Wide Right

Celtic supporter. Bills fanatic.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

Well that brings up another point a neophyte might find odd: the strike zone varies from player to player based upon his size. How fair is that? While we're at it, why is a ball batted 375 feet worth potentially four runs (grand slam) at some ballparks but is just a long out at others? Hmmm. Seems weird, no?

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@SternVukotic @__griffin_ So the rule is now you can be a little bit offside? That clears everything up.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@schadjoe @_lm277 Maybe just eliminate the goalkeeper position. That will surely result in more goals.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@PhxSunzSuck @BenVolin Who is we? Who was robbed? The "problem", if there is one, is that technology allows infractions to be diagnosed more closely then ever. What are the officials supposed to do, ignore the evidence? By the way, no different than American sports.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

You're a football guy. It would be like banning a two-high shell in the NFL. I might like it as a fan of the Bill's explosive offense but a Texans' fan would probably disagree. It's all about rules that favor more or less offense. Fine. But let's not pretend it will somehow be "fairer" or less controversial if the Wenger rule is adopted.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@SmaahtGurlGrunt @OrevaZSN That would be a quick pickle.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

He's one man who would like to changes the rules of the game to favor offenses. Others if equal stature disagree. I'd like to change American football to prohibit the two-high shell scheme which would favor an explosive offense like my Buffalo Bills. I'm presuming Texan fans would disagree. It's all opinions. But to argue the point for going on two days with people who actually watch and understand football (soccer) is silly/obtuse. You either favor more wide-open play or you don't. There's no objective right or wrong.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@mtfitzpatrick @NunyaBidnezz888 @CertiCallum @MattLoveless Meh. Different games have different rules and conventions. All this debate (which is getting tedious, IMHO) is a matter of (largely uninformed) opinion. Apples vs. oranges. Besides, you're a Chief fan so how can you expect me to take anything you say seriously?😉

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

But it's not negated if the defender stands up the attacker at the blue line, impeding him for just a second or two such that his teammate enters the offensive zone first causing an offside. This is coached and his part of hockey strategy. This is directly analogous, in my opinion, to the offside trap in soccer.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@NunyaBidnezz888 @CertiCallum @MattLoveless Well now you're just being obtuse . Aidan is correct and you clearly don't understand the game. I'm out.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@MattLoveless The hard count is designed to trick a defender into conceding a penalty which may result in a cheap, important first down. In hockey, standing up an attacker entering the zone is specifically designed to gain a cheap offsides whistle. Only one argument here is "silly".

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@MattLoveless Prepare to be shocked: the defender will often surge forward purposely to put the attacker in an offside position, thus negating a promising chance. It's called an offside trap and it's an important part of defensive football tactics.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

The offside law is designed, in part, to let defenders control space and prevent attackers from goal-hanging. Timing a defensive line to catch an attacker offside is therefore a legitimate tactical choice, just like many other strategic plays in sports.

Analogs would be: a disguised pickoff move or intentional walk in baseball; a hard QB count or disguised blitz in football; or the most direct comparison, a defender standing up attackers at the blue line in hockey.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@Lovelea8818 @gpetry_Fabo @JKap415 It wasn't the evil "Americans", it was FIFA. But I guess ad hominems are more fun.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

Nah. Even Wenver admitted that it would just change the reference point for measurement and, if anything, could introduce more subjectivity ( "clear daylight" definition vs. on/off binary measurement). When pressed, he exolajned he liked the rule because it would favor the attacker. That's a point of view, to be sure. But let's not pretend it would mitigate controversy. The "appeal to authority " argument falls short here. Do your research

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@Bryndenex @shhhbreslin @aleks_servin So you're comfortable with the manual placement of the ball denoting the line of scrimmage? As a Bills fan who acutely remembers a bad spot on a fourth down in the playoffs two years ago, I beg to differ.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@shhhbreslin @aleks_servin No it isn't. As a follower of both sports, think it's a good analogy.

[Wide Right @Dannybhoy59]

@RobertsonM47803 @CaravelCapitan I mean, their interviews were actually on film.