Why does the offside rule exist in football?

...and why can't we just get rid of it?

I don't know the history of the rule (hence the post) but it seems to me that we'd get a lot more exciting games if we just binned it. Not to mention that it's an extremely difficult rule to "police" accurately. Some research recently actually showed that it's nigh on impossible for the human mind to be able to track the number of objects required with any degree of reliability in order to determine if offside has occured, which is no doubt why there are so many dodgy offside decisions.

I can only see upsides:
- more goals scored
- more exciting games
- no more dodgy offside decisions causing dismay

Michael.

 

Without the off side rule, there would be a tendancy for the strikers to simply wait for the ball and hang around the opponents goal rather than actually creating exciting opportunities by moving forward with the ball. I understand the rule was brought in in an effort to stop this hogging of the goal by opposition players. I agree the rule causes confusion and certain teams abuse it, but I'm not sure the game would be more exciting without it.

 

Why? Goal Hangers!

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A733600 for some history of the rule. Without it games would end up looking like this all the time:

 

Thanks for that Lord. I still reckon there has to be a simpler and less potentially contentious way to prevent "goal hanging". Also, why is no offside rule deemed necessary for hockey (field hockey, not ice hockey)?

Michael.

 

In hockey I believe you aren't allowed into the D without the ball.

 

it's to stop teams like Everton winning all the time...

 

I think the offside rule was one of the best things brought into the game and I hate to see the game without it.

Im not sure about Everton but the dons would have cleaned up under bobby gould, they got the long-ball game down to a fine art, just imagine if they could have stuck a striker in five yard box for 90 mins!

Saying that, at school we had many a good 17 aside games resulting in 23-29 scorelines (would have been more if we didnt have to use big yellow bins for goalposts) and not an offside in sight!

 

I went to a top hockey school (field hockey) - which meant we were constantly getting into trouble for playing football in the breaks.

Anyway, back then there were offside rules for hockey, although they were more complex than those for football, involving more defenders.

We used to have 'roll-ins' too when the ball went out of play at the sides.

 

My understanding is that a goal can only be scored from within the D. If a player can't enter the D without the ball then I suppose it achieves the same purpose as the off side rule.

 

That's also my understanding.

The more I've thought about this one (trying to apply a similar rule to football - substitute "the D" for "the penalty area") there must be more to it than that:

- Does it mean you can only enter the D if you're actually in possesion of the ball as you cross the line into the D? If that's the case then for a 2nd player to enter the D the first one who entered has to pass the ball out of the D to the 2nd player to allow him to "enter with the ball". Sounds absurd and can't possibly be right.

- Does it mean you can only be in the D if you've got the ball? If that were the case then you could only ever have one attacking player in the D at once which definitely isn't the case.

I suppose a compromise of the first option above (and this maybe how the rule works in hockey, if indeed there is such a rule) would be that the first attacking player to enter the D has to be in possession of the ball at the time. Once he's in, others can follow (without the ball). But then what happens if the ball then gets hit out of the D? Do all the attacking players then have to leave until one of them gets the ball (outside the D) and then re-enters with it?

It isn't as simple as it sounds. However, I still think there has to be a more elegant way to achieve what the offside rule is trying to do in football.

Ahh...I've found someone who agrees with me

Michael.

 

Ah yes! And none of this namby-pamby rolling on the ground in pretend agony if someone swept the legs out from under you!

 

I thought that only shots hit from inside the D could score.

 

I'm sure there's a witty innuendo just waiting to be made here....

 

I think you, Michael are I are in violent agreement here

 

I had a think and I believe the anyone from the attacking side can enter the D only when the ball is inside of it. And yes a goal can only be scored from within the D.

 

That makes sense.

So I suppose that if the ball leaves the D, the players have to leave pretty sharpish otherwise they can't play the ball if it re-enters the D.

 

I think the guy in the link I had above had it right. Just get rid of the offside rule. In the modern game you wouldn't get goal hanging...and if any striker did hang around the goal then he'd always be accompanied by a defender or two which would open out the midfield a bit more. I think people would soon realise that having a striker hanging around in the penalty area didn't really reap many benefits.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think the benefits of getting rid of the offside rule far outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Michael.

 

What do you think these benefits are?

 

Loads more goals scored, no more dodgy offside decisions robbing teams of legitimate goals, more flowing games, no more bogus interruptions in the middle of brilliant attacking moves, linsemen who can help the ref more with regular play instead of having to do the impossible in tracking 5 moving objects (that can be more than 50 yds apart) simultaneously.

Basically what this guy says . The offside rule is the kind of technical rule that is so at odds with the purity and simplicity of football, added to which it's a purely defensive rule which IMO is also at odds with the ethos of football. It's about scoring goals, not seeing if you can sneakily trap the attacking striker in an illegal position.

As the guy so eloquently puts it:

Michael.

 

One likely consequence of abandoning the offside rule is that there would be much booting of the ball towards a big striker waiting at the goal, particularly towards the end of games.

There would doubtless be many incidents and alleged fouls between this striker and the goalkeeper. These are likely to result in delays, controversy and arguments, leading to calls for video analysis and the reintroduction of the offside law. I doubt that there'd be any improvement.

Football is the most popular sport in the world. It captures the interest and imagination of millions, from Iran to Venezuela. No other game has a similar effect of getting hundreds of thousands of ordinary people onto the streets of Berlin, Tehran, Tel Aviv or Rio de Janeiro - purely for the purpose of national celebration - with no bussing required.

It ain't broke. Why fix it?