We had a kid on our high school soccer team that did somersault throw-ins. Was super cool back then too.
The Judgment-Free Soccer Questions Thread
- Thread starter InstaFace
- Start date
Yeah, I get it. There will always be a line, and so there will always be instances where the attacking player is just barely past it. My issue is absolutely with where the line is today because taking the Weah example, neither of his feet are past the defender’s feet. It’s hard to grasp how that makes him offside. It’s nonsensical to me, if the general rule is that you can’t be past the last defender when the ball is played, that when you’re even with him you are still somehow past him. I think I’d understand the rule more if none of the attacking player’s body can even be even with the defender. At least that’s unambiguous. The current line means that some parts can be even and some past, but it depends which part is even and which is past to determine whether it is offside.
It's the parts that you can score with. I think that rule makes sense in the box. When the offside call is on a player who gets service in the box and his head was ahead of the second last defender, and he scores with his head. But it definitely starts to make less sense 40 yards from goal. The laws of the game put a premium on being simple and applying the same in all situations. So definitely there are occasions in soccer when there are questions asked and the answer is "just because that's the rule," which is not all that satisfying.
Argentina's penalty today kind of fits in that category. Was it a foul? Yes. Was it in the box? Yes. Penalty.
Was there any sense in which a penalty is proportional to the infraction committed? No. Well then why is it a penalty? Just because.
It seems to me that the thread falls into two camps -- those who are ok with just because and those who aren't. I tend to be in the first category because I view the game's simplicity as a feature and not a bug. Sucks though when it screws your team.
The following is a joke.
How about any part of the body that’s offside (and therefore advantaged) can’t score the goal? Weah scored with his foot, so it’s good. If it was his knee, it’s offside.
If the offside body part didn’t score the goal but distracted the keeper, that body part is removed and the goal counts as half.
How about any part of the body that’s offside (and therefore advantaged) can’t score the goal? Weah scored with his foot, so it’s good. If it was his knee, it’s offside.
If the offside body part didn’t score the goal but distracted the keeper, that body part is removed and the goal counts as half.
Isn’t it in hockey that if the toe is behind the blue line, then it is onside. Id rather that sort of situation. Back left foot even with mid body defender, i dont care where right foot, etc are. I mean some of these overturns are ridiculous and against, my interpretation, of the spirit even if currently technically correct.
Let us be honest, if Weah is 1/4 yard back to put him onside, does that materially change the play. I mean hell he pushes off 0.5 s later on that leg where the knee is over and he is good.
Im with the rule needs modifications in the VAR world.
Let us be honest, if Weah is 1/4 yard back to put him onside, does that materially change the play. I mean hell he pushes off 0.5 s later on that leg where the knee is over and he is good.
Im with the rule needs modifications in the VAR world.
The bolded is how the offside rule worked until the 90s. They changed to how it is today in an effort, together with other rule changes, to have more goals.
Years ago, back in the dark ages, we didn't have VAR. I'm not sure if there's anybody here that even remembers those days. If you're here, let me give you a friendly reminder to schedule your colonoscopy.
Way back then, there were two gripes with these calls. The first was a player scoring from an egregiously offside position. You'd see a replay and wonder what planet the assistant referee (back then, we called them "linesmen") had briefly departed to as a guy two yards off easily dispatched his opportunity. The other was seeing a player level score a goal, but then noticing a flag up for no reason whatsoever. Replays would show that the attacker was roughly level and fans of both sides would happily berate the "linesman."
With the introduction of VAR, we needed the language to legislate this stuff. Like the NFL's catch rule, any reasonable human can glance and know if a player is offside, but crafting a rule around it proves impossible.
I don't know how you can put this in a way that makes sense, but my gut feeling is that we need to simplify the hell out of it. Get rid of the ball technology and the animations. Take a stadium shot where the players are basically reduced to dots, maybe at a slight angle, and look at it without drawing a goddamn line or trying to find a particular stitch on the shirt. Hell, limit it to a 3 second glance. If you can't tell, the advantage goes to the attacker. Done.
Way back then, there were two gripes with these calls. The first was a player scoring from an egregiously offside position. You'd see a replay and wonder what planet the assistant referee (back then, we called them "linesmen") had briefly departed to as a guy two yards off easily dispatched his opportunity. The other was seeing a player level score a goal, but then noticing a flag up for no reason whatsoever. Replays would show that the attacker was roughly level and fans of both sides would happily berate the "linesman."
With the introduction of VAR, we needed the language to legislate this stuff. Like the NFL's catch rule, any reasonable human can glance and know if a player is offside, but crafting a rule around it proves impossible.
I don't know how you can put this in a way that makes sense, but my gut feeling is that we need to simplify the hell out of it. Get rid of the ball technology and the animations. Take a stadium shot where the players are basically reduced to dots, maybe at a slight angle, and look at it without drawing a goddamn line or trying to find a particular stitch on the shirt. Hell, limit it to a 3 second glance. If you can't tell, the advantage goes to the attacker. Done.
No matter how you write the rule, there will always be photo-finish close calls. Look at hockey offsides where dragging a toe on the extreme down-ice edge of the blue line is sufficient to be onside. Or look at football and having any part of the football break the plane of the near edge of the end zone is sufficient.
All that said, as BrazilianSoxFan noted, they changed the rule 30 years ago to increase offense, so they could change it again to give the offense more advantage.
My no-judgment question: when a team pays a transfer fee for a player, does 100% of that money go from Team A to Team B with none going to the player?
All that said, as BrazilianSoxFan noted, they changed the rule 30 years ago to increase offense, so they could change it again to give the offense more advantage.
My no-judgment question: when a team pays a transfer fee for a player, does 100% of that money go from Team A to Team B with none going to the player?
I agree that having a firm offside rule is important. However, the current rule cannot be accurately assessed by the linesman, which requires VAR review, which means every goal comes with an annoying lag that hurts the flow of the game.
The NHL had a similar problem with the offside call (the trailing skate had to be touching the ice, which meant every potential offside call had to be reviewed to see if there was an 1/8th of an inch gap). They changed the rule so that the skate had to be on/behind the line but not necessarily touching the ice, which has greatly reduced the time spent on video review. I'd like to see something similar for soccer- my suggestion is using the players feet as the measuring point rather than some but not all body parts.
Yes we are kind of far from basic questions but hockey was plagued by the same problem and fixed it quite quickly and well. Eventually you bend the rule enough to the benefit of the attacking team that the calls which do go against the attacking team feel like justice. Too many good attacks are killed fright now in ways that feel unjust
I remember! I think video replay, in all sports, should be simplified with the goal of overturning obvious mistakes rather than micromanaging the game.
Major plays should get reviewed automatically as play continues. If there is no obvious error based on a 10 second review, the play stands. If there is an obvious error, the referee gets buzzed and the play is reversed.
I thought VAR used to call Richarlson was a great use of the technology. He was clearly offside and played the touch that jump started the goal.
On the calls like the Weah no goal, I’d prefer to have that stand. The assistant ref keeps their flag down, plays go on, goal scored, VAR does a quick check, unless it is a clear offside, goal stands.
Some generic 2026 talk--PKs *before* the game?
Penalties before kick-off and bonus points at the 2026 World Cup? No, less is more - The Athletic
Penalties before kick-off and bonus points at the 2026 World Cup? No, less is more - The Athletic
I've heard variations on this for years with a big spike after the dreadful Euro2020*(21) group stages. I think they're trying to fix a problem that they're creating by expanding tournaments. The better fix is to maintain reasonable tournament formats. Can anybody honestly look at what's been going on right now and think it needs to be more exciting? It's been incredible. If it ain't broke, don't try to squeeze more money out of it.
Sounds like Eddie Andelman's "Undertime" proposal for hockey back in the early 1980s
My search-fu is weak but IIRC SOSH came up with this solution a while back:
90 minutes regulation.
If no winner, then penalties to determine the tiebreaker, then play out the full 30 minutes of ET.
The term “transfer” is a little misleading, in that the player’s current contract doesn’t just transfer over to the new club as it does with trades in American sports. What really happens is that the current team and the player rip up the existing contract and the player signs a new deal with the new club. That new deal includes both the new salary (generally referred to as “wages” and for some reason generally reported in terms of weekly pay, rather than annual) and any sign-on or other bonuses the player and the new team agree to. (It’ll also generally include more years, so unlike in, say, MLB where a player in the last year of their deal is considered a rental and less valuable in the trade market, a player in the last year of their deal in soccer can sign a new five or six year deal as part of the process, ensuring a long term commitment.) This is why you might see news that two teams have agreed to a transfer fee but the deal is still held up as the player and the new team are still working out the “personal terms” (that’s is, the new contract that will go into place upon the completion of the transfer), since all three parties (new team, old team, player) have to agree before the transfer is completed.
So, while the transfer fee itself goes solely to the old team, the player and the new team have to agree to the new structure of the player’s compensation before the deal is completed, which could include money to the player upfront. There’s also agent fees, which can be massive and FIFA is currently attempting to curtail them, and even payments to the players family (reported in both the Neymar and Haaland deals, for example).
Yuck. What about groups of four with 24 going through and the group winners getting a bye in the knockout round?
For what it's worth, hearing people say "offsides" is equally grating to those of us in the American football world too
Yeah this is what I don’t get - it’s not like this is a “soccer” vs “football” linguistic difference, offsides is just wrong no matter what sport you’re more used to talking about
Here's the discussion we had about PKs during Euro last summer
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/quick-poll-extra-time-or-straight-to-pks.33990/post-4501446
Edit: we seemed to align on 90-PK-30 (golden goal) as the most optimal format for the knockout rounds.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/quick-poll-extra-time-or-straight-to-pks.33990/post-4501446
Edit: we seemed to align on 90-PK-30 (golden goal) as the most optimal format for the knockout rounds.
It's American vs England usage. I think maybe originating with hockey, the way we use "goalie" rather than "keeper"?
It's defensible on its face. There are two sides. You're not on yours.
And more to the point, fuck the English and the over-hyping of the EPL to making millions of american soccer fans think that using every England-English term is the only proper way to speak about footballing. It's a field not a pitch, and that's fine. It can be the end-line not the by-line, and that's fine. You can wear cleats instead of boots, and later change into sneakers rather than trainers, and that's fine. The game can result in a tie (rather than a "draw"), or the matchup itself is the "tie"? Both are fine. So if I want to speak the way that millions of youth-soccer players, coaches and observing parents do, it's not "wrong", it's just "language". As she is used.
Agreed. A three-team group structure is such an abomination I can't support it. If they wanted to expand to, say, a structure with a 5- or 6-team group, where the Pot 1, 2, and 3 teams get byes, and the rest scrap amongst themselves to qualify for the fourth spot, I could maybe accept that.
I'm fine with all the different terminology, even if I'm more used to the English one.
But offside is offside, in soccer, American football, and ice hockey.
I was thinking that alternating corners would be a better test than penalties. The attacking team would take the corner and could keep contesting until a goal was scored, the attackers put the ball out of play, or the defenders gain control, as evidenced by keeper possession or the defenders clearing the ball past the halfway line. Then you switch.
Then I thought it might be fun to do the footy equivalent of HORSE. Call your own play or set piece. Both teams run it. Opponent does the same. Repeat until deadlock broken.
Then I thought it might be fun to do the footy equivalent of HORSE. Call your own play or set piece. Both teams run it. Opponent does the same. Repeat until deadlock broken.
48 teams at the World Cup is so goddamn bad I can't even express it properly. There are not 48 national teams worth watching as a neutral. I mean, there are only 211 FIFA member entities, and that includes places like Malta and Montserrat who have national teams made up of accountants and dishwashers.
IF they want 48 "involved" the bottom 24 can do a play in, knockout style. Those 12 winners float into the the groups and we have groups of 4.
I would have agreed with this without hesitation or second thought up until this WC started. I think I generally still do. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador... A few teams have given me pause. The additional likelihood of getting Salah and Haaland involved (on this cycle, anyway, I think Salah probably ages out), along with Italy, might make this fun. The problem is having three teams advance from groups of four (or two from a group of three) makes the group stage too meaningless and mundane, though.
Deemed offside. Not watching the game, it is hard to even tell which player is on offense with this image.
Micromanaging the offside rule like this is so counterproductive.
If a country collectively uses a word to mean a thing, is it "wrong"? At what percentage of the population using it does it go from "wrong" to "that's just where the language went"?
I find "normalcy" a little grating, in a world and a language that already had the word "normality" and had the former imposed on it by a presidential campaign 100 years ago, but I can recognize that both are in common usage.
I find "normalcy" a little grating, in a world and a language that already had the word "normality" and had the former imposed on it by a presidential campaign 100 years ago, but I can recognize that both are in common usage.
The offside call was fine because it negated an absolutely dreadful penalty call Taylor was never going to overturn
Two wrongs making a right... The offside should be ridiculed and mocked, but so should Taylor's call. He'll escape scrutiny.
Not that scrutiny has ever helped.
I love this. And it caused me to go look into the laws of the game to see what the “official” English terms are for these things. Officially, it’s the field (not pitch) and the goal-line.
This is a really good summary.
The only thing I would add is that while in theory the two clubs are supposed to agree a fee first, then personal terms get negotiated with the player, in practice it is almost always the opposite. Agents spend lots of time having casual conversations with representatives of other clubs or third parties who give them a sense of what kind of contract that other club would be willing to give their player (and what kind of fee they'd be willing to give the agent), then once a club has a good idea of what they'd need to pay a new player, they then go to that player's club and start negotiating a transfer fee. Agents are really critical players and the biggest obstacle in most transfers is convincing the player and his agent to come to your club and do it at a reasonable price, not negotiating with the other club.
It's an incredibly dirty world, bound by very few rules, involving some very shady people who make Scott Boras look like a paragon of honesty and altruism.
Yes but qualifying within the confederation still should mean something. There are “deserving” sides that don’t make it every cycle and that’s as it should be. As with anything, diluting the field cheapens it.
In general use, that's true. In reference to a field that actually has codified terminology (sports, law, etc), it doesn't fly.
It's the same reason that incorrect common usage of “ground rule double” doesn't change the actual meaning of the phrase.
The funny thing is, my impression of Scott Boras has always been that he's considered the apex of the MLB agent world precisely because he does his homework, doesn't bullshit anybody, and just is also hyper-aggressive about wringing every last dime out of the market. But I don't recall anyone accusing him or his agency of misleading them or being crooked. Maybe leaking some mystery team as an alternative bidder, who doesn't actually exist? I guess that's the worst I've heard.
Global football agents have ethical problems coming out of their ears. The two that most illustrate this for me are:
(1) Agents "owning" a percentage of interest in players, such that they'll allow the player to be sold for price X, but the club only pays 70% of X and the agent holds the other 30% as an interest and then when the player is sold again he gets some return on that "investment" (but paid to him, not to the player). FIFA has banned this which just made it go into more complicated structures.
(2) Agent compensation is negotiated as part of transfer deals. Unlike agents in US sports, who just get a flat percentage of player comp (like 4-5%, right?), these agents can hold up deals until the acquiring board agrees to pay $X to the selling club and $Y to the agent (as well as $Z salary for the player). And they will extract their pound of flesh, because they can just steer the player to any of several other clubs at that tier and the player might not really care. Ask Arsenal fans how agent Kia Joorabchian basically ended up running the club's football business.
Basically in the USA the agents really do act like the players are their bosses, whereas in global football, the players are often at the mercy of their agents in a number of respects, and "superagents" often act (and are paid) like they're the bosses. Which continues to blow my mind, given that nobody watches a soccer match for the agents.
Put that on the pile of "prima-facie evidence of how fucked up the global football ecosystem is".
And the only this I’d add is all this just accentuates how much power players have. They can’t be sold against their will. And when determining their next employer they really hold all the cards - just because a club comes in for him doesn’t mean he has to go there.
Apropos of that is the Bosman Free Transfer - when a players contract is up they are free agents - so can demand much higher wages. It seems there are many more examples of players running down their contracts.
While I'm at it: also in the category of "prima-facie evidence of how fucked up the global football ecosystem is" is the fact that transfer fees are often many multiples of what the player themselves will get in annual salary, even if they earn every penny of their new contract. To take some examples picked almost at-random from the top transfers list at TransferMarkt:
- Summer 2022: Man United buys RW Antony from Ajax for £ 82 M + £ 5M add-ons. Signed a 5-year contract for £ 10.4M per year. Transfer fee = 67% more than total contract value.
- Summer 2022: Newcastle buys ST Alexander Isak from Real Sociedad for £ 60 M. Signed a 6-year contract for £ 6.2M per year. Transfer fee = 60% more than total contract value.
- January 2022: Juventus buys ST Dusan Vlahovic from Fiorentina for € 82M. Signed a 4.5-year contract for € 12.9M per year, making him Juventus' highest-paid player. Even so, transfer fee = 41% more than total contract value
- January 2022: Barcelona buys LW Ferran Torres from Man City for € 55M. Signed a 5.5-year contract for € 10.0M per year. Transfer fee = exact same as total contract value.
- Summer 2021: Paris S-G buys RB Achraf Hakimi from Inter Milan for € 68M. Signed a 5-year contract for € 14.5M per year. Transfer fee = only 6% less than total contract value. Also, check out PSG's top 4 salaries at that link.
Basically, the clubs are seeing a totally disproportionate amount of money change hands between them for player contracts, relative to what the players themselves are getting. If you took some of that transfer money and just tried to buy the best players who are hitting the free-agent market by paying a lot more salary (now that you don't have to pay another club + agent), you'd probably come out ahead. But the top ~20 or so clubs have so much money, and so much impatience, that they've bid each other up to absurd levels to acquire the exact talent they want, regardless of whether (or how long) that player is under contract at another club.
- Summer 2022: Man United buys RW Antony from Ajax for £ 82 M + £ 5M add-ons. Signed a 5-year contract for £ 10.4M per year. Transfer fee = 67% more than total contract value.
- Summer 2022: Newcastle buys ST Alexander Isak from Real Sociedad for £ 60 M. Signed a 6-year contract for £ 6.2M per year. Transfer fee = 60% more than total contract value.
- January 2022: Juventus buys ST Dusan Vlahovic from Fiorentina for € 82M. Signed a 4.5-year contract for € 12.9M per year, making him Juventus' highest-paid player. Even so, transfer fee = 41% more than total contract value
- January 2022: Barcelona buys LW Ferran Torres from Man City for € 55M. Signed a 5.5-year contract for € 10.0M per year. Transfer fee = exact same as total contract value.
- Summer 2021: Paris S-G buys RB Achraf Hakimi from Inter Milan for € 68M. Signed a 5-year contract for € 14.5M per year. Transfer fee = only 6% less than total contract value. Also, check out PSG's top 4 salaries at that link.
Basically, the clubs are seeing a totally disproportionate amount of money change hands between them for player contracts, relative to what the players themselves are getting. If you took some of that transfer money and just tried to buy the best players who are hitting the free-agent market by paying a lot more salary (now that you don't have to pay another club + agent), you'd probably come out ahead. But the top ~20 or so clubs have so much money, and so much impatience, that they've bid each other up to absurd levels to acquire the exact talent they want, regardless of whether (or how long) that player is under contract at another club.
Related question: As it seems like the transfer window is basically "trading" a player for cash (Charlie O Finley would have loved this!), are there ever any player-for-player trades in international club football?