Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Also, I've been watching the WC on Telemundo (Thanks Peacock). Even though my Spanish is pretty bad, their production is so much better than Fox. And they have Andres Cantor. 

I don't mind that, although I think it would be better from the 40 yard line than the 25. But even from the 25, there's strategy and you're playing real football. You're just in range that your typical "bad" outcome is settling for a field goal rather than scoring a TD.

The penalty kicks are more akin to the more recent rule that after 2OT, they basically set the teams up on the 2 1/2 yard line for a single "go for two" play each way.

But even then, it's different. It's one kicker, one goalie. Whereas even in CFB after 2OT, it's 11-on-11 even if it's still a single play.

I get it, and I'm used to it.

I do prefer the NFL model of overtime, however.  (One of the only things I think the NFL does better)

I don't think anyone loves the PKs to resolve a match--most people hate it, but think it's better than the alternatives. By the end of 120 minutes, everyone on the pitch is exhausted, so playing longer isn't a good strategy. Over the years people (and minor and recreational leagues) have toyed with other systems, like removing players every few minutes (which is what they do in world 7s, I think, but a smaller field there, which makes a big difference). All of them end up being pretty arbitrary ways to end a well contested game. I also wouldn't mind implementing a golden goal in extra time, which makes sense in low-scoring games, but less so when a match heads to ET tied 3-3 or 4-4, etc. Of course, most soccer games are low scoring, at least at the higher levels.

As for the offside law, it's an interesting theory to use the hockey system. I'm thinking through how difficult it would be to implement. Using the lines already on the pitch, you could make it that the players must be onside before crossing the 18 (the penalty area), but once the ball is across the 18 without an offside, no offside between the 18 and the goal line. But the way passing in soccer works, that would be too small a space to really implement it. Maybe a new 35 yard line?. I'd be curious to see someone test that for a season to see how it impacted play. It would bring a dramatic change to how team defending works. Currently, defensive strategy is designed with the offside law as it is, so this would be a dramatic change.

The offside law really isn't that complicated (compared to, say, pass interference and what is a "catch"), but TV announcers don't make an effort to understand it, so they misinform people on a regular basis. American TV announcers are generally terrible about how the laws of the game work.

I don't think anyone loves the PKs to resolve a match--most people hate it, but think it's better than the alternatives. By the end of 120 minutes, everyone on the pitch is exhausted, so playing longer isn't a good strategy. Over the years people (and minor and recreational leagues) have toyed with other systems, like removing players every few minutes (which is what they do in world 7s, I think, but a smaller field there, which makes a big difference). All of them end up being pretty arbitrary ways to end a well contested game. I also wouldn't mind implementing a golden goal in extra time, which makes sense in low-scoring games, but less so when a match heads to ET tied 3-3 or 4-4, etc. Of course, most soccer games are low scoring, at least at the higher levels.

As for the offside law, it's an interesting theory to use the hockey system. I'm thinking through how difficult it would be to implement. Using the lines already on the pitch, you could make it that the players must be onside before crossing the 18 (the penalty area), but once the ball is across the 18 without an offside, no offside between the 18 and the goal line. But the way passing in soccer works, that would be too small a space to really implement it. Maybe a new 35 yard line?. I'd be curious to see someone test that for a season to see how it impacted play. It would bring a dramatic change to how team defending works. Currently, defensive strategy is designed with the offside law as it is, so this would be a dramatic change.

The offside law really isn't that complicated (compared to, say, pass interference and what is a "catch"), but TV announcers don't make an effort to understand it, so they misinform people on a regular basis. American TV announcers are generally terrible about how the laws of the game work.

Yeah something at 35 would probably be good.  But honestly I'm less worried about plays coming in from the far goal and working into an offside position.  The rules as they currently stand are fine IMO.  For me it's more about when an ongoing play is occurring deep in the defense's territory, almost all players from both sides are deeply committed, and then just the mere movement of a couple of feet by the deepest defender suddenly renders an offside for the offense.

I just look at that and say, "Nope.  The entire play was deep, both sides were committed to being deep, and as long as the ball stays in the zone, then there can be no offsides."

Obviously that's just my opinion but I think it would be a better rule, for the same reason that I like the way hockey does it.

I do thoroughly understand why there's offsides in both soccer and hockey, and for similar reasons I'm also okay with basketball rules against offensive players camping out in the lane.

Yeah something at 35 would probably be good.  But honestly I'm less worried about plays coming in from the far goal and working into an offside position.  The rules as they currently stand are fine IMO.  For me it's more about when an ongoing play is occurring deep in the defense's territory, almost all players from both sides are deeply committed, and then just the mere movement of a couple of feet by the deepest defender suddenly renders an offside for the offense.

I just look at that and say, "Nope.  The entire play was deep, both sides were committed to being deep, and as long as the ball stays in the zone, then there can be no offsides."

Obviously that's just my opinion but I think it would be a better rule, for the same reason that I like the way hockey does it.

I do thoroughly understand why there's offsides in both soccer and hockey, and for similar reasons I'm also okay with basketball rules against offensive players camping out in the lane.

You're not wrong that it would be easier to understand, but it might be pretty difficult to implement, and have just as many seemingly arbitrary decisions about when to stop looking at what is or is not offside. And, as noted above, it would change the defensive strategy a fair amount.

Speaking as someone who regularly enforces the offside law with a backdrop of parent-spectators who have made little effort to understand it, I don't think it's especially complicated, but like all calls that go against a supporter's team, it seems unfair when it goes against the supporter's team.

My bigger complaint about the law is the precision that is used with VAR to enforce it because there is literally no way to replicate that in 99.9% of the soccer played in the world; it can only be done with massive camera and tech support that is only available at the highest levels of the game. If that's the case, the law should be massaged a bit so that it is realistic for the game worldwide, not just the elite pros (because it isn't even just the pro game, it's the elite pro game where it's available). Which gets me back to my problem with VAR in general. My view boils down to leaving the decision to the assistant referee, which demands (1) that the assistant referees are well positioned, and (2) if we have VAR, even at the elite level, the call is only overturned if it is grossly unfair, which would not be for an infraction of a few centimeters, but rather, an obvious situation where the attacker is closer to the goal line than the second to last defender. I don't think it would be that hard to implement such a system, with the default rule being what is called on the pitch.

How dare you post on an opinion about a sport on a site meant for opinions about sports. So arbitrary.