Next up: Cleese explains the rules of cricket to Americans who primarily watch American Football.

"It's simple!"

Hehe... He didn't even give the full set of rules. (The rules as he described would allow a player to be called offsides on their half of the field). Off sides is really about the only complicated part of futbol, though.

Compare it to American Football - illegal formation, ineligible receivers, etc... I was watching a college game the other week where the announcers even got it wrong. A player caught a kickoff at the 5 yard line or something as it was going out of bounds (but the ball was still in the field of play). The announcers (and myself) immediately commented on how stupid that was. It would have been a penalty on the kickoff team, and now you put your offense on the 5 yard line! But NO! Even though he caught it in bounds, since his first step was out of bounds, it's STILL a penalty on the kicking team.

I found some blog arguing about this exact rule --
http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/2008/10/12/someone-look-up-the-kickoff-rules/

I think that one goal was a behind the back flip shot.

Although the rule has a lot of details and quirks, the principle of it is very simple: You are not allowed to kick the ball to a teammate who is alone with the opposing team's goalkeeper. And I don't even like football.

Since they modified the rule I honestly am never sure when a player is offside or not. The "active" interpretation is absolutely ridiculous. I see what they're trying to do but it would be much simpler and less controversial if we had stuck with the previous offside rule.

This is one of these things that are tremendously difficult to describe with words, but once you actually see the situations that would constitute an offside flag it is very simple to understand. Visual aides go a long way sometimes

From what I've seen of professional "soccer", I can completely understand the active-participant aspect of offside. I have never seen such a bunch of lazy, lethargic, prima-donnas in my entire life. The amateur leagues and clubs actually RUN around, and KICK the ball, and COVER the other team, and set up team mates to score. Not just walk around, 50 feet from anyone, waiting for an opportunity for they themselves to score.

Well, I think he explained it quite clearly!

>> ^rychan:
I was watching a college game the other week where the announcers even got it wrong. A player caught a kickoff at the 5 yard line or something as it was going out of bounds (but the ball was still in the field of play). The announcers (and myself) immediately commented on how stupid that was. It would have been a penalty on the kickoff team, and now you put your offense on the 5 yard line! But NO! Even though he caught it in bounds, since his first step was out of bounds, it's STILL a penalty on the kicking team.
I found some blog arguing about this exact rule --
http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/2008/10/12/someone-look-up-the-ki
ckoff-rules/


I haven't seen the play you're talking about, but it makes sense to me, though I'm a rabid American football fan. Think about it as a reception. In order to technically have possession of the ball, you can't just catch the ball, you have to have at least one foot land in bounds after you catch it (two feet in the NFL). If you catch the ball in bounds but land out of bounds, it doesn't count - it's a dead play, called as an incomplete pass.

Same rules for kickoffs. If he caught the ball on the 5 yard line, landed in bounds THEN took a step out of bounds, it would've been placed on the 5. But because his first step landed out of bounds, the catch didn't count, and it was called as if the ball went out of bounds, which constitutes a penalty. It's the same thing as if he would've followed a kickoff 10 yards out of bounds and caught it - they wouldn't place the ball where he caught it because it was clearly out of bounds. Still, he was stupid for even trying to catch it when the ball was already headed out of bounds.

Okay, back to soccer... errr football.

evil_disco_man - The analogy to a reception isn't right. There's no aspect of possession here. Or else a player could just bat the ball out of bounds without catching it and always get a penalty on the kicking team. Or bobble the ball repeatedly while ushering it to the sideline.

It shouldn't matter whether the player is in bounds or out of bounds. The current rules lead to this weird situation where a kickoff is about to land in bounds (say near the goal line where it wouldn't be a penalty even if it bounced straight back), but the receiving player touches it (he doesn't even have to catch it) and leaps far enough to touch a piece of the sideline. Actually, the ball could have already bounced. It could be slowly rolling to a stop 3 yards from the sideline and a player gets a running start, taps it, and dives out of bounds. Penalty on the kicking team. Does that still seem intuitive to you?

The more intuitive set of rules in this situation would be based on "breaking the plane". If the ball breaks the out of bounds plane untouched: penalty. If it's touched by anyone before breaking the plane: not a penalty.

I applaud the poster for using the more specific term "soccer" in the title. Also, upvote for John Cleese being kinda funny again.

No longer available, eh?

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by NetRunner.

*length=1:47

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:47 - length declared by arvana.