6 reason soccer sucks.

[CycloWizard]

I skipped none of your commentary. In fact I have actually re-read your posts in this thread a few times. Your arguments against a referee challenge rule are:
It could be abused.
It doesn't address all situations.
It doesn't fit with the rhythm, timing and traditions of the game.
I am too stupid, fat, unathletic and lacking in arcane soccer knowledge to possibly comprehend that it just would not work.
I disagree on all notions (and even explained my basis in all cases) and I disagree that it justifies your deplorable conduct even if I *did* skip anything you wrote.

The challenge system is completely out for soccer. It only works for football because you have a stoppage after every play and every play is a discrete event. Soccer, by the very nature of the game, is a completely different animal because there are no discrete plays, nor is there ever a stoppage of play, except for half time, substitutions, injury, and goals. Thus, one would have to wait for one of these events before challenging a call. These events can literally be 30+ minutes apart, so this is obviously infeasible. If you would allow a challenge at any dead ball, then this requires a fairly serious rewriting of the rules of the game and still doesn't address the principle problems with the challenge system: what is done with any play which occurred between the alleged infraction/goal and the stoppage during which the challenge is made? Are goals discarded, since technically this play never happened? What about cards? Earned penalties? Overcoming this problem intrinsically changes the nature of the game and requiring a fundamental rewrite of the entire rules structure. You never addressed this point - you simply called it a strawman (post #127 in this thread).

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

It's not uncommon for play to continue for 3-5 minutes between stoppages sometimes. As I've also pointed out, what happens if a goal is scored by the opposing team after a call is missed/made? It's a logistical nightmare.

I don't think you understand my suggestion. Normally play is blown dead immediately on an offsides. My suggestion is wait until there is a change of possession or stoppage due to out of bounds, or scored goal (by the team who was supposedly offsides). Then you blow the whistle and stop play.

When I say change of possession, I mean the offsides team takes a shot on goal and the goalie retains possesion. Or the defending team steals the ball. Or the offsides team scores a goal. As soon as the change of possession occurs, stop the play and reset at the spot of the offsides call. That gives the offsides team a chance to review. More importantly it gives them a chance to "play out" the possession. If they were erroneously called offsides and they happen to score a goal, the goal will stand when they review the call.

I think you're purpously shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears, just like all of FIFA. But I guess using instant replay detracts from the "spirit of play". And the corrupt officials and phony injuries are just part of the game.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't think you understand my suggestion. Normally play is blown dead immediately on an offsides. My suggestion is wait until there is a change of possession or stoppage due to out of bounds, or scored goal (by the team who was supposedly offsides). Then you blow the whistle and stop play.

When I say change of possession, I mean the offsides team takes a shot on goal and the goalie retains possesion. Or the defending team steals the ball. Or the offsides team scores a goal. As soon as the change of possession occurs, stop the play and reset at the spot of the offsides call. That gives the offsides team a chance to review. More importantly it gives them a chance to "play out" the possession. If they were erroneously called offsides and they happen to score a goal, the goal will stand when they review the call.

I think you're purpously shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears, just like all of FIFA. But I guess using instant replay detracts from the "spirit of play". And the corrupt officials and phony injuries are just part of the game.

No, I think you, like Jzero, don't understand all of the implications of your suggestions. You suggest something which sounds good to you but would never work in practice for reasons which are apparently complicated beyond your understanding of the game - that is the only reason I pointed out that it's clear to me that neither of you has extensive experience on the field as either a ref or a player. What if my team is leading 2-1 with a minute left and we're using your set of rules? I can simply run far behind the defense and wait for my team to kick me the ball, then hold it in an offside position. Alternatively, I can alternate being in an offside position with one of my teammates and we can just pass the ball to each other ad infinitum to run the clock out. Alternatively, I can use it to my advantage by simply forcing the other team to track back because they're not sure whether offsides will actually be called, thereby draining four defenders with only a single, completely illegal, offensive run. Or, the most likely scenario: the defenders stop pursuing when the offside flag goes up, the offensive player scores, the review shows that he was onside, then the linesman gets lynched on the sideline by the fans and/or players for blowing the game. You can claim I'm simply defending the status quo until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that your recommended strategy would take things from bad to far worse. It looks great to you because you see only the black and white of the simplest blown calls which, admittedly, your system would effectively solve. However, it would create more problems than it would solve in the end.

FIFA has indeed tried progressive rules changes like this in the past (e.g. various regulations about passing the ball back to the goalie) in the hopes that it would work out to speed up the game. They then went to Scottish league games (notoriously the dirtiest players in the world) and saw every possible way around the rules as they had been rewritten. They have since decided that the simpler the rule, the fewer loopholes which exist for that rule. This is a lesson our governments would do well to mimic I think...

 

[a123456]

What if my team is leading 2-1 with a minute left and we're using your set of rules? I can simply run far behind the defense and wait for my team to kick me the ball, then hold it in an offside position.

If you receive the ball offside, supposedly the linesman calls offside and the ball possession changes. If you were really offside, then it's the right call and possession changes. If you were really onside, then your team gets the ball back. I don't really see how this is affected by replay or not. Replay supposedly doesn't drain any effective time off the clock, just like injuries aren't supposed to take any time.

Alternatively, I can alternate being in an offside position with one of my teammates and we can just pass the ball to each other ad infinitum to run the clock out.

I don't understand how this is different from the first situation?

Alternatively, I can use it to my advantage by simply forcing the other team to track back because they're not sure whether offsides will actually be called, thereby draining four defenders with only a single, completely illegal, offensive run.

How is this different from today's rules? A striker makes an offside run. The defense has the option to offside trap or go back with him. I'm not seeing how the risk/reward suddenly gets changed. If the ball gets passed to the offside guy, the ref makes the call or not.

Or, the most likely scenario: the defenders stop pursuing when the offside flag goes up, the offensive player scores, the review shows that he was onside, then the linesman gets lynched on the sideline by the fans and/or players for blowing the game.

This is pretty much the meat of the argument. In this case, the offense gets no goal. Whistle means play stops and that's that. Sure, it sucks for the offense but play was blown dead. There are analogous situations in football, like not being able to challenge down by contact. In any replay type situation, there are going to be end points where replay doesn't work. So the game plays out exactly like it would without replay.

However, there are a few cases here and there where replay would help. Maybe it's not worth the cost to correct a few calls where replay can be applied. Maybe it is. Obviously, FIFA has decided they don't like it but it doesn't mean people can't complain still about blown calls. I'm pretty sure FIFA enjoys these ref scandals because it gets more press time to soccer, which is good. There are going to be people arguing about so-and-so blown call until the end of time, like the 1966 England-Germany "goal."

I mainly look at this from a basketball point of view, where there are clear, written guidelines on when replay is allowed to be used by refs, if they want. For example, who touched the ball last in the last 2 mins, whether a guy's foot was on the line, and whether the ball was released before time expired. You can't use replay for anything else, even if you see some blown call. In theory, soccer could set up something similar where a couple of situations are outlined where the ref is allowed to consult some replay and in no other situations. There's never going to be 100% correct calls in sports, but there still can be some improvement in a few situations. If it's not cost effective, I think people would be okay with World Cup only since English Non League and such can't afford anything like that.