| Friday,
July 2, 2010 A
selection of pieces on the offside rule in soccer.
I was a football (soccer) referee for thirty years.
From the laws of the game:
Offside position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside
position. A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his
opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if: he is in
his own half of the field of play or he is level with the second-last
opponent or he is level with the last two opponents
Offence A player in an offside position is only
penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his
team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an
advantage by being in that position
No offence There is no offside offence if a player
receives the ball directly from: a goal kick a throw-in a corner kick
Infringements and sanctions In the event of an
offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing
team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law
13 – Position of free kick).
This law means that no one could park themselves in
the opponent's goal or in front of the opponent's goalkeeper and gain an
advantage from that. The team on the attack could effectively force the
other team back to their half line. On the other hand, a fast player could
always break loose. When I was refereeing, there were teams with set-piece
plays to do that--making life for the leading lineman interesting if he was
a little slow. He was expected to signal off-sides based on his assessment
of the situation, and the centre ref then made the call.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD "Old age and treachery will beat
youth and enthusiasm."
==
Per <http://ezinearticles.com/?Soccer-Rules---Offside&id=450157>
The purpose of the Offside Rule is the same in Soccer
as it is in hockey -- to prevent "cherry-picking" by a player who camps in
front of the other team's goal. Without the Offside Rule, Soccer would be a
large field game of ping pong, filled with long kicks and alternating mad
scrambles from one end of the field to the other. By preventing any
"offside" player from participating in the game, the rule puts a premium on
dribbling and passing, rather than long kicks. This promotes teamwork,
which, in turn, encourages quick switching from one side of the field to the
other, and compresses the action to a smaller area of the field -- usually
about 30 or 40 yards long. The end result is that all the players stay
closer to the action, and everyone has a better chance of participating in
the game.
It looks to me like the rule turns the game into a
more deliberate and strategic one than it would otherwise be.
As I read the further explanation of the offside rule,
your example of the offensive player suddenly becoming offside when the
defender moves to put him in that position does not actually put the
offensive player in violation of the rule, so long as he does not use his
offside position to gain an advantage. From this perspective, what the
defender has done is temporarily removed the offensive player from the play,
as if he had been physically blocked. This means that the offensive player
has to be alert enough to avoid getting into a potentially offside position,
which he can always do by remaining even with the ball. Sounds like
everybody has to stay mentally on the ball, so to speak.
I'm not a soccer fan, although I endured five kids
worth of soccerdadding. The subtle aspects of the game don't come into play
at that level, so I never learned them. My guess is that you have to have
played the game to really appreciate it.
==
Subject: On socceer and offside
Dr Pournelle
My credentials: I have watched this sport avidly for
more than 40 years; I played for clubs and my college team; I coached select
teams in the over 16 division and my Air Force unit team and the base team;
I refereed professionally up to and including the pros. I no longer run
center or the touch line. My legs are gone. But I still love the sport. I
have no doubt that there are among your readers those with better and more
current credentials than mine.
Your statement "It is not clear to me why if I have
the ball and am about to pass to a player who has run downfield, I am
suddenly offside if someone on the other team runs away from his goal,
leaving the prospective pass receiver a clear shot. " is an incorrect
conception of the offside law. (Other sports have rules. Soccer has laws.)
You are not offside. As you stated it, neither is the 'player who has run
downfield'; he may be offside when you make the pass. But I do not think
that is the issue.
You are an intelligent man. If the sport captured your
imagination, you would make the effort to comprehend the game situations
covered by the offside law. It doesn't, and you don't. I do not fault you
for this. You have your preference.
Me? I hate basketball. I have no interest in a sport
that requires a hand calculator to tally the score. To me, it appears to be
an interminable and boring series of set pieces.
But if we all like the same thing, Baskin-Robbins
would sell only one flavor.
Live long and prosper h lynn keith
After all the discussions I am still uncertain, but
it seems to me that the offside rule has some similarities to the passing
rules in football: you cannot pass the ball to someone forward of your
position after you have crossed the line of scrimmage. Even so, the position
of the opposing players doesn't affect what you can do.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that the
purpose of the Offside Rule is similar to reasoning that brought about the
adoption of the three second rule in basketball; without it, tall centers
tended to dominate the game. There is still debate about the wisdom of the
rule, and the size of the restricted area, which has been changed a couple
of times. Fans of big centers have one view, fans of long shots have
another... I also came to the conclusion that not only do I not know enough
about the game of soccer to have any right to an opinion about the rules,
but also that I know more than I need to know already. I only became
interested in the offside rule when a ruling (clearly shown to be wrong in
the replay recordings) changed the course of one of the games, and my first
impression was that the rule itself was irrational. Clearly it's not
irrational, but it gives great power to the officials, particularly if the
ruling is not subject to review. And enough.
=============
Sympathy for the Turkish
devil,
Jerry
Spengler calls this piece "Sympathy for the Turkish
devil:"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF29Ak01.html
Here's his thesis: "It was not the European Community,
but rather the George W Bush administration, that pulled the rug out from
under Turkey's secularists and built up Erdogan as a paragon of "moderate
Islam". America's feckless nation-building policy in Iraq helped Turkey over
the edge into Islamism."
Provocative, yes? Then he backs it up, and arrives
here: "After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the George W Bush administration saw
no reason to back the Turkish generals who had let them down in Iraq, and
instead threw their backing to the Islamists, on the theory that Erdogan
represented a sort of "moderate Islam" that would provide an example to
other prospective democratic Muslim regimes. When Erdogan won parliamentary
elections in 2003, Bush invited him to the White House before he took
office, a gesture that persuaded most Turks that America had jettisoned its
erstwhile secular allies . . ."
Finally, this: "With the United States in full
strategic withdrawal, a Thirty Years War in western and central Asia seems
all the more likely."
Really choice, as usual, and explains some of your
disquietude at the Turkish situation.
Ed
Those were interesting times. Apparently few in the
administration understood that the Secularists in Turkey are not "moderate"
Islamics, nor did they actually have much information about Erdogan. The
system set up by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk was very nearly unique in political
history, and it lasted longer than most would have predicted.
We have not seen the end of this, alas. The
implications will continue for a long time. There is a large irredentist
movement in Turkey. Turkey remains a NATO ally. The combination may lead to
detestable consequences.
===========
Nigerians angry at oil pollution double standards- CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD
/africa/06/29/nigeria.oil/?fbid=hHrQdteNGca
CNN has a report on the web now that tries to blame
someone, we wonder who, on maintaining a double standard with respect to oil
pollution. It seems that Nigeria has a problem and feel that someone should
do something about it, as the pollution has gone on longer than the current
US Gulf Oil spill. Well the problem may be that the Nigerian government, if
there is such an institution, ignores oil pollution in exchange for
petrodollars. And the blame is the world's??? The fact that representative
government is susceptible to bribery and corruption, does not mean that the
world is responsible because we buy the oil. And Apple is under attack
because they cannot identify the source of minerals used in their equipment,
like tantalum used in capacitors. The media has gone mad; but that is
nothing new.
CBS
============
Re: What we didn't know about
Plato
You quoted the article from an article at the
University of Manchester: "The decoded messages also open up a surprising
way to unite science and religion. The awe and beauty we feel in nature,
Plato says, shows that it is divine; discovering the scientific order of
nature is getting closer to God. This could transform today’s culture wars
between science and religion."
This approach is neither surprising nor new. The idea
that we can come closer to God through the study of the natural world is a
commonplace teaching in Jewish writings, especially beginning in the Middle
Ages. Offhand, two major Jewish philosophers who discussed these ideas at
length are Maimonides (12th century) and Bachya ibn Paquda (11th century).
The concept is arguably of Biblical origin (Job 12:7-9, Isaiah 40:26, among
others). I don't know if this idea was recognized in the non-Jewish world (I
suspect it was), but certainly in the Jewish world the ultimate unity of
science and religion is "old-hat".
All the best. A fan and loyal reader,
Eliezer Abrahamson
Indeed
=============
: Natural Rights vs. Contract
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
The constitution has some points of resemblance to a
contract, certainly more than the fundamental laws of, say, Tsarist Russia,
Tokugawa Japan, or Wahhabi SAudi Arabia, but is not an actual contract.
Lysander Spooner pretty well demolished the claim that it is ("The
Constitution of No Authority").
But even supposing the Constitution to be a contract
to which we are parties, why ought we to abide by its terms. Is there a
natural law anterior to any and all human institutions and ordinances, that
men ought to keep to their contractual obligations?
Regards, Nicholas D. Rosen
Good government is a gift from God.
I do not find the abolitionist Spooner's arguments
compelling. His contention that the Constitution outlawed slavery although
it was drafted and adopted by slaveholders is interesting, but proves mostly
that the Framers were not proud of slavery and contemplated its possible
abolition by the states; and that they were quite circumspect in describing
institutions that allowed slavery precisely because a significant number of
the delegates were opposed to slavery and hoped for its eventual abolition.
To say that he demolished the authority of the Constitution may express your
admiration for his works, but it is not a conclusion widely accepted at the
time or since.
As to why we ought to abide by the Constitution's
terms: what means "ought?" Our modern philosophers would say that there is
no meaning to "ought"; to say "You ought to do X" is the exact equivalent of
shouting "X Hurrah!" The Constitution doesn't say such things; it does
establish rules, and requires that both Federal and State officials swear
allegiance to the Constitution. We expect those who swear allegiance to act
accordingly. The document provides means for removing those who are not
loyal to the Constitution from public office, and for forbidding them ever
again to hold public office. Beyond that, what can we say?
There was a time when every Sunday citizens would
hear something to the effect of "God spake these words and said" followed by
the Ten Commandments. The notion of reverence, respect for others and their
property, was "in the air" and would be disputed by few other than
cranks. Now we are told that the Commandments cannot appear in our
courtrooms. We have been given nothing as a substitute. We do have a vague
notion of virtue, but that too has many meanings.
Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and Justice are, in
the Western tradition, the four virtues from which we can infer right
action. The problem is that while we can mostly agree on the definitions of
Prudence, Temperance, and Courage, Justice is another matter. What is
justice, and why should we prize it?
In The Republic Plato tries to deal with the
proposition that it is better to appear to be just, and thus gain the
approval of those around you, while actually being unjust and a criminal. In
other words, that it's OK to be a villain so long as you get away with it.
This fundamental problem has never really been solved: how is there justice
if there is no fountain of justice? In 1787 it had not quite been 100 years
since 1688 and the "Glorious Revolution" in England that put a more or less
final end to the English Civil War that had resulted in the execution of the
King, the Commonwealth or Interregnum, the Restoration, the Monmouth
Rebellion, and a great deal of discussion and reflection by political
philosophers. The Framers put together what they hoped would endure: would
gain enough allegiance to build a nation of states.
For a long time that worked. It may be coming apart
now. When people begin to ask why they should obey the law, keep their word,
and generally be "just and upright" your Republic is already in trouble.
If the Constitution is not a Contract, what is it?
The Declaration said that governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed. It also enumerated rights and grievances. It was
explicitly not incorporated into the Constitution although the 9th and 10th
Amendments hinted that there might be "natural rights". The intent of the
Constitution was not to be a declaration of the rights of man; it was an
instrument of government.
===========
Nuking the Gulf Oil Leak
I'm not convinced this is optimum & looks like
overkill & at "roughly an 80 to 90%" not quire certain enough.. However as
various Russians are keen to point out it has been done before.
http://www.reuters.com/article/
idUSTRE6611RF20100702
Greenpeace's response "I would recommend that the
international community not listen to the Russia <http://www.reuters.com/places/russia>
ns. Especially those of them that offer crazy ideas. Russians are keen on
offering things, especially insane things." would seem racist if it wasn't
Greenpeace's Russian Office offering this advice.
As a society we are backing off from "crazy ideas."
Whether crazy or not it is crazier that such thoughts will not even get
public discussion of the pros & cons prior to being rejected.
Neil Craig
I don't know enough about underground nuclear
explosions to know what might happen, but it is not obvious to me that a
large nuclear explosion at the wellhead would in fact seal it. The pressures
are enormous, and the flow patterns are not easily predicted. Can the heat
from the blast seal the area or will the pressures blast a spout through the
bomb-created magma? I'd hate to write the Fortran model of those actions
even assuming that I have the equations right. I doubt anyone I know is
capable of predicting the outcome, and I have friends who have been in
charge of nuclear tests.
============
Subj: CAD Follies: Why did AirBus botch the wiring
design on its A380?
I remember reading about the botch, but only yesterday
learned the "why":
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/
blog/2006/09/a380_delayed_by.html
>>The German and Spanish offices still used Dassault
Systemes' CATIA 4, while the French and British offices had upgraded to
CATIA 5.<<
And it all went downhill from there.
Oops!
Rod Montgomery==monty@starfief.com
==========
Honey-laundering.
<http://www.irrawaddy.org/
print_article.php?art_id=18848>
- Roland Dobbins
===========
A new age for jurors,
Jerry
OK, the headline says this: N.J. suitcase killer
Melanie McGuire seeks new trial saying juror blogged about case. Interesting
little story of how New Jersey wives deal with their husbands when they tire
of them. But the story is more important than that.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/
2010/06/attorneys_for_melanie_mcguire.html
" . . . her attorneys are now asking for a new trial,
based on their contention one of the jurors may have posted comments about
the high-profile case on an online blog - perhaps even from inside the jury
room, using a cell phone." <snip>
"Cell phones and other wireless devices are allowed
inside jury rooms in New Jersey and most other states, although jurors are
not permitted to use them. They are not supposed to seek information about
the case outside the courtroom because it could be prejudicial, and must
consider only facts allowed as evidence.
"Yet thanks to a multitude of gadgets, a quick trip to
the bathroom now provides opportunity for jurors to look up a legal term
online or view a particular intersection using Google Maps. Because someone
could just as easily break the rules at home, most judges say confiscating
phones causes too many logistical problems and undue hardship on jurors."
<snip>
"For a lot of people, this is how we live. They don't
thoroughly understand what's wrong with this in the context of the judicial
system, because this is what they use to get information in every other
aspect of life."
And in Arkansas, a building products company asked an
appeals court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment, claiming a juror had
posted biased updates on Twitter during the trial. One read, "just gave away
TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money."
Defense attorneys for former Alabama Gov. Don
Siegelman, convicted on federal bribery charges, unsuccessfully argued last
year for a new trial because they said jurors had been emailing each other
as evidence was presented in court. This could not be proven, and a request
for records from an Internet service provider was ruled too intrusive.
In response to such problems, many federal judges
recently updated their jury instructions. Suggested directions released to
all federal judges earlier this year forbid jurors to discuss the case by a
long list of methods, including Blackberrys, iPhones, Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn and YouTube.
"At some point, it's going to sound silly, because
there's going to be so much social media out there and you can't list all of
them," said Charles Dewey Cole Jr., an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law
School.
No matter how much new technology becomes available,
he said, "you have to trust the people on the jury."
"I don't think that's so bad, because you're trusting
them with a lot of other things, too," he added. "You're trusting them to
make the right decision on the case."
Long ago jurors were expected to know all about a case
before it started. Now they are expected to know nothing except what they
are told. It may be that this latter model is now being rejected.
Ed
At the moment a jury consists largely of people who
do not want to avoid jury duty. Whether that makes for justice is hard to
determine. In DC it is almost impossible to obtain convictions on drug
charges; hung juries are common and many acquittals are contradictory to the
evidence.
The subject deserves a lengthy discussion I don't
have time for, but the future of juries and justice is an important subject.
====================w
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
