RudeBoy

We'd essentially see a different game. A game where players like Xavi, Iniesta etc have little influence in the middle of the park? No thanks. I'd rather not watch. this we love to watch Barca and Arsenal because of the way they pass the ball around, these teams would no longer play the "Beautiful Game", the way every football fan wants to see their team play. It may have escaped your notice, but 99.9% of teams do not play like this. Also, banning offside would not necessarily affect the 0.1% that do. i only stated stated that i, like many other people, would love to see us play like this. the main reason that teams are able to play the passing game is due to the midfield players they possess (Xavi, Iniesta etc) and with the removal of the offside rule this way of playing would also be removed from our game because the long ball strategy would be the most likely option of the teams. That makes far too many assumptions to be credible. You are assuming how players would play in the future based on what evidence? Why would they bypass the midfield and lump it straight to a striker who had a defender clinging to him? That doesn't make any sense.

We'd essentially see a different game. A game where players like Xavi, Iniesta etc have little influence in the middle of the park? No thanks. I'd rather not watch. Exactly. The passes these players make at just the precise moment to make sure whoever is receving it and the run made by the player is perfect add to the game. Look at Xavi's pass to Messi at the weekend. If there was no offsides then things such as this would not happen. If offside was abolished, there would be no passing? Is that honestly the theory you are trying to give birth to? No one said there would be no passing? The enjoyment of watching players open up a defence with one amazing pass would just not happen. Defences try and play players offside and this is when these passes happen. If there is no offside then players could lump the ball into any attacking area of the field and the faster players could just run through. Not only are you living in some wierd, mythical football world where you must see these passes every game, but you are also making the crazy assumption that such a style of play would dissappear! That is crazy logic, it really is. The abolition of offside would not ensure the extinction of the midfield. That's bonkers. Apart from anything else, what is to stop one of your mythical playmakers making one of these 'amazing passes' from his own half up toward a striker nearer the opposition goal anyway? Also, you are saying now that because a player is faster than a defender that that is justifcation for keeping onside? Because some poor defender is too slow? Absolutely mental.

I bow to your superior logic and in-depth analysis of the game. Can I summarise it as, 'rules is rules, they canny be changed!'? People thought the pass-back rule would cause chaos also. it's not about superior logic it is simply the fact that you say "what is the fucking point" of the offside rule makes you sound like a 12 year old. picking up a pass-back and offside are slightly different I'm sure you will agree. What is so wrong with the game that you want changed, i really don't understand your logic? Was it the swear word that offended you? My apologies if so. For all you know, I could be twelve years old. Would that make my argument any less valid? I have already exposed the flaws in the rule which make a strong case for it being fucking pointless and a hindrance. my logic is that offside is unnecessary. It gives no team an advantage and does nothing to enhance the flow of the game. It's abolition would have no fundamental bearing on the essence of football. It stifles the central idea of the game which is to get the ball into the net using feet or head. The object of the game is not to play in midfield and hope that you will 'beat' the offside rule occassionally. The object is to get the ball into the net without using your hands. If midfield possession was the aim of the game, you'd get points for it. However, these are moot points. There is nothing to suggest that abolishing the offside rule would mean that teams would bypass the midfield anyway and its crazy to assume so. The offside rule not only has no benefits, but its existence ensures only one thing, that play will be disrupted and stopped. Not only that, but these decisons in themselves are not without contention. It's actual disadvantages far outweigh its potential advantages.

There could be no offside given. No iffs, buts, maybes and conspiracies. And if we scrap goals, there would be no goals given. The point of the game is to score goals though, not be be caught offside. You can't abolish the fundamental principle of the game and still expect it to have a purpose. You could however, easily scrap offside and still have football. That's hardly an argument for its abolishion though, is it? There are dozens of different aspects of the gave that could be scrapped and we'd still have football. Doesn't mean we should scrap them. I really can't see any benefit from scrapping the offside rule. I have already provided an argument and justification for its abolition. You can't just repeat the same line and expect me to justify it in different ways. Just because you are incapable of seeing the benefit, means nothing really. I can hardly measure offside against these 'dozens of different aspects' if you yourself fail to mention what they are. I will say however, that if they are surplous to requirements, then they could probably be jettisoned and have no bearing on the game.

We'd essentially see a different game. A game where players like Xavi, Iniesta etc have little influence in the middle of the park? No thanks. I'd rather not watch. this we love to watch Barca and Arsenal because of the way they pass the ball around, these teams would no longer play the "Beautiful Game", the way every football fan wants to see their team play. It may have escaped your notice, but 99.9% of teams do not play like this. Also, banning offside would not necessarily affect the 0.1% that do.

We'd essentially see a different game. A game where players like Xavi, Iniesta etc have little influence in the middle of the park? No thanks. I'd rather not watch. Exactly. The passes these players make at just the precise moment to make sure whoever is receving it and the run made by the player is perfect add to the game. Look at Xavi's pass to Messi at the weekend. If there was no offsides then things such as this would not happen. If offside was abolished, there would be no passing? Is that honestly the theory you are trying to give birth to?

Football has changed almost beyond recognition over the years. Like everything else, it evolves when it's obvious that something is shit. Too many people fail to notice it immediately however. This is why it takes time.

If I have as many defenders on the line you'll have as much chance as scoring as I will defending.

I bow to your superior logic and in-depth analysis of the game. Can I summarise it as, 'rules is rules, they canny be changed!'? People thought the pass-back rule would cause chaos also.

That's what I mean. The midfield is just the middleman between the goalkeeper and the forwards anyway. Get the game played as close to the goals as possible. Much more entertaining.

How do they 'force' the ball in? And why would they all stand there and leave themselves completely exposed at the back? They aren't stupid. They would know that all it took was a clearance up thier end and they would be fucked. They wouldn't do it. You are creating a straw-man argument. What if their wasn't a clearance? You could just put 5 players around the goalkeeper, giving him virtually no chance, then keep 5 players back incase there is a clearance. Then the player could hit the free kick into the net and the goalkeeper would be stuck in the middle of the players and have to muscle his way through 5 players which could result in a penalty. And what if there is a clearance? This could go on all night. Your team puts five round my keeper, I put five of my defenders in there as well. Do you have an advantage? No. You keep five of your players back, I put five of mine up. Do I have an advantage? No. Your last point also neglects the fact that goalkeepers will generally always be offered the protection of the referee and given the benefit of the doubt. One outfield player can't obstruct a goalkeeper these days never mind five. Your point is a non-starter and speculative. Yes I do have an advantage because your keeper is facing a free kick which he will have no chance of getting to. Also if you have put 5 players to counter this then your wall is not going to be very effective is it? If you flood the goalline with your own players, I won't need a wall, you will be providing it!

There could be no offside given. No iffs, buts, maybes and conspiracies. And if we scrap goals, there would be no goals given. The point of the game is to score goals though, not be be caught offside. You can't abolish the fundamental principle of the game and still expect it to have a purpose. You could however, easily scrap offside and still have football.

could you imagine how many goals kris boyd would score though. He certainly wouldn't expend any more effort than he usually does!

There could be no offside given. No iffs, buts, maybes and conspiracies.

No.

I never said anything about doing away with linesmen. Keep them by all means, as you said, to catch fouls and shit. They'd probably see more diving and proper fouling if they weren't burdened by the offside shit. What about the problem with players surrounding the goalkeeper giving him no chance? There is no problem. You have just created one out of an extremely unlikely scenario. Why on earth would they do this? you are also again assuming that this would just benefit one team and that the goalkeeper would have no protection from his own players. Why would one team expend so many players concentrated in one small area of a massive pitch leaving thier own goal/half weakened? On the off-chance of a goal? There is just as much chance as them losing one by doing this Well if he had protection from his own players then that would even things up if there was a break on. Having 4 or 5 players back is enough to stop a counter attack. I know. That's my point. No-one gains an unfair advantage.

How do they 'force' the ball in? And why would they all stand there and leave themselves completely exposed at the back? They aren't stupid. They would know that all it took was a clearance up thier end and they would be fucked. They wouldn't do it. You are creating a straw-man argument. What if their wasn't a clearance? You could just put 5 players around the goalkeeper, giving him virtually no chance, then keep 5 players back incase there is a clearance. Then the player could hit the free kick into the net and the goalkeeper would be stuck in the middle of the players and have to muscle his way through 5 players which could result in a penalty. And what if there is a clearance? This could go on all night. Your team puts five round my keeper, I put five of my defenders in there as well. Do you have an advantage? No. You keep five of your players back, I put five of mine up. Do I have an advantage? No. Your last point also neglects the fact that goalkeepers will generally always be offered the protection of the referee and given the benefit of the doubt. One outfield player can't obstruct a goalkeeper these days never mind five. Your point is a non-starter and speculative.

Exactly. You leave two up there, the defence sticks two on them. The assumption I make, rightly, is that there will be no more shite referee decisions in this area. You're making the assumption it would lead to a 'ridiculous' ammount of goals. There is no basis whatsoever for such a claim. If you'd only need 2 defenders to match these 2 strikers, why do most teams play a 4-4-2 formation? What exactly is there to gain from scrapping the rule? They could still play a four four two formation if they wanted. Sticking two defenders to man-mark (if that indeed is actually required) still necessitates a defensive line. Like I said, each team would have to tailor accordingly. If the opposition sticks three up front, you stick three out of your four defenders onto them. It doesn't make it any less of a defence. Accordingly, if the strikers were getting fuck all out of this, it would force them to either scrap the plan or play further back. This allows the defence to push up as required. What you would gain would be a quicker, more exciting game with more goals and no contentious offside decisions. And you're having a go at me for making assumptions... My assumption is the inevitable result of the flaws of your rebuttal.

I never said anything about doing away with linesmen. Keep them by all means, as you said, to catch fouls and shit. They'd probably see more diving and proper fouling if they weren't burdened by the offside shit. What about the problem with players surrounding the goalkeeper giving him no chance? There is no problem. You have just created one out of an extremely unlikely scenario. Why on earth would they do this? you are also again assuming that this would just benefit one team and that the goalkeeper would have no protection from his own players. Why would one team expend so many players concentrated in one small area of a massive pitch leaving thier own goal/half weakened? On the off-chance of a goal? There is just as much chance as them losing one by doing this.

Exactly. You leave two up there, the defence sticks two on them. The assumption I make, rightly, is that there will be no more shite referee decisions in this area. You're making the assumption it would lead to a 'ridiculous' ammount of goals. There is no basis whatsoever for such a claim. If you'd only need 2 defenders to match these 2 strikers, why do most teams play a 4-4-2 formation? What exactly is there to gain from scrapping the rule? They could still play a four four two formation if they wanted. Sticking two defenders to man-mark (if that indeed is actually required) still necessitates a defensive line. Like I said, each team would have to tailor accordingly. If the opposition sticks three up front, you stick three out of your four defenders onto them. It doesn't make it any less of a defence. Accordingly, if the strikers were getting fuck all out of this, it would force them to either scrap the plan or play further back. This allows the defence to push up as required. What you would gain would be a quicker, more exciting game with more goals and no contentious offside decisions.

I never said anything about doing away with linesmen. Keep them by all means, as you said, to catch fouls and shit. They'd probably see more diving and proper fouling if they weren't burdened by the offside shit.

It is broken. The offside rule is fucked.

How do they 'force' the ball in? And why would they all stand there and leave themselves completely exposed at the back? They aren't stupid. They would know that all it took was a clearance up thier end and they would be fucked. They wouldn't do it. You are creating a straw-man argument.

Exactly. You leave two up there, the defence sticks two on them. The assumption I make, rightly, is that there will be no more shite referee decisions in this area. You're making the assumption it would lead to a 'ridiculous' ammount of goals. There is no basis whatsoever for such a claim.

Why would there be a 'ridiculous' ammount of goals? You still have to get the ball through defenders and a goalkeeper and ensure that your own defence is solid. Any team that played 'ridiculously' deep would do so at thier own risk. No team could flood the other's box as it would leave themselves exposed. Even if a team sits two strikers in the oppsition box, the opposition just has to stick two defenders there thereby cancelling out notions of an 'unfair' advantage. Each team would realise that they would have to be a bit more strategic and match the other. This would ensure that the play would still focus on the midfield but there would be no contentious offside decisions.