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

Would starting each play with receivers in the end zone increase scoring or decrease it?

Would eliminating the offside rule make the game higher scoring (more breakaways) or lower scoring (the defense would be scared of the breakaways so it would sit back, but if this happens the field is wide open in the midfield)?

Yes.

That's a terrible idea. Who wants to see a bunch of guys camped out by the net, cherry picking goals?

There is really no way to fix soccer without changing the game completely, so just watch hockey instead.

GTFO Rojo. Stop acting like you understand soccer. Not like you know much about running either. You just accuse NOP of doping and that's it.

Maybe they could get rid of off-sides once extra time starts?

Unfortunately, I don't know if goal scoring would go up or down w/o offsides.

it would increase scoring by a lot. matches would finish 20-19. it would be too easy to score, cross to someone next to the goal and voila'. also it would make the game extremely chaotic. you need to dribble in soccer, otherwise is not soccer.

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.

I don't think offensive players would camp out by the goal. There's no offsides in basketball and no one does that. In any case all the defense has to do is get back -- isn't that what it's for?

There's some kind of contradiction in the sport where they make it extremely difficult to score in regular time and overtime but absurdly easy to score in the shootout. The goalie literally has no chance. It's not even soccer. LIke a basketball game being decided by a free-throw shooting contest.

I'd like to see scoring opened up in regular time so there would be less shootouts in general. Matches would be decided by full teams, not one on one contests. If a match did go to a shootout I'd like to see the ball spot moved back so at least the goalie has a 50/50 chance of stopping the ball, unlike now where it seems lucky if he can stop even 1 attempt. That would make each shot ATTEMPT more exciting instead of the cumulative scorekeeping in shootouts.

None of this will ever happen though.

I don't understand how you can love soccer without understanding it. Eliminating offsides would make the game more "boring" in your eyes. Yesterday's game was slow because both teams played it extremely safe. They were hesitant to bring any defenders up on an attack, for fear of yielding strong counter attacks. Now imagine if the other team's forwards didn't need to remain onside. You would have a game that consists solely of mid fielders trading possession.

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.

seriously, I tried it in the past, there is no chance.just let them go on and on about it

Red Viper wrote:

I don't understand how you can love soccer without understanding it. Eliminating offsides would make the game more "boring" in your eyes. Yesterday's game was slow because both teams played it extremely safe. They were hesitant to bring any defenders up on an attack, for fear of yielding strong counter attacks. Now imagine if the other team's forwards didn't need to remain onside. You would have a game that consists solely of mid fielders trading possession.

Red Viper wrote:

I don't understand how you can love soccer without understanding it.

I do understand it. I just want to know if offsides increases or decreases scoring. Call it an intellectual exercise.

The marking on defense was incredible. With Brazil, I was dumfounded how guys could just be left wide open. Yesterday, I was amazed at how each team could just keep possession. Every two minutes, I'd say to myself, "If that was a US defender, he'd have booted the ball away and we'd have lost possession."

I do hate the lottery of PKs. There were quite a few socring chances in the last 40 minutes of the games as people got tired. It would be amazing if the players just got in the middle and announced, "We're gong to keep playing."

First, not to be a soccer (or football) elitist, but it is referred to as "offside" in soccer, not "offsides."

Next, offside has been part of soccer since before the Laws of the Game were written down, but has changed over the years. Initially, offside was like rugby, where all players could not be ahead of the ball. Then it developed to a 3-player rule (3 defenders, including the goalkeeper closer to opposing goal to not be offside). Then the law was changed to 2 players. Finally, the law was tweaked from behind the second player to even or on the same line at time ball is served.

Should the law be eliminated to increase scoring? No.

Eliminating offside would change the nature of the game, and would not necessarily increase scoring. The beauty of soccer is the dynamic, interactive ball and player movement from front to back. It is a coordinated effort. Eliminating offside would enable players to post up in front of the opposing goal, and stretch the midfield into a wide open space.

It would change the nature of play and the players. We may see much bigger, much less mobile players up front, with corresponding specialist-type defenders, who just stand and win long balls to lay off to on-rushing midfielders. It would be like a shooting drill, if you have ever played.

However, defensive tactics would have to adjust, so then we may see "walls" of defenders retreating in front of goal to assist the keeper, who could only be expected to make so many saves in the onslaught.

So the creativity of the midfield would essentially go away, and you may end up with just giants laying long balls off to sprinters rushing through open midfield space.

Just my take on the logical extreme of eliminating offside. I prefer soccer the way it is. To me, it is like watching a marathon: you patiently watch the free-flowing, coordinated movement of a group for long stretches, waiting for the tactical move that will change everything, and admire the finish.

It would at least be worth the experiment. A lot of current strategy depends on offsides calls. I agree that the World Cup should not be decided on shootouts. I would like to bigger penalties when a player making a run toward the goal is tripped to stop the breakaway. That happens repeatedly to skilled players like Messi (it happened to Dempsey a number of times against Germany) and the free kick is just not a big enough deterrent to it. Maybe a yellow card for doing it. And then of course penalize faking with a review and a yellow for the first time and a red for the second.

rojo wrote:

Red Viper wrote:

I don't understand how you can love soccer without understanding it.

I do understand it. I just want to know if offsides increases or decreases scoring. Call it an intellectual exercise.

The marking on defense was incredible. With Brazil, I was dumfounded how guys could just be left wide open. Yesterday, I was amazed at how each team could just keep possession. Every two minutes, I'd say to myself, "If that was a US defender, he'd have booted the ball away and we'd have lost possession."

I do hate the lottery of PKs. There were quite a few socring chances in the last 40 minutes of the games as people got tired. It would be amazing if the players just got in the middle and announced, "We're gong to keep playing."

The problem with eliminating offsides is that you completely remove the ability of defenders coming up to attack. That's what we saw yesterday already, conservative defenders. By increasing the chance that they can get beat, you'd see them play even more conservatively. The result of fewer players attacking is fewer goals.

Brazil was beat in the film room. They were outcoached by a longshot. Germany crossed to the far post twice already before they scored their first goal. There was a mortal weakness in Brazil's defense that Germany exposed. After the first goal the game opened up some, and Germany's precise and very quick passing gave them an advantage. I think I read that German players possess the ball for the shortest period of time before passing than any other players. Once it was 2-0, Brazil gave up. For what it's worth, both Argentina and Holland would have won that game in a dominant fashion.

As for PKs. It sucks to end a match on PKs, but fatigue makes it necessary.

Would you get more scoring opportunities with smaller teams and more open field? Extra time could begin with ten players per side, then send off another player after each 15-minute period until someone is ahead at the end of a period. Allow additional substitutions when the match goes into extra time to get fresh legs out there.

So what you're looking at is a modified golden goal system - I think. 2 15 minute periods of extra time, then golden goal. Straight golden goal was eliminated in 2004 (although I think even then there were penaties involved after a certain time).

I think first for the intellectual exercise we should examine why the golden goal was eliminated. I confess I do not know, and would appreciate a better understanding.

I don't believe eliminating offside would have a better effect - perhaps using hockey's rule it could be better to force each team to remove a player every 15 minutes. going 8 v 8 tends to open the field a ton - and the strategy of whom each manager will remove is delicious.

Agapius Mackwamba wrote:

I think first for the intellectual exercise we should examine why the golden goal was eliminated. I confess I do not know, and would appreciate a better understanding.

That's already been answered in another thread. Scoring decreases in a golden goal because teams play very defensively, knowing if they give up a goal they can't get it back. Matches with golden goals usually went to penalties. If you're going to do something like golden goal it should at least be goal + 10 more minutes.

pr100 wrote:

Would starting each play with receivers in the end zone increase scoring or decrease it?

Why do folks think that "answers" like this ^ are anything other than stupid, irrelevant and invalid?

terps, I like your answer. I had a similar thought in that the defense would go more towards parking the bus. I like the offside rule, and would not want to see it changed. As Rojo said it is an interesting thought experiment and I would like to see two quality sides play one time without the offside rule in place. I don't think there would be an increase in scoring.

Rojo, take some time this fall and watch the EPL on NBCSports, you will see a variety of styles of play.