Just when you thought soccer couldn't get any worse...

[23Skidoo]

I've got my sincere proposal, then...if taking players off the field is too much, then how about we eliminate offsides once the game goes to OT? That's a fair compromise, and it increases the probability that the game is settled in 11-on-11 action. And cherry-picking isn't really that big of a problem...you have 11 guys on your team, as well, so it's not like they are unaccounted for.

EDIT: Sudden-death is still better than penalty kicks. It is eleven-on-eleven, first downs, penalties, field-postion football.

Sudden death is usually who gets the football first and who can make the longest field goal. Many times the other team doesn't even get a shot. It's far worse than penalty kicks -- which are one-on-one w/the keeper, and both sides get their fair shot. If you can't get penalty shots in, you probably weren't going to score in OT to begin with.
I also prefer what I said earlier to just changing the entire game for over time. Offsides is a good rule. Cherry picking is bs and only makes it easier for the game to grind to a halt (because now you'll just have the attack and defenders sitting around doing nothing while the midfielders run around in open space.)

 

[sandgk]

I never quite understood why it was so bad to actually tie after a hard fought contest. And, I mean that for league football or soccer.

In a cup or knock-out competition I the need for some type of deciding phase is obvious (overtime, penalty kicks, play again the next day or after a week of rest, toss a damned coin if you have to). But in regular games having overtime and the like to decide a game is, in my opinion, unnecessarily glorified.

 

[NightmaresDad]

Beg to differ on the offside rule in soccer not being stupid. How is it that a defender 30 yards away can stop an offensive player by simply moving forward a step or two? Stupid!
Why not make the offside rule the same as in hockey, therefore not dependant at all on a defensive player, just the relationship between the offensive player and the ball? No cherry picking by the offense and no dumbass offsides where the defense actually avoided defending their goal.

 

[sandgk]

Offsides is the most detested rule in soccer, detested by players, detested by spectators. It did have it's origins in the prevention of "cherry-picking" but, frankly, the solution was worse than the ailment. Particularly so when you consider that it came into being as a result of the goal-hogging center-forward play in the days when goals were of generally larger size, perhaps of infinite height, and the date of the games was around the time when TSUN and Princeton dominated football. These days I think it would be easy to overcome cherry-picking with good man-to-man marking. Today, at worst, you would have to see a flagrant defensive foul leading to a free-kick in a breakaway situation that is currently called offsides.

Speaking of flagrant fouls, that was the original intent of a penalty kick - to compensate a club who lost a scoring chance to a foul in the penalty box. Any other use of penalty kicks is simply a radical distortion of the game.

That however is not the worst aspect of soccer, the "flop" and dive is the part which most infuriates spectators - rightly so. Diving probably beats out offsides as a pernicious evil in the minds of soccer fans hands down.

 

[23Skidoo]

I never quite understood why it was so bad to actually tie after a hard fought contest. And, I mean that for league football or soccer.

In a cup or knock-out competition I the need for some type of deciding phase is obvious (overtime, penalty kicks, play again the next day or after a week of rest, toss a damned coin if you have to). But in regular games having overtime and the like to decide a game is, in my opinion, unnecessarily glorified.

Soccer does ties in league play and group stages. Penalties are only used as a tiebreaker where a clear winner is necessary (knockout matches).

Beg to differ on the offside rule in soccer not being stupid. How is it that a defender 30 yards away can stop an offensive player by simply moving forward a step or two? Stupid!
Why not make the offside rule the same as in hockey, therefore not dependant at all on a defensive player, just the relationship between the offensive player and the ball? No cherry picking by the offense and no dumbass offsides where the defense actually avoided defending their goal.

Complete misunderstanding of the game. If defenders are playing high on the field, it's not very difficult to burn them on it. This is the whole point of counter-attack tactics and speedy skill forwards like Henry. It takes just 1 pass for such a forward or attacking midfielder to be one on one with the keeper.
It also requires an extremely well-disciplined and coordinated backline to stay organized in a way that uses offsides to your defensive advantage, and even then it's a huge risk.

Offsides is the most detested rule in soccer, detested by players, detested by spectators. It did have it's origins in the prevention of "cherry-picking" but, frankly, the solution was worse than the ailment. Particularly so when you consider that it came into being as a result of the goal-hogging center-forward play in the days when goals were of generally larger size, perhaps of infinite height, and the date of the games was around the time when TSUN and Princeton dominated football. These days I think it would be easy to overcome cherry-picking with good man-to-man marking. Today, at worst, you would have to see a flagrant defensive foul leading to a free-kick in a breakaway situation that is currently called offsides.

I bet WRs hate having a line of scrimmage too. We should just get rid of it and let them line up wherever they want on the field. It won't be any different because so long as the WRs are being covered by DBs they can all run around in the redzone and still be defended.
I also have no idea what Princeton and TSUN have to do with offsides. Offsides was one of the many rules floating around long before the FA, and later "officially" adopted in the 1860s or so as part of a compromise between 3 different codes of rules.

Speaking of flagrant fouls, that was the original intent of a penalty kick - to compensate a club who lost a scoring chance to a foul in the penalty box. Any other use of penalty kicks is simply a radical distortion of the game.

That however is not the worst aspect of soccer, the "flop" and dive is the part which most infuriates spectators - rightly so. Diving probably beats out offsides as a pernicious evil in the minds of soccer fans hands down.

"A distortion of the game." Overdramatizing much? Penalty kicks have been around for awhile, it's a natural progression to use them to decide the end of a game. I don't think it's the best option, but there's many other technicalities I don't like in CFB, NFL, and soccer as well.
Diving is definitely the most irritating part of soccer. There's plenty of things UEFA and FIFA could do to discourage diving, but lately it seems they have no spine and are more preoccupied with political infighting. Hell, they can't even properly sanction blatant cheating like what was uncovered in Serie A last year.