The 'Everything You've Ever Wanted To Know About Football... But Were Afraid To Ask' thread

[rez9000]

How many times have you been asked to explain the offside rule and have started with all the confidence in the world only to stumble to a halt less than a minute later?

Three times in my case.

You can forgive the football uninitiated for their ignorance, of course - they don't know better. And I'm sure we've all had a look of contempt cross our faces when some sidehead-shaven, trousers-tucked-into-their-boots hipster bleats on about the pointlessness of 22 grown men kicking an inflated bladder around a park while being paid millions, who then subsequently spouts on about some daring new wankfest artist being paid millions we could describe as just 'splashing some paint around'.

Ultimately, they know not what they do.

But we, the chosen, should really know as much about the thing we obsess over as possible, but still glaring gaps in our knowledge exist. So, who better to ask those little questions about football than other football fans?

That's what this thread is for. Asking questions about football things you think you should know the answer to... but don't.

I'll kick off (pun very much intended):

What actually constitutes a shot 'on target'? Does it require the goalie to have been exercised? Does the goalie need to make a save for it to be shot on target? If a shot is travelling toward the goal and hits a player and deflects away, is that a shot on target? How close does it have to be to be considered a shot on target?

So, answers to that question very much welcomed and equally welcomed questions other people wish to ask and have answered (not by me, but by you lot).

 

[punky]

What actually constitutes a shot 'on target'? Does it require the goalie to have been exercised? Does the goalie need to make a save for it to be shot on target? If a shot is travelling toward the goal and hits a player and deflects away, is that a shot on target? How close does it have to be to be considered a shot on target?

So, answers to that question very much welcomed and equally welcomed questions other people wish to ask and have answered (not by me, but by you lot).

My interpretation is that is an intentional kicked ball that if not blocked (doesn't matter by whom), would go into the goal. Shots against the post are not on target.

My one is when people describe positions as numbers. i.e. "he's a true number 10" or "he's playing as a false 9". Perhaps it made sense in the 60s when no players owned a number, they all went out with numbers 1-11 on their back and it fitted with their position.

 

[RichieS]

My interpretation is that is an intentional kicked ball that if not blocked (doesn't matter by whom), would go into the goal. Shots against the post are not on target.

My one is when people describe positions as numbers. i.e. "he's a true number 10" or "he's playing as a false 9". Perhaps it made sense in the 60s when no players owned a number, they all went out with numbers 1-11 on their back and it fitted with their position.

Football, as I think Rugby still is, used to be played in a fixed formation: 2-3-5. So you had a pyramid...

----------1---------- GK
------2------3------ Full-backs
---4-----5-----6--- Half-backs (4 right half, 6 left half, 5 centre half).
7---8---9--10---11 Forwards (7 and 11 wing-forwards, 8 and 10 inside-forwards, 9 centre forward).

The big thing that learning this cleared up for me was why people call CB's "centre halves". More subtley, I also finally understood why all of 4, 5 and 6 are considered "normal" numbers for central defenders (it just depends which 2 you decide to move from the half back line to the full back line).

Things like "traditional number 10" and the current fad for referring to midfielders as 6's or 8's are much more recent. If you haven't read it, track down a copy of Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting The Pyramid". I learned a hell of a lot while reading it.

Edit: Although... If you consider that 6 and 8 are likely your CM's (most people seem to prefer 4 and 5 as their CB's) then it makes sense for 6 to refer to the more defensive midfielder, since he was already a half-back. 8 on the other hand was originally a forward, so obviously is going to be the more attacking CM.

 

[Col_M]

I used to play the 3 in that formation when I was at school. Our manager was a traditionalist. Every game we’d play an ill disciplined tactic of kids chasing the ball leaving me and the goalkeeper. I stayed back because I had some positional sense. He (Terry) only started back because a) he couldn’t play football and 2) he didn’t know the rules anyway. Every week we’d get thrashed by over 10 goals. I’d chat with the manager about playing a modern formation and he’d say No, stick to our formation and we’ll turn it around. It never turned.

 

[punky]

Football, as I think Rugby still is, used to be played in a fixed formation: 2-3-5. So you had a pyramid...

----------1---------- GK
------2------3------ Full-backs
---4-----5-----6--- Half-backs (4 right half, 6 left half, 5 centre half).
7---8---9--10---11 Forwards (7 and 11 wing-forwards, 8 and 10 inside-forwards, 9 centre forward).

The big thing that learning this cleared up for me was why people call CB's "centre halves". More subtley, I also finally understood why all of 4, 5 and 6 are considered "normal" numbers for central defenders (it just depends which 2 you decide to move from the half back line to the full back line).

Things like "traditional number 10" and the current fad for referring to midfielders as 6's or 8's are much more recent. If you haven't read it, track down a copy of Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting The Pyramid". I learned a hell of a lot while reading it.

Edit: Although... If you consider that 6 and 8 are likely your CM's (most people seem to prefer 4 and 5 as their CB's) then it makes sense for 6 to refer to the more defensive midfielder, since he was already a half-back. 8 on the other hand was originally a forward, so obviously is going to be the more attacking CM.

Wow, this makes a lot of sense, especially for the order of the numbers. Cheers dude.

 

[Tafspur]

What is the purpose of the Offside Rule?

By that I mean, would football benefit from there being no offside? Would it open up play if, say, one or two attackers stayed in or near the opponents penalty box requiring two or three defenders to cover them and thus opening up midfield?

I've often wondered about this

 

[rez9000]

What is the purpose of the Offside Rule?

By that I mean, would football benefit from there being no offside? Would it open up play if, say, one or two attackers stayed in or near the opponents penalty box requiring two or three defenders to cover them and thus opening up midfield?

I've often wondered about this

It's to prevent goal hanging. You could just plant a player on the opposition goal line to either disrupt the goalie or to just be a target to nod in goals ad infinitum.

And if both sides did it, then we'd have basketball scores every game! Although we might see an extension of the longed-for comedy scoreline (which finally came true back in 2018): Forfar 5 -East Fife 4, only without the offside rule, we might end up with Forfar 55 - East Fife 44.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

It's to prevent goal hanging. You could just plant a player on the opposition goal line to either disrupt the goalie or to just be a target to nod in goals ad infinitum.

And if both sides did it, then we'd have basketball scores every game! Although we might see an extension of the longed-for comedy scoreline (which finally came true back in 2018): Forfar 5 -East Fife 4, only without the offside rule, we might end up with Forfar 55 - East Fife 44.

I don’t think you would have goal hangers if the offside rule were completely removed.
You would instead see a change in defensive tactics with teams set up to defend a lot deeper. It would probably result in it being harder to score.

 

[Shadydan]

Potential to be an excellent thread this.

What is the purpose of when a teams scores and they need to score another goal again for example they grab the ball and run back to the centre circle - I never understood this theory because the clock is stopped?

 

[rez9000]

I don’t think you would have goal hangers if the offside rule were completely removed.
You would instead see a change in defensive tactics with teams set up to defend a lot deeper. It would probably result in it being harder to score.

True. But the rule was brought in a long time ago, when football was far less tactical. As @RichieS above talked about, during times of the pyramid formation where the majority of players played at the front.

 

[ZiggySpurs]

Potential to be an excellent thread this.

What is the purpose of when a teams scores and they need to score another goal again for example they grab the ball and run back to the centre circle - I never understood this theory because the clock is stopped?

I'd guess it's mostly an adrenaline momentum thing. They usually don't celebrate those goals either so they just want to get on with it, so to speak.

 

[wearetheparklane]

What is it that Jordan Henderson does that makes him so highly rated?

 

[Geyzer Soze]

What does 'Offside' mean? ?

 

[VegasII]

Is a tracksuit manager better than a suit and tie manager? Or vice versa?

*don’t count gilet managers

 

[bomberH]

A commentator’s shot on target is different than a betting company’s shot on target. I found that out when I lost a potential £50 because it was blocked a millisecond after the striker hit it. ****s.

Also, the scrapping offside thingy, there have been calls for that recently funnily enough. Van Basten is proposing it...

Marco van Basten on the offside law, why it should be scrapped, and the hockey precedent that might surprise

Talking exclusively to Sky Sports, Marco van Basten discusses his proposal to scrap offsides in football, while former Great Britain hockey captain Kate Richardson-Walsh explains how a similar rule change in that sport sparked unexpected tactical changes…

www.google.co.uk

Also, watched a clip of a ‘penalty shoot out’ in the MLS when it was first formed. They didn’t have shoot outs, they had the following:



The quality of that makes me laugh. With a bit of tinkering with the rules, I wouldn’t mind seeing that to decide drawn cup games for a laugh. Like, no more than 4 touches etc etc.

I think I’ve taken the thread slightly off track. Sorry.

 

[C0YS]

I don’t think you would have goal hangers if the offside rule were completely removed.
You would instead see a change in defensive tactics with teams set up to defend a lot deeper. It would probably result in it being harder to score.

You almost certainly will have goalhangers, if only to stretch the play. Yeah teams will play deeper and I suspect you'd see a lot of long passes too, the pitch would be much much bigger, and there would be so much space in the centre of the pitch, it'd be very different. I think you wouldn't see many dribbles or much competition for the ball. It'd also be a lot easier to keep possession and much harder to press, possibly causing a lot of time-wasting when ahead.

I do agree that it wouldn't necessarily be easier to score. A German show did an experiment of this and the game ended 1-0. They explained that there was very little passing game and it was less fun. However, it's worth noting that in experiments like these it's basically a reset button and might not reflect how the game would be played once people adjust to the changes in the law.

 

[C0YS]

Potential to be an excellent thread this.

What is the purpose of when a teams scores and they need to score another goal again for example they grab the ball and run back to the centre circle - I never understood this theory because the clock is stopped?

It's not stopped. The clock is never stopped really. An average game of football has about 60 minutes of actual play for every 90 minute game. On top of that research suggests that stoppage time should on average be 10-15 minutes on the basis of stoppages that stoppage time is meant to cover. Time wasting is incredibly effective for that reason.

Injury time rarely even accurately reflects big stoppages. What I've heard is that often what happens is 30 seconds is given for every goal and substitutions. which makes sense and will get you roughly the right amount of time, but I don't believe for one second that the ref literally counts the time spent on goal celebrations when adding stoppage time.