Question Corr 2nd goal

[Norwichshrimper]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the more goals = better game point. Goals are significant not because they're rare but because they give you a boost in the game. I've never heard a manager apologise after a 4-3 for making the game dull with too many goals. One of the most exciting periods in our history was under Barry Fry, whose mantra was 'score more than them'.

Without offside, midfielders wouldn't be able to run the ball from box to box all the time - that's my point. We'd still have intricate passing, cos you need all players involved around the pitch to get around the opposition. Believe me, as an experienced hockey umpire (umpiring to the same level and higher than Southend play football, having no off-side doesn't mean you get goal hangers and defenders staying deep to mark them very much (though when you do, it increases the variety of tactics available, therefore making the game more interesting, because you can use more of the pitch). All players have to be involved in build up play, and passing movements are often very intricate.

A team that marked a lone striker with 2 defenders deep would have problems attacking cos they'd be a player down, so they'd quickly find play up their end much more.

With respect Fish, Hockey is absolutely nothing like Association Football though - so I don't understand your argument. I love the offside rule in Ice Hockey for example, but it doesn't mean it would work in Football.

Have to agree with the Man of Jam - every game would be like watching primary school kids playing in the playground without the offside rule.

I mean seriously can you imagine how a team under Tony Pulis would play if there were no offside.

 

[Fish]

With respect Fish, Hockey is absolutely nothing like Association Football though - so I don't understand your argument. I love the offside rule in Ice Hockey for example, but it doesn't mean it would work in Football.

Have to agree with the Man of Jam - every game would be like watching primary school kids playing in the playground without the offside rule.

I mean seriously can you imagine how a team under Tony Pulis would play if there were no offside.

There are ways in which hockey is nothing like football, and others where it is. I wouldn't trust many footballers to swing a piece of wood safely near anyone (joke). But I saw at first hand the effect of getting rid of off-side in hockey (in the early 90's) and it was good. It got faster, umpiring decisions got better (cos umpires didn't need to worry about off-side), we got more exciting games with teams scoring more goals.

Hockey is much faster than football, meaning in principle that getting rid of off-side would make the game even more hoof-ball oriented than you're football would become. But the outcome was in fact a much wider range of tactics, more open play, more goals, more excitement. And most teams still put 10 men behind the ball when they need to; it just means that attacks have much more chance of becoming interesting once possession is turned over.

Teams playing under Tony Pulis (assuming you mean hoofball everywhere) would not be playing anywhere near the higher echelons of the game - they'd never win, cos they'd never have the quality possession in numbers that they'd need to score goals. So you'd never need to worry about having to watch them!

 

[Norwichshrimper]

There are ways in which hockey is nothing like football, and others where it is. I wouldn't trust many footballers to swing a piece of wood safely near anyone (joke). But I saw at first hand the effect of getting rid of off-side in hockey (in the early 90's) and it was good. It got faster, umpiring decisions got better (cos umpires didn't need to worry about off-side), we got more exciting games with teams scoring more goals.

Hockey is much faster than football, meaning in principle that getting rid of off-side would make the game even more hoof-ball oriented than you're football would become. But the outcome was in fact a much wider range of tactics, more open play, more goals, more excitement. And most teams still put 10 men behind the ball when they need to; it just means that attacks have much more chance of becoming interesting once possession is turned over.

Teams playing under Tony Pulis (assuming you mean hoofball everywhere) would not be playing anywhere near the higher echelons of the game - they'd never win, cos they'd never have the quality possession in numbers that they'd need to score goals. So you'd never need to worry about having to watch them!

But surely they wouldn't need the quality possession, everytime they got the ball they'd just lump it into the box where they'd have afew neanderthals battling in the 6 yard box for it. Every free kick you'd see most of the team camped in the 6 yard box awaiting the ball to drop from the heavens. Pretty much as they do now with every throw in within 50 yards of the goal.

I take your point about Hockey being faster than football to some extent (I've played both to a vaguely competent level), but I find that the constant stop-starting of Hockey with free-hits means that the overall progression of the game is usually slower and certainly more tedious to watch. I loved playing both games, but I can't say I enjoy Hockey as a spectator sport.

Edit...I didn't mean "hoofball" everywhere...specifically Tony Pulis who has his own brand of super-hoofball!

 

[Fish]

But surely they wouldn't need the quality possession, everytime they got the ball they'd just lump it into the box where they'd have afew neanderthals battling in the 6 yard box for it. Every free kick you'd see most of the team camped in the 6 yard box awaiting the ball to drop from the heavens. Pretty much as they do now with every throw in within 50 yards of the goal.

I take your point about Hockey being faster than football to some extent (I've played both to a vaguely competent level), but I find that the constant stop-starting of Hockey with free-hits means that the overall progression of the game is usually slower and certainly more tedious to watch. I loved playing both games, but I can't say I enjoy Hockey as a spectator sport.

Edit...I didn't mean "hoofball" everywhere...specifically Tony Pulis who has his own brand of super-hoofball!

Wow, couldn't disagree more with that point! Since hockey brought in the self-pass, there's practically no stoppage at all in play. There's no chance for defenders to stand over the ball and prevent free hits (and if they do they're carded instantly if the hold up play) unlike football where pretty much every free kick creates a 5 or 10 second stoppage at least often precisely because defenders stand over the ball preventing a quick free kick - one of the most tedious aspects of football.

In fact, as umpires we're being encouraged to blow our whistles more in attacking situations, to give attackers who've been fouled the advantage of a quick free hit.

Out of interest, who did you play hockey for? I may have played against you or umpired you sometime!

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Wow, couldn't disagree more with that point! Since hockey brought in the self-pass, there's practically no stoppage at all in play. There's no chance for defenders to stand over the ball and prevent free hits (and if they do they're carded instantly if the hold up play) unlike football where pretty much every free kick creates a 5 or 10 second stoppage at least often precisely because defenders stand over the ball preventing a quick free kick - one of the most tedious aspects of football.

In fact, as umpires we're being encouraged to blow our whistles more in attacking situations, to give attackers who've been fouled the advantage of a quick free hit.

Out of interest, who did you play hockey for? I may have played against you or umpired you sometime!

When did the self pass rule come in? I'll confess I haven't played (or watched much at all) in the last 10/15 years. I'm now knocking on 40 and whilst I can just about force my body onto a football pitch at a push, hockey is a distant memory. I played mainly in the London Property League, but did play a bit for Southgate when I left school, that sounds impressive, but I was knocking around in what must have been about the 9th or 10th team. I was average at best, but did play along side some very good players in the surveyors & property leagues...worst memory was that as I was a goalkeeper in football and had played hockey a bit it was decided I'd make a good goalie in Hockey. The pads and stuff were about 25 years old and it's amazing how good your reflexes are when your padding seems to be made from the back of a cornflake packet!

Sounds like there have been a few changes (for the better) to the rules of late, my main memory is of teams inching their way up the pitch by deliberately hitting the ball at the defenders feet - anyway I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge and take your word that things have improved, I might even take in another game - the last one I watched live was the Cup Final at Milton Keynes about 15 years ago which If I remember correctly was decided on penalty flicks after a goalless draw (my friends brother was playing and IIRC he missed the deciding flick - can't even remember who he was playing for, but I want to say Loughton)

I won't agree with you that scrapping offside would work in football however, but good to discuss different opinions anyway : I can talk crap about football for ages :smile: :thumbsup: