Why football failed to catch on in certain countries

[DonFerrari]

NightlyPoe said:

mZuzek said:

It doesn't reward defensive play, in fact it's quite the opposite. By allowing teams to play with a high defensive line, it gives them room to be offensive while still compact - otherwise, teams would have to either be spread all over the pitch, thus hindering team play in general, or close together all in their own half, leading to extremely defensive play, because if anyone dared play a high line, it would automatically mean dumb easy long balls for the opposing team. It also means strikers need to be smarter about making their chances.

But well, what am I doing trying to explain football to an American.

Not reading what the American said obviously.  My statement was that it should be tossed once they get to the top of the box.  Not eliminate the rule altogether.

Like I said, the rule basically exists to eliminate cherry-picking and move the defensive players closer to the action.  Most similar sports have rules with the same intention.  However, the soccer rule is in place beyond its usefulness, when the attacking team has broken past the midfield and is already encroaching on the goal.  There are no downsides to allowing the attacking players to run past the defense in that situation.  Doing so would only result in opening up the game when it is already in an offensive situation.

As I said, it's an easy fix.

Your favorite sport is a sequence of stop motion ball with no attacking people behind the defense, and you talk about how the rule on soccer that basically have this same rule but more dinamic. It isn't about breaking through the midfield, it's much more about very long pass and having the players spread out.

To me it doesn't need to exist and if an offensive player stays near the goal the defense decides if want to keep guarding him or not. But people are used to the rule