Just to clarify for those those who want an actual explanation: A player is offside if they are ahead of the ball and there are fewer than two defenders between them and their goal. This does not apply in the player's own half of the field. Being offside is not a foul on its own. A player in an offside position is called for a foul if they interfere with play. Usually, this means either they play the ball when it is passed ahead to them, or they block the view or movement of a defender when a shot or forward pass is made.
Hello Hermann, where can I purchase this film and watch it ? But I need to watch it in English not in German. Thanks for understanding looking forward to see it
The interesting thing is that most of them are not really creative people, but clever to build a career. And even some of them are just con-artists (for example Marina Abramović).
Fantastic. No one could explain it any more confusing. LOL. In the original version the player was offside regardless of whether he interfered with the play or not. He was also offside when he received the ball versus today when the ball is kicked. In the good old days things were simpler although not very logical or efficient.
Thank you so much for this. This is the only English language interview I've seen of him. I've watched it several times over the last week, it really soothes me in depression.
Yeah, understanding offside took me a while too. It seems like the only complicated rule in what is otherwise an incredibly easy to learn (yet hard to master) game. Get ball in goal. Only use feet. Simple! I still don't know why they came up with that offside rule though. Does anyone know?
tuschman168 It prevents cherry-picking. It serves a similar function as the offside rules in american football and rugby, and the 3-line rule in hockey.
The rule was originally that you couldn't do a forward pass with fewer than three defenders (including the keeper) between the ball and the net, but most English teams in the early days preferred to barrel forward with the others almost acting like blockers. (Early preferred formations were the 1-2-7 and 2-6-6.) The impetus for changing the rules came from the first tactical innovation: the passing game in Scotland. Initially, the English saw that as less manly, but they had to accept the obvious once they realized it worked. When there are more passes, it is _far_ easier to draw an offense offside, so at the turn of the century, it was changed to two with the rule about the defensive half added.
So - basically, you can prevent a goal by making sure your team is never defending the goal in the first place. Just make sure there's zero people defending and you're unbeatable. Brilliant!
mgabrysSF No, that fails. Offside is only determined at the moment the ball is played, and only if the ball is passed forward, and only if the player is ahead of the ball. So if no one defends, they'll just go forward (staying behind the ball), and score 100 goals or something :).
+mgabrysSF Some teams try to play that way - but it's often a terrible strategy. "Holding a High Line" ... which is moving your defenders up close to the halfway line can, and often does, result in disaster. A pacey opposition runner can run through the back line from a deep pass and be 1-1 with the goalie in no time at all.
+mgabrysSF It's worth doing if one of your defenders is really quick and their attackers aren't as quick. That way, the quick defender can catch up to the slower attacker who's "broken the offside trap" before he encounters the goal keeper and has a chance to score. Moving ALL of your defenders up at the same time to catch an attacker offside is called "the offside trap". ALL of the defenders must move together - if even one doesn't do what he's supposed to, then calamity will happen and give the attackers an easy chance to score with minimal resistance. Generally, it's a bad idea in modern elite football to attempt regular use of the offside trap - it's too dangerous, and can often be undone by a bad assistant referee decision as, even when performed perfectly, the margin between offside and onside is something the assistant referee can regularly get wrong. Pressing up to the halfway line is something that should only be done if your team needs to score a goal as a matter of urgency, psychologically pushing your opponents back into their own penalty area. But, a brave opponent will always look to get their fastest player to break through the line and score on the counter attack even when defending extremely deep.
Absolutely brilliant and absolutely true, this exactly how it is to explain the offside rule to non football fans, it actually is pretty easy to see, but quite hard to explain!
Why should we change the rules to get americans interested in it? Will you change the rules of baseball and american football to make it more interesting for europeans? I don't Think so.
I don't watch hockey so I'm unsure how the offside rule works there, but I think in football (soccer) it makes sense how it works. Also, when the ball is played to an attacking player with perfect timing where he's past the defenders and making the run on goal it's the most beautiful thing to watch :)
Indeed. It's also a sneaky thing of beauty to watch a successful offside trap where the defense knows it's coming and can't stop the striker, so they go forward to make him go offside.
Oh, and in hockey, it's more based on the blue lines for passing. You can't pass forward to the next zone with no defenders or a "two lane pass" from behind the defensive blue line to in front of the offensive line. If you are behind the blue line, the stuff about a shot is somewhat similar as far as what players in front of the puck can do.
Same old story. Women must sacrifice art (or life itself) to reproduction, to the species, but men can have it all. What male artist has ever suffered these painful convolutions? But no, it's not about biololgy or its imperatives, its about social arrangements which can and must change.
All of you are claiming that she lacks talent and that her art is unworthy of being called art. If you actually pay attention to the meanings behind her artworks you'll see that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. In her art she explores her experiences and feelings, and does not create artwork merely to disturb her viewers. And if you want to talk about "stupidity" and declare that she is uneducated, take a look at your own grammar and spelling. Most of you lack basic punctuation.
