It is just a discussion, disagreement is fine, you guys are free to be wrong. Glad to see goal line tech ruined the game. DD
A better analogy would be if the QB wasn't allowed to throw a pass to a guy who was beyond the last defender.
On top of that. The fact that soccer is so exciting and nerve-racking is because goals are rare. With basketball I am not nervous except for the last quarter, because almost all leads can be overcome with basketball. and every mistake can be made up for. But with soccer that 1 mistake in the 10th minute can cost you the game. This makes it more exciting and nerve-racking than basketball.
Goal line technology did not fundamentally change the way the game has been played for decades...it didn't change any of the rules at all.
If there's a foul or the ball goes out of play, you have to wait for the play to reset... so, similar concept... only difference is the clock doesn't stop in soccer.
Same concept in soccer of having a line of scrimmage. Except instead of pausing and starting over every play, it's continuous.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever played the game before? The game is much more tactical than you think. Having no offside rule would pretty much destroy the game. There will be less intricate passing, players will make fewer runs. It will be more of a hoof and run style. Defenses cannot play tactical high lines. The offsides rule is there to keep all players on the field honest. We don't want players cherry picking the whole game that would make the game much more unorganized and chaotic. A lot of skill would be taken out of football if this rule was taken away. Instead of build ups which takes tremendous skill, players would just be playing long balls to the forward who is cherry picking, this would take the excitement away as well as reduce the technicality away from the sport.
I wonder what basketball would be like with an offsides rule. People who get all huffy about it and claim soccer would be ruined make me laugh. It's just a different style of play. It becomes more about being able to cover long distances quickly, less technical, increased scoring opportunities, etc. That's not necessarily worse, it's different. I can appreciate why the rule is there, and I can also appreciate what the sport might look like if it weren't. Kind of like pass interference in the NFL. It's a call that is quite critical, often blown, and usually involves a scoring play. Remove PI from football, and suddenly the game comes to an ass-grinding hault. Kind of the opposite of removing offsides.
Even though I've said higher scoring in the US Team thread, what I really mean is shots. I'd love to see more shots on goal. That is what is exciting in soccer. Edit: I also want more subs.
Probably not, primarily because it is so worldwide, and you'd have a hard time changing a sport so widespread.
No, 3 balls. Why does it take 4 balls to get a walk vs. 3 strikes to get out? It would increase scoring.
Just don't let goalie's use their hands....I mean it is FOOT ball, right? Or don't let them pick up the ball but have to kick it, punch it, or push it, but no catching it..... DD
But see with my rule, teams that are down > 1 goal could sub on two defenders and push up more players to even the score faster. If we are being serious about rules that need to be changed I think the sub rules are archaic and outdated. I think you should keep it that whenever the clock is running you only get three subs, but at dead times like at half time or full time (in the case of a tie) you should be able to get as many subs as you like. Furthermore, if a player is subbed out they should be allowed to be subbed back in. Also, if the game goes to extra time you should be allowed to have an extra sub (like timeouts in bball)
