May 30, 1917
That much-vexed question of offside-throw is raised again by an “Anxious Correspondent,” who puts his case very fairly, and makes a palpable hit when he says it is foreign to the British nature to beat a man by running away from him. Here is the instructive letter: –
“Dear Bee, – I have often noticed in your always interesting column a defence of the tactics of certain well-known full-backs of undoubted ability who use the offside game as a means of defence. I quite appreciate your condemnation of the forward who persists in keeping offside, in spite of being repeatedly pulled up for the infringement.
“I quite agree, too, that forwards must use every endeavour to keep on-side and to defeat the backs by other un-stereotyped methods, so long as the present ruling stands.
“I am of decided opinion, however, that for the good of the game the existing rule calls for immediate revision.
“There is little doubt, to my point, that if the offside tactics were continually persisted in the death-knell of Association football would be rung, at any rate so far as the professional game is concerned.
“If you will come down from your lofty pedestal some day, and come among the “specs,“ I am certain you will understand the feeling that exists against this type of defensive play amongst the bulk of the spectators.
“Professional football cannot, of course, be carried on without strong support from the partisans of the game, and unless the game is carried on according to the true spirit of the game, support must suffer accordingly, and players, clubs, and the spectators themselves must suffer jointly, for there is little doubt that it is a fine form of relaxation for the tired worker.
“Whilst the full backs, in playing the offside game, are undoubtedly playing to the rules, I maintain that they are not playing to the spirit of the game.
“It is absolutely foreign to the British nature to beat an opponent by running away from him, and this is, naturally, what the spectators dislikes so much. Give is a good tackle or a hefty charge and we will pay our money cheerfully, but, for goodness sake, let us have football played in the true spirit of the game.
“The present rule, I am convinced, was introduced solely to give some measure of protection to the defence against the opposing forwards lying round the goal-mouth, and as was the case some years ago, bundling either ball or goalkeeper (or both) into the net.
“Nowadays the boot is on the other foot, and we see the defence unduly pampered. The forwards hardly dare to look at the goalkeeper for fear of being penalised, and it is a case of giving him breathing room continually.
“The backs are so protected that on their side of the halfway line one of them has only to tackle the man with the ball and the other to run forward in order to throw the other men of the line offside.
“This was recently brought prominently to our notice in the Everton v Leeds City game, when it might be said that the Leeds right back practically lived on this method of defence.
“One could hear the cries of ‘Play the game!’ shouted, and to my mind deservedly so, and I must confess that I was glad when I saw a distinct case of offside overlooked by the referee. Possibly it may have been wrong of me (according to the rules), but at any rate it did much to stop tactics which were being overdone and which were spoiling the game. The game had been brilliant up to the time of the adoption of the offside game, but during this period it was but a shadow of the real game.
“I have often noticed in the Press criticism of the referee who loves his whistle all too well, and who in consequence spoils the run of the game; but what shall we say of the player who consistently and deliberately spoils the game by his continual offside tactics, and above all, what shall we say of the rule that allows and protects him?
“What can be suggested as an improvement?
“I consider that the half-way line given the defence too much latitude in which to act, and I would welcome two more lines which could be called offside-lines, situated equidistant between the goal-line and the centre-line. You may say we have quite enough lines as it is; but I maintain that the extra lines would assist the poor, bewildered referee. It would not be necessary for him to bother with watching the players over to great an area, and would give him greater concentration in respect to the many other infringements which are not noticed owing to his multifold duties.”
It is good to find a complainant who is not alone destructive but comes forward with a constructive plan. I dislike tinkering with rules, but must confess I like his idea of quartering a football ground so that only one quarter should be concerned with offside methods. All through I resolutely battle against those who decry McCracken and Co. for using the rules tactfully, and I think forwards who cannot learn to keep behind the ball should not be classed as professors. Perhaps my legion of correspondents will join in the discussion and give me their verdicts.
(Liverpool Echo: May 30, 1917)
XX
"Play Up, Liverpool" 