Thesis 1: More goals would be good for football
Thesis 2: The current interpretation of the rules disadvantages the attackers
Thesis 3: The application of existing rules is sufficient to ensure more goals.
Thesis 4: Basically, everyone feels that the attackers are disadvantaged, but no one dares to say so. Because: one could only say it in the form “I feel it” without being able to explain the causes. But there is a very logical derivation, offered here.
Secondary thesis 1: Penalties are perhaps the wrong punishment for infringements of the rules committed by defending players in their own penalty area, since the upgrading of the goal-scoring opportunity from minimal to enormous — given in most such cases — is perceived as too high and therefore the whistle is not blown, regardless of the recognition of the infringement of the rules.
Second hypothesis 2: Offside is a sensible rule in principle, but its implementation is the problem. The rule modification “in case of doubt for the attacker” enforced by the USA in 1994 would be the solution, provided it was adhered to.
Secondary hypothesis 3: “Knowledge of the rules and their lightning-quick application and implementation” are commonly regarded as decisive for refereeing decisions. However, they are not primarily so. The referee prefers to make decisions in such a way that he gets off lightly, does not attract attention, makes a “justifiable” decision and is spared the media as much as possible.
Secondary hypothesis 4: The decisions that prevent goal actions or goals are the clearly “preferred” ones, in which one comes off better. The referee has little to fear when he (wrongly) interprets against a goal and much to fear when he wrongly interprets for a goal. Since he does not know at the moment of his decision, cannot be sure what the later assessment of the scene will be in general, he prefers to decide against the goal, against the goal situation. He prefers offside, he prefers no penalty, he prefers a foul on the striker. With these whistles, “I don’t make a fuss”. Even if I am judged wrong: I have to expect a lenient judgement.