaway and be taken outbefore reaching the box and receive a free kick that isnt likely to be scored. Where as the breakaway was extremely likely. The whole "inside the box" rule needs to be reevaluated.
Without it, speed would be taken out of the game. Offsides is used from when the ball is passed, not when the guy receives the pass. Therefore it plays to the advantage of a fast player, not takes away from it. If a guy times his run right, and a ball is played over the top, then the faster striker is going to get there before the slower defender leading to a breakaway. If there was no offsides rule, then the defenders would never be that high in the first place, and fast strikers would have no advantage whatsoever
actually, it anhances the effectiveness of a players speed. instead of every forward being able to run free wherever they please, it gives a guy like messi an advantage because a well timed pass allows him to beat the defender to the ball, which allows his speed to be an asset. it wouldn't be an asset at all if any lumbering ogre could just stand in the box the whole game.
i don't see how yall can't understand that offsides allows soccer to clow as a game instead of being 11 guyes standing in their station kicking the ball between each other too scared to moved too far up field for fear of any long pass resulting in an easy goal.
each sport is different and it's impossible to try to make some stupid correlation between soccer offsides and footabll offsides and a fast break layup in basketball.
if offsides incredibly hard to call? yes. are most "blown" calls so slight that there really wasn't an advantaged gained by being offsides? yes. the blatant calls are made. the rule serves it purpose in the game.
i don't see how yall can't understand that offsides allows soccer to clow as a game instead of being 11 guyes standing in their station kicking the ball between each other too scared to moved too far up field for fear of any long pass resulting in an easy goal.
each sport is different and it's impossible to try to make some stupid correlation between soccer offsides and footabll offsides and a fast break layup in basketball.
if offsides incredibly hard to call? yes. are most "blown" calls so slight that there really wasn't an advantaged gained by being offsides? yes. the blatant calls are made. the rule serves it purpose in the game.
Why the hell do golfers have to keep their own score. Someone writes down they get a 4 instead of a 5 on one hole, he turns in a wrong scorecard. He is DQ'ed.<div>
</div><div>We don't ask Larry Bird to keep up with his points? Idiotic!!!!!</div>
</div><div>We don't ask Larry Bird to keep up with his points? Idiotic!!!!!</div>
me, my defender, and my teammate (who has the ball) all start at the midfield line and head towards our goal.... I get a two step lead on my defender and my teammate passes me the ball.... is that offsides?
yep. unless you are stillbehind your teammate.
you and your teammate have to have chemistry to know when to make the pass so that you are accelerating and passing the defender and the proper angle to lay the pass out front so that the defender can't take away your path to the ball.
you and your teammate have to have chemistry to know when to make the pass so that you are accelerating and passing the defender and the proper angle to lay the pass out front so that the defender can't take away your path to the ball.
is being rewarded for being slower than me (and can be rewarded for not playing defense altogether). ****** rule. I understand it just fine.
but the offsides rule does reward speed. it just rewards a combo of speed, chemistry, passing, acceleration, and team work instead of just purely seeing who can turn and run the fastest on a turnover.
also, the more likely outcome of eliminating offsides would be you'd just stand in the box and never ever use your speed anyway. if you can't understand that, then you don't get soccer and should probably stop arguing about it.</p>
also, the more likely outcome of eliminating offsides would be you'd just stand in the box and never ever use your speed anyway. if you can't understand that, then you don't get soccer and should probably stop arguing about it.</p>
be allowed to use that athleticism to my advantage. It's a ****** rule. We can dice it up all the ways you guys want... but when you're carving up a turd, the pieces are still gonna smell like a turd.
When the offensive player busts his *** to get a touchdown (Vick Ballard) and as he stretches the ball fumbles through the endzone and out of bounds.. thus it is the other teams ball as a touchback (Arkansas).. what the F
That one player who stands back in the box would never get the ball, because the goalie would catch it.... and their team would be at a disadvantage on the other end of the field.
I agree, a fumble at any other point on the field is still the offensive teams ball. Why on Earth is it a turnover when fumbled through the end zone? All is does is reward the defense that just gave up what could be or is close to a touch down. Makes zero sense
CadaverDawg said:
In hockey, the icing rule is made to help the flow of the game. With no icing rule, it would mean the defense could grab the puck and sling it to the other end of the rink to relieve pressure from the opposing offense.
With the icing rule, the only way a defense can get the puck away from their end of the rink would be to gain control of it and skate or pass the puck through center ice and into the other end of the rink.
So the icing rule promotes competition in whatever end of the rink the puck is in.
Its kind of like the intentional grounding rule in football. We don't allow the QB just to sling the ball anywhere simply because he's facing pressure.
So hockey prevents defenses from slinging the puck away the same way that football prevents a QB from slinging the football away to relieve pressure.
Optimus Prime 4 said:
If you jump up, catch the ball, land on your tip toes and manage to stay on your tip toes in bounds, then its a catch. But if you do the same, but bring your heels down after your toes already landed in bounds then its not a catch. What difference should it make if you bring your heels down or not...
I just said if your guy passes the ball up when yall are even then your speed would beat the defender. How is that penalizing you? That is the essence of your speed winning. I don't understand what you are arguing. If the offside rule wasn't there the defender wouldn't be anywhere near midfield anyway so that would take that whole situation out. Its very rare that there is only one defensive player at midfield anyway. Also offsides only starts at midfield, you can be 25 yards behind everyone if you are still on your half of the field. <div>
</div><div>ETA: you should probably just stop arguing about soccer, because you obviously just don't know much about it.</div>
</div><div>ETA: you should probably just stop arguing about soccer, because you obviously just don't know much about it.</div>
the problem is that it would hurt the team on offense more than the team on defense. it doesn't hurt too much to have 1 or 2 forwards not hunkered down in the defensive 3rd. but it helps on offense to have defenders to come up and help advance the ball and provide secondary attacks. so now those defenders have to stand back with the cherrypicking fowards in the box.missouridawg said:
also, who is to say the goalie would always catch the ball? what if peter crouch is standing down there and can get higher than most goalies? what happens when a guy clears a ball that bounces before getting to the forward thus eliminating the opportunity for the goalie to catch it? if you think eliminating this rule makes soccer a better game then you are a moron. or being willfully ignorant.
i think you are just trolling now though tbh.
can convince me otherwise on this argument. Admittedly, I grew up disliking soccer. I went to an EPL game in April because I'm a huge sports fan and wanted the experience. It, of course, ended in a 0-0 tie. Everything I dislike about soccer came to head.
I want to like the sport, but it's **** like that prevents me from doing so. I've yet to have someone explain to me what offsides does that's good for the game. Preventing snowbirding is not the answer to that question.
I want to like the sport, but it's **** like that prevents me from doing so. I've yet to have someone explain to me what offsides does that's good for the game. Preventing snowbirding is not the answer to that question.
I thought at first when I started watching soccer that offsides was stupid but I see why it essential to the game. It would really bog the game down because the defenders would have to camp out right around the goals.
Why in the 17 do we have to be even? That's the point YOU'RE missing. What if I'm one step ahead of my guy.... Why in the 17 am I penalized for that. It makes no 17'ing sense.
You would have defenders having to stay back to guard against a goal and not help advance the ball. If you thought that 0-0 draw was bad, it would be even worse with no offsides.
8 people on here have said why offsides in soccer is essential. It allows defenders to aid in offense without the threat of a snow birding goal. Soccer doesn't have a ton of goals anyway, so if you want to take away even more goals then yes taking away offsides would be a good idea. The defenders would stay near their box. You can say that teams would pay for taking the risk of pushing their defenders foreward, but the fact is that no team would take that risk and their defenders would stay back. Do you not see how that would take away the speed advantage of strikers?
Just like in basketball... teams don't snowbird because they're at such a disadvantage on the other end.
missouridawg said:
because it would lead to station to station passing with players not moving more than 10-15 yards from a spot. forwards wouldn't move because they'd already be in the box, where else are they gonna go? defenders wouldn't move because the forwards are standing in the box, so why are they gonna leave them unguarded? midfielders aren't gonna move ebcause they can't afford to let an opposing midfielder get behind them because the defenders wouldn't be able to come up and pick up the midfielder for fear of just leaving a forward hanging out by himself in the box. it would seriously be awful.
also, i've seen 0-0 soccer matches that were as intense as any sporting event. sometimes they are snoozers when both teams just play possession and rarely attack, but sometimes there is attacking non-stop and just no goals scored due to great D or goal keeping.
did you watch the man ****** match the last weekend of the EPL season? that was as awesome a big time sporting event as you'd ever seen from an intensity and nerve-racking standpoint.
Yes if you change the rule then your scenario would be legal, but it would never, ever happen. That's the whole point of my argument. You wouldn't have that opportunity if the defenders were in their box the whole time. That's why offsides is good because it allows fast players to be able to get to balls that are played behind the defenders before the defenders do. It takes discipline to stay onside and it takes chemistry for your teammate to play you the ball at the correct time. The scenario that you are offering hardly ever happens anyway, so I don't get why you are using that as an example. Most players are disciplined enough to stay onside until the ball is played, and then they get to the ball first with their SPEED.<div>
</div><div>Why are you getting so upset? Seriously, relax</div>
</div><div>Why are you getting so upset? Seriously, relax</div>
- Status