c4countdown

Two instances in one day. Both possibly changed the game. One wrongly given. One wrongly not.

So whatcha thinking?

What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.

Kirk Bevins wrote:What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.

Massive offside.

No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.

Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.

Jon Corby wrote:No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.

Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.

The game can still carry on while the 'video ref' checks it out.
It took 2 seconds to spot Lampards shot was a goal.
Tevez offside decision the same.(and they kindly replayed it so all players and fans could see)
I think that we either use what's available or ban replays.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:What was the other instance? I wanna watch it if it's on youtube.

Massive offside.

Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly. I even replayed it loads of times. It was only when they showed that line that I accepted he was offside.

The England disallowed goal, however, doesn't involve looking in one place, then another with people moving...it involves looking at one object and seeing if it bounces past a stationary line.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly.

:facepalm:

There needs to be two players. Stick to Countdown mate.

Jon Corby wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Pah. That was a close offside. Without that replay I thought it was a valid goal. By the time the guy kicked it, I looked at their upfront player and there was another one ahead of him straight away - it happened very quickly.

:facepalm:

There needs to be two players. Stick to Countdown mate.

OK - so I don't follow the offside rule. It's a shit rule anyway.

Kirk Bevins wrote:OK - so I don't follow the offside rule. It's a shit rule anyway.

You'd never catch Barny offside.

Michael Wallace wrote: You'd never catch Barny offside.

Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.

Why they can't let players stand by the goal if they want to (a la corner kicks) is beyond me. If they want to put 3 people by the goal and waste them men from the main play, then fair dos. Similarly the opposition can use 3 defenders to defend these players, as well as a goalie. I really don't see a good reason to have the offside rule.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: You'd never catch Barny offside.

Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.

Why they can't let players stand by the goal if they want to (a la corner kicks) is beyond me. If they want to put 3 people by the goal and waste them men from the main play, then fair dos. Similarly the opposition can use 3 defenders to defend these players, as well as a goalie. I really don't see a good reason to have the offside rule.

Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Well a similar rule in darts (if you really want to compare it) is the exclusion zone...whilst a player is throwing, the other player is not allowed to step inside the red zone that is on the floor. This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.

What if you're stood outside the exclusion zone, but throwing peanuts at the oche?

Marc Meakin wrote: Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.

The reason they have an oche is so you are throwing from a minimum of 7 foot 9 and one quarter. This is a perfectly good reason. You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.

Jon Corby wrote: What if you're stood outside the exclusion zone, but throwing peanuts at the oche?

Haha...they're only allowed water on stage but if he was throwing peanuts I'd warn him and if it continues disqualify him.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote: Thats as stupid as saying, why bother with an oche.

The reason they have an oche is so you are throwing from a minimum of 7 foot 9 and one quarter. This is a perfectly good reason. You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.

From this article: "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area".

Michael Wallace wrote: From this article: "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area".

Like I said before, what is wrong with goal-hanging? They do it for corners...

Kirk Bevins wrote:You haven't given me a good reason for the offside rule to be in play.

Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:This is to stop the other player getting too close as to put the thrower off, e.g. blowing, kicking, walking back from the board and bumping into the player about to throw etc.[/b]

Give more examples, these made me lol!

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!

Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!

Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?

I guess I needed to be more explicit. "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area" <- the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area is a Bad Thing (it would be a lot less interesting to watch than what we get thanks to the rule).

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk, seriously a bit of friendly advice: you make an absolute tit of yourself in football conversations. Keep out!

Hang on - I ask a reasonable question and you can't reply with a reasonable answer? If it's so tittish why can't you provide a decent answer?

Because I JUST DON'T KNOW, okay? You're right. A slightly complex rule which you don't know, don't understand and don't know the reason for, is completely unnecessary and should be abolished, and I'm just too stubborn to admit it. Happy now?

Michael Wallace wrote: I guess I needed to be more explicit. "[the offside rule was] designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area" <- the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area is a Bad Thing (it would be a lot less interesting to watch than what we get thanks to the rule).

Thanks Michael for this, but why is endless attempts at goal (or passing to a team mate near a goal) a bad thing? From what I experienced during watching England, every time the ball went towards the goal, everyone got really excited.

Jon Corby wrote: A slightly complex rule which you don't know, don't understand and don't know the reason for, is completely unnecessary and should be abolished, and I'm just too stubborn to admit it. Happy now?

I've just read it on wikipedia to get more of an understanding about it but that's not the point. I now think you're a bit of a dick.

Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!

Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!

I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!

I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.

You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.

Ryan Taylor wrote: You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.

Your grammar makes me laugh - now leave me alone.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: You're posts and facebook statuses on football always make me laugh anyway.

Your grammar makes me laugh - now leave me alone.

Shut up Phil!

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Kirk you lack of interest/knowledge/whatever it is in football is hilarious!

I'm glad to be of value but not sure why it's hilarious. I don't like baseball or tennis, nor know too much about either but it doesn't make my lack of knowledge laughable.

It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.

Jon Corby wrote:
It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.

I clearly know something. I also played in the school football team (think I've mentioned this before) and I used to play football regularly. I just don't think it's a necessary rule (we certainly didn't play with that rule recreationally and it never ruined the game).

It's a simple yes when we're talking about television replays for me. Had a chat with a mate about how this would work yesterday and my basic idea would be basically not to stop play until the result came through, if it was a situation where the ball remained in play as in your boys' match. A panel watching the replay (which I assume they could call for within seconds) could have alerted the referee before the ball travelled very far, and if something crucial had happened to occur in the meantime it is simply null and void.

The main issue working against seems to be time loss. If we look back to the incident that still haunts us Irish and put a damper on what had been the lovely day when I had the pleasure of meeting some of ye guys, more time was wasted with the protests that followed than would have been wasted if the replay had have been used to assist the officials in making a decision. How can one protest against concrete evidence if you're thinking what about the French protests that would have followed? Zero tolerance towards this, leave the ref alone and get back into position or receive a card.

In addition, play acting should be zero tolerance/heavily punished also. This usually causes a stoppage anyway, but if it's too much for the referee during the game or is not clear cut enough for the panel to decide on the spot (if it is, a straight red, no messing about), it should carry a massive ban, say 6 games, should you be found guilty. With the time saved for this there'd be plenty of time saved for a second look at crucial decisions and the game would be a far far better one for the spectator, surely making soccer more popular. Frankly, if I hadn't been a passionate supporter of the game since I was 9 or 10 years old, I might have given it up (watching it) by now, as it's becoming more and more tedious. This has to be viewed as a concern for FIFA. Play acting is a cancer of the game. Sportsmanship not gamesmanship.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I clearly know something.

Yes. Clearly.

Kirk, you're well mean for making me feel small for not reading every word of every match report when I'm doing a catch up on a complicated tournament I'm running, and then you go and ask for an explanation of the offside rule which I provided about two or three weeks ago in the football thread. I hope you feel guilty cos I did a little cry last night in bed when you told me off.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:
It is hilarious if you offer up some pretty extreme opinions about something you know nothing about.

I clearly know something.

You really are missing something with your point about corners vis-a-vis the offside rule and everyone is just letting you run with it.

1. The referee awards a goal. Technology shows the ball did not cross the line. How do you re-start play? If he hadn't blown it might have been a tap-in.

2. If you use technology for things other than over-the-line instances, do you disallow a goal if there is any infringement of the rules by the attacking team going all the way back to the last time the ball was dead? If not, where do you draw the line?

In general I'm in favour of technology but questions like these need to be answered. I think there would be a tendency for officials not to give any marginal decisions. For example, if a linesman flags for offside wrongly he denies a goal-scoring chance. If he lets play continue wrongly, the goal can always be chalked off. So let it go for now. But you end up having to decide whether to disallow goals for things that happened ages before.

What about a challenges rule like what they have in tennis. The captain has say 3 chances in a match to go up to the referee and question a decision through use of video replays. If the challenge is successful the captain keeps his challenges. If the challenge is unsuccessful then you lose that challenge. This would eliminate the whole situation of the ref having to stop play everytime someone questions a decision. For example taking England's "goal" yesterday, captain (Gerrard?) could ask the referee to look at the replay. The ref stops play at this point consults the fourth official/video footage and finds it is a goal. A goal is awarded everything carrys on as normal. If the ball was shown not to cross the line then just restart play by giving possession to the goalkeeper from the team who hadn't challenged. Up to this point of a challenge then the referees decision would be final unless the captain would wish to have a say. Maybe sounds ludicrous but to me sounds plausible.

David O'Donnell wrote: You really are missing something with your point about corners vis-a-vis the offside rule and everyone is just letting you run with it.

Well you're all bastards then and you can shove your stupid fucking game up your arses. I'm trying to say why I think the offside rule is shit and you've just resulted to pathetic childish insults.

P.s I love you Matt Morrison. xxxx

Within seconds of Lampard's "goal", the ball was whistling past the England post. Suppose that had gone in, and suppose the Lampard effort was not as clear-cut. The referee awards Germany a goal. Gerrard, more in hope than expectation, appeals that Lampard has scored, and is delighted to be proved right. The referee awards Germany a goal. The German captain then claims that Lampard committed a foul before shooting, and he thought the referee was playing advantage. The referee checks the footage and awards a free-kick to Germany. However Gerrard, who has also been watching the footage, spots a foul on Defoe in the penalty area just prior to this. The referee agrees, and awards a penalty to England.

I don't think you're going to take the controversy out of the game with technology. If that lot had happened an England penalty is the right decision. But I can't imagine anyone thinking the sequence of events that would have to lead to it being reasonable.

David Williams wrote:Within seconds of Lampard's "goal", the ball was whistling past the England post. Suppose that had gone in, and suppose the Lampard effort was not as clear-cut. The referee awards Germany a goal. Gerrard, more in hope than expectation, appeals that Lampard has scored, and is delighted to be proved right. The referee awards Germany a goal. The German captain then claims that Lampard committed a foul before shooting, and he thought the referee was playing advantage. The referee checks the footage and awards a free-kick to Germany. However Gerrard, who has also been watching the footage, spots a foul on Defoe in the penalty area just prior to this. The referee agrees, and awards a penalty to England.

Basically you're saying you could appeal about anything at anytime. What should happen is you must challenge within a certain time limit. In tennis, you must challenge before the next point is played. You can define a length of time in which a player could challenge.

To answer your question, Kirk:

"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."

In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Basically you're saying you could appeal about anything at anytime. What should happen is you must challenge within a certain time limit. In tennis, you must challenge before the next point is played. You can define a length of time in which a player could challenge.

The problem is in defining that length of time. My example would have it defined as up to the next time the ball goes dead, which is the same as you say it is for tennis. That clearly wouldn't work. So what would you suggest? in my example what should have happened was an England penalty. If an appeals system and the use of technology came up with something else, what would Adrian Chiles make of that?

Liam Tiernan wrote:To answer your question, Kirk:

"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."

In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.

Thanks very much for this reply. This makes sense. The next step is, if I wanted to stop what you've described, is there a nicer way of doing so than using the offside rule as reading it on wikipedia it is very clumsy and has lots of definitions open to interpretation.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Liam Tiernan wrote:To answer your question, Kirk:

"Although the FA's variant of offside when adopted in 1863 was predicated on a dribbling game, the variants further north – in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Scotland, for instance – where a passing game prevailed, were designed to stop goal-hanging, and prevent the game becoming about endless hoofs into the danger area where a goalkeeper would battle with a handful of forwards who could legitimately stand straight in front of him."

In other words to stop 2 or 3 forwards from interfering with the keeper, you would have to station an equal number of defenders in your own six-yard box. What you would be left with is two crowded penalty areas and an almost empty midfield , with the ball just being booted from one box to the other, and a mad scramble to get at the ball. No passing, no dribbling, no real skill involved, just two sets of cloggers booting hell out of each other almost as much as booting the ball.

Thanks very much for this reply. This makes sense. The next step is, if I wanted to stop what you've described, is there a nicer way of doing so than using the offside rule as reading it on wikipedia it is very clumsy and has lots of definitions open to interpretation.

I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.

Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.

..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.

From Wikipedia:

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by

Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent

I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.

As the famous pundit, and somtimes racist, Ron Atkinson used to say "If he is not interferring with play, what's he doing on the pitch".

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.

..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.

From Wikipedia:

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by

Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent

I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.

Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: I think the offside rule is a good rule. The hard thing is juding who is offside. As far as I know, I thought the current rule was that if any part of the body that can play the ball is in front of last defender then its offside and not the "must be clear daylight" rule. I've not checked this though. So there isn't much interpretation to be done, it's just spotting it which is difficult.

..but it's not an offside offence and the whistle won't be blown.

From Wikipedia:

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he becomes actively involved in play by

Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent

I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.

Yeah I know these things but still they shouldn't be open to interpretation. It's clear if someone is interfering with play, it's just spotting it.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'd like to suggest a lot of you didn't know this second reason was an offence.

Haha what? It was bad enough when you were arguing from a deliberate position of ignorance, and now you're accusing everyone else of not knowing something which is widely known (and widely discussed in television commentary) on the basis that... well, what exactly? That you didn't know it? You'll be saying we don't understand induction next.

Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.

Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.

Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

Dude, you can stop with the amateur psychology now.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.

Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

Huh? I could tell you if something is offside or not. Getting back on to what you said before, I don't think there is a better way to stop goal hanging. The offside rule works fine.

Ryan Taylor wrote:The offside rule works fine.

I really dislike it (and I brought this up in another thread, but then I couldn't really be arsed to continue the discussion). People always talk about the appealing simplicity of football (you just need a ball and a few jumpers for goalposts), which is true until you introduce the offside rule. Of course formalising a game usually involves introducing a few complexities that aren't present in the average park game, but offside completely changes the face of the game. IAWK (I Agree With Kirk) that we should at least look at whether there's a better way to prevent the hit-and-hope game.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:The offside rule works fine.

I really dislike it (and I brought this up in another thread, but then I couldn't really be arsed to continue the discussion). People always talk about the appealing simplicity of football (you just need a ball and a few jumpers for goalposts), which is true until you introduce the offside rule. Of course formalising a game usually involves introducing a few complexities that aren't present in the average park game, but offside completely changes the face of the game. IAWK (I Agree With Kirk) that we should at least look at whether there's a better way to prevent the hit-and-hope game.

Yeah but I can't think of a better way and I'm sure people must have thought long and hard about it before but the best they came up with is the offside rule. In my opinion the only trouble is if the ref/linesman can't actually spot an offside (opposed to not interpreting the laws of the game right) in which case technology could be used and should be introduced in football.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: Well I knew that, as I'd imagine most people who follow football do. It's really not that esoteric.

Pah. Most of the people I ask about the offside rule describe touching the ball in an offside position. Ryan described it being in front of the last defender on the opposite side (which isn't actually an offence). I haven't heard anyone mention reason number 2 and yet some of you are quick to say you knew it. Maybe you did know it but those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

Everyone knows it dude, seriously.

Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.

I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.

I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.

It must be that. Commentators love to talk about it.

Maybe some one should invent a different code of Football.
You have Rugby League and Rugby Union, so why not do it with football.
You could introduce technology, sin bins, do away with (or modify) the offside rule.
Etc.
Btw, this started off as a flippant remark but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Marc Meakin wrote:As the famous pundit, and somtimes racist, Ron Atkinson used to say "If he is not interferring with play, what's he doing on the pitch".

I'm pretty sure it was Bill Shankly who said "If he is not interferring with play, he should be" As usual Atkinson was stealing ideas from better managers.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote: Everyone knows it dude, seriously.

I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.

Probably, sounds like they're still waiting for you to grasp point one fully, which you don't seem to have done judging from your earlier posts. And no , I'm not being sarcastic here, it's just that you seem to think the whole concept is much more complicated than it actually is.