2006-06-28 07:00:54 · 14 answers · asked by paul r 1 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ English Football
ask Thierry Henry! he's the expert!!!(last night's match Spain-France)
hahha.
2006-06-28 07:05:51 · answer #1 · answered by karen 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Originally, it was designed to maintain fair play among gentlemen, i.e. preventing one side (offense) from having an advantage, which according to those times, was unfair.
100 years later, we out of stubborn attachment to this tradition, maintain it, of course partially modified (the "passive" offside rule), but the truth of the matter is that soccer has changed since then. Tactics are sophisticated, there is more defensive pressure, and the legs are faster. So, that is enough to keep an offense in check. Personally, I do not see why an offensive player must be penalized for doing his job (eluding and getting around the defense) while the defense is rewarded for not doing theirs (defending accurately).
No defender today will let a forward be by himself un marked. Tactics and modern play does what the old offside rule used to do. The sooner we drop it, more dynamic soccer will be. That was Di Steffano's argument, and I back him up on it.
2006-06-28 07:14:19 · answer #2 · answered by John 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i really hate this rule coz alot of goals were just to be scored until u just hear the rfs whisle an flags
plus many other goals scored with the offside that the refs didn't see just like that goal 4 Brazil on Ghana and the goal 4 France on span when Henry was in clear offside
i really think they should forget bout this stupid rule
2006-06-28 07:09:55 · answer #3 · answered by Rosy Rose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before the rule was introduced it was common practice for teams to leave a couple of players up near the opponents goal in case they were able to clear their own lines and punt the ball up to them. Off side erradicates this problem.
2006-06-28 07:07:41 · answer #4 · answered by sirdaz_uk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the forwards would have way to many goals and there would be no midfield action there would only be place for defenders goalies and forwards because longballs to the other end of the field would be played the entire game.
2006-06-28 07:06:16 · answer #5 · answered by almostahero20 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if it was out of place, it would be offside.
2006-06-28 07:04:30 · answer #6 · answered by R.I.P. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the striker would stand and wait by the goal for the ball and pop it in the net. the score would look more like rugby score!
2006-06-28 07:10:33 · answer #7 · answered by tweets 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So that it is harder for the opposing team to score and it would be unfair for someone to be lurking at the goal posts just waiting to score!
2006-06-28 12:38:01 · answer #8 · answered by Sharne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so that you dont have a majority of men on one side, already in position to intercept the ball, while the offensive side of the other team is busy trying to regain control on the other half of the field.
2006-06-28 07:04:16 · answer #9 · answered by sobrien 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because if we didnt the attackers wuld stand by da goalie and wait for a pas and score
2006-06-28 07:03:22 · answer #10 · answered by Ghana Rulez 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Malcom McDonald (Newcastle)
2006-06-28 18:14:14 · answer #11 · answered by JOLLYJACKTAR666 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋