Planetarion Forums

Knight Theamion · 11 Jul 2004, 02:00

(sounds like a gay galname from like r2)

Anyway....

bets please when the Fifa will abolish the stupid rule of offside.

2012 is my guess, after years of babbling.

(tiebreak: year of official proposal: 2007)

Blastoderm · 11 Jul 2004, 02:20

I don't see it stupid.

I dislike seeing goal-hangers in any game both amateur and professional.

1-X · 11 Jul 2004, 02:26

I don't think they'll ever ban it; they'll just keep redefining it to keep it confusing

I read an old newspaper article today about an experimental scrapping of offside in 1971 in the "watney cup" (no, I never heard of it either), anyway the offside rule applied in the penalty box only. It doesn't say what the result was, which makes it really pointless me mentioning it. That's 30 seconds of your life you'll never see again

KoeN · 11 Jul 2004, 02:27

i remember having some discussion with someone here on this forum about the stupid rule called 'offside'. forgot who it was though.

they still don't see it here...

Blastoderm · 11 Jul 2004, 02:32

Remember the Carling advert a few years back about the whole invention of football.

Big Ron: That's offside!
Bloke next to him: What's offside?
Big Ron: I don't know.

1-X · 11 Jul 2004, 02:34

[woman]is that when the ball goes off at the side?[/woman]

Deffeh · 11 Jul 2004, 03:53

faggot

Knight Theamion · 11 Jul 2004, 10:26

the game only gets faster, you dont get 'goal hangers', just a faster pace....

Embroglio · 11 Jul 2004, 10:29

why don't they make it so that anyone offside when the ball is played is offside, regardless of what phase they become involved in the play? anyone on the field should be in the play anyway.

jerome · 11 Jul 2004, 10:41

Who knows. When's the last time, people in charge of a global corporation/event/community/whatever, take decisions for their simplicity?

JC · 11 Jul 2004, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoeN

i remember having some discussion with someone here on this forum about the stupid rule called 'offside'. forgot who it was though.

they still don't see it here...

It was me.

It only seems to be you hockey players that think removing offside would be good for football.

JC · 11 Jul 2004, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Embroglio

why don't they make it so that anyone offside when the ball is played is offside, regardless of what phase they become involved in the play? anyone on the field should be in the play anyway.

Thats how it used to be, back in the days before Baller staryted messing.

Quote:

the game only gets faster, you dont get 'goal hangers', just a faster pace....

It's not hockey.

The game would become stretched. Midfield would become a pointless area on the pitch that nobody bothered standing in. Strikers would hang around in the area forcing defenders to stay back with them.

Having no offside rule in 5 a side is bad enough when you play against some dick who decides to goal hang but it would be a nightmare in a proper match.

lokken · 11 Jul 2004, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Embroglio

why don't they make it so that anyone offside when the ball is played is offside, regardless of what phase they become involved in the play? anyone on the field should be in the play anyway.

This rule with a bit of common sense is prob the best (and easiest) to enforce, the old offside rule.

Offside is essential in football as it prevents hoofing it from the back to the strikers, giving a more attractive game. Mastering the offside trap is the difference between a good defender/striker and a not so good one most of the time as Ruud van Nistelhorse demonstrates week in week out.

The current offside rule is a very good idea in theory, but impossible to enforce.

LHC · 11 Jul 2004, 11:14

The current offside rule is exactly the same as it always was.

Evergreen · 11 Jul 2004, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

the game only gets faster, you dont get 'goal hangers', just a faster pace....

Let's eliminate the backpass rule while we are at it as well right?

NEWSBOT3 · 11 Jul 2004, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHC

The current offside rule is exactly the same as it always was.

no it isnt.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Jul 2004, 15:13

Eliminating the offside rule would destroy football. Koen and Theam argue that it wouldn't, everyone else in the entire world argues that it would.

I blame it on them not realising that defending deep and playing route one football ISN'T ATTRACTIVE.

Embroglio · 11 Jul 2004, 16:52

funny that the dutchies want rid of the offside rule :roll those eyes:

KoeN · 11 Jul 2004, 18:18

conservative bastards

Stew · 11 Jul 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoeN

conservative bastards

we* are British - what do you expect?

* Most of the posters in this thread

Knight Theamion · 12 Jul 2004, 01:16

you fatties really havent played any sports yourself, have you?

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

you fatties really havent played any sports yourself, have you?

By this same logic, I'm going to assume that you're a praying mantis from the congo.

What's it like?

Knight Theamion · 12 Jul 2004, 11:21

ace.

When you discard offside, it will indeed affect 'game play' however, the wings will be more important, not a 'deep striker' and your midfield will just have to run more as the game indeed moves faster.

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

not a 'deep striker'

You remove offside. Therefore you have to defend deep. Most players won't be able to beat a man with skill; no pace involved. Therefore, it's either about teaming up on people, in which case the midfield becomes a graveyard, or beating them for height/strength on long balls.

Please tell me where I've got a flaw in my reasoning.

Knight Theamion · 12 Jul 2004, 11:53

because you fail to see that it will happen at both sides thus making it more entertaining.

you're reasoning is not flawed, it is incomplete

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

because you fail to see that it will happen at both sides thus making it more entertaining.

you're reasoning is not flawed, it is incomplete

My reasoning is not incomplete.

This may be a shock to you, but...

TWO TEAMS DEFENDING DEEP HITTING LONG BALLS TO TALL STRIKERS DOES NOT AN ENTERTAINING GAME MAKE

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 12:13

Or, to put it another way

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Two teams playing unattractive football in the same game does not make the game magically attractive.

Deffeh · 12 Jul 2004, 13:11

this thread's point is not worth arguing with.

Colt · 12 Jul 2004, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

because you fail to see that it will happen at both sides thus making it more entertaining.

you're reasoning is not flawed, it is incomplete

I take it you've never seen an U9 football game then, they don't have offside either, and they are the most boring matches ever! GK gets it, lumps it upfield for striker to run after, and vice versa, there isnt a midfield, such a boring game...same principle as to what would happen in pro football....

PS: i think its a clever ploy that the dutchies want offside abolished so that RVN can benefit even more!

Knight Theamion · 12 Jul 2004, 18:17

gah, 'it works with hockey'

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

gah, 'it works with hockey'

And having 15 players on the field with evilly harsh offside rules works with rugby.

JC · 12 Jul 2004, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

rugby union

FIxed

.

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Jul 2004, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

FIxed

.

If you're being pedantic, it's rugby football union.

Colt · 12 Jul 2004, 21:38

rugby union has 15 players, whereas rugby league has 13...think thats what he means?? so saying rugby as a whole isnt correct

Evergreen · 12 Jul 2004, 21:51

Tbh by Theamions reasoning, we could fix Hockey's worldwide appeal (which is hovering on nil) by adding in the backpass rule and the offside rule, should make it an instant hit for television viewers who want something entertaining to watch.

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 00:23

hockey is only fun to watch if you know how to play it.

that's why football is so entertaining to the masses, it's piss easy and every retard (yes even you sunday) can play it.

Evergreen · 13 Jul 2004, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

hockey is only fun to watch if you know how to play it.

that's why football is so entertaining to the masses, it's piss easy and every retard (yes even you sunday) can play it.

I can play hockey too.

Your point caller? (in fact I've yet to met someone who can't play hockey)

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I can play hockey too.

Your point caller? (in fact I've yet to met someone who can't play hockey)

sure....

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Jul 2004, 08:18

Long hours on NHL93 has made us all masters of the sport.

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 09:26

shame we arent talking the artic variant here

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Jul 2004, 09:39

They're pretty similar. They played field hockey at my school, so I have a reasonable grasp of that as well.

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 09:53

i've seen them schoolkids play

it's funny, however most people from hockey can prolly take them on blindfolded with one hand

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 09:53

the whole backhand idea btw ... nothing like that in the artic variant

try an argentinean backhand, or a scoop with ice hockey. or a shuffle, or an air-dummy .....

heh

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Jul 2004, 09:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

i've seen them schoolkids play

it's funny, however most people from hockey can prolly take them on blindfolded with one hand

We're talking 18 yo. And we had 2 england internationals.

So, come again?

Knight Theamion · 13 Jul 2004, 22:46

i can prolly take them on blindfolded with one hand.

Evergreen · 13 Jul 2004, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

i can prolly take them on blindfolded with one hand.

Yes cause you are clearly playing for the dutch squad and clearly the dutch international squad frequently schools the english international squad, oh wait your just overly self-important and defensive.

I used to play field hockey with some germans.

They are very good at the sport.

Your point again caller? (could it be I am hans hear me roar you can't be good cause it'll deflate my ego)

KoeN · 13 Jul 2004, 23:49

holland won olympic gold in 1996 and 2000. we beat the germans.
(did england even compete??)

Evergreen · 14 Jul 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoeN

holland won olympic gold in 1996 and 2000. we beat the germans.
(did england even compete??)

I know for a fact that England females field hockey are damned good, I'm just pointing out that you make it sound like holland are the only country that can play hockey.

Oh and nigeria won the olympic football title.... CLEARLY they are the best footballing nation in the world.

Knight Theamion · 14 Jul 2004, 00:07

do your research homeboy, please

KoeN · 14 Jul 2004, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I know for a fact that England females field hockey are damned good, I'm just pointing out that you make it sound like holland are the only country that can play hockey.

Oh and nigeria won the olympic football title.... CLEARLY they are the best footballing nation in the world.

so that means we're the best at 'korfbal' too? we won the worldcup this year...