Jump to content

Let's rewrite the rules of football........Proposal # 2


Recommended Posts

Its not just girls - most MOTD pundits don't understand it either.



But if it was done away with, would the game change much - its not as if many teams can afford to have lots of players sitting up front waiting for the ball.


There is no offside in 5 aside and it does not result in half the team goal hanging.

I understand the off side rule lol and did you know that the real reason that the FA banned womens league football in 1921 was because it was drawing bigger gate receipts than the men's game.


I watched one of the Irish footy games in the Park today and they seem to have no offside rule (although what a strange game it is...not football at all) and there were a million goals (well ok not a million but you get the point) because two players were always goal side of their defender to receive the ball.


So no, the offside rule works and should stay!


(Although I did try explaining it to ladymuck at the footy kickabout and for her sake maybe it should be abolished!)

The offside rule is easy - just think of it in these terms:


You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.


The 'opposing' shopper in front of you has seen them also and she is eyeing them with desire.


Both of you have forgotten your purses.


It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.


The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.


Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.


She prepares to throw her purse to you.


If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.


At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, *whilst it is in flight* you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.


Always remembering that until the purse had *actually been thrown* it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.


There, much clearer!*



*stolen from "Home is where the marmite is"

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...