Offside And Goalkeeper Rule Change

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
There is a technical problem with the game of football, and it is mathematical. It is the team sport with the highest rate of upsets, this in itself is not the problem, but the problem is that they are much too often undeserved upsets. The final score should generally represent the performance on the field, but in this sport that is way too often not the case. The cause of this is low scoring opportunities, the result is a final score that is too highly impacted by random events rather than skill. Baseball also has this problem, but fortunately it is much easier to fix in soccer football, only a few rule modifications are required. The mathematical reasons behind this were first documented by an Italian in the 1500s and proven by a Belgian in the 1700s. If you're interested in this look up the law of large numbers. Basically, the more time you repeat an experiment the higher chance that the data you are receiving from the experiment will be more accurate, sports is no different. To make the final scores of football games better represent the activity on the field we will need to increase the amount of scoring opportunities. Defense is favoured by current regulations, a better balance between offense and defense is needed. Implementing the following adjustments will bring that balance to a mathematically sufficient level.

OFFSIDE (video)
The first step is to slightly liberalize the offside rule. Instead of the offensive player being required to stay equal or behind the second to last defender, simply allow him to be ahead as long as at least part of his body is level with said defender.

GOALKEEPER (video)
Currently, the goalkeeper has way too many benefits that allow him to ruin the flow of the game. It should not be legal for a keeper to catch or hold the ball. Suddenly stopping offensive drives by simply catching the ball is much too large of an advantage. The goalkeeper should only be allowed to kick or punch the ball away.

note: it will also be beneficial to have 2 linesman simultaneously judging offside calls. The play would not be stopped unless both call offside. If only 1 calls offside play is resumed. If a goal is scored with only 1 offside call, it will be reviewed on video. If neither linesman call offside that decision will not be video reviewed.
 

shoddycollins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
11,445
Reaction score
3,529
Points
113
Location
In the Paul Simpson wonderland
Supports
Carlisle United
Not sure what number 1 will change. It basically just moves the offside line a few inches closer to the goal, it won't change the way teams attack really and the number of marginal decisions that will go the attacker's way instead isn't really very high.

I can't see number 2 working at all. Preventing goalkeepers from catching the ball will just result in a glut of scrappy goals where everyone piles into the box knowing that there will always be a rebound. More goals yes, but it just makes it more of a percentages game and less one about individual skill and grasping opportunities.

The problem with the whole idea of changing the rules to create more goals making it harder for teams who aren't the better team on the day to get anything out of it is as follows:

1) The most exciting games come when both teams feel they can get something out of it. Tipping the balance that far in favour of the better team will only lead to the poorer teams becoming even more defensive and negative.

2) Trying to take random chance out of the game will also take individual brilliance out as your plan is really for football to become a percentages game where crowding the box and putting in ball after ball after ball will get you greater rewards than having a player who is able to pull off something special to grab the winning goal.
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
Not sure what number 1 will change. It basically just moves the offside line a few inches closer to the goal, it won't change the way teams attack really and the number of marginal decisions that will go the attacker's way instead isn't really very high.

I don't think I meant to change the way teams attack, but it will marginally increase scoring opportunities without making it too easy. A change that would result in something "very high" is definitely not what I'm looking for to increase scoring opportunities. I'm simply looking for a method to provide enough possibilities to score to better measure the performance on the field.

I can't see number 2 working at all. Preventing goalkeepers from catching the ball will just result in a glut of scrappy goals where everyone piles into the box knowing that there will always be a rebound. More goals yes, but it just makes it more of a percentages game and less one about individual skill and grasping opportunities.

You're assuming that the keepers will be terrible at punching the ball away. Generally the result would either end in the defense recovering or the offense recovering and regrouping to continue the drive without unnecessarily going back and forth so many times. Only when the keeper makes a mistake, or the offense successfully takes away the keeper's options will the ensuing "scrappy" goal take place.

The problem with the whole idea of changing the rules to create more goals making it harder for teams who aren't the better team on the day to get anything out of it is as follows:

1) The most exciting games come when both teams feel they can get something out of it. Tipping the balance that far in favour of the better team will only lead to the poorer teams becoming even more defensive and negative.

That is the purpose of sport regulations... to have laws that will reward the team that performs better. If you don't want such a thing you would be better off flipping coins or rolling dice. Why would you want to have a team perform worse and them still reap the reward? That makes no sense. I highly doubt the original authors of the game were looking for this. I think the more likely answer for their regulations would be that they had a poor understanding of mathematics.

2) Trying to take random chance out of the game will also take individual brilliance out as your plan is really for football to become a percentages game where crowding the box and putting in ball after ball after ball will get you greater rewards than having a player who is able to pull off something special to grab the winning goal.

I believe your claim that this will take individual brilliance out of the game is completely unfounded, and I'm not sure how you jumped to this assumption. And my plan is not to have a game where the box is always crowded, but where offensive drives are not ended prematurely. Under my rules, if the defense outplays the offense they will still have a good result. But the problem with current rules is they are highly in favour of the defense.
 

shoddycollins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
11,445
Reaction score
3,529
Points
113
Location
In the Paul Simpson wonderland
Supports
Carlisle United
That is the purpose of sport regulations... to have laws that will reward the team that performs better. If you don't want such a thing you would be better off flipping coins or rolling dice. Why would you want to have a team perform worse and them still reap the reward? That makes no sense. I highly doubt the original authors of the game were looking for this. I think the more likely answer for their regulations would be that they had a poor understanding of mathematics.

And here's me thinking the purpose of the regulations was to create an enjoyable game.:dk:
 

Johnnyt

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
169
Points
43
Location
Dundee
Supports
Everton,Liverpool,UTD,Dundee,Leeds,Madrid and Milan
There is a technical problem with the game of football, and it is mathematical. It is the team sport with the highest rate of upsets, this in itself is not the problem, but the problem is that they are much too often undeserved upsets. The final score should generally represent the performance on the field, but in this sport that is way too often not the case. The cause of this is low scoring opportunities, the result is a final score that is too highly impacted by random events rather than skill. Baseball also has this problem, but fortunately it is much easier to fix in soccer football, only a few rule modifications are required. The mathematical reasons behind this were first documented by an Italian in the 1500s and proven by a Belgian in the 1700s. If you're interested in this look up the law of large numbers. Basically, the more time you repeat an experiment the higher chance that the data you are receiving from the experiment will be more accurate, sports is no different. To make the final scores of football games better represent the activity on the field we will need to increase the amount of scoring opportunities. Defense is favoured by current regulations, a better balance between offense and defense is needed. Implementing the following adjustments will bring that balance to a mathematically sufficient level.

OFFSIDE (video)
The first step is to slightly liberalize the offside rule. Instead of the offensive player being required to stay equal or behind the second to last defender, simply allow him to be ahead as long as at least part of his body is level with said defender.

GOALKEEPER (video)
Currently, the goalkeeper has way too many benefits that allow him to ruin the flow of the game. It should not be legal for a keeper to catch or hold the ball. Suddenly stopping offensive drives by simply catching the ball is much too large of an advantage. The goalkeeper should only be allowed to kick or punch the ball away.

note: it will also be beneficial to have 2 linesman simultaneously judging offside calls. The play would not be stopped unless both call offside. If only 1 calls offside play is resumed. If a goal is scored with only 1 offside call, it will be reviewed on video. If neither linesman call offside that decision will not be video reviewed.
Luis Suarez would have far too big advantage with his teeth on number 1.
 

Johnnyt

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
288
Reaction score
169
Points
43
Location
Dundee
Supports
Everton,Liverpool,UTD,Dundee,Leeds,Madrid and Milan
There is a technical problem with the game of football, and it is mathematical. It is the team sport with the highest rate of upsets, this in itself is not the problem, but the problem is that they are much too often undeserved upsets. The final score should generally represent the performance on the field, but in this sport that is way too often not the case. The cause of this is low scoring opportunities, the result is a final score that is too highly impacted by random events rather than skill. Baseball also has this problem, but fortunately it is much easier to fix in soccer football, only a few rule modifications are required. The mathematical reasons behind this were first documented by an Italian in the 1500s and proven by a Belgian in the 1700s. If you're interested in this look up the law of large numbers. Basically, the more time you repeat an experiment the higher chance that the data you are receiving from the experiment will be more accurate, sports is no different. To make the final scores of football games better represent the activity on the field we will need to increase the amount of scoring opportunities. Defense is favoured by current regulations, a better balance between offense and defense is needed. Implementing the following adjustments will bring that balance to a mathematically sufficient level.

OFFSIDE (video)
The first step is to slightly liberalize the offside rule. Instead of the offensive player being required to stay equal or behind the second to last defender, simply allow him to be ahead as long as at least part of his body is level with said defender.

GOALKEEPER (video)
Currently, the goalkeeper has way too many benefits that allow him to ruin the flow of the game. It should not be legal for a keeper to catch or hold the ball. Suddenly stopping offensive drives by simply catching the ball is much too large of an advantage. The goalkeeper should only be allowed to kick or punch the ball away.

note: it will also be beneficial to have 2 linesman simultaneously judging offside calls. The play would not be stopped unless both call offside. If only 1 calls offside play is resumed. If a goal is scored with only 1 offside call, it will be reviewed on video. If neither linesman call offside that decision will not be video reviewed.
all you have to do is make it 9 a side or keep it 11 a side and make the pitch 20% bigger.
 

dedwardp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
601
Points
113
Supports
Colchester United
Highest rate of upsets? Good, we all love an upset.
 

T.A

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
3,841
Reaction score
1,634
Points
113
Supports
Berry
This is satire right?
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
all you have to do is make it 9 a side or keep it 11 a side and make the pitch 20% bigger.

You're right, this would be another possible solution (mathematically speaking). Not one that I'd favour though.

Highest rate of upsets? Good, we all love an upset.

I like upsets as well, but deserved upsets only. The problem with sports that offer a high degree of upsets as a result of low score or randomness is that they often result in undeserved upsets. With football, the problem is that too many games are decided by that one lucky bounce or a bad referee call. Increasing the amount of scoring opportunities will greatly minimize this. However, under any new rules that minimize this problem upsets can still happen when the underdog out performs the favourite.
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
That hardly ever happens.

That depends on the skill difference between the teams, but the rate it happens at is not even the point. The point is to have a scoreline that represents the performance on the field as close as possible.
 

Bilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
990
Points
113
Supports
Women writing about women
Football being the most unpredictable sport on earth is a cornerstone to it also being the most popular sport on earth. And your definition of "deserved" and "undeserved" upsets isn't exactly consensus, most will argue the game is about scoring goals and the team scoring the most goals won deservedly.

Basically, it's a very American school of thought your perspective stems from and thankfully, you have little say in football.
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
Football being the most unpredictable sport on earth is a cornerstone to it also being the most popular sport on earth.

You state this as fact with no evidence. There are plenty of other reasons why football is the most popular sport on the planet. There is no evidence to say that if football was more predictable that it would be less popular. Baseball is also not very predictable, but has nowhere near the popularity of Football. Basketball is much more predictable than baseball, and is also much more popular. The popularity of these 2 sports is not based on predictability either.

And your definition of "deserved" and "undeserved" upsets isn't exactly consensus,

Do you mean popular consensus? That is worthless for mathematical analysis. Mathematicians would certainly have a consensus on this, as the law of large numbers was first known to be noted in the 1500s and proven mathematically in the 1700s. This is the entire basis of the argument.

most will argue the game is about scoring goals and the team scoring the most goals won deservedly.

I would argue this as well, but that is not addressing the concern. The concern is that there are not enough scoring opportunities to have a mathematically sufficient number of goals for them to be accurate a rightful proportion of the time. Football and baseball both have this problem. Baseball has an advantage though as it is not as draining of a sport, and more games can be played for aggregate results.

Basically, it's a very American school of thought your perspective stems from

Incorrect. My "school of thought" stems from European, if anything. As the law of large numbers was a European discovery... in pre-industrial times before the United States was even a seed in England's d. But even that is sarcasm, it is actually a mathematical "school of thought". I think your confusion is how many Americans make the argument for higher scoring games for more excitement. As stated before, this is not the perspective I'm coming from. Side note: I rarely agree with my fellow countrymen about anything.

thankfully, you have little say in football.

If the original authors of the sport used my rules instead of theirs, you would have never known the difference unless I pointed it out to you. There would be a real difference though, and that is final scores would much more often represent the performance on the field.
 

shoddycollins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
11,445
Reaction score
3,529
Points
113
Location
In the Paul Simpson wonderland
Supports
Carlisle United
Do you mean popular consensus? That is worthless for mathematical analysis. Mathematicians would certainly have a consensus on this, as the law of large numbers was first known to be noted in the 1500s and proven mathematically in the 1700s. This is the entire basis of the argument.
Now I know this is just a wind-up. Why would the consensus of 16th century mathematicians matter more for the popularity of a sport than the consensus of its own fans/players? I know you want to create this perfect game-theory model where the winners can be mathematically calculated based on performance stats and everything runs exactly as expected with no quirks to give you sleepless nights, but the whole point of a sport is precisely that it is not that. What you want to create is not a sport, it's an algorithm for creating winners.
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
Why would the consensus of 16th century mathematicians matter more for the popularity of a sport than the consensus of its own fans/players?

I think you read it wrong, that is not what was being discussed with this comment. This reply was a comment regarding deserved and undeserved upsets... not popularity of the sport.


I know you want to create this perfect game-theory model where the winners can be mathematically calculated based on performance stats and everything runs exactly as expected with no quirks to give you sleepless nights, but the whole point of a sport is precisely that it is not that.

No, this is not what I'm doing. What I am doing is offering 2 of several possible methods to make the score line more consistent with the performance on the field a significant amount of the time. With most sports this is already the case, football and baseball have fundamental mathematical problems in this regard.

What you want to create is not a sport, it's an algorithm for creating winners.

I'm not creating a new sport, I've suggested 1 small change and 1 moderate change to the rules in the original post (and also stating there are even other solutions). Same sport, more mathematically accurate scores. Even if the 1 small changed was used it would help scores to be more accurate. Offside rules have been changed in the past for this reason, in the future rules will be altered for the reasons I've stated (even if my exact methods are not used)... modernization is usually a very slow process with humans.
 

Stevencc

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
7,221
Points
113
Location
°
Supports
°
Your offside rule change is, quite frankly, absurd.

You'll have players having surgery to extend their arms or legs to ridiculous lengths so they could take advantage of your new, lax rule.

"Oh, look, the fingernail at the end of his fifteen-foot-long right arm was in line with the defender, the goal stands".

Truly absurd.
 

MagpieBee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
3,130
Reaction score
640
Points
113
Supports
Brentford, Newcastle, Chicago Bears
The bigger issue with your suggested changes is they’ll actually favour “Long ball” sides, and so probably favour teams who are typically “performing worse”.

With strikers given such an advantage over a defender, the chances they’ll be onside and able to run onto a long ball played from defence will increase a huge amount.

Will make it much easier for poorer sides to do well.
 

shoddycollins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
11,445
Reaction score
3,529
Points
113
Location
In the Paul Simpson wonderland
Supports
Carlisle United
The bigger issue with your suggested changes is they’ll actually favour “Long ball” sides, and so probably favour teams who are typically “performing worse”.

With strikers given such an advantage over a defender, the chances they’ll be onside and able to run onto a long ball played from defence will increase a huge amount.

Will make it much easier for poorer sides to do well.
Especially when the goalkeeper isn't allowed to catch it either. I tried explaining this before, but I think this is why so many American sports are play-by-numbers affairs; because the rules have been set to ensure that superiority (usually physical) is rewarded. Which team is 'better' or 'worse' is subjective.

Some would argue that a more physically imposing team with a tall prolific striker they play long-balls to and a defence that all stick doggedly to defending are a superior team to one who try and play it around with faster, slighter players. It seems these rules would frame the game that way. If you essentially make it so that the team that attacks more wins then yeah, it would just become long ball because there would be no point in teams using their midfields to try and find a way through. The current balance may seem overly in favour of defence to some, but it is that balance that encourages creative attacking play.

The chance that a goal that will change the result of the match could come from a single passage of play, determined by a mix of teamwork, individual brilliance and luck is what makes football different from most other team sports. Without that it would just become a dull percentages game, where everyone is trying to do the same thing. Have more possession > get the ball forward more > win.
 

Abram Jones

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Wisconsin
Supports
neutral?
The bigger issue with your suggested changes is they’ll actually favour “Long ball” sides, and so probably favour teams who are typically “performing worse”.

With strikers given such an advantage over a defender, the chances they’ll be onside and able to run onto a long ball played from defence will increase a huge amount.

Will make it much easier for poorer sides to do well.

I disagree, what makes you think this? It is a slight change in the offside rule, and has been slightly changed in similar ways in the past... there is not a long ball problem right now as a result of that.


Especially when the goalkeeper isn't allowed to catch it either. I tried explaining this before, but I think this is why so many American sports are play-by-numbers affairs; because the rules have been set to ensure that superiority (usually physical) is rewarded. Which team is 'better' or 'worse' is subjective.

The rules of the American sports, just as most non-American sports, are there to create fair game play and have a score that represents play on the field. Baseball and football simply screwed up a little, but they are both fixable problems. This isn't an issue of national identity or conditioning.

Some would argue that a more physically imposing team with a tall prolific striker they play long-balls to and a defence that all stick doggedly to defending are a superior team to one who try and play it around with faster, slighter players. It seems these rules would frame the game that way. If you essentially make it so that the team that attacks more wins then yeah, it would just become long ball because there would be no point in teams using their midfields to try and find a way through. The current balance may seem overly in favour of defence to some, but it is that balance that encourages creative attacking play.

I understand this, but there is a mathematical problem with the low number of scoring opportunities, this is a fundamental problem, nothing else. And I disagree with the longball fear, but even if that was the case there are always other options and fixes. As I noted above the offside rule has been liberalized before without any drastic impacts.

The chance that a goal that will change the result of the match could come from a single passage of play, determined by a mix of teamwork, individual brilliance and luck is what makes football different from most other team sports. Without that it would just become a dull percentages game, where everyone is trying to do the same thing. Have more possession > get the ball forward more > win.

Teamwork, individual brilliance, trying to have possession, getting the ball forward... that's what people do now in any ball sport, that is what a ball sport is. You are trying to make the flaws of a few regulations the reason it's interesting. But like I told someone else... if the original authors had used my rules or something similar, you would have never known the difference and liked the sport just as much as you do now. The real difference would be a higher percentage of justified final scores.
 

MagpieBee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
3,130
Reaction score
640
Points
113
Supports
Brentford, Newcastle, Chicago Bears
I disagree, what makes you think this? It is a slight change in the offside rule, and has been slightly changed in similar ways in the past... there is not a long ball problem right now as a result of that.




The rules of the American sports, just as most non-American sports, are there to create fair game play and have a score that represents play on the field. Baseball and football simply screwed up a little, but they are both fixable problems. This isn't an issue of national identity or conditioning.



I understand this, but there is a mathematical problem with the low number of scoring opportunities, this is a fundamental problem, nothing else. And I disagree with the longball fear, but even if that was the case there are always other options and fixes. As I noted above the offside rule has been liberalized before without any drastic impacts.



Teamwork, individual brilliance, trying to have possession, getting the ball forward... that's what people do now in any ball sport, that is what a ball sport is. You are trying to make the flaws of a few regulations the reason it's interesting. But like I told someone else... if the original authors had used my rules or something similar, you would have never known the difference and liked the sport just as much as you do now. The real difference would be a higher percentage of justified final scores.
It’s a “small change” in the rule, but a big change in the advantage a striker has over the defender. You’ll get a lot more goals from set pieces (of which more are disproportionately scored by “worse” teams) and it encourages long balls as the striker will always be a yard or so ahead of the defender.

You talk about using “maths” to figure out there’s a “problem”, but your solution has no basis in any kind of maths or stats.
 

Andy Harrier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
837
Reaction score
266
Points
63
Location
Kidderminster
Supports
Kidderminster Harriers
I disagree, what makes you think this? It is a slight change in the offside rule, and has been slightly changed in similar ways in the past... there is not a long ball problem right now as a result of that.




The rules of the American sports, just as most non-American sports, are there to create fair game play and have a score that represents play on the field. Baseball and football simply screwed up a little, but they are both fixable problems. This isn't an issue of national identity or conditioning.



I understand this, but there is a mathematical problem with the low number of scoring opportunities, this is a fundamental problem, nothing else. And I disagree with the longball fear, but even if that was the case there are always other options and fixes. As I noted above the offside rule has been liberalized before without any drastic impacts.



Teamwork, individual brilliance, trying to have possession, getting the ball forward... that's what people do now in any ball sport, that is what a ball sport is. You are trying to make the flaws of a few regulations the reason it's interesting. But like I told someone else... if the original authors had used my rules or something similar, you would have never known the difference and liked the sport just as much as you do now. The real difference would be a higher percentage of justified final scores.
You've explained what you perceive to be a problem in football, but you haven't yet explained why it's a problem. Why are upsets an issue? From a lower league perspective, who doesn't want to see their team have a Ronnie Radford moment against one of the big teams and what is so wrong with that? They shouldn't have to outplay the opposition, the onus is on the stronger team to work out how to break them down.

Also, how are you mathematically defining what is a 'deserved' victory? Is this purely down to number of shots per team per match? I presume you have some sort of statistical evidence to back up your claims? Sorry if I've missed it while reading through.

Additionally, on the practicality of your 'solutions', any meaningful rule changes would have to be implemented at all levels of football. How do you expect grassroots and lower league football on a global scale to be able to fund two additional officials and video technology at every ground? Your proposal isn't the same as implementing VAR at higher levels to allow officials to manage the existing rules more accurately, you're suggesting implementing new rules that would require this technology as standard, so would have to be available to every level.

Finally, on your suggestion on goalkeepers not being able to catch the ball. Surely if the goalkeeper is able to catch and hold the ball to kill an attack, this would only be occurring when the opposing team has failed in their attack as much as the defending team has succeeded in their defence - i.e. by channeling the attack to force a shot straight at the keeper, or by forcing the opposing team out wide so their only avenue for attack is to cross the ball in, where there is an increased chance that the goalkeeper can come and claim the cross. Your suggestion seems based upon the idea that defensive tactics of whereon the pitch to force the opposing team to play are non-existent, or should be penalised, when in reality, they can be an effective strategy when used correctly.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
16,422
Messages
1,189,926
Members
8,392
Latest member
feby2112

Latest posts

Stronger Security, Faster Connections with VPN at IPVanish.com!

SITE SPONSORS

W88 W88 trang chu KUBET Thailand
Fun88 12Bet Get top UK casino bonuses for British players in casinos not on GamStop
The best ₤1 minimum deposit casinos UK not on GamStop Find the best new no deposit casino get bonus and play legendary slots Best UK online casinos list 2022
No-Verification.Casino Casinos that accept PayPal Top online casinos
sure.bet
Need help with your academic papers? Customwritings offers high-quality professionals to write essays that deserve an A!
Top