Offside And Goalkeeper Rule Change

[Abram Jones]

There is a technical problem with the game of football, and it is mathematical. It is the team sport with the highest rate of upsets, this in itself is not the problem, but the problem is that they are much too often undeserved upsets. The final score should generally represent the performance on the field, but in this sport that is way too often not the case. The cause of this is low scoring opportunities, the result is a final score that is too highly impacted by random events rather than skill. Baseball also has this problem, but fortunately it is much easier to fix in soccer football, only a few rule modifications are required. The mathematical reasons behind this were first documented by an Italian in the 1500s and proven by a Belgian in the 1700s. If you're interested in this look up the law of large numbers. Basically, the more time you repeat an experiment the higher chance that the data you are receiving from the experiment will be more accurate, sports is no different. To make the final scores of football games better represent the activity on the field we will need to increase the amount of scoring opportunities. Defense is favoured by current regulations, a better balance between offense and defense is needed. Implementing the following adjustments will bring that balance to a mathematically sufficient level.

OFFSIDE (video)
The first step is to slightly liberalize the offside rule. Instead of the offensive player being required to stay equal or behind the second to last defender, simply allow him to be ahead as long as at least part of his body is level with said defender.

GOALKEEPER (video)
Currently, the goalkeeper has way too many benefits that allow him to ruin the flow of the game. It should not be legal for a keeper to catch or hold the ball. Suddenly stopping offensive drives by simply catching the ball is much too large of an advantage. The goalkeeper should only be allowed to kick or punch the ball away.

note: it will also be beneficial to have 2 linesman simultaneously judging offside calls. The play would not be stopped unless both call offside. If only 1 calls offside play is resumed. If a goal is scored with only 1 offside call, it will be reviewed. If neither linesman call offside that decision will not be video reviewed.

 

[chef]

Seems like such an AFL thing to do to try and fix whats not broken. Just leave it alone.

 

[Abram Jones]

Seems like such an AFL thing to do to try and fix whats not broken. Just leave it alone.

That's what I'm saying, it is broken... it is severely mathematically broken as I explained above. Here is more info:
*Mathematical Problem With Scoring In Soccer Football
*Law Of Large Numbers And Sports Results

 

[chef]

I guess if you want a high scoring game maybe footballs not for you.

 

[Abram Jones]

I guess if you want a high scoring game maybe footballs not for you.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not necessarily wanting a high scoring game, but rather a scoreline that represents the performance on the field a higher percentage of the time.

 

[Kipz]

What if a team dominates general play but can't get a shot on target, then the other team gets a dodgy penalty and wins 1-0? How on earth do your suggested rule changes prevent that not so uncommon occurrence? The answer is they don't and you can't, so stop this pls

 

[ioppolo]

That goal keeper suggestion is ridiculous

 

[Sozabarus]

The randomness and unpredictability of football is what makes it so great.

Can only assume that anyone who wants those things taken out of the game isn’t actually a fan of the sport.

 

[Cruyff14]

This is such an American line of thinking.

What's next? No draws?

 

[David Schwarz]

This is such an American line of thinking.

What's next? No draws?

MULTIBALL

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Lol horrendous suggestions, nothing wrong with the game.

 

[Shoei]

Why are the majority of your posts bizarre and based on statics and nonsense?

 

[Zidane98]

This is such an American line of thinking.

What's next? No draws?

3 goals awarded for scoring outside the box?

 

[ossie_21]

This is some of the stupidest shit I’ve seen posted on this board

 

[Cevap_Roll]

I would say crowds around the world disagree with you.
How many members do Bayern Munich have?
Nearly 300k?

Yeah sports struggling lets listen to some Aussie bloke on social media.

 

[David Schwarz]

Someone should tweet this to Fozzie so we can observe as his head explodes

 

[Topkent]

There is a technical problem with the game of football, and it is mathematical. It is the team sport with the highest rate of upsets, this in itself is not the problem, but the problem is that they are much too often undeserved upsets. The final score should generally represent the performance on the field, but in this sport that is way too often not the case. The cause of this is low scoring opportunities, the result is a final score that is too highly impacted by random events rather than skill. Baseball also has this problem, but fortunately it is much easier to fix in soccer football, only a few rule modifications are required. The mathematical reasons behind this were first documented by an Italian in the 1500s and proven by a Belgian in the 1700s. If you're interested in this look up the law of large numbers. Basically, the more time you repeat an experiment the higher chance that the data you are receiving from the experiment will be more accurate, sports is no different. To make the final scores of football games better represent the activity on the field we will need to increase the amount of scoring opportunities. Defense is favoured by current regulations, a better balance between offense and defense is needed. Implementing the following adjustments will bring that balance to a mathematically sufficient level.

OFFSIDE (video)
The first step is to slightly liberalize the offside rule. Instead of the offensive player being required to stay equal or behind the second to last defender, simply allow him to be ahead as long as at least part of his body is level with said defender.

GOALKEEPER (video)
Currently, the goalkeeper has way too many benefits that allow him to ruin the flow of the game. It should not be legal for a keeper to catch or hold the ball. Suddenly stopping offensive drives by simply catching the ball is much too large of an advantage. The goalkeeper should only be allowed to kick or punch the ball away.

note: it will also be beneficial to have 2 linesman simultaneously judging offside calls. The play would not be stopped unless both call offside. If only 1 calls offside play is resumed. If a goal is scored with only 1 offside call, it will be reviewed. If neither linesman call offside that decision will not be video reviewed.

****ing stupid. One of the beauties of soccer is a minnow 4th division side beating a ManUtd. Could never happen in AFL

 

[Abram Jones]

What if a team dominates general play but can't get a shot on target, then the other team gets a dodgy penalty and wins 1-0? How on earth do your suggested rule changes prevent that not so uncommon occurrence? The answer is they don't and you can't, so stop this pls

That's the exact type of situation these rule changes are meant to fix. They create more scoring opportunities and offer a less random final score in a higher percentage of situations.

The randomness and unpredictability of football is what makes it so great.

Can only assume that anyone who wants those things taken out of the game isn’t actually a fan of the sport.

I completely disagree. If you want randomness and unpredictability simply roll dice or flip coins. The rules of football are flawed, one of the main reasons of rules is to have a final score that represents the performance on the field as much as possible.

This is such an American line of thinking.

What's next? No draws?

I'm from the states, and let me tell you it is not an "American line of thinking." Most Americans do not understand simple mathematical laws that were proven before the industrial revolution either

Why are the majority of your posts bizarre and based on statics and nonsense?

Just because you don't understand the concept of the point I present doesn't make it nonsense.

I would say crowds around the world disagree with you.
How many members do Bayern Munich have?
Nearly 300k?

This has nothing to do with what my OP was about.

******* stupid. One of the beauties of soccer is a minnow 4th division side beating a ManUtd. Could never happen in AFL

This isn't a beauty, it is an error in the laws of the game. If you want randomness simply roll dice or flip coins. Rules of sport should be designed to make the final score represent the performance on the field as much as possible.

 

[David Schwarz]

World Cup of Dice Rolling would be pretty mad actually

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Sounds like this guy is trying to ruin the beauty of football.

Take the randomness out of the game and you make it predictable and boring.

 

[Shoei]

Just because you don't understand the concept of the point I present doesn't make it nonsense.

I understand exactly the point you're trying to make, you can take your mental wank somewhere else.

 

[Abram Jones]

Sounds like this guy is trying to ruin the beauty of football.

Take the randomness out of the game and you make it predictable and boring.

You imply a logical fallacy. To correct you 2 points must be addressed. 1. if you were able to theoretically takeout all the randomness of a game of football the predictability would be dependent on a combination of skill and performance. Therefore you wouldn't be able to predict it with total accuracy based upon even skill level because upsets could still happen, but they would be deserved upsets (underdog outperforming the favourite on the field). 2. it's impossible to remove all randomness from a football game. My proposal is simply to reduce the randomness factor to a reasonable level like most other sports have. My point is that the randomness level is so high in football that there are undeserved upsets a ridiculous proportion of the time. Baseball has a similar problem, but it has a benefit in that it is not as physically demanding. This means that more games (series of games) can be played to get a realistic aggregate score based on performance.

When you use undefined catch phrases/words like "beauty of football" or "boring" it's no better than a politician preaching economics using simple propaganda to fool the masses.

I understand exactly the point you're trying to make, you can take your mental wank somewhere else.

No, you didn't understand the argument, if you did you wouldn't have called it nonsense as there's proven mathematics behind it (very simple mathematics). A proper response would be that you didn't care about the problem, or that you didn't view randomness as a bad thing... in which case you might as well roll dice or flip coins rather than play a sport that is supposed to be based on actual skill.

 

[Shoei]

No, you didn't understand the argument, if you did you wouldn't have called it nonsense as there's proven mathematics behind it (very simple mathematics). A proper response would be that you didn't care about the problem, or that you didn't view randomness as a bad thing... in which case you might as well roll dice or flip coins rather than play a sport that is supposed to be based on actual skill.

Nah I understand you completely I'm just not willing to give you the pseudointellectual handjob you clearly crave with your nonsense.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

You imply a logical fallacy. To correct you 2 points must be addressed. 1. if you were able to theoretically takeout all the randomness of a game of football the predictability would be dependent on a combination of skill and performance. Therefore you wouldn't be able to predict it with total accuracy based upon even skill level because upsets could still happen, but they would be deserved upsets (underdog outperforming the favourite on the field). 2. it's impossible to remove all randomness from a football game. My proposal is simply to reduce the randomness factor to a reasonable level like most other sports have. My point is that the randomness level is so high in football that there are undeserved upsets a ridiculous proportion of the time. Baseball has a similar problem, but it has a benefit in that it is not as physically demanding. This means that more games (series of games) can be played to get a realistic aggregate score based on performance.

When you use undefined catch phrases/words like "beauty of football" or "boring" it's no better than a politician preaching economics using simple propaganda to fool the masses.



No, you didn't understand the argument, if you did you wouldn't have called it nonsense as there's proven mathematics behind it (very simple mathematics). A proper response would be that you didn't care about the problem, or that you didn't view randomness as a bad thing... in which case you might as well roll dice or flip coins rather than play a sport that is supposed to be based on actual skill.

Look DH, football fans like more randomness, not less.

You think this is a problem. Nobody shares your belief which should tell you something.

 

[Abram Jones]

Nah I understand you completely I'm just not willing to give you the pseudointellectual handjob you clearly crave with your nonsense.

But you obviously didn't understand, and you don't understand my intentions as there's nothing I "crave" in regards to this post.

football fans like more randomness, not less.

You think this is a problem. Nobody shares your belief which should tell you something.

Again, if people like randomness they can roll dice or flip coins.

Truth isn't about how many people believe it, that is the fallacy argumentum ad populum. But it does tell me something, something I already knew... that popular opinion is usually what one could expect from a popular vote of primates. There are no surprises to me.