Soccer experts - would eliminating offsides increase scoring or decrease it?

Hi gang, big soccer fan here, understand the game, but I have a question--call it an intellectual exercise:

Would scoring increase or decrease if they eliminated penalties for touching the ball with your hands? It seems like a lot of the strategy is built around only kicking and heading the ball, and it could really make things exciting to change it up. At the very least do it in extra time, cuz I'm so sick of these crapshoot penalty kicks. What do you all think?

fudge not lest ye be fudged wrote:

This nonsense again? How many threads must we have on the offside rule before you people understand that the rule is there for a very good reason?

Hey, why don't we eliminate the forward pass rule in the NFL?

This and the "soccer is the most popular sport so why change" are moronic arguments.

First the NFL is the most popular sport in America, but they aren't afraid to make tweaks to make the game even more exciting. Just becuase it's "most popular" doesn't mean it can't be improved.

"the rule is there for a very good reason" would probably be said about the two-line pass by old time hockey diehards. The game is much better by eliminating it.

I get the offside rule and do not advocate getting rid of it completely. I just think it is ridiculous that you can be called offside when your team has the ball 18 yards from the goal. How does that prevent cherry picking? It just gives the defense a crutch and artificially makes it much harder to score.

I say if the ball is passed the box, the offside rule doesn't apply.

vvbxcvbxcvbxcvx wrote:

As probably the best soccer player (back in the day) on these boards, there is one change that i think you could make that would:

A) increase scoring and exciting moments in the game

B) reward teams who are able to maintain possession in the other teams 1/3

C) Encourage teams to get out and attack instead of parking the bus in front of their goal

All of these are legitimate complaints of the game.

The answer is to minimally increase the size of the goal.

i already said that

you could also eliminate the keeper position

you could also make the ball smaller

you could also enforce the rules about grabbing etc. in the box, then Robben would have had 2 or 3 kicks in that game

you could also expand the box, so that players would not intentionally foul just outside the box when beaten - this has been a real problem in the Cup

Here's a link to an article that mentions 7 changes about soccer to make it better, including one on offside.

http://totalfratmove.com/7-rule-changes-that-would-make-soccer-popular-in-america/

Realism Limits Greatness wrote:

Here's a link to an article that mentions 7 changes about soccer to make it better, including one on offside.

http://totalfratmove.com/7-rule-changes-that-would-make-soccer-popular-in-america/

That one barely mentioned it, sorry, even though it is a funny read.

ESPN Goes slightly more in depth on how the rule of offside could be altered

Le Foot wrote:

Les wrote:

Well, practically speaking, eliminating offsides would never happen as soccer is a European (read traditional) sport, meaning change is not welcomed even if it improves the sport.

You realize offsides was ADDED to the sport, in order to improve the sport.

Yes, in 1848, according to Wikipedia.

rojo, that teeny tiny brain of yours is starting to smoke. Why don't you leave the thinking and rule making to grown-ups?

The Laws of the Game wrote:

There is no offside violation even if the first player touching a ball after a corner kick is in an offside position. Similarly, there is no violation for the first player touching the ball on a throw-in. Also no offside in your team's side of midfield.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an offensive player to be in an offside position on a corner kick so your first sentence kind of doesn't make any sense.

Star wrote:

They should think about getting rid of offsides in American football.

Have people line up anywhere before the snap.

Such moronic and irrelevant comments do not do your side of the argument any favors.

Just thought you should know.

The only problem with this is both teams can play NOT to score, as in Argentina/Holland. This is also the opposite of free-flowing and dynamic and is within the rules. To me, this hurts the game when teams are allowed to not do anything for fear of making a mistake. Imagine a boxing match where no one threw a punch for fear of leaving themselves open for a counterpunch.

I mean, this could happen in any sport theoretically, but soccer is the the only one, particularly in a major global championship, where I see two teams actually doing it -- playing not to lose. Part of it is the bailout of the shootout. A lesser team can just play to neutralize a superior team's offense and hope to get lucky in the shootout.

But wouldn't being outnumbered on defense also lead to more goals for the other side? That would happen if a team left players at the opposing team's goal while their defenders went on offense? Why would a team allow itself to be outnumbered on defense?

This and the "soccer is the most popular sport so why change" are moronic arguments.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5905301&page=2#ixzz377IsS69C

You're the only moron in this entire thread.

Soccer does not have to change- it is the most popular sport in the world.

What's so moronic about that? It's not like they played to empty stadiums.

It's not like they lengthen halftime to have some stupid show with a popular singer to increase the TV audience.

Nope- they play the game and people watch.

Americans wouldn't watch it more just because there were more goals.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Did you not watch the Brazil- Germany game to see how a match goes with lots of goals. You might as well not have bothered watching after 30 mins as the match was over

Football like all sport is about supporting one team not idly watching, that's why the world xc folded - nobody to support for USA or Europeans

The match was dull last night but not to Dutch or Argentiniian supporters they know there team is still right in it. The results could have gone either way

Football is the most popular sport in the world why do they need to change it

I wwould make the game unplayable to answer the question

The real problem at the moment is the lack of quality in forward players compared to strikers. The focus is too much on passing with too few player capable of dribbling past even one player

Your arguments are all HORRIBLE.

To pick one: "Did you not watch the Brazil- Germany game to see how a match goes with lots of goals. You might as well not have bothered watching after 30 mins as the match was over"

I am fairly certain that this game was played under the current standard rule for offside. One team's defense simply broke down completely. This has ABSOLUTELY ZERO RELATIONSHIP TO A GAME PLAYED UNDER ALTERED RULES WHERE SCORING 5 OR MORE GOALS IS COMMONPLACE. Indeed, in such a setting it would have been vastly MORE exciting to continue to watch after Germany grabbed a 5 goal lead. Such a lead would not have meant the game was effectively over.

In other words, your example makes EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE point that you were trying to make. Your other arguments are similarly atrocious but not really worthy of being dissected.

For the purists, the rules should remain the same. However, for a casual fan (which I am), more scoring would make a match much more interesting. Hockey has a similar stigma, although they did do away with some rule (two line pass or something) to make the game more interesting. I believe basketball has it right allowing the fastbreak. One of the most exciting moments in hockey is a one on one breakaway. I feel you would see more of that in soccer (and hockey) if the offside rule were eliminated. As far as cherry picking is concerned, by doing that a team would have one less defender creating a disadvantage. As in basketball, teams figure out how to defend a cherry picker.

My take: eliminate the offside penalty and open the flood gates. Chaos? Bring it baby!!

vvbxcvbxcvbxcvx wrote:

As probably the best soccer player (back in the day) on these boards, there is one change that i think you could make that would:

How good were you back in the day?

vvbxcvbxcvbxcvx wrote:

A) increase scoring and exciting moments in the game

B) reward teams who are able to maintain possession in the other teams 1/3

C) Encourage teams to get out and attack instead of parking the bus in front of their goal

All of these are legitimate complaints of the game.

The answer is to minimally increase the size of the goal.

Totally agree. A poster on the first page said you couldn't increase scoring without radically changing the game, but if the goals were 2 feet wider and a foot taller I think you'd see a a lot more goals. It would still be soccer. 2-1 is more interesting than 0-0 usually I believe.

I'm surprised just as a test some league hasn't in the preseason or a friendly match eliminated offsides. It wouldn't be that hard to do. Would be interesting to see what happened, but I like the rules as they are now.

Sepp Blatter even looked into eliminating offsides. That definitely means it's a bad idea:)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/mar/06/offside-law-sepp-blatter

There is reference to hockey eliminating offsides in that article. What are they talking about?

Trick question...there couldn't possibly be any less scoring than there is now

I'd go with an increase in goals but a more boring game for anyone who knows anything about the sport.

The whole "soccer is boring cause its low scoring" attitude is for people who don't know the game and like to hear themselves talk. the Brazil-Mexico game was one of the most exiting group games I watched and it was 0-0.

On a separate rant, I don't know the intricate details of football but I don't complain like a little bit^^ overtime other people are enjoying the super bowl...

wow now wrote:

I'd go with an increase in goals but a more boring game for anyone who knows anything about the sport.

The whole "soccer is boring cause its low scoring" attitude is for people who don't know the game and like to hear themselves talk. the Brazil-Mexico game was one of the most exiting group games I watched and it was 0-0.

On a separate rant, I don't know the intricate details of football but I don't complain like a little bit^^ overtime other people are enjoying the super bowl...

It's not that a 0-0 game can't be exciting. It's that too often crap teams park the bus in front of the goal and the much better team misses 4-5 chances and the crap team is totally rewarded for a) making the game dull B) not even trying to win