Soccer offsides rule explained...

[stamfordhusky]

Of course they understand it. The USWNT style of play is such that they push the limit to gain the advantage and break in behind the defense. Sometimes they time it just right, and sometimes they don't. Unless a player has 360 vision, they are going to get offside calls.

But the U.S. has had FAR more offside calls against them than any other team in the field. And about half have not been due to runs that were slightly mistimed but rather ones where players were almost stationary, just standing in an offside position oblivious to where the defenders were.

 

[rubymae4]

But the U.S. has had FAR more offside calls against them than any other team in the field. And about half have not been due to runs that were slightly mistimed but rather ones where players were almost stationary, just standing in an offside position oblivious to where the defenders were.

The US has always pushed the line, partially because in the past they had superior speed and conditioning compared to other teams. A long ball over the defensive line with forwards running as fast as possible to get to the ball first…called a direct style of play.

Generally, players get very good at taking in the surrounding players’ positions and adjusting without thinking about it. That being said, the US have displayed significant issues with offside calls disallowing goals in this tournament. I was texting with a friend yesterday (fellow soccer player) and joked that they needed to spend a good amount of time relearning the offside rule. Something subtle with this team isn’t connecting, and that could be why there have been so many offside/goals.

On a very pedantic note to those trying to understand soccer, the correct term is offside (singular).

 

[Husker Husky]

Regarding the offside rule: Is there just 1 AR? Does he/she/they track the 2nd Defender up and down the field for the purpose of offside?

 

[D J B]

But the U.S. has had FAR more offside calls against them than any other team in the field. And about half have not been due to runs that were slightly mistimed but rather ones where players were almost stationary, just standing in an offside position oblivious to where the defenders were.

Well then, I suppose we just have to assume that Morgan, Press, Heath, Lloyd, and Horan are either too lazy to move or don't know what they're doing. Here's hoping they get it sorted out.

 

[LoboDays]

Why would the most followed sport in the world change their rules to appease a nano fraction of people who want to see a hockey game on grass? What’s next- 2 minutes for high kicking?

if the sport is boring, don’t watch it. Baseball has become unwatchable….so I don’t.

Some of the offside calls against the U.S. Women were clearly the result of bad playing. Lazy? Trying to cheat and not get caught? Not paying attention to where the defenders were? I don’t know but these mistakes are costly.

 

[Plebe]

Regarding the offside rule: Is there just 1 AR? Does he/she/they track the 2nd Defender up and down the field for the purpose of offside?

1 AR per sideline, positioned to each keeper's left. And they (try to) constantly adjust their position to be even with the offside line, whether that's the next-to-last defender or the ball.

 

[JoePgh]

Why would the most followed sport in the world change their rules to appease a nano fraction of people who want to see a hockey game on grass? What’s next- 2 minutes for high kicking?

if the sport is boring, don’t watch it. Baseball has become unwatchable….so I don’t.

Some of the offside calls against the U.S. Women were clearly the result of bad playing. Lazy? Trying to cheat and not get caught? Not paying attention to where the defenders were? I don’t know but these mistakes are costly.

Of course, you are right: it is far too late in history to make such radical changes to the rules of a sport that has been extremely successful in its present form.

But I think 3-on-3 basketball might serve as an example. It never will, and never should, replace standard 5-on-5 basketball, but it does have the potential to be an exciting sport in its own right, both to watch and to play. And obviously there is a huge overlap in skill requirements between the two flavors of basketball, so players who are good at one can easily switch over to the other. It works as an Olympic sport because some very good basketball players who just missed the 5-on-5 team can still get the Olympic experience by playing 3-on-3.

So why not have "hockey soccer" as a separate Olympic event? It could be peopled by regular soccer players who didn't quite make their national Olympic soccer team. Maybe you would have to reduce the on-court player count (say, to 6 in front of the goal keeper instead of 10), which would allow for a 3-deep roster and still stay within a team size of about 20.

And while I'm on the subject, another hockey-like rule change that you could introduce in "hockey soccer" would be an area behind the net where the ball is in play. That would open up the possibility of passes from behind the goal to a striker positioned in front of the goal, which would certainly add to the scoring. There might also be a chance for "wraparound" goals to be scored.

I would certainly watch that sport, and I think that many others (especially in Canada) would watch it also.

 

[D J B]

1 AR per sideline, positioned to each keeper's left. And they (try to) constantly adjust their position to be even with the offside line, whether that's the next-to-last defender or the ball.

True, and an AR only covers their half of the field. They are responsible for offside, out of play, goal kicks, corner kicks, penalty kicks (goal keeper positioning), goal determination (did the entire ball enter the goal), fouls and dangerous play outside the referee's vision, and any other requirements required by the referee. They are actually busy little bees probably run five miles during a game.

 

[Plebe]

Of course, you are right: it is far too late in history to make such radical changes to the rules of a sport that has been extremely successful in its present form.

But I think 3-on-3 basketball might serve as an example. It never will, and never should, replace standard 5-on-5 basketball, but it does have the potential to be an exciting sport in its own right, both to watch and to play. And obviously there is a huge overlap in skill requirements between the two flavors of basketball, so players who are good at one can easily switch over to the other. It works as an Olympic sport because some very good basketball players who just missed the 5-on-5 team can still get the Olympic experience by playing 3-on-3.

So why not have "hockey soccer" as a separate Olympic event? It could be peopled by regular soccer players who didn't quite make their national Olympic soccer team. Maybe you would have to reduce the on-court player count (say, to 6 in front of the goal keeper instead of 10), which would allow for a 3-deep roster and still stay within a team size of about 20.

And while I'm on the subject, another hockey-like rule change that you could introduce in "hockey soccer" would be an area behind the net where the ball is in play. That would open up the possibility of passes from behind the goal to a striker positioned in front of the goal, which would certainly add to the scoring. There might also be a chance for "wraparound" goals to be scored.

I would certainly watch that sport, and I think that many others (especially in Canada) would watch it also.

Many of the elements you wish for are featured in what's known as "futsal" ("futbol sala", or indoor soccer), which is actually played quite widely, including here in the States.

 

[D J B]

Of course, you are right: it is far too late in history to make such radical changes to the rules of a sport that has been extremely successful in its present form.

But I think 3-on-3 basketball might serve as an example. It never will, and never should, replace standard 5-on-5 basketball, but it does have the potential to be an exciting sport in its own right, both to watch and to play. And obviously there is a huge overlap in skill requirements between the two flavors of basketball, so players who are good at one can easily switch over to the other. It works as an Olympic sport because some very good basketball players who just missed the 5-on-5 team can still get the Olympic experience by playing 3-on-3.

So why not have "hockey soccer" as a separate Olympic event? It could be peopled by regular soccer players who didn't quite make their national Olympic soccer team. Maybe you would have to reduce the on-court player count (say, to 6 in front of the goal keeper instead of 10), which would allow for a 3-deep roster and still stay within a team size of about 20.

And while I'm on the subject, another hockey-like rule change that you could introduce in "hockey soccer" would be an area behind the net where the ball is in play. That would open up the possibility of passes from behind the goal to a striker positioned in front of the goal, which would certainly add to the scoring. There might also be a chance for "wraparound" goals to be scored.

I would certainly watch that sport, and I think that many others (especially in Canada) would watch it also.

Well, begin with a video game, and make yourself rich when it catches on. It will at that point take on a life of it's own, and will actually be played in streets, sand lots, parks and sports fields. Popularity will bring it to the attention of FIFA who will promote it, license it, and eventually sell the idea to the Olympics as well as have a World Cup of Hockey Sock or whatever you want to call it. One day, there could even be the JoePgh Award for the world's most valuable player. Get busy...time's awastin'.

 

[Mdoggie]

Joe Joe Joey, we already and hockey soccer. It’s called Field hockey.

 

[D J B]

Joe Joe Joey, we already and hockey soccer. It’s called Field hockey.
View attachment 68855

And you get to hit people with sticks! How awesome is that?

 

[LoboDays]

Of course, you are right: it is far too late in history to make such radical changes to the rules of a sport that has been extremely successful in its present form.

But I think 3-on-3 basketball might serve as an example. It never will, and never should, replace standard 5-on-5 basketball, but it does have the potential to be an exciting sport in its own right, both to watch and to play. And obviously there is a huge overlap in skill requirements between the two flavors of basketball, so players who are good at one can easily switch over to the other. It works as an Olympic sport because some very good basketball players who just missed the 5-on-5 team can still get the Olympic experience by playing 3-on-3.

So why not have "hockey soccer" as a separate Olympic event? It could be peopled by regular soccer players who didn't quite make their national Olympic soccer team. Maybe you would have to reduce the on-court player count (say, to 6 in front of the goal keeper instead of 10), which would allow for a 3-deep roster and still stay within a team size of about 20.

And while I'm on the subject, another hockey-like rule change that you could introduce in "hockey soccer" would be an area behind the net where the ball is in play. That would open up the possibility of passes from behind the goal to a striker positioned in front of the goal, which would certainly add to the scoring. There might also be a chance for "wraparound" goals to be scored.

I would certainly watch that sport, and I think that many others (especially in Canada) would watch it also.

You’re describing indoor soccer. Been around a long time. Coached my sons in a league. They played in the winter after the soccer season ended. I remember it getting some TV time a while back but it will never make prime time. Neither will 3x3 hoops. It could make it to the Olympics tough since rock climbing was added.

 

[D J B]

You’re describing indoor soccer. Been around a long time. Coached my sons in a league. They played in the winter after the soccer season ended. I remember it getting some TV time a while back but it will never make prime time. Neither will 3x3 hoops. It could make it to the Olympics tough since rock climbing was added.

My son played indoor soccer one winter, and there was a professional league using the arena where they played. It was bizarre. Fast, yes. Exciting, yes. It was like everyone was stuck inside a pin ball machine, with survival being the primary objective. Anyone stringing together two successive touches was considered a Messi disciple.

 

[D J B]

You’re describing indoor soccer. Been around a long time. Coached my sons in a league. They played in the winter after the soccer season ended. I remember it getting some TV time a while back but it will never make prime time. Neither will 3x3 hoops. It could make it to the Olympics tough since rock climbing was added.

I've been waiting for poker to be declared an Olympic event ever since ESPN decided it was a sport.

 

[LoboDays]

I’ve sent a letter to the Olympic Committee demanding that Cornhole and Pickleball be added immediately.

 

[EdSaid]

Of course they understand it. The USWNT style of play is such that they push the limit to gain the advantage and break in behind the defense. Sometimes they time it just right, and sometimes they don't. Unless a player has 360 vision, they are going to get offside calls.

Maybe you need to check your sarcasm meter.

 

[D J B]

Maybe you need to check your sarcasm meter.

No thanks.

 

[Waquoit]

Not that it will ever happen, or even that it should happen, but I think soccer would be a much more fan-friendly game if it basically followed the rules of ice hockey

You miss the irony, Joe. It's already the most fan-friendly game in the world. You want it to be more JoePgh-friendly.

 

[Centerstream]

Now can someone explain what the palming and carrying college rules are as it relates to dribbling a basketball?

 

[Aluminny69]

You miss the irony, Joe. It's already the most fan-friendly game in the world. You want it to be more JoePgh-friendly.

The second most popular sport in the world is Cricket (2.5 billion fans), but I'm not watching that, either.

 

[ME Husky Fan]

My daughter had a premier coach who on every free kick for the opponent he'd have all his kids on the line run up towards the gal kicking the ball and it was an automatic offsides, every time. Also, as to soccer, hated it - too slow a pace and I hate keep-aways, reminds me of the four corners, Dean. Then my girls each started to gravitate to the sport and each played either premier or elite levels and I loved the nuances of the game except if a game was decided on PK's. High School in CT used to decide championships on PKs and then tragedy hit and they permitted ties after 2 OTs and co-champs.

 

[JoePgh]

Since this seems to be the thread for soccer rules questions, I noticed that at almost the very end of today's game between Sweden and Australia, an Aussie player got a red card, and will therefore be unable to participate in the Bronze Medal game against the USA. I wasn't paying close attention, so I didn't see or hear what she did to earn that very serious penalty, but it seems unusual to impose that kind of penalty at such a late stage of the game. Can someone explain what her offense was?

 

[EdSaid]

Team handball is my new favorite sport. I was looking for a 60 and older league to play in, but no luck.

Free substitutions at any time
Sometimes they pull the goalie while they are advancing the ball.
They serve a penalty just sitting on the bench
They beat the snot out of each other between the 3-point line and the crease. Then they help each other up with no mouth, no attitude, no retaliation and they play on.
Relatively low cost to play, a ball and two goals.
Best of all, they all have a career having a real job. During one of the men's games they rattled off a couple of players jobs: a teacher, an engineer, etc.

 

[Waquoit]

The second most popular sport in the world is Cricket (2.5 billion fans), but I'm not watching that, either.

Again, your loss. The West Indies just beat the Aussies 4 out of 5 in T20 cricket. Chris Gayle just raked in the 3rd match.

 

[D J B]

The second most popular sport in the world is Cricket (2.5 billion fans), but I'm not watching that, either.

Then don't. Nobody cares.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Since this seems to be the thread for soccer rules questions, I noticed that at almost the very end of today's game between Sweden and Australia, an Aussie player got a red card, and will therefore be unable to participate in the Bronze Medal game against the USA. I wasn't paying close attention, so I didn't see or hear what she did to earn that very serious penalty, but it seems unusual to impose that kind of penalty at such a late stage of the game. Can someone explain what her offense was?

Call was "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity", which is an automatic red card. Swede had a breakaway but the Aussie had kind of caught her. If she hadn't used her arms so obviously, she might have got away with a yellow. At that stage, some refs might have shown pity and not red-carded her. As a general rule, if an attacker is breaking in on goal and has only the goalkeeper between her and the goal, if she is then fouled from behind it is DOGSO. The rule:

Sending-off offenses: . . . "denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick" The following must be considered:
• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball.
• location and number of defenders

 

[AgStatesman]

A sad but true fact is that the U.S. was destined to lose this game. Nobody beats the Canadian National Team 37 times in a row.