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 have just read on open council network that Tesco had applied for an alcohol licence, and an ATM license, according to the article. Not sure if permission was granted, due to local opposition, citing another supermarket might encourage shoplifting and anti-social behaviour.
    • In an ideal world, yes, more tax would be directed to the justice system. Because a lot of suspects don't get a fair trial and wrongly convicted. Often they'll have a long list of previous, so police are picking the low hanging fruit. And because legal aid solicitors and barristers' pay is now so anaemic, they simply don't have the time to work a case and defend it properly. So you probably see more people behind bars than there should be.  It started with Brown and then got way worse with Cameron, when he essentially tried to turn legal aid firms into giant call centres and put the contracts out to tender. Even since then, the system gets squeezed more every year. 
    • Courts are in session from 10am to mid-day then 2pm to 4pm. Four hours a day with a two hour lunch is probably the cause.
    • You pay tax to fix problems  you underfund stuff my faking tax cuts and the breakdown of the system is what you get there are no cheap or easy fixes. It will take money and time - and people lack patience 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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