Soccer offsides rule explained...

[Bigpetunia]

I very much appreciate the explanation of the offsides rule by our resident experts. I think I get it, although the question that remains for me probably reveals that I don't: Isn't the practical effect of the rule that the defense often gets rewarded for being a bit lazy getting in position? Please help me to better understand.

Also, for the benefit of ignorant Americans ( of which I am clearly one), is it fair that, upon questioning some of the rules, the response is often, "Look, this is the most popular game in the world, you just don't understand it." Point taken. But isn't the reality of its unquestioned popularity and universality based mainly on the fact that such minimal equipment is required for its execution, especially in poorer neighborhoods in poorer countries?

 

[D J B]

I very much appreciate the explanation of the offsides rule by our resident experts. I think I get it, although the question that remains for me probably reveals that I don't: Isn't the practical effect of the rule that the defense often gets rewarded for being a bit lazy getting in position? Please help me to better understand.

Also, for the benefit of ignorant Americans ( of which I am clearly one), is it fair that, upon questioning some of the rules, the response is often, "Look, this is the most popular game in the world, you just don't understand it." Point taken. But isn't the reality of its unquestioned popularity and universality based mainly on the fact that such minimal equipment is required for its execution, especially in poorer neighborhoods in poorer countries?

Here's a good explanation of the rule - why it exists, how it's changed over the years, and what would happen if it were abolished.

What Would Happen if the Offside Rule Was Abolished?

A bit of a read, but I hope it helps.

And yes, the sport is popular for those reasons you cite. The "Look, this is the most popular game in the world, you just don't understand it" response is usually made when someone declares the game to be "stupid". Questioning the rules is a good thing, leading to a better understanding of how the game is played.

Here's a bit more about the rules:

The 17 Laws of Soccer Explained

This is something that every parent of every child playing soccer should read. It would make the sidelines on Saturday mornings a much more fun and tolerable place to be.

 

[Bigpetunia]

Here's a good explanation of the rule - why it exists, how it's changed over the years, and what would happen if it were abolished.

What Would Happen if the Offside Rule Was Abolished?

A bit of a read, but I hope it helps.

And yes, the sport is popular for those reasons you cite. The "Look, this is the most popular game in the world, you just don't understand it" response is usually made when someone declares the game to be "stupid". Questioning the rules is a good thing, leading to a better understanding of how the game is played.

Here's a bit more about the rules:

The 17 Laws of Soccer Explained

This is something that every parent of every child playing soccer should read. It would make the sidelines on Saturday mornings a much more fun and tolerable place to be.

Thank you so much, DJB. Those articles, particularly the first, helped a lot. I now understand why such a rule is required, even if there are a few untoward side -effects. I think it’s a great game, and I’ve enjoyed watching it, even if woefully naive regarding so many of the fine points.

 

[Waquoit]

No. Just let soccer be soccer. By far, most games do not come down to penalty kicks, but when they do, it's a nail biter that other sports don't have. Soccer has it's own rules for a reason.

Well said, let soccer be soccer and if somebody doesn't like it or get it, it's their loss. Nil-nil games can be nail biters.

 

[CL82]

Most of the rest of the world thinks Baseball and Cricket are also stupid. If one has played a game, the perspective changes. By the way, Billions of people would laugh at you if they read your post. I played some recreational soccer in Germany and accompanied my colleagues to several games; also coached my son’s team. IMO, your criticism is unfortunate; you’re missing a great sport through lack of knowledge.

That’s the thing though, isn’t it? If you don’t understand the game you’re always going to think it’s stupid. I was not a soccer fan before I started coaching my young kids in soccer. (Which, initially at least, is basically a continuous rugby scrum around the ball.) As they moved up I learned more about the game, and now I enjoy watching it. Like most sports you have to be reasonably informed so that you understand what’s happening away from the ball. Then you can see things develop and the game becomes much more engaging. If your understanding is just watching a ball being kicked around the field and waiting for someone to take a shot on goal, yeah, it’s going to be pretty boring.

 

[Waquoit]

Here's a good explanation of the rule - why it exists, how it's changed over the years, and what would happen if it were abolished.

What Would Happen if the Offside Rule Was Abolished?

Thx for the article. Imagine Zlatan with no offsides! He wouldn't have to run, just stand in the box and get service. With his height and skill no telling how many goals he would score. The game itself would be worse, of course.

 

[fang]

OK.... We understand the offsides rule. Why does it seem as if the USWNT does not understand the rule?

 

[JoePgh]

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, but on turf rather than ice and using feet to propel the ball rather than sticks to propel the puck.

Specifically:

1. A fixed offside line rather than a variable one based on where the defense positions itself.
2. Free substitution during play, which would allow a faster game because players could then play in shifts and go at a faster pace while they are in the game and then recover on the bench while they are temporarily replaced. This might require larger rosters that go three-deep at each position, but everyone would play.
3. I'm not sure if an "icing" rule (maybe it could be called "pitching") would be needed to prevent defenses from just kicking the ball down the field to break up an attack. (I'm not entirely sure why defenses in today's soccer game don't do that more often.)
4. Penalties enforced through a "penalty box", where the offending player must go out of the game for a fixed time, and his/her team would be required to play short-handed for that time.

Obviously that would be a very different game, perhaps requiring different skills, and certainly with records that would be completely non-comparable with today's soccer game.

 

[D J B]

OK.... We understand the offsides rule. Why does it seem as if the USWNT does not understand the rule?

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.

 

[Mdoggie]

Joe Joe Joe. I have a great idea. Let’s have Ice hockey follow the rules of soccer.

 

[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.