RudeBoy

Would it? How do you know this? In fact, to be honest, that sounds pretty fucking exciting! Non-stop action! Yes it would, I just know. Prove it.

You could have written this some time ago and saved yourself some hassle. I accept your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Would it? How do you know this? In fact, to be honest, that sounds pretty fucking exciting! Non-stop action!

Succinctly put and well-argued. Again, if you want to see where these debates generally come asunder, just follow the trail of those too quick to label people 't*rriers' for disagreeing with the almighty zietgeist. Apparently I appear under suspicion for using the word 'them' when apparently I should have been using the royal 'us'. It's like being in the fucking Girl Guides in here sometimes!* *That was in no way designed to impart or ascribe a religious leaning upon myself by affiliation to the Girl Guides if they are indeed 'Kaflik'.

Are they the rules? You tell me. I'm not the one supporting my position using the argument of someone else. Don't feel perturbed by it, I'm certainly not. I'll ask you again, do you believe all that you read in The Guardian or just that which supports your argument. You will find someone who argues that any piece selected at random is reasoned and well-thought out. You choose to do so with this one. I see flaws in it. We disagree. Move on. I have already detailed a good few reasons countless times in this debate. Feel free to dig them out and we can debate them further.

You hide it well though... Hide what well?

As I said, it's long! All that is is the speculative opinion of a Guardian journalist. From what I can make out, it places much stock in how the game evolved and therefore needed offside to address the changing times. An equally solid argument would say that the game has evolved even more nowadays and in more ways. An abolition of offside could generate change in order to keep it fresher. It's all speculative. I admire your selective application of media integrity. Presumably you agree with The Guardian when they are printing shite about Rangers' apparent 'signing policy' and condemning them over Manchester?

As I recall, I proposed a number of possible benefits; 1. The game would be more exciting. 2. There would be more action nearer where the goal is (where it should be!). 3. There could be no contentious decisions in that area, or certainly less so. 4. You would see better offensive/defensive duels. 5. Strategies would improve; managers would have to decide whether they had the team to play further up the park with one or two strikers mooching near the goal, play more defensive and hit on the break or play the regular game they normally would in the knowledge that any break forward is not going to result in an offside call. They would also have to tailor thier set-ups predicting what the opponents would do. A sort of 'Game-Theory' (in the political sense of the term) if you pardon the pun. This does happen to a certain extent already, but managers already know that thier opposing numbers have very few varities contemporarily to choose from. Most set-ups are variations of a few themes, with little in the way of a suprise. 6. The game would be played at a faster pace. Fitness levels would either improve, or be found wanting. Either way, the better team would stand to gain the most. Why dont you take this to UEFA? I don't have a stamp. Are they on the 'phone? Better still take your opinions and email them to the clubs of the SPL, EPL etc and ask for there insight into this wonderful brainstorm Are they on the 'phone also?

So, by your own admission, you are not in full possession of what has been said but feel qualified to offer the 'tim' accusation? Sounds about right. Is this how generally go through life? Would you buy your mum weedkiller as a perfume because it said 'Poison' on it? "Ah fuck it, don't need to read the whole label, poison's poison". I hope she never sends you to the shop for an Arab Strap CD!

As I recall, I proposed a number of possible benefits; 1. The game would be more exciting. 2. There would be more action nearer where the goal is (where it should be!). 3. There could be no contentious decisions in that area, or certainly less so. 4. You would see better offensive/defensive duels. 5. Strategies would improve; managers would have to decide whether they had the team to play further up the park with one or two strikers mooching near the goal, play more defensive and hit on the break or play the regular game they normally would in the knowledge that any break forward is not going to result in an offside call. They would also have to tailor thier set-ups predicting what the opponents would do. A sort of 'Game-Theory' (in the political sense of the term) if you pardon the pun. This does happen to a certain extent already, but managers already know that thier opposing numbers have very few varities contemporarily to choose from. Most set-ups are variations of a few themes, with little in the way of a suprise. 6. The game would be played at a faster pace. Fitness levels would either improve, or be found wanting. Either way, the better team would stand to gain the most. Why dont you take this to UEFA? I don't have a stamp. Are they on the 'phone?

Wow, stoned to the core with another pithy, sarcastic response. Exactly how would it changed the game completely? I'm not arguing that they wear ice-skates and play each half ten hours long on the top of a mountain. Again, you make the unmerited assumption that it would lead inexorably toward a 'long ball' game. I would argue that that this would be unsustainable as it would yield little benefits. Regardless, are you saying some teams don't play the 'long-ball' just now? You're implying that abolishing offside would create something which is already extant. You don't appear to credit football people with much intelligence or foresight. I'm sure they would see what was happening before them and act accordingly. You're right. The long ball thing was an assumption, as I said. Just like all your arguments for abolishing the rule. Which is my very point. This is the last time before I get bored; forgetting all your assumptions about the style of football which may or may not result etc, what benefits would arise from scrapping the offside rule. You can't just say "it'll be more exciting". That is an opinion based on your assumptions. You can't just say "there will be no contentious offsides". That much is obvious. Just tell my what is wrong with the current offside rule, and why complete abolishion is better than more clarification. Eh? What kind of proof are you expecting, a time-machine? Every hypothesis starts out with ideas. I have already proposed mine. Take them on board or don't, I don't care. I have justified each one of my benefits and you have sought to counter them by expecting practical examples. I can't give any obviously as the offside rule is in force. Every decision to change the game is speculative and can be challenged by your type of rejoinder, that doesn't mean they should never be introduced. The 'Golden Goal' idea was speculative at first, but at least they were prepared to experiment with it. Same with pass-backs to the keeper, the changes TO the offside rule, simulation, and so on. Just because you fear change, does not mean you should avoid it. You are right about this being boring 'though.

Evening Times. Get someone to read it to you.

It is indeed what it says.

Wow, stoned to the core with another pithy, sarcastic response. Exactly how would it changed the game completely? I'm not arguing that they wear ice-skates and play each half ten hours long on the top of a mountain. Again, you make the unmerited assumption that it would lead inexorably toward a 'long ball' game. I would argue that that this would be unsustainable as it would yield little benefits. Regardless, are you saying some teams don't play the 'long-ball' just now? You're implying that abolishing offside would create something which is already extant. You don't appear to credit football people with much intelligence or foresight. I'm sure they would see what was happening before them and act accordingly.

Why, what good would that do? Someone probably made a poll a few years ago saying, 'Do you want Paul Le Guen as next Rangers Manager', or 'Do You Want Rangers to Sign Kenny Miller'. If you had have told people then that Le Guen would have lasted six months and Miller would be banging them in all angles, you'd probably have been branded with the usual 'taig' pish on here! I'm offering alternatives to improve the game. You're offering nothing but the usual 'rules is rules' anachronisms, therefore, you have no argument, just an insult. You've become what you seek to behold.

As I recall, I proposed a number of possible benefits; 1. The game would be more exciting. 2. There would be more action nearer where the goal is (where it should be!). 3. There could be no contentious decisions in that area, or certainly less so. 4. You would see better offensive/defensive duels. 5. Strategies would improve; managers would have to decide whether they had the team to play further up the park with one or two strikers mooching near the goal, play more defensive and hit on the break or play the regular game they normally would in the knowledge that any break forward is not going to result in an offside call. They would also have to tailor thier set-ups predicting what the opponents would do. A sort of 'Game-Theory' (in the political sense of the term) if you pardon the pun. This does happen to a certain extent already, but managers already know that thier opposing numbers have very few varities contemporarily to choose from. Most set-ups are variations of a few themes, with little in the way of a suprise. 6. The game would be played at a faster pace. Fitness levels would either improve, or be found wanting. Either way, the better team would stand to gain the most.

If I have as many defenders on the line you'll have as much chance as scoring as I will defending. Not if you have no wall. My player could get the ball laid off to him and virtually walk towards a goaline with 11 players on it. 5 of them being his own teammates and either pass the ball to one of them or blast it towards goal and 9/10 it will go in. And what if I had a wall? Your line of thought has too many daft permutations for it be taken seriously, but I'll persist; your player that gets the ball laid off to him is faced with one of my defenders. Now what? he passes it to another of his players who are up there? Fine, I have defender on him. Now what, he passes it to another? Fine, I have a defender sitting waiting for him also. The attacking team would see no benefit as they would be faced with man-marking in equal measures. It's lack of advantage would ensure that free-kicks in this situation would remain practically as they are just now, only with no chance of a referee chalking off a perfectly good goal. If you had a wall plus players around your goalkeeper to counter my players then that leaves you with about 2 players to counter with. No matter how you try to justify this rule there is always going to be a way it can be used to a teams advantage. Of course there will always be a slight advantage during the free-kick scenario you propose. That is the whole point of a free-kick. A free-kick anywhere on the pitch, under any set of rules, is going to grant some form of advantage. My point is, there would be no more of an advantage. It's pretty simple if you apply a little thought. Alos, if you have to resort to the old 'I don't agree with you, you're a T*rrier, this is all because you like Robbie Keane' implications, either stop replying or grow up. Attempt to debate sensibly or join the other slabbering morons who think the apex of argumentation and debate is to imply someone is a C*ltic fan. I'm sure they'll give you a warm welcome and maybe even a big sticker to wear.

If I have as many defenders on the line you'll have as much chance as scoring as I will defending. Not if you have no wall. My player could get the ball laid off to him and virtually walk towards a goaline with 11 players on it. 5 of them being his own teammates and either pass the ball to one of them or blast it towards goal and 9/10 it will go in. And what if I had a wall? Your line of thought has too many daft permutations for it be taken seriously, but I'll persist; your player that gets the ball laid off to him is faced with one of my defenders. Now what? he passes it to another of his players who are up there? Fine, I have defender on him. Now what, he passes it to another? Fine, I have a defender sitting waiting for him also. The attacking team would see no benefit as they would be faced with man-marking in equal measures. It's lack of advantage would ensure that free-kicks in this situation would remain practically as they are just now, only with no chance of a referee chalking off a perfectly good goal. You have never played a game of football in your life have you? Technically your a fud, and apart from that i am guessing your a taig Then you'd also be wasting your time thinking I gave a fuck. The old, 'I don't agree with him, he must be a taig' defence. Never fails to amuse.

Make them run over rocks in thier pants and flip-flops?! Was he not meant to be back last week? Stick your fucking money on Webster lasting a month next season. Guaranteed.

I'm neither a protestant, nationalist, unionist nor loyalist. I wasn't in the BB and I fucking hate Thatcher. On the surface, I have little in common with the average Rangers fan. However, I do feel an irresistible pull toward The Rangers; I go when I can, I'd have walked down to Manchester, I'll sing the songs that some 'fans' seem to be ashamed of and I loathe the Vhermin.

In front of your monitor What if I'm using a mobile?

You are funny. Can we keep you? I don't know, can you? Do you mean 'may' we keep you? If you like. Where should I sit?

I'd agree with most of that, but go further and say that Smith deserves the credit primarily. As much as I have disagreed with his selections from time to time, he has shown why he is manager and I am not. I would say however, that your summation of McCulloch is nuts. The guy is fucking rank. He should be nowhere near the team. Ever. His so-called tenacity rarely materialises during the bigger games. Most of the time he is a fucking laibility. McCoist has also went down in my estimations after his comments about Rangers fans causing bother despite the filth being all too eager to volley them. Why did he think the burden of proof was on the fans to prove thier innocence? Poor show from him. For me, for the way he decided to come back, deal with the prima-donnas, work without a contract and keep his general composure through the ups and downs elevates Smith to the club's greatest ever mamager. People talk about Bill Struth but the simle fact is, he was never meant to remain the best forever. Who can actually talk knowledgably about the guy? his time was a hundred million years ago. This is now, and it's time Smith was afforded the accolade of the greatest ever.

ACAB.

If I have as many defenders on the line you'll have as much chance as scoring as I will defending. Not if you have no wall. My player could get the ball laid off to him and virtually walk towards a goaline with 11 players on it. 5 of them being his own teammates and either pass the ball to one of them or blast it towards goal and 9/10 it will go in. And what if I had a wall? Your line of thought has too many daft permutations for it be taken seriously, but I'll persist; your player that gets the ball laid off to him is faced with one of my defenders. Now what? he passes it to another of his players who are up there? Fine, I have defender on him. Now what, he passes it to another? Fine, I have a defender sitting waiting for him also. The attacking team would see no benefit as they would be faced with man-marking in equal measures. It's lack of advantage would ensure that free-kicks in this situation would remain practically as they are just now, only with no chance of a referee chalking off a perfectly good goal.