Fashion Board - Muse to the Fucktards

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Not that it would have mattered on this goal, but can we get the rules changed, such that an attacking player is onside unless there is clear separation between him and the last defender back? This "tiny bit of overlap = offside" is a bad rule. Thierry was minimally offside five times in the first half.

Maybe such a rule would get teams to try to stop trapping, and play some good hard defense.

eta: the opposite of "hard" in this context is A-Rod.

You'd have the same result under that rule -- lots of close offsides calls when teams go to the trap.

Sad to see France win on the kick after that penalty on Puyol. Sad to see Thierry, whom I like, grabbing his face after he got elbowed in the chest.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'd have the same result under that rule -- lots of close offsides calls when teams go to the trap.

or more. "clear separation" is less clear than "past". Why not just eliminate the offsides rule altogether, and open up the field? I suppose the players will all die of exhaustion by the 60th minute, but at least the first hour will be action-packed.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
or more. "clear separation" is less clear than "past". Why not just eliminate the offsides rule altogether, and open up the field? I suppose the players will all die of exhaustion by the 60th minute, but at least the first hour will be action-packed.

Without the offside rule, I think what you would get would be the lone attacker hanging around the opposing penalty box waiting for a hopeful long punt from his defenders. So you would leave a defender back to shadow him. So the other team would send another striker to lurk around behind your defenders. So you would leave another defender, etc. The end result is a bunch of guys all spread out around the field waiting for a lucky long ball to reach them. No packed midfield, true, but also a lot less of the Brazilian-style close quarters dribbling and passing skill everyone likes to watch. I think there would actually be less running involved.

ETA a random response on another board:

Offside was originated to prevent goal poaching, ie having one or more players standing in a forward position, just waiting for the ball, in order to stick it into the net. Which could be high scoring, or very low scoring if all the attackers are marked. But either way, the ball would just be booted one end to the other, and a lot of the skill, and interest, would be lost.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, I could go for a nice glass of Mateus.

Martini and Rossi on the rocks. Say yessss.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ironweed
Without the offside rule, I think what you would get would be the lone attacker hanging around the opposing penalty box waiting for a hopeful long punt from his defenders. So you would leave a defender back to shadow him. So the other team would send another striker to lurk around behind your defenders. So you would leave another defender, etc. The end result is a bunch of guys all spread out around the field waiting for a lucky long ball to reach them. No packed midfield, true, but also a lot less of the Brazilian-style close quarters dribbling and passing skill everyone likes to watch. I think there would actually be less running involved.

Hmm. So it would be like youth soccer, except two packs--one in front of each goal, with long kicks between the two? I'm not sure that would happen, because it would quickly become apparent that it would be tough to get a ball to a pack of people in front of the net. So the offense would spread the field, and force the defense to come out to challenge, at which point the field would be open again.

What about limitig the offside rule to the 18 yard box, extended?

Or change the rule to something like the two-line pass in hockey (i.e., no passes from behind midfield to inside the penalty box, at least if the player is already there).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hmm. So it would be like youth soccer, except two packs--one in front of each goal, with long kicks between the two? I'm not sure that would happen, because it would quickly become apparent that it would be tough to get a ball to a pack of people in front of the net. So the offense would spread the field, and force the defense to come out to challenge, at which point the field would be open again.

What about limitig the offside rule to the 18 yard box, extended?

Or change the rule to something like the two-line pass in hockey (i.e., no passes from behind midfield to inside the penalty box, at least if the player is already there).

I think the US has to make it to the second round before we get a seat on the "change the rules of the world's most popular game" committee.

When we do, 2 suggestions: 1 just call the rule properly and 2 let the play proceed after the flag, but review any goals on film (instant replay rule).

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hmm. So it would be like youth soccer, except two packs--one in front of each goal, with long kicks between the two? I'm not sure that would happen, because it would quickly become apparent that it would be tough to get a ball to a pack of people in front of the net. So the offense would spread the field, and force the defense to come out to challenge, at which point the field would be open again.

What about limitig the offside rule to the 18 yard box, extended?

Or change the rule to something like the two-line pass in hockey (i.e., no passes from behind midfield to inside the penalty box, at least if the player is already there).

Not so much packs as people spread out trying to make long passes to each other while covered by one defender - defenders would be reluctant to go play the help D (Hi Thurgreed!) because they'd be leaving their man open behind them for a long ball. Who knows. I think a packed midfield, short passes and close dribbling (Hi Hank's Mom!) is more fun to watch and the rule is designed for that purpose rather than any purely logical reason.

There's been experimentation with limiting the offside rule in the past, but not that radically. It is technically limited, I suppose, in that you can't be offside in your own half of the field.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do some men not zip their flies?

Maybe they are engineers. Often those types sport short sleeve dress shirts as well.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think the US has to make it to the second round before we get a seat on the "change the rules of the world's most popular game" committee.

Well, we've done that.

But, anyway, you're willing to accept rules made by the French?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Martini and Rossi on the rocks. Say yessss.

Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a lady?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If Fringey and Hank merge, here's a photo for the combined entity's avatar:

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ironweed
Not so much packs as people spread out trying to make long passes to each other while covered by one defender - defenders would be reluctant to go play the help D (Hi Thurgreed!) because they'd be leaving their man open behind them for a long ball.

I'm not sure that would happen though. They still have to be sure they're not too far from their man, because he could still spring past a trap under current rules.

I agree it would change the game, but I suspect that instead of bunching along the last line of defenders, the offense would be able to spread the field both horizontally and vertically (hi Al Davis!). Right now, they can only go horizontally, which is why teams change fields--to move the ball away from where the defenders have bunched.

That said, spreading the field may reduce, rather than increase, slashing passes that free someone up for break-ins.

I'd also make the goal bigger, but that's just me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Fringey and Hank merge, here's a photo for the combined entity's avatar:

give it a laptop, and Atticus could be in the merger as well. quite a noir MFM.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd also make the goal bigger, but that's just me.

How about a second referee?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a lady?

Finish this without googling: If a man you've never met before suddenly gives you flowers, it's ...