Why most Americans don't like soccer.

[Kyle]

I've seen several people mention this (and making the field smaller!) as a 'solution' to open up the game, increase scoring, etc. The off-sides rule is there to help open up the game.

It allows the defense to push well up to mid field, allowing better support for the attack; support (depth) being an attacking principle in soccer. This also allows for a better (faster and more successful) counter-attack.

If there were no off-sides, an attacker or two would cherry pick inside the penalty area and as a result, 2-3 defenders would also stay back there. No support for the attack, no counter-attack, less scoring, bad idea.

Perhaps you are right about the off-sides rule, but my intuition says otherwise. The higher the concentration of people in an area, the more difficult it becomes to do anything. Kind of like with 8-man vs 11-man football. The off-sides rule may add to the number of available attackers, but it also adds to the number of available defenders.

 

[ajk4st8]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwNdX7gU064]YouTube - Tosh.0 - Soccer is stupid[/ame]

 

[fnclone]

i.e. see paul pierce :smile:

i.e. see Derek Fisher

 

[TarHeelHawk]

I don't really get the off-side rule either, but the best way I've heard it described is that if an offensive player were just allowed to stay in the attacking zone, it would be the same as standing under the basket while everyone else plays defense.

 

[cyko42]

I don't really get the off-side rule either, but the best way I've heard it described is that if an offensive player were just allowed to stay in the attacking zone, it would be the same as standing under the basket while everyone else plays defense.

I guess it would turn the game into something the kin to the old 6 on 6 girls basketball. Half the players would be on one half, half on the other. You complain about boring now, it would really turn the game into volleyball match. High balls back and forth.

 

[RhoadsRage]

I don't really get the off-side rule either, but the best way I've heard it described is that if an offensive player were just allowed to stay in the attacking zone, it would be the same as standing under the basket while everyone else plays defense.

Then I say, LEAVE SOMEONE THERE TO GUARD HIM........basketball allows this so why not soccer??

 

[CyDude16]

Then I say, LEAVE SOMEONE THERE TO GUARD HIM........basketball allows this so why not soccer??

They do that. Its called man marking.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

Then I say, LEAVE SOMEONE THERE TO GUARD HIM........basketball allows this so why not soccer??

Maybe they shouldn't?

 

[nickwc]

At least in football the team either has to take a timeout or the player has to sit for a play so there is some kind of punishment.......soccer has neither.

yes they do, they play have to play a man down.

 

[RhoadsRage]

Then I say, LEAVE SOMEONE THERE TO GUARD HIM........basketball allows this so why not soccer??

Better yet, make it like the hockey blue line and leave it up to where the ball is equivalent to where the offensive player is.......can't cross the line until the ball does...that way, the defender can't just step forward and create an offside.

 

[RhoadsRage]

yes they do, they play have to play a man down.

Not if the player just runs right back out.......at least not that I've seen.

 

[CyDude16]

Not if the player just runs right back out.......at least not that I've seen.

They aren't going to stay right at there hip, if thats what youre looking for. Usually the defenders mark what man they will cover, this is especially seen on set pieces, such as free kicks and corners.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

Better yet, make it like the hockey blue line and leave it up to where the ball is equivalent to where the offensive player is.......can't cross the line until the ball does...that way, the defender can't just step forward and create an offside.

That's pretty much what it is, except that the blue line (in this case) is the last defensive player.

 

[cybsball20]

and some football teams don't just run the ball, punt, and play defense when they are up 3 tds? please. There is just as much stalling and what not in popular sports in America.

.

Thats why we keep changing rules to combat that. We have shortened play clocks, have delay of game, and force teams to take time outs for faking injuries, all to promote more scoring.

National Football League (2009)
67,508.69


Major League Baseball (2010)
28,623.82


National Basketball Association (2009/10)
17,149.61


National Hockey League (2009/10)
17,070.29


Major League Soccer (2010)
16,319.94

And MLS only has 15 home games so they should average far more than hockey, basketball, and baseball, right?

 

[RhoadsRage]

That's pretty much what it is, except that the blue line (in this case) is the last defensive player.

Not the same though because that means the line can move.

 

[CyFever]

I don't really get the off-side rule either, but the best way I've heard it described is that if an offensive player were just allowed to stay in the attacking zone, it would be the same as standing under the basket while everyone else plays defense.

Not a bad analogy. It has a similar intent to 3 seconds in the lane.

I guess it would turn the game into something the kin to the old 6 on 6 girls basketball. Half the players would be on one half, half on the other. You complain about boring now, it would really turn the game into volleyball match. High balls back and forth.

Exactly. Think 6 on 6 versus full court basketball.

Then I say, LEAVE SOMEONE THERE TO GUARD HIM........basketball allows this so why not soccer??

See above.

Not if the player just runs right back out.......at least not that I've seen.

They don't play a man down until the end of the match. But while an 'injured' player is off the pitch, his side is a man down until he returns or is substituted for. Once substituted for, a player may not return to the game and there are only 3 substitutions allowed per game.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

Not the same though because that means the line can move.

Right, but the concept is essentially the same. I think a big difference with soccer is that the last offensive player can't get behind the last defender until after the ball is passed to him, wheras in hockey nobody can cross that line until the puck does.

 

[nickwc]

Not the same though because that means the line can move.

i get that you don't like soccer, but based on your comments it's obvious you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Why I don't like soccer:

It's long, drawn out and boring

These guys act like big ******* when they get hit

 

[RhoadsRage]

Right, but the concept is essentially the same. I think a big difference with soccer is that the last offensive player can't get behind the last defender until after the ball is passed him, wheras in hockey nobody can cross that line until the puck does.

Exactly, so if a defender is caught "cheating" up in hockey, they get burned.....whereas if a defender cheats up in soccer, it's offsides. Makes no sense at all to me.