Would Americans Like Soccer Better if There Was a Shot Clock?

[fessie]

In the thread on surprising cultural changes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410524) nobody mentioned how much basketball has changed. It seems like college teams play with the skill and intensity that used to be associated with the NBA. I remember when Bobby Knight's Hoosiers went undefeated in 1976 and how they played in a completely different style, full of strategy and defense, very intentional - much more like soccer.

Clearly people weren't satisfied with that kind of play, so the shot clock was instituted. And now the game is more popular than ever.

Would a 3-minute (+/-) shot clock make soccer more popular in America?



Of course, it would probably also get us invaded by everyone else on the planet - "Those damn Americans, first they dropped the atom bomb, then they destroyed the climate, and then...then...they fucked up soccer! Barbarians! Kill them all!"

[asterion]

How do you define a shot, though? In basketball, the shot clock resets when a basket is made or the ball hits the rim. I can't come up with a good way to define a shot in soccer.

[Snooooopy]

I might like it better if they got rid of offsides.

Or if aliens invaded and insituted the death penalty for playing soccer. But that doesn't seem as likely.

[asterion]

I might like it better if they got rid of offsides. I agree, that would be a much better rule change.

And make it more like hockey. I want to see open-field checking and fighting.

And make the freaking clock official and make it run the correct way.

[Mesquite-oh]

It wouldn't matter if soccer had a shot clock. I say get rid of the goal keeper :D . How boring would basketball be if Yao Ming just stood in front of the goal and just swatted the ball away? (answer: it would be so boring that people would start clapping and ooohing and aahing when someone got even close to scoring and the final scores would be like 1-0 after 2 hours of play)

[Snarky_Kong]

If you get rid of offsides then you just have defenders that stay back and defend instead of going forward and attacking. There'd be less scoring than there currently is.

Here's what would make soccer more appealing to Americans. You dive, embellish, or argue with the ref you get a yellow card. First time, no warnings. You knew what you were doing when you flopped just outside the penalty box, you do it again and you get kicked out. Also, penalties should be able to be levied after the fact by looking at the tapes. Sometimes a ref will make a mistake about a dive or a foul. Give the player a fine after the game. That'd reduce downtime by a ton, and if games were reffed better attacking players wouldn't be mugged so badly and would succeed more.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think they should let you use your hands. Instead of a net, just make it that you have to carry the ball across some kind of a line to score. There should be some kind of tackling rule that says the play is dead only after you bring the ball carrier completely down to the ground. There should be some kind of rules about throwing the ball forward, but you might have to change the shape of the ball to make it more aerodynamic. My vision of the game would be pretty physical, so the players would probably have to wear pads. You could still have some kicking, but only like to start the game or maybe there could be some kind of point scoring alternative involving a kick if the team with the ball can't get close enough to the scoring line.

I have other ideas but that would be a start.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I agree, that would be a much better rule change.

And make it more like hockey. I want to see open-field checking and fighting.

And make the freaking clock official and make it run the correct way.The clock IS official, but the timekeeper is the referee. It you let other people decide when to add time to make up for stoppages then you take away the control of the match from the referee.

Eliminating offside would be a terrible thing to do to soccer. You would have people just standing around at the other end of the field just waiting to capitalize on a random, lucky ball popping out toward them. Ugly. It would be a little like eliminating the 10-second line AND eliminating over-and-back at the same time, in basketball.

Fighting is good in boxing, not in a game like soccer.

[Cyberhwk]

Here's what would make soccer more appealing to Americans. You dive, embellish, or argue with the ref you get a yellow card. First time, no warnings. You knew what you were doing when you flopped just outside the penalty box, you do it again and you get kicked out. Exactly. I'm not a big soccer fan, but I'm a self admitted junkie for the international competitions. I do remember getting up at 4:30AM on a Saturday to watch the US play two World Cups ago.

During the last World Cup I stopped giving a shit whether we won or lost, at least we didn't drop and cry like a little bitch every time we were touched. I took more pride in this picture (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41780000/jpg/_41780300_mcbride270.jpg) than if we would have won the whole damn thing. I'm 100% serious.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

If you get rid of offsides then you just have defenders that stay back and defend instead of going forward and attacking. There'd be less scoring than there currently is.

Here's what would make soccer more appealing to Americans. You dive, embellish, or argue with the ref you get a yellow card. First time, no warnings. You knew what you were doing when you flopped just outside the penalty box, you do it again and you get kicked out. Also, penalties should be able to be levied after the fact by looking at the tapes. Sometimes a ref will make a mistake about a dive or a foul. Give the player a fine after the game. That'd reduce downtime by a ton, and if games were reffed better attacking players wouldn't be mugged so badly and would succeed more.I am very much a soccer purist and I am loathe to see major changes made to the game. But, it may be be time to move to another system of officiating, Perhaps a 2 or 3 referee system like basketball.

The way the Laws of the Game read right now you are supposed to be cautioned for those dives, embellishments and arguments with the ref. It's just that FIFA and other FAs don't have the referees cracking down hard enough.

I would love to see people cautioned and sent off far more quickly, but there is a risk of losing too many players in one match. As much as it pains me to envision it, soccer might have to move to some kind of penalty box system. The resulting power plays would be appropriate punishments for harsh fouls, but not so severe as to completely change the tactics and scoring chances for the remainder of the match.

[GorillaMan]

I think they should let you use your hands. Instead of a net, just make it that you have to carry the ball across some kind of a line to score....here should be some kind of rules about throwing the ball forward...
Maybe stop it being too easy, by requiring all throws to be aganst the direction of play? That'd mean a lot of players would have to be coordinated in order to gain ground on the opposition. And tackling...well, OK, bring them to the ground, but continue play, allowing the other players to form a shield around the ball if they can..... ;)


These threads surface occassionally. And they're ridiculous. Don't like soccer? Don't watch it. Like fast-scoring sports? Go watch something else. This idea that Americans have an inherent inability to cope with a sport which doesn't have a shot every few seconds is silly.

Make any of these changes, and you turn it into a fundamentally different game. If you enjoy the resulting game, then fine. But don't claim that it's soccer. Americans don't, in general, like soccer because they're not, in general, familiar enough with it (which isn't a criticism, just an observation). I find basketball and ice hockey to be duller than watching paint dry, because I can't quite follow enough of the intricacies of the game. Knowing 'a goal is when the ball enters the net' isn't enough to be able to follow 90 minutes of soccer.

[GorillaMan]

I took more pride in this picture (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41780000/jpg/_41780300_mcbride270.jpg) than if we would have won the whole damn thing. I'm 100% serious.
I'll raise you this (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/owainsutton/Butcher.jpg).

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Cyberhwk!! GorillaMan!! stop showing those photographs THIS INSTANT!

First off, you'll scare all those suburban soccer moms out of letting their delicate children join those piss-poor, recreational soccer leagues.

Second, you might force all those American "RealMen" to reconsider their blind, meat-head conviction that soccer is "a sport for pussies".



Hmmm.... on re-reading what I just wrote I realized that American Dads and American Moms both mistakenly think that soccer is a sissy sport.

It's just that while that makes the dads HATE it, it makes the moms LOVE it!

They just don't really understand the way of the game and probably never will. Oh well.

[Bryan Ekers]

Cut the field to half or a third of its current size. Overpopulation intensifies conflict.

[Malacandra]

The clock IS official, but the timekeeper is the referee. It you let other people decide when to add time to make up for stoppages then you take away the control of the match from the referee.

Eliminating offside would be a terrible thing to do to soccer. You would have people just standing around at the other end of the field just waiting to capitalize on a random, lucky ball popping out toward them. Ugly. It would be a little like eliminating the 10-second line AND eliminating over-and-back at the same time, in basketball.


Ditto that. Football (soccer, OK) didn't have offside to begin with; it was introduced to eliminate what ILMVI is describing. In kiddie games peer pressure against "goal-hanging" is enough, but that wouldn't work in a serious game. :)

You could eliminate offside, and you could let players use their hands, and eliminate goalkeepers. In that case you probably need to make the game more of a challenge by making the goal smaller and in the horizontal plane, not vertical. Then you might as well eliminate some of the players and bring the whole thing indoors so you can play when it's wet outside, and don't need studded boots which can cause injuries.

[glee]

I don't understand why Americans don't like rugby sevens more.

- there's a score every minute at least
- every player is constantly involved
- the scoring is easy
- a match only lasts 15 minutes (with a half-time break), so you can show commercials every 7 minutes

[fessie]

For the record, I happen to love soccer - at my high school, that's what the best athletes played, and they were outstanding. Both our men's and women's teams competed at State level - the men's team won one year.

Friday night football games, nobody paid attention and the place was half-empty. On Saturday nights, though, the place was packed and everyone was watching the soccer game. I saw one of our wings outmaneuver a fullback and avoid a collision by doing a mid-air somersault, and then pick up the ball right where he left off.

Several of my girlfriends were on the women's team, including one sweet gal who's still absolutely gorgeous. She had to get back in the car when we stopped for gas at the corner of North and Clark a couple of years ago, because she was actually stopping traffic and was gonna cause a wreck. But in high school they had to kick her off the team. She was an excellent player, but she was SO vicious, so mean, she'd get red-carded every game.

I wasn't any good, just played at the local league level - but it was fun!

Anyway, my husband always complains about sports that favor defensive play at the expense of scoring. He doesn't "get" soccer at all. He would've hated old-time baseball games, with the special tricks pitchers used to use.

[RickJay]

If you want to make soccer more popular in the United States, you need to get rid of one of the other major team sports, or change history. It's not an issue of the game being boring; Americans love some of the slowest games around. The two most popular team spectator sports, football and baseball, are games where in three hours you're lucky to see twelve minutes of actual play. And all the popular sports have some sort of issue with play or rules. Basketball is still a foulfest in the last minute of any close game. Hockey still doesn't correctly enforce half of its rules. Football games are preposterously long, horribly officiated, and devoid of action. Baseball has slowed down tremendously in the last thirty years for no good reason at all.

It's just that soccer doesn't occupy the place in the history of North American pro sports that have been taken by baseball, football, basketball, etc.

[Hampshire]

I'd probably me more apt to watch and follow soccer if they had a way of giving a slight edge to team's offences. A game with a final score of 7-9 would probably be thrilling to watch.
Given that a typical soccer game has a score like 2-0 means not much in the way of excitement for the typical American. Even when baseball games have scores like 1-2 they are usually labeled a "snoozer".

Basketball has the opposite problem. Too much scoring then why bother watching the thing till the last 5 minutes of the 2nd half.

[Trunk]

I'll raise you this (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/owainsutton/Butcher.jpg).
I'll raise YOU, this (http://www.fiveaside.no/rediger/images/vinnie_jones_01.jpg).

I'm with RickJay.

There's just no single rule change or reason that's going to make Americans all of a sudden like soccer. It's not the low scoring aspect. It's not the diving/acting aspect. Every single sport just can't be popular here. We're loaded with sports as it is, and we have them all year round.

And, we have a long history with all of our tribes set in place with the other sports. . .teams that our fathers and grandfathers followed. Following sports is so much more than just the design of the individual games themselves.

[Malacandra]

I'd probably me more apt to watch and follow soccer if they had a way of giving a slight edge to team's offences. A game with a final score of 7-9 would probably be thrilling to watch.
Given that a typical soccer game has a score like 2-0 means not much in the way of excitement for the typical American. Even when baseball games have scores like 1-2 they are usually labeled a "snoozer".


See, there I'm puzzled as to why cricket wouldn't be more popular Stateside. You've got the ball being delivered about 90 times an hour, probably being hit at least every other minute, and in a typical good-standard one-day game you're quite likely to see 4-500 runs scored in a day and probably 15+ batsmen out, including a number of catches held with bare hands. No more than half an hour of the whole day's play is taken up with fresh batsmen coming in to bat, and you'll likely see several "home runs" every day too. You don't get to see double plays and triple plays, 'cos there can be only one "out" per ball, tops, but our run-outs must be at least as exciting as yours and with the possibility of a spectacular "direct hit" once in a while.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Ah, there's no need for cricket. We've already got baseball and that's boring enough.

And as for there being no room for sponsorship in soccer? HELLO!?! Do you think European football is a charity event? Their clubs make millions by advertising on the shirts. Every single guy who walks around wearing the shirt is also a walking billboard. Not only does it work during the game, but also when some guy walks around in the shirt. I know it's not the American way to advertise things on shirts, but hey, they do it in Nascar, so it's possible. Also the walls have ads on them. Plus the pitch sometimes.

I just think Americans have different taste in sports. Football and baseball, for example have dead time. But when it does pick up, it's pretty exciting. Football is very strategic, which gets you discussing it with your friends in the downtime. Soccer could be I guess.

But yes, this diving crap has to go. It totally confuses the hell out of me. I'm so sick of seeing idiots running around grabbing their faces. It's so goddamned childish! They act like little kids tattling on some guy that hurt them in (American) football at recess. We played rough when we were kids, and if you got hurt, you pretended you weren't because you didn't want to be the one who got football banned for a week. Arguing with the Ref with exaggerated hand gestures...

[Santo Rugger]

I agree, that would be a much better rule change.

And make it more like hockey. I want to see open-field checking and fighting.

And make the freaking clock official and make it run the correct way.

By the correct way, you mean backward?

I don't understand why Americans don't like rugby sevens more.

- there's a score every minute at least
- every player is constantly involved
- the scoring is easy
- a match only lasts 15 minutes (with a half-time break), so you can show commercials every 7 minutes


Because people don't like to watch a sport they don't play, and 7s rugby is HARD! Well, if you usually play prop in 15s, that is.

To answer the OP: I think a smaller field would make it more exciting to watch. I used to play indoor soccer, so the pitch was as big as two basketball courts side-to-side. It did, in fact, make it much more like hockey, and was more fun, IMHO, to watch.

[John DiFool]

The problem with soccer is as follows:

In American football, if you were to put 12 guys on the field (without making the field bigger
and/or giving the offense some advantages-c.f. Canadian football) then the resultant zone
defenses would pretty much squelch the long passing game.

In baseball, if you had 10 fielders (not 9 fielders and a DH), the resultant 4th outfielder would
cause batting averages to drop towards the Mendoza Line.

In hockey, with 6 skaters (+ goalie), the resultant traffic jams and obstacles (=other players)
would cause the game's pace to grind to a halt, and 1-0 shootout games would be very
common (in the postseason you'd be playing 3-5 extra periods before a score).

In basketball, 6 player zone defenses would result...you get the idea.

In soccer, the extra players end up doing the same basic thing as the extra players do in
the hypothetical examples above. Over time each of the above 4 sports have "evolved" in
a sense so that there's a good balance between defense and offense (and indeed there
are occasional rule changes-not involving player #s-which attempt to redress said balance
when it goes off-kilter for one reason or another, and have been for 100 years+ now).
IIRC American football originally had much more than 11 on a side, and the games were
massacres.

For some strange reason in soccer there was no such evolution in terms of player numbers
and/or other changes to help the offense. I am convinced that with the current rule set
8 or 9 would be a more optimal number. I dislike the offsides rule, because unlike the blue
lines in hockey there's no objective mark on the field to tell you where the offsides is-and
you get that inane offsides trap stuff, where offensive players are in effect penalized for
getting a good jump on a arguably lazy defense. But I see no better alternative (blue lines
or the equivalent would seem very much out of place). Guess I just prefer a game
with a faster pace.

Hockey (w/8 players) on a frozen soccer-sized rink would rule...

[silenus]

I just think Americans have different taste in sports.

Exactly. All the attempts to get Merkins to enbrace soccer are futile and downright annoying. So what if the rest of the world revolves around what we consider to be a silly, sissy sport? Since when did we care?

As for cricket.......that's what ESPN4 is for! :D

[Sal Ammoniac]

I agree with GorillaMan. The suggestion that soccer is unpopular in the U.S. because it's "defective" is nonsense. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and it's that way for a reason. And I can't prove it, but I think soccer is worming its way little by little into the American sporting consciousness, and will end up by being a big deal here. I don't buy the argument that there's no room for it in the sporting ecology. If that were true, then where the hell did Nascar come from?

[Ichbin Dubist]

Speaking as an American, the field is too big and as a result the players look too small on TV. I always feel like I'm spying on something from a nearby mountain.

Also speaking as an American, adopting World Cup soccer as your sport of choice would be like a Brazilian deciding he's going to be a Cubs fan.

By the way, I occasionally play baseball and softball, and I'd love a chance to play cricket. When I lived in Jersey City I'd occasionally see Indian and Pakistani guys playing inside a fenced-in tennis court, but it seemed more like they were just having batting practice.

Rugby not so much. I wear glasses, seems like a bad idea.

[fessie]

The suggestion that soccer is unpopular in the U.S. because it's "defective" is nonsense.

Which is why I didn't say that. :rolleyes:

I think Americans grow bored with lengthy strategizing and maneuvering - we want to see the shot. And the more muscular, the better. It might be necessary to shrink the field a bit in order to accommodate it, but I think a shot clock would change soccer much as it has collegiate basketball.

[Gangster Octopus]

I think they should let you use your hands. Instead of a net, just make it that you have to carry the ball across some kind of a line to score. There should be some kind of tackling rule that says the play is dead only after you bring the ball carrier completely down to the ground. There should be some kind of rules about throwing the ball forward, but you might have to change the shape of the ball to make it more aerodynamic. My vision of the game would be pretty physical, so the players would probably have to wear pads. You could still have some kicking, but only like to start the game or maybe there could be some kind of point scoring alternative involving a kick if the team with the ball can't get close enough to the scoring line.

I have other ideas but that would be a start.

Another idea (http://leftfieldsports.com/archives/story01_05.htm)

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I love soccer. You know what you could do to get me to like it better? Let me watch the elite clubs play on a regular basis. I'm loving the ESPN UEFA coverage; if there was more available I'd watch more.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Speaking as an American, the field is too big and as a result the players look too small on TV. I always feel like I'm spying on something from a nearby mountain.Yes. It does seem that way sometimes. A problem we have here in the states is that when an American TV crew is used to do the camera work and directing etc. for a soccer match they generally don't know the game very well, if at all. Any videographer will tell you that if you don't know what is happening in front of you or what to expect next, shoot the scene a little wider.

The game is just shot too loose in America. Plus, the director doesn't fully understand the flow so he doesn't know how to make crisp camera changes. It really hurts the presentation of the game from the fans point of view.

This doesn't even get into how HORRIBLE the U.S. announcers are. And this is even when the color folks have played at the international level. They simply don't know how to call a match properly. And the play-by-play guys..... YIKES! The best announcing crew during the last World Cup on ABC / ESPN was the British / Irish crew and they were the crew used LEAST! The very WORST crew (Marcus Balboa and J.P. Dellacamera) was the lead crew who did all the big games including the final.

[The Librarian]

Would a 3-minute (+/-) shot clock make soccer more popular in America? Of course, it would probably also get us invaded by everyone else on the planet - "Those damn Americans, first they dropped the atom bomb, then they destroyed the climate, and then...then...they fucked up soccer! Barbarians! Kill them all!" Answer 1 : NO
Answer 2 : Look what you did to crickett and rugby, does it look like we care?
I might like it better if they got rid of offsides.Defending your goal by stepping AWAY from it has a subtle elegance wasted on people who think you play football with your hands .And make the freaking clock official and make it run the correct way. We silly football-fans know how long a match lasts.Here's what would make soccer more appealing to Americans. You dive, embellish, or argue with the ref you get a yellow card. First time, no warnings. You knew what you were doing when you flopped just outside the penalty box, you do it again and you get kicked out. Also, penalties should be able to be levied after the fact by looking at the tapes. Sometimes a ref will make a mistake about a dive or a foul. Give the player a fine after the game. That'd reduce downtime by a ton, and if games were reffed better attacking players wouldn't be mugged so badly and would succeed more. The thing that makes soccer great is the injustice of a fallable ref. One of the greatest, most talked about moments in football is one where the whole world minus one referee saw Maradonna's hand touch the ball. You want to videotape the controversy out of football and then people will like it MORE? :smack:
These threads surface occassionally. And they're ridiculous. Don't like soccer? Don't watch it. Like fast-scoring sports? Go watch something else. This idea that Americans have an inherent inability to cope with a sport which doesn't have a shot every few seconds is silly. Who are you who are so wise in the ways of SDMB-science? ;)

[Frosted Glass]

I love soccer. You know what you could do to get me to like it better? Let me watch the elite clubs play on a regular basis. I'm loving the ESPN UEFA coverage; if there was more available I'd watch more.

I second that. Every now and then I get to see some Champions League coverage but since I have left NJ I rarely see any televised matches. Back home growing up, I could turn on Telemundo and watch games on most weekends so that was always fun. I couldn't speak a lick of Spanish but I really enjoyed the coverage. If you televise more talented teams, then people will develop an interest. There is no need to change the rules, IMHO, just a need to increase exposure.

[Yookeroo]

I love soccer. You know what you could do to get me to like it better? Let me watch the elite clubs play on a regular basis. I'm loving the ESPN UEFA coverage; if there was more available I'd watch more.

Fox Soccer Channel? Telemundo? Sentanta? GolTV?

There's a ton of soccer on TV nowadays.

I do agree that the way that timekeeping is handled in soccer is incredibly lame and open to abuse. And the whole foul/penalty/reward system could use a re-working.

[GorillaMan]

I do agree that the way that timekeeping is handled in soccer is incredibly lame and open to abuse.
The whole "referee as final arbiter" concept seems to be another part of the America/Europe divide. The referee being the official timekeeper is one part of this. Also bear in mind that another principle affects this: that the same rules are used at every level of the game. So referee+watch is the timekeeper both in the Premiership and in amateur sunday league matches. (This argument also affects things such as video replay, goal-line detection, etc.)

And the whole foul/penalty/reward system could use a re-working.
Please do elaborate!

[brianjedi]

I don't buy the argument that there's no room for it in the sporting ecology. If that were true, then where the hell did Nascar come from?

NASCAR just replaced open-wheel racing as the dominant form of motorsport in the United States because A) ESPN was able to get broadcast rights cheaply and it filled a lot of time on the schedule and B) American open-wheel shot itself in the foot with the IRL/CART split.

Daytona is more relevant now than Indy, which wasn't the case as recently as 10 or 15 years ago.

[Rysto]

The referee being the official timekeeper is one part of this. Also bear in mind that another principle affects this: that the same rules are used at every level of the game.
Ugh. The International Ice Hockey Federation(hockey equivalent of FIFA) does this. It results in ridiculous rules like "if the puck strikes the goalie in the mask, play is called dead" being enforced at the highest level of the game.

[Shagnasty]

I would like to see the players be free to use their hands but..... using your hands means other players are free to tackle them while they are holding it. If you say that isn't one of the best ideas you ever heard, I doubt you will ever tell a bigger lie.

[GorillaMan]

Ugh. The International Ice Hockey Federation(hockey equivalent of FIFA) does this. It results in ridiculous rules like "if the puck strikes the goalie in the mask, play is called dead" being enforced at the highest level of the game.
You're comparing apples and oranges, if you're going to come out with specific examples of individual rules. And in any case, it's the enforcement of deliberately-vague and catch-all rules which allows the system to work: unsporting behaviour in a professional match is not the same as unsporting behaviour in an amateur one.

[Arch Trout]

I would like to see the players be free to use their hands but..... using your hands means other players are free to tackle them while they are holding it. If you say that isn't one of the best ideas you ever heard, I doubt you will ever tell a bigger lie.

It's a terrible idea.
I presume you're joking.

It's called football for a reason. Anyone other than the goalkepper using their hands would ruin the game.

[RickJay]

Answer 2 : Look what you did to crickett and rugby, does it look like we care?
Baseball isn't derived from cricket.

Defending your goal by stepping AWAY from it has a subtle elegance wasted on people who think you play football with your hands.
I hate to sound like I'm siding with the soccer-haters because I am not, but this is really the one structural problem soccer does have. Allowing defensive players the ability to manipulate a rule solely to negate superior play by the opposition is an absolutely perfect example of a rule that SHOULD be changed. The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn't meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that; it was implemented for a different reason, and the intentional offsides play was an unintended consequence. Hockey, on the other hand, has a vastly superior offsides rule because it accomplishes the intent of offsides rules (eliminating cherry-picking) while forbidding defenders from using it to save themselves from their own mistakes or lack of ability.

No sport is made perfect. Sports are human inventions and it's ignorance and hubris to suggest that a sport must be perfectly designed just because it always has been the way it is. Basketball would be an unplayable mess if they hadn't changed the rules; every game would end 2-0 if you didn't have a shot clock. Hockey was improved by the addition of any number of rules. There's no reason to assume soccer must always be the way happens to be right now.

Look, I am an absolutely passionate, lifelong baseball fan, and I know it's tempting to defend your sport of choice and say it's perfect, but I'm man enough to know baseball ISN'T perfect, and it's probably time to consider some major rule changes. There's not a doubt in my mind that soccer would be improved by implementing a fixed offside boundary, like hockey. I don't think this just because scores would go up (though they likely would slightly) but because it would focus more emphasis on skill of play, where it belongs.

It would, to paraphrase Bill James (who was talking about basketball) get the defenders to stop screwing around and play soccer.

The thing that makes soccer great is the injustice of a fallable ref.
Horseshit.

The thing that makes soccer great is the beauty and skill of the game. Great players making great plays is what makes soccer great.

Field officials in any sport are best when you don't notice them at all.

[Arch Trout]

The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn't meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that

I'm confused.

If the defender is beaten it means the ball carrier is past him. Presumably on his way to shoot at goal.
What's that got to do with the offside rule?

Maybe the defender is beaten and there is another player ahead of the attacker?
Ok, it might be nice to pass to him but as there's no other defender there the ball carrier may as well have the shot. Shouldn't make too much difference.

Is the superior skill you're talking about the ability of an attacker to run past a defender? I don't see that as superior skill as football isn't always about running fast, and neither should it be.

[The Librarian]

Horseshit.

The thing that makes soccer great is the beauty and skill of the game.

Sorry, I meant to say "one of the things"

Allowing defensive players the ability to manipulate a rule solely to negate superior play by the opposition is an absolutely perfect example of a rule that SHOULD be changed. The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn't meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that; it was implemented for a different reason, and the intentional offsides play was an unintended consequence. Hockey, on the other hand, has a vastly superior offsides rule because it accomplishes the intent of offsides rules (eliminating cherry-picking) while forbidding defenders from using it to save themselves from their own mistakes or lack of ability

How is standing nearer to the goal than the defender in the moment your teammate passes the ball 'superior skill'? We call it 'not paying attention'.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Fox Soccer Channel? Telemundo? Sentanta? GolTV?

There's a ton of soccer on TV nowadays.

Not on my TV there isn't. I have basic cable, and I don't get any of those channels. I've never even heard of the latter two. Yookeroo, exactly what and how much do you have access to? Is any of it on regular basic or digital cable?

I'm sure there's a ton of soccer available for a premium somewhere, but was under the impression I'd have to change my provider and/or spend triple what I spend now to get it. A friend of mine used to get Fox Soccer as part of his package but their coverage changed or something so that's gone too.

On my TV, the only soccer I get regularly is Serie A games on some Italian channel once a week. And I watch them. Every now and then a Premiership game will come on in the middle of the night on Comcast Sportsnet (that's our version of Fox Sportsnet; West Ham was on this week), but as far as I can tell it's totally random. And Univision has Mexican games sometimes. The point is, when I know there's a game between premiere teams somewhere on the dial, I watch it, but there's nothing regularly available. So every four years I go nuts because the World Cup is giving me world class soccer on a regular basis, and then I kind of have to just follow scores on the internet the rest of the time. It's hard to really get into it when you have no idea when or if you're going to see a particular team play. Even a fucking highlight show would be a big deal. Not like Sportscenter even runs match results on the Bottom Line -- otherwise I wouldn't be able to read the same women's basketball scores 12 times an hour (and of course as I type the UEFA scores are on the Bottom Line... but those are on ESPN for once).

Speaking of that, I don't even have ESPN Classic anymore for some reason, so even though ESPN is covering the UEFA, since they're on ESPN2, ESPN Deportes, and ESPN Classic, I get to watch one game per day in total.

Wow, I didn't start out angry but I got here somehow.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I don't see that as superior skill as football isn't always about running fast, and neither should it be.You are correct. Football (known as soccer in America) isn't just about running fast. It's also about kicking the ball forward as haaaaaaard as you can. Always forward!! We don't want no sissy loss of yards!! PROGRESS, dammit, this is AMERICA!!!!

And hey, (not you Arch Trout) it's just a little thing but it bugs me: it's OFFSIDE not "offsides". While we're at it, and in case there are any American network soccer announcers in here who would like a little tip, there is no "sideline" in soccer, it is called a "touchline". Similarly, there is no "end line" it is called a "goal line".

You might roll your eyes and say "What difference does it make? You're being too picky!" Well, perhaps so. But imagine if the announcers in American football called the sideline a "touchline". Wouldn't that give you some doubt about if they really knew much about the more advanced and nuanced aspects of the game if they couldn't even call the sideline by its proper name?

[hr_realist]

I think they should let you use your hands. Instead of a net, just make it that you have to carry the ball across some kind of a line to score. There should be some kind of tackling rule that says the play is dead only after you bring the ball carrier completely down to the ground. There should be some kind of rules about throwing the ball forward, but you might have to change the shape of the ball to make it more aerodynamic. My vision of the game would be pretty physical, so the players would probably have to wear pads. You could still have some kicking, but only like to start the game or maybe there could be some kind of point scoring alternative involving a kick if the team with the ball can't get close enough to the scoring line.

I have other ideas but that would be a start.

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World...

[Malacandra]

It's a terrible idea.
I presume you're joking.

It's called football for a reason. Anyone other than the goalkepper using their hands would ruin the game.

Well, Gaelic football works, from the little I've seen of it.

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World...

Big talk about a country that hasn't won the World Cup in 20 years! :p

[si_blakely]

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World...yeah, but without the pads, cause kiwis are tough.

;)

Si

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

You want to improve soccer? Allow unlimited substitutions and allow players who leave to come back into the game as often as they like. The problem with soccer is that at many points in the game, most players are standing around catching their breath. A soccer game can be very exciting during the moments when there are real scoring opportunities. Case in point: I've been in rooms with die-hard European and South American soccer fans watching the World Cup games on the big screen. At many points, they get into conversations and aren't really fully paying attention to the game. But when a corner kick is about to occur, all eyes are glued to the screen. Needless to say, the same goes for a penalty kick.

The strongest teams in Europe (and many national teams) have extremely deep benches. Oftentimes, some of their best players never even get into the games.

Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of truth in this parody (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/158724/simpson_soccer_riot/) .

[GargoyleWB]

You want to improve soccer? Allow unlimited substitutions...

No. One of the truly nice things about soccer, compared to american sports, is the constantly running clock. Substitutions and time outs get manic in the final seconds of basketball and football, and are often done to intentionally freeze play, or burn time from the clock. Going deep into your bench just waters down and homogenizes the talent on the field. If your star player can't hack the running, then he/she shouldn't be playing.

It would be far more dramatic for basketball, IMO, if they subbed like soccer. Lets see some genuine tactical lineups and player selections, instead of shotgunning endless subs onto the court because your big guy gets winded in 3 minutes.

[asterion]

Well, how about making all substitutions like line changes in hockey, with play not stopping for the substitution and the player coming off the field having to be all the way off before the substituting player can get on the field?

[GorillaMan]

Unlimited substitutions? That's missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality. No good having a top striker if they don't have a good understanding of how the midfield are working as a unit. If your back line aren't able to function as one, then any time the opposition get into your half, you're screwed. Remind/acquaint yourself with the best goal ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HrjevD2vhk) (no arguments because I say so), which couldn't have happened if any player hadn't been aware of where everyone else was and also what they would do next.

The problem with soccer is that at many points in the game, most players are standing around catching their breath.
You must be watching some rubbish teams! You're right that there's plenty of moments which have less tension. The only difference is these are included as part of the flow of the game, rather than the stop-start nature of baseball or American football. Those people chatting away will have half an eye on the screen and will be aware of when something's building up, and you might find them cut off the conversation as a result.

[Snooooopy]

When was the last really significant change to the rules of soccer?

[Arch Trout]

When was the last really significant change to the rules of soccer?

I think it was the 2000/2001 season that introduced the six second rule for goalkeepers.

The goalkeeper can take as many steps as he likes as long as he releases the ball from his hands within six seconds.

The offisde rule has been recently tweaked (2 years ago?) so that an attacker not intefering with play is not called offside.

[GorillaMan]

The offisde rule has been recently tweaked (2 years ago?) so that an attacker not intefering with play is not called offside.
...but can subsequently be called offside if he is involved in play without going onside in the interim, IIRC.

I've no idea when the last fundamental rule (called law) was changed. All sorts of tweaks go on all the time - backpasses to keepers, definitions of fouls, etc. But the principles remain the same, not least because of their simplicity.

[Yookeroo]

The whole "referee as final arbiter" concept seems to be another part of the America/Europe divide. The referee being the official timekeeper is one part of this. Also bear in mind that another principle affects this: that the same rules are used at every level of the game. So referee+watch is the timekeeper both in the Premiership and in amateur sunday league matches. (This argument also affects things such as video replay, goal-line detection, etc.)

That the referee + watch is the timekeeper isn't the problem. The fact that only he knows what the official time is is. Give us a visible, official clock. Hiding the official time when it's unnecessary is dumb.

Please do elaborate!

For example, every penal foul in the penalty area results in an almost certain goal. This is clearly unfair. So much so that it is rare for a referee to award a PK on fouls on the edge of the PA, fouls clearly in the PA are spotted outside the area. There are many clear fouls commited in the area, fouls that would be called anywhere else on the field, that are ignored because they are in the PA (handling the ball is one that seems to be ignored the most). Clearly the PK is much too harsh a punishment for many fouls in the PA.

Meanwhile, the punishment for hard fouls commited on the opponent's side of the field is tiny. A direct free kick from your own 18 gains you almost nothing. It's only when the foul becomes a cautionable offense that it becomes a real punishment.

Not that i have the answers, but it really doesn't seem right.

Not on my TV there isn't. I have basic cable, and I don't get any of those channels. I've never even heard of the latter two. Yookeroo, exactly what and how much do you have access to? Is any of it on regular basic or digital cable?

I get Fox Soccer Channel (part of my digital cable package) & Telemundo (basic cable). I left out ESPN Deportes. which is available to me (digital), but I'm too cheap to pay for.

GolTV is available on Dish Network, DirecTV, Comcast, Adelphia, Charter, Cablevision, Atlantic Broadband, Bresnan Communications, Midcontinent, RCN, Mediacom, Paul Buyan y Citizens Cablevision. I believe Setanta is only available on DISH. But even if you can just add FSC, you'll have plenty of soccer to watch.

And while I'm here, unlimited substitution is a horrible idea. One problem is that it leads to too much specialization. And professional soccer players aren't spending time catching their breath :rolleyes:.

[Arch Trout]

There are many clear fouls commited in the area, fouls that would be called anywhere else on the field, that are ignored because they are in the PA (handling the ball is one that seems to be ignored the most).

What kind of football are you watching?
If anything, I would say the opposite happens in the SPL and English Premiership.
Penalties are sometimes given for infringements that would be ignored elsewhere on the field of play due to the fact it happened so near the goal.
I've seen many many soft-penalties in my time. Also seen some stone-wallers ignored. Referee competence is the main issue not the rules.

Regarding handling getting ignored.
There is the "hand to ball", "ball to hand" rule. I don't think I've seen many incidents of a clear hand to ball in the area getting ignored.
Again, maybe it's the referees you are watching that are flawed rather than the rules.

[Yookeroo]

What kind of football are you watching?

EPL, Champions League, MLS, World Cup, high school, club. Gold Cup & Copa America are coming up.

If anything, I would say the opposite happens in the SPL and English Premiership.

There's no way the opposite happens. It's just those rare times it does, it's very noticeable. I find myself comenting "that's a foul, but they'll never call it in the box" far more often than "that was a soft penalty".

But even if you are right, there's still a real double standard. That's a problem.

Penalties are sometimes given for infringements that would be ignored elsewhere on the field of play due to the fact it happened so near the goal.
I've seen many many soft-penalties in my time. Also seen some stone-wallers ignored. Referee competence is the main issue not the rules.

Still doesn't address the issue. The punsihment (near certain goal) for many fouls in the box is much too harsh.

Regarding handling getting ignored.
There is the "hand to ball", "ball to hand" rule. I don't think I've seen many incidents of a clear hand to ball in the area getting ignored.


No, but there are plenty "hand to ball" incidents that get called outsisde the PA. There are clearly different standards.

And if the problem is officiating, then it's universal. And if it's universal, then maybe it's a problem with the laws.

[RickJay]

Unlimited substitutions? That's missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality. No good having a top striker if they don't have a good understanding of how the midfield are working as a unit.
That's a coaching issue. A well coached team with good players should be able to function as a unit even if a substitution is made.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Half court. That's the answer. Keep your offsides and everything else. Make it half, maybe even smaller, and you'll have Americans interested.

[Trivial Trivia]

Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:I'd probably me more apt to watch and follow soccer if they had a way of giving a slight edge to team's offences. A game with a final score of 7-9 would probably be thrilling to watch.
Given that a typical soccer game has a score like 2-0 means not much in the way of excitement for the typical American. Even when baseball games have scores like 1-2 they are usually labeled a "snoozer".

Basketball has the opposite problem. Too much scoring then why bother watching the thing till the last 5 minutes of the 2nd half.In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don't argue with me because you're wrong. Just stop. Don't even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c'mon, when's the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison's sake you review your favorite team's last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.

[GorillaMan]

So much so that it is rare for a referee to award a PK on fouls on the edge of the PA, fouls clearly in the PA are spotted outside the area.
Nonsense. What does often happen is fouls outside the area appear to be inside, because that's where the player falls.


That's a coaching issue. A well coached team with good players should be able to function as a unit even if a substitution is made.
Nope. Maybe in silly sports where they wear pads :p Soccer doesn't work that way - the integration of players into position takes far more than a bit of coaching, and the combination of individual abilities means you can't swap players in and out without affecting it. A single half-time substitution is often to create a complete change of formation.

[RickJay]

Nope. Maybe in silly sports where they wear pads :p Soccer doesn't work that way - the integration of players into position takes far more than a bit of coaching, and the combination of individual abilities means you can't swap players in and out without affecting it. A single half-time substitution is often to create a complete change of formation.
Then teams should prepare for that sort of thing. All soccer teams have substitutes available; are you actually trying to tell us that the subs aren't incorporated into the team's practices and strategy, and that quality players can't make adjustments in-game?

That's preposterous; it's nonsense. Any decent team will plan for that sort of thing. Good teams don't just fall apart because they have to make a substitution. They adjust accordingly. The ability to incorporate the benchwarmers into a team's plan when things go awry and someone gets hurt is a critical part of good coaching. If you have to change formations and tactics, then that's what you do.

[Martiju]

Half court. That's the answer. Keep your offsides and everything else. Make it half, maybe even smaller, and you'll have Americans interested.

And the bottom line is, so what? I don't care if the US doesn't take much interest in the most popular sport in the world - their loss!

And, slightly less tongue in cheek - the point about it being what you're used to seems to me to be the valid one. What does surprise me, I guess, is that as it is one of the few games you can play with just a couple of people, a ball and the archetypal jumpers for goalposts, it isn't more popular amongst younger children.

[fessie]

There are plenty of cities where it's extremely popular with children and young adults. My kids will definitely be playing - my daughter is already adept at kicking a ball around the backyard (must be a recessive gene).

[RickJay]

And the bottom line is, so what? I don't care if the US doesn't take much interest in the most popular sport in the world - their loss!

And, slightly less tongue in cheek - the point about it being what you're used to seems to me to be the valid one. What does surprise me, I guess, is that as it is one of the few games you can play with just a couple of people, a ball and the archetypal jumpers for goalposts, it isn't more popular amongst younger children.
Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it's not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it's a blip.

[Martiju]

Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it's not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it's a blip.

Heh - in that case I'll consider my ignorance fought. It's just a shame that it doesn't continue through to the teen and adult years in the same volume I guess.

[Yookeroo]

Nonsense. What does often happen is fouls outside the area appear to be inside, because that's where the player falls.


Duh...I'm quite aware that this happens. I'm not talking about those calls. It's very rare for a PK to be called on fouls just inside the line, those are almost always spotted just outsied the area. I've seen this happen literally hundreds of times. And no, they all aren't players falling inside the box. Referees are reluctant to give a PK on those fouls....which I understand, it's too harsh a punishment (usually).

Still none of this nitpicking addresses my point that the reward/punishment system is out of whack.

Heh - in that case I'll consider my ignorance fought. It's just a shame that it doesn't continue through to the teen and adult years in the same volume I guess.
That's changing. We went a long time without a viable professional league which meant there wasn't much of a future for players who wanted to pursue a career. The MLS id on pretty solid footing and will be around for the long haul. Plus, our players are improving enough that we're getting increased presence in the Euro leagues (these two points aren't unrelated). Slow growth is what we're looking at.

[Snarky_Kong]

The MLS id on pretty solid footing and will be around for the long haul.

Nitpicking here, but it really annoys me. It's MLS, not the MLS. Would you say the Major League Soccer?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

That the referee + watch is the timekeeper isn't the problem. The fact that only he knows what the official time is is. Give us a visible, official clock. Hiding the official time when it's unnecessary is dumb.But it is because the referee is the official timekeeper that you can't have a visible display of the clock. He often needs to make corrections to the amount of time left in a half because of time lost due to injuries, substitutions, and deliberate time-wasting by players. If the referee had to make the effort to press some little buttons or something that would send a signal to a clock in the stadium and change the amount of time, then he would not be able to concentrate on officiating the match.

Further, if the referee could adjust a displayed clock while the game was going on then imagine what would happen if say, the home team was up 1-0 late in the match and the ref kept adding time (or just stopping the clock) because the home team was deliberately delaying the game. The home fans, who could now see exactly when time was added and how much was added, would go nuts and possibly even riot.

Currently, they now display approximately how much stoppage time will be added near the end of each half. I think that's a decent idea, but you can see how pissed off the fans get if the referee blows his whistle either a little earlier or later than the time that was indicated on the board.

If you want to keep track of the match time do what everybody else does (including the managers and the assistant referees. And if it's good enough for them, then I think you can live with it too). Note the time that the match starts and then add 45 minutes to that. That is when the half will end unless time needs to be added for stoppages.

It is certainly a bad idea to have the official time displayed in the stadium. They do that in USA college soccer (or at least they used to) and it is part of what is so very, very bad with their brand of soccer.

SIDE NOTE: I and many others (I think) believe that college soccer has had a terrible effect on America's ability to progress at the international level. It has, and continues to, set us back years--maybe decades.

And, the bastardization that is NCAA soccer accounts (in part) for why Steve Sampson was such a bad manager, and although he was a pleasant change at first (mostly just because Sampson was gone), it's why Bruce Arena was a bad manager too.

Bring back Bora! (Okay, maybe not Bora, but USA Soccer desperately needs their new manager to have cut his teeth in top-level international soccer.

[aktep]

Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don't argue with me because you're wrong. Just stop. Don't even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c'mon, when's the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison's sake you review your favorite team's last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.

What you say is true, but a 14-0 or 21-6 score is low scoring by today's standards in American football. In the NFL playoffs, the average total points for a game was a tad over 46. There were just over 51 points scored per game in this past season's NCAA college bowl games. I don't know what the average scores are in top level soccer games, but when I turn on an ECL or World Cup game, I'd expect to see a 2-1 game, a 4-3 game would be high scoring, and a 6-4 game would be completely unexpected. But if I turned on a NFL or college football game, a 14-7 game would be low scoring, a 28-21 game somewhat average, and a 42-28 game wouldn't seem abnormal at all, even in a matchup between top teams.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Unlimited substitutions? That's missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality.

All team sports are like that. Even moreso, IMHO. This is why football and baseball have so many specialized coaches. You need that kind of brain power for all of the strategy, tactics and communication required.

No good having a top striker if they don't have a good understanding of how the midfield are working as a unit. If your back line aren't able to function as one, then any time the opposition get into your half, you're screwed.

No reason to have a top running back if he doesn't have an understanding of how his linemen work. Same goes for the quarterback.

Remind/acquaint yourself with the best goal ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HrjevD2vhk) (no arguments because I say so), which couldn't have happened if any player hadn't been aware of where everyone else was and also what they would do next.

Impressive goal. Unfortunately, with 1-0 final scores, it's usually not skill like this that determines the winner, but rather a solitary defensive screw-up or an accidental mis-direction. With more scoring chances, you'd see a bigger proportion of teams that deserve to win, actually win. I've heard plenty of soccer announcers say something like this: "A bit of back luck for Arsenal today. They deserved better." You don't hear too much of that in sports where skill has a better correlation with results.

You must be watching some rubbish teams! With soccer, I ONLY watch the best teams. It's either Champion's League, Euro Championships or World Cup. By the way, believe me, I'm a fan of soccer. I jus think that it could be better.

[Caridwen]

Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it's not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don't necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it's a blip.

Yea, all kids play soccer. Not the same thing as people watching professional soccer.

Maybe it's the pace that doesn't appeal to people in the U.S where most games have large scores. Just a guess.

[Shagnasty]

Further, if the referee could adjust a displayed clock while the game was going on then imagine what would happen if say, the home team was up 1-0 late in the match and the ref kept adding time (or just stopping the clock) because the home team was deliberately delaying the game. The home fans, who could now see exactly when time was added and how much was added, would go nuts and possibly even riot.

Currently, they now display approximately how much stoppage time will be added near the end of each half. I think that's a decent idea, but you can see how pissed off the fans get if the referee blows his whistle either a little earlier or later than the time that was indicated on the board.

Ummm....our most popular sport, U.S. football is almost completely transparent with regards to officiating. Get this, the head official actually has to stand in the middle of the field with his microphone on and explain to millions of people why they just decided what they did for almost every decision.

We don't have any riots during professional games either. Afterall, it isn't 500 AD anymore. You would think that the game itself would be exciting enough so that attendees wouldn't have to resort to criminal behavior just to bring in a little excitement.

[Wee Bairn]

Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don't argue with me because you're wrong. Just stop. Don't even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c'mon, when's the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison's sake you review your favorite team's last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.

I agree- I use the "one goal equals app. 10 points in American football"- 2-1 is like 20-10 5-0 is like 50-0, etc.

[Wee Bairn]

Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don't argue with me because you're wrong. Just stop. Don't even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c'mon, when's the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison's sake you review your favorite team's last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.

I agree- In the past I have used the "one goal equals app. 10 points in American football"- 2-1 is like 20-10, 5-0 is like 50-0, etc, because the math is easier. :)

[Arch Trout]

Still doesn't address the issue. The punsihment (near certain goal) for many fouls in the box is much too harsh.


I don't see how it's too harsh.
You're not meant to foul players. It's meant to be a game of skill and if a player is in the box it then really means you're not allowed to foul because if you do then you're probably going to give away a penalty and thus a goal.

Penalty box football is the game at it's purest, it's all about skill.
You see some of the best tackles in football inside the box as they have to be perfect tackles.

In baseball is it too harsh that with bases loaded when a player is walked that the player on third base should score? Could you argue that it seems harsh that a walk to first base should result in someone else scoring.

[garygnu]

Shagnasty's right, "fear of causing riots" should not dictate policy.
I enjoy the occasional soccer match, I even managed to watch the Zidane head-butt match live last year. I love American football because I like the pacing; it's a perfect spectator sport. I've recently started to thoroughly enjoy ice hockey, which shares many elements with soccer.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a small amount of playing area behind a soccer goal?
I refuse to believe soccer players are too dumb to be able to play together if unlimited substitutions were put in place. Ice hockey manages with line changes.
A smaller field would speed things up a bit, and make substitutions quicker.

[aktep]

I agree- In the past I have used the "one goal equals app. 10 points in American football"- 2-1 is like 20-10, 5-0 is like 50-0, etc, because the math is easier. :)


Why not divide by 20? Then you could say soccer has more scoring than American football.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Shagnasty's right, "fear of causing riots" should not dictate policy.That fear should not dictate policy, and I don't think FIFA bases their Laws on such fears. I was simply pointing out (and yes, using a slight exaggeration to do so) that you can't have the time displayed in a soccer match like you would in American football. American football has definite starts and stops--soccer doesn't. The clock keeps running so you don't need a scoreboard clock to tell you how much time is left. You need only to look at your wristwatch.

But it is within the referee's discretion to add time to a half to make up for time lost due to foreseeable and unforeseeable circumstances. It is a judgment call. You can't put judgment calls up on a scoreboard. Nor should you stop the game every minute or so to announce into your wireless microphone that 15 seconds here and 30 seconds there will be added to the half. originally poted by garygnu:
I refuse to believe soccer players are too dumb to be able to play together if unlimited substitutions were put in place. Ice hockey manages with line changes.You are correct doubt that they are too dumb because they are not. It's just how the game is played. Teams must base their overall strategy and tactics (in part) on the fact that the game has limited substitutions. Some sports don't have any substitutions at all. In doubles tennis you can't (as far as I know) sub for one of the players if they get tired. The very idea sounds ridiculous.

To many people, the idea of unlimited substitutions in soccer sounds ridiculous too.

IF, however, FIFA were to have scary brain seizures and somehow allow unlimited substitutions, I agree that line substitutions like in hockey would be the way to go.

[RickJay]

It's just how the game is played. Teams must base their overall strategy and tactics (in part) on the fact that the game has limited substitutions.
It would take top soccer teams about six minutes to adjust to unlimited substitutions.

The nature of unlimited subbing in soccer would, in any case, be pretty simple; you'd probably just be rotating in two guys, three at most, to give players a little more wind. A player given a yellow card might be rotated out more until the game was closer to its conclusion, the way a basketball player who gets three early fouls will sit out some time. Towards the end of the game, if it were close, they'd keep the starters on. Frankly, most of the time I don't think you'd even notice it.

Some sports don't have any substitutions at all. In doubles tennis you can't (as far as I know) sub for one of the players if they get tired. The very idea sounds ridiculous.

To many people, the idea of unlimited substitutions in soccer sounds ridiculous too.
Not to press the issue, but the difference is that a soccer team does have other players available. More substitutions just means you have the option of using the bench more. In doubles tennis, the doubles partners ARE the team. They don't have substitutes available, and it would be pointless to have them because there's almost never be a use for them.

All team sports have some sort of limitations. Basketball doesn't allow subs during play, nor does football. Baseball doesn't allow a player to re-enter the game once he is removed. Literally "unlimited" substitutions is not really what anyone's suggesting.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

It would take top soccer teams about six minutes to adjust to unlimited substitutions.I agree with your point. Of course it would take more than six minutes, but I know you didn't mean it literally. Yes, pro soccer teams could and would adjust to unlimited substitution. Personally, however, I am against it.

I don't want to press the point too much either. If I was discussing all this is person I would be rather low-key about it all. I simply prefer the way the timing and substitutions are handled now. I find those aspects of the game and the sport in general to be quite elegant the way it is.

But everything must go through changes. Everything evolves. I'm not going to get very agitated over the whole thing, but there are certainly some fans who would if anybody "messed with their game".

[Cyberhwk]

A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don't argue with me because you're wrong. Just stop. Don't even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical.
What I think the problem is, though, is not the scoring, but how defense is viewed.

In American Football, a defense can be very exciting to watch. Big hits, big plays, fumbles, interceptions, etc. Though baseball is a completely different animal, for those who enjoy the game, a 2-1 pitcher's duel can also be a very exciting game to watch. (I'll digress on the story of having to explain a no-hitter to a foreigner :p ).

Unfortunately, in soccer, defense is not viewed as exciting, but rather a obstacle to action. I personally, see defense in hockey and basketball the same way, but the saving grace of these other sports is the fact that when on defense, you will likely regain possession and have a scoring chance very quickly. On a turnover in soccer, it will often take a long time to move the ball down the field back into scoring range.

Making the field smaller would help. Making the field 80 meters/yards long. Pull the sidelines in a corresponding amount. This would allow for a quicker transition from defense to attack. With the reduced space, drop it down from 11 to 8 or 9. This would create more lanes to attack through without having every attacker collapsed on by 4 different players every time they make a move.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Well, the point is that soccer really isn't going to go anywhere until they jazz it up (in the USA of course) If soccer ever gets to be a popular sport, then it won't be similar to European soccer. It'll be different, with a shot clock, or maybe less players. Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game, and there would have to be rules that would prevent abuse such as diving. Watching a typical game, I see about 80 percent of this: (guy makes a pass, sees another guy looking like he could pass it to him, and his pass gets intercepted by the opposing side. The other side does the same, etc.

[RickJay]

Well, the point is that soccer really isn't going to go anywhere until they jazz it up (in the USA of course) If soccer ever gets to be a popular sport, then it won't be similar to European soccer. It'll be different, with a shot clock, or maybe less players. Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game...
Football games don't have ten touchdowns a game. Baseball might average 10 runs a game in a really high offense year. Why 10 goals?

Remember, a soccer game is a relatively SHORT sporting event as compared to baseball or football, and is certainly no longer than hockey or basketball.

I'm sorry, but the notion that soccer lacks action is preposterous. Professional (or college) football is excruciatingly slow as a live spectator sport, packing twelve minutes of play in amongst three hours of nothing. Baseball's a very deliberate sport, and many games become plodding snoozers. NASCAR is essentially three hours of guys driving in a circle. Why're they all popular?

Pro soccer lacks popularity in the USA (and Canada) for historical and business reasons, not because the sport's boring. People around the world are not physiologically different from Americans; they're not magically entertained by things an American brain finds boring.

[Yookeroo]

But it is because the referee is the official timekeeper that you can't have a visible display of the clock. He often needs to make corrections to the amount of time left in a half because of time lost due to injuries, substitutions, and deliberate time-wasting by players. If the referee had to make the effort to press some little buttons or something that would send a signal to a clock in the stadium and change the amount of time, then he would not be able to concentrate on officiating the match.

You're joking, right? Pushing a button during a period when time is being wasted (i.e. when there's no actual soccer being played) will be a distraction? No.

Further, if the referee could adjust a displayed clock while the game was going on then imagine what would happen if say, the home team was up 1-0 late in the match and the ref kept adding time (or just stopping the clock) because the home team was deliberately delaying the game. The home fans, who could now see exactly when time was added and how much was added, would go nuts and possibly even riot.

Like all those riots in the other sports. :rolleyes:


Currently, they now display approximately how much stoppage time will be added near the end of each half. I think that's a decent idea, but you can see how pissed off the fans get if the referee blows his whistle either a little earlier or later than the time that was indicated on the board.

Indeed. Showing the official time fixes this.


If you want to keep track of the match time do what everybody else does (including the managers and the assistant referees. And if it's good enough for them, then I think you can live with it too). Note the time that the match starts and then add 45 minutes to that. That is when the half will end unless time needs to be added for stoppages.

Really? Thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious.


It is certainly a bad idea to have the official time displayed in the stadium. They do that in USA college soccer (or at least they used to) and it is part of what is so very, very bad with their brand of soccer.

The clock? Seriously? There are things about college soccer that I think do hurt soccer (although I think the damage is very much exaggerated...count the former collegians who have caught on in Europe), but the clock? Give me a break.

[Yookeroo]

I don't see how it's too harsh.
You're not meant to foul players. It's meant to be a game of skill and if a player is in the box it then really means you're not allowed to foul because if you do then you're probably going to give away a penalty and thus a goal.

Penalty box football is the game at it's purest, it's all about skill.
You see some of the best tackles in football inside the box as they have to be perfect tackles.
Then why not make every foul a PK? Then you get "pure" play everywhere on the field. You shouldn't be allowed to foul anywhere.

In baseball is it too harsh that with bases loaded when a player is walked that the player on third base should score? Could you argue that it seems harsh that a walk to first base should result in someone else scoring.

:confused: How are these analogous? One is a punishment for a rules infraction, the other isn't.

[Cyberhwk]

Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game, I don't believe it's lots of scoring the US likes, it's having lots of "scoring opportunities." :::Snicker::: :p

Football is popular because the offense can break a TD run or pass on pretty much any given play. A homerun can be scored on any given pitch in baseball, and in basketball, you're back on offense and in a position to score about every 30 seconds.

Watching a typical game, I see about 80 percent of this: (guy makes a pass, sees another guy looking like he could pass it to him, and his pass gets intercepted by the opposing side. The other side does the same, etc.EXACTLY! And all this typically happens in an area where scoring is not even POSSIBLE. It turns the game into a snoozer.

That's why I say shorten the field by 20-30% and reduce the number of players appropriately, and you got a popular game.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Yookeroo, I suppose FIFA could change the game to suit you personally, but I don't think that's going to happen. I am sorry for this, but I believe that you are quite free to start your own brand-new, turbo-charged version of AmeriSoccer and take the country by storm.

Opportunity knocks...

More seriously and less snarkily--I won't reiterate any of my explanations for why I feel the timing and officiating and the Laws operate as they do in international soccer. I am comfortable offering my opinion on soccer in general and officiating in particular. I will not offer up a CV, however, because I don't want some pissing contest. (With many subjects on the SDMB I am more than willing to jump in, spout off, and get in over my head. Not with soccer.)

I am quite happy with the way the game is, but I am also quite happy for others to tinker with it if they see fit. If it works out and makes an interesting offshoot sport, that's fine with me. I played indoor soccer for a bit. They displayed the time on a scoreboard for all to see. There were a lot of goals scored. It was a lot of fun. It wasn't soccer.

[chowder]

We've played "soccer" as it is for over 100 years with minor rules alterations, nothing really drastic.

It is still the most popular game on this planet, it is still the "Beautiful" game.

FIFA has more members than the UN...that tells you something :p

It is the ultimate spectator sport, nothing even comes close and I mean nothing.

The agony of relegation :( , the ecstasy of promotion :D , the winning of the FA Cup/Premiership/Champions League to name just a few. :D

The supporting a team all your life even though they may be, and always will be, firmly ensconched in Division 3. This is true allegiance.

This is FOOTBALL and I love it just the way it is.

[Yookeroo]

Yookeroo, I suppose FIFA could change the game to suit you personally, but I don't think that's going to happen. I am sorry for this, but I believe that you are quite free to start your own brand-new, turbo-charged version of AmeriSoccer and take the country by storm.

:rolleyes:

I guess this is what you do when you can't support your argument. MLS started out with a visible, official clock (one of the few changes that league got right. Amazingly enough, the sport didn't self-destruct.

I don't like using MLS for these sorts of experiments, it just gives the snots around the world (and in this country) more ammunition.

We've played "soccer" as it is for over 100 years with minor rules alterations, nothing really drastic.

Why the quotes around soccer? It's a perfectly legitimate term for the sport. Do you use quotes around "calcio", too?

I'd say makiing a win worth 50% more is pretty drastic. Changing the offside rule form 3 players back to 2 is pretty drastic. Even eliminating the back pass the the GK had a pretty big effect.

You are aware that FIFA experiments with the rules all the time, right?

Can't say that I'm surprised that most soccer fans are terrified of change. They've got to be some of the most conservative people out there.

[chowder]

The quotes around "soccer" are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you.

Hence the ruling body being known as FIFA and not FISA :D

[Yookeroo]

The quotes around "soccer" are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you.


Not everywhere. In Italy it's called CALCIO. In the USA (and even in many other countries), it's called SOCCER (and guess what, there are very good reasons they don't use "football" in some of those coutries, I[ll clue you in if you want). In Croatia, it called NOGOMET. In Korea, it's called CHOOK GU. Different countries call it different things.

You're welcome. I'm always glad to dispel ignorance.

[chowder]

Not everywhere. In Italy it's called CALCIO. In the USA (and even in many other countries), it's called SOCCER (and guess what, there are very good reasons they don't use "football" in some of those coutries, I[ll clue you in if you want). In Croatia, it called NOGOMET. In Korea, it's called CHOOK GU. Different countries call it different things.

You're welcome. I'm always glad to dispel ignorance.

Ignorant? moi?

In England, the country which first formulated the rules of FOOTBALL, it is still called just that.

Now not being as intelligent as yourself :dubious: I'll hazard a guess that the words used in Croatia, Italy, Korea etc translate to FOOTBALL. Of course I could be wrong.

[Polerius]

1) Soccer is great when viewed as 10-minute highlights from each game. You get to see all the great shots and plays, and skip the boring parts

2) The offside rule is stupid when there are defense players in the penalty area, or anywhere near their own team's goal.

It should only apply when there are no defense players close the goal (where 'close' is defined being past a certain line) to avoid teams just sticking offense players deep in the other team's territory and waiting there.

3) One major problem I have with soccer is that humans just don't have that much control of the ball using their feet.

As a result, even when the best players and best teams are playing, you constantly see ball possession changing sides. You see a lot of good plays starting, and then, after a couple of passes, the other team somehow gets the ball, and the process repeats as nauseum.

Only rarely, does the passing and tackling and dribbling result in a play that lasts long enough to be interesting. (See point 1 above)

4) I don't like the low scoring, but I think it is one of the indirect reasons behind soccer's immense popularity.

In a high-scoring game like basketball, there are fewer "quantization effects", and the resulting score is usually a reflection of the underlying strenghts of the teams. In a low-scoring game, the quantization effects are so large that you get some games between vastly unequal teams, where the weak team wins by 1-0. (e.g. it's almost impossible for a country with a crappy basketball team to beat the U.S., but it's not that unlikely for a country with a crappy soccer team to beat the World Cup winner)

Over many games, of course, the quantization noise averages out, and the stronger team wins the most games. But in a specific game, there always exists the small possibility that the much weaker team will win.

I think this makes World Cup games more interesting to viewers, because the games are not as pre-determined as in higher-scoring games.

[Hostile Dialect]

did for almost every decision.[/quote]

And the game takes forever. There's no such thing as momentum and it's easy to lose focus during even the most exciting drives, even if you're a diehard fan. (I blame that on the TV timeouts mostly, of course, but see what I said above about referees keeping the game moving.)

We don't have any riots during professional games either.

Are you familiar with a league called the NBA? I believe there's a team near you.

I love American football because I like the pacing

I guess I believe you, but I don't get it. The difference in pacing is why I can hardly stand to watch the NFL. And this is coming from a diehard football fan.

A player given a yellow card might be rotated out more until the game was closer to its conclusion

That would kill the point of the yellow card.

Unfortunately, in soccer, defense is not viewed as exciting, but rather a obstacle to action.

That's because you're not paying attention. Soccer defense is exciting in exactly the same way football defense is. Striking the perfect balance between giving enough space so you don't get burned, and making the attacker feel pressured, is tough, and a defender who does it right often ends up with a "steal" or a "block" just as exciting as those in basketball or hockey. And I will contend that there are not many displays of athletic skill more exciting than watching Carles Puyol spearhead a defensive effort to block five shots on the goal line one after the other (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uMMTqPxjBs).

The quotes around "soccer" are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you.

"Soccer" is an English abbreviation for "Association football", and the fact that it was replaced by the more general term in some countries and not in others is a matter of timing, coincidence and context, not of "right" and "wrong". To expand on Yookeroo's point, is it "wrong" that the Italians call the game "calcio" when the Spanish call it "futbol"? (I'm too lazy to put in the accent.)

One major problem I have with soccer is that humans just don't have that much control of the ball using their feet.

Bullshit. Ronaldinho can control a soccer ball with his feet much, much better than Jerome Bettis can control a football with his hands.

In a high-scoring game like basketball, there are fewer "quantization effects", and the resulting score is usually a reflection of the underlying strenghts of the teams. In a low-scoring game, the quantization effects are so large that you get some games between vastly unequal teams, where the weak team wins by 1-0. (e.g. it's almost impossible for a country with a crappy basketball team to beat the U.S., but it's not that unlikely for a country with a crappy soccer team to beat the World Cup winner)

Then how come the US is defeated in international basketball games all the time while the same teams win in soccer year after year after year? It's not unusual for the best soccer team to win five championships in a row in their league. It's completely normal for a top league to have no more than three champions in a decade. Why is that, if the game so often comes down to chance as you say? The World Cup is the same way--half of the soccer world can accurately guess which team will win before the tournament starts, even though the second half of the tournament is single-elimination. All teams enjoy moments of good luck and suffer times of bad luck; in soccer, as in most worldly exploits, mediocre competitors fall in times of bad luck (Australia in the 2006 WC again comes to mind) while the best win regardless (most recently Italy in the 2006 WC and Chelsea in the current Champions League campaign).

[Hostile Dialect]

Wow! The first half or more of my post were cut off by my bad luck in the cut-and-paste game. Let me see if I can paste it back together here. The intended beginning of that last post follows:

(to answer the OP's question) Irrelevant. I like the analogy, and your heart's in the right place--but there's a reason soccer doesn't have a shot clock: great goals are more like sentences than exclamation points. Each dribble move, stutter-step and fake-out is a word and each pass a space or a comma. A great goal, like a great sentence, is constructed gradually through creativity and the proper sense of pace. An effective choice of words or moves, and a few well-placed commas or passes, make the difference. Neither great poets nor great playmakers earn their living by pumping out frantic attempts under stringent time limits.

During the last World Cup I stopped giving a shit whether we won or lost, at least we didn't drop and cry like a little bitch every time we were touched. I took more pride in this picture than if we would have won the whole damn thing. I'm 100% serious.

Hear, hear!

That said, there's much less diving in club soccer than the international game. Watch the Champions League (the tournament between the best league teams in Europe) -- the next games are on April 3 & 4 on ESPN2, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes, around 3 PM in your time zone I think -- and you'll see what I mean. The European club game is much more exciting than most modern international competitions.

But, it may be be time to move to another system of officiating, Perhaps a 2 or 3 referee system like basketball.

FIFA has supposedly been testing out 2-referee systems and hasn't found anything it's liked. Now, I'm not one to trust FIFA when they say they're examining progressive changes in the game with an objective eye. But it makes sense to have one referee: the whole reason the referee is there isn't to keep the law, but to keep the game moving. Two referees would disagree about exactly where the restart would be, whether or not the foul was inside the box, whether or not the ball flicked across someone's fingers, etc., and it could theoretically slow the game down.

Cut the field to half or a third of its current size. Overpopulation intensifies conflict.

Indeed, if the last World Cup taught (http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/Zidane%20HeadButt.jpg) us anything (http://images.worldcupblog.org/www/rooney%20stomp.jpg), it's that soccer doesn't have enough interpersonal conflict.

Basketball is still a foulfest in the last minute of any close game.

Not to mention that nobody calls traveling anymore, so that the tallest players can do some amazing dunk that everybody's seen a million times before for two ill-gotten points. That's one of a number of reasons I don't watch the pro game anymore--but even in my high school league traveling was hardly ever called.

For some strange reason in soccer there was no such evolution in terms of player numbers and/or other changes to help the offense. I am convinced that with the current rule set 8 or 9 would be a more optimal number.

As it stands, each position has a very distinct role and each player brings a unique spin on it. If you don't see that, it's not the sport's fault.

I dislike the offsides rule, because unlike the blue lines in hockey there's no objective mark on the field to tell you where the offsides is-and you get that inane offsides trap stuff, where offensive players are in effect penalized for getting a good jump on a arguably lazy defense.

Do you know how much coordination it takes to run an offside trap? The defense has to see where the ball is going to go and trap the attacker before the pass, all as one unit, and if even one of the (generally) four defensemen mistimes his movement by a fraction of a second or misjudges the flow of the offense, the goal is almost guaranteed.

Also speaking as an American, adopting World Cup soccer as your sport of choice would be like a Brazilian deciding he's going to be a Cubs fan.

I don't see how this makes sense. When was the last time MLB officially considered a Brazilian team the fifth-best in their league? And when was the last time Brazil fielded a team, let alone a relatively highly-regarded team, in a field of 32 MLB teams?

The game is just shot too loose in America. [snip] This doesn't even get into how HORRIBLE the U.S. announcers are. And this is even when the color folks have played at the international level. They simply don't know how to call a match properly. And the play-by-play guys..... YIKES!

THANK you!

Ugh. The International Ice Hockey Federation(hockey equivalent of FIFA) does this.

The difference is, the IIHF is completely ignored in the two countries where the world's best hockey players dream of playing.

solely to negate superior play by the opposition

"Superior play"? Offenses who get caught in an offside trap get that way because they're outplayed. Superior play is when a midfielder boots a pass to a striker right before the striker breaks free of the defense, collects the ball and scores. Cherry-picking is not "superior play".

For example, every penal foul in the penalty area results in an almost certain goal.

When an attacker gets fouled in the penalty area, he was probably 90% likely to score anyway. Almost universally, fouls in the penalty box--like handballs on the goal line--are committed as a last resort against a sure goal. Anyway, anyone who believes penalty kicks don't involve skill on the part of the shooter and (especially) the goalie clearly didn't watch the Germany-Argentina game in the last World Cup.

Meanwhile, the punishment for hard fouls commited on the opponent's side of the field is tiny. A direct free kick from your own 18 gains you almost nothing.

Bullshit. When a great offense is cutting up the defense with perfectly-timed passing and quickly heading towards goal, losing the ball for a restart can be devastating. It can neutralize momentum (sometimes up to 20 minutes' worth) and crush morale. I'd argue that games are sometimes won and lost based on fouls that result in a free kick from "your own 18", because of the ripple effect of the sudden momentum change.

I believe Setanta is only available on DISH

It's on DirecTV too, but you have to pay $12/mo extra for the sports package (which also gets you GolTV and Fox Soccer Channel).

Then teams should prepare for that sort of thing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (In case you're wondering, it ain't broke.) As it stands, substitutes play a much different role in soccer than in other sports. Basketball subs each create a subtle difference in the game's flow or just spell a winded player for a while. If a team is down 2-0 at halftime and they bring in two substitutes, the idea is often to completely rework the attacking formula for the rest of the game; though there are more recent and more meaningful examples, the one that sticks out in my mind was the group stage game between Australia and Japan in the last World Cup, where Australia brought in substitutes Tim Cahill and John Aloisi in the second half to overcome a 1-0 deficit and win 3-1. Cahill scored twice and Aloisi scored in stoppage time after the revamped attack they led wore down the relatively stoic Japanese defense.


Heh - in that case I'll consider my ignorance fought. It's just a shame that it doesn't continue through to the teen and adult years in the same volume I guess.

Do yourself a favor and read "How Soccer Explains the World" by Franklin Foer. Most of the book won't be as informational to you as it is to its American audience, which doesn't have much exposure to the way the world sports culture works, but the chapter on soccer in America proposes (IMO) the best theory yet as to why: most Americans first came to know soccer as a way for upper-middle-class parents to keep their kids too busy to cause trouble; in addition (and partly because of that), the game's serious adult following here is comprised mostly of misunderstood hipsters, nonconformists and the elite in general; and as a result the love of soccer is seen as snobbish. Ironic, considering that (the way I understand it) following soccer is considered one of the most low-brow, common-man pastimes in England. Anyway, young testosterone-filled American men hate soccer for the same reason they hate escargot.

No reason to have a top running back if he doesn't have an understanding of how his linemen work. Same goes for the quarterback.

And when was the last time you saw more than one quarterback and two halfbacks get serious playing time on a Super Bowl-winning team?


Ummm....our most popular sport, U.S. football is almost completely transparent with regards to officiating. Get this, the head official actually has to stand in the middle of the field with his microphone on and explain to millions of people why they just decided what they did for almost every decision.

And the game takes forever. There's no such thing as momentum and it's easy to lose focus during even the most exciting drives, even if you're a diehard fan. (I blame that on the TV timeouts mostly, of course, but see what I said above about referees keeping the game moving.)

[Polerius]

Bullshit. Ronaldinho can control a soccer ball with his feet much, much better than Jerome Bettis can control a football with his hands.
Ronaldinho notwithstanding, do you disagree with my statement "even when the best players and best teams are playing, you constantly see ball possession changing sides. You see a lot of good plays starting, and then, after a couple of passes, the other team somehow gets the ball, and the process repeats as nauseum."


Then how come the US is defeated in international basketball games all the time
Are they defeated by much lesser teams, and how often does this happen?

while the same teams win in soccer year after year after year? It's not unusual for the best soccer team to win five championships in a row in their league. It's completely normal for a top league to have no more than three champions in a decade. Why is that, if the game so often comes down to chance as you say?
This is because, as I said "Over many games, of course, the quantization noise averages out, and the stronger team wins the most games." That is why championships do result in the best team winning. But not necessarily individual games.

And this discrepancy between performance in individual games and longer term performance (as measured in championships) is wider in low-scoring games than in high-scoring games.

It's just not likely that a bad basketball team "just happens" to score 97 points and win, but quite likely that a bad soccer team "just happens" to score 1 goal and win.

[Hostile Dialect]

Ronaldinho notwithstanding, do you disagree with my statement "even when the best players and best teams are playing, you constantly see ball possession changing sides. You see a lot of good plays starting, and then, after a couple of passes, the other team somehow gets the ball, and the process repeats as nauseum."

Turnovers happen frequently in basketball, pretty damn often in hockey (where you're much more likely to see them happen because of handling errors, IME), are often the deciding factor in football games, and almost define baseball. In soccer, they happen relatively often, sure, but at the highest levels they're far more likely to be caused by a brilliant defensive play or a generally effective defensive scheme than by a dribbling error.

In a word, yes. If you watch a game between any two decent teams in the English Premiership, players with little to no notoriety in the international game regularly perform dribbling moves that are amazing to the casual observer who pays close enough attention.

Are they defeated by much lesser teams, and how often does this happen?

I stopped watching basketball shortly after it seemed to become a regular occurrence that our national team lost or came very close to losing to much lesser teams. Liechtenstein is the last example I remember. I concede that I may be exaggerating my memory of what could have been a handful of rough years. I still believe my point stands.

This is because, as I said "Over many games, of course, the quantization noise averages out, and the stronger team wins the most games." That is why championships do result in the best team winning. But not necessarily individual games.

I don't know. Most of the time, the team that wins an individual game earns it. IME as an obsessive soccer watcher and a former season ticket holder. I've also held season tickets for baseball and football, and played on a basketball team, and in all three sports I've seen a number of games where the outcome was often traced to a handful of simple mistakes and tricky bounces. (OK, maybe not so much in basketball. Mostly we lost because we were terrible.)

It's just not likely that a bad basketball team "just happens" to score 97 points and win, but quite likely that a bad soccer team "just happens" to score 1 goal and win.

"More likely", I'll swallow, with maybe half a spoonful of sugar. "Quite likely" is a stretch at the highest levels. Again, keep in mind that the more important part of the World Cup is single-elimination, and even when "luck" or outside forces such as weather, bad calls, etc. come into play, the favored team almost always wins. Now, you could look at a game between two of, say, the four best teams in the world, and you might say that a couple of bad bounces broke the camel's back, but I think in those cases you can still say that the winning team earned it. Again, I present the case of Italy v. Australia in the 2006 World Cup. It was the first single-elimination round, and Italy were awarded what was clearly a fraudulent penalty kick, and converted it to win the game 1-0 IIRC. Australians were pissed, as were many other fans, but I don't think anyone will argue that Italy wasn't far and away the better team of the two. As for the 1-1 tie between Italy and the US earlier in the tournament, Italy withstood a very long spell of shorthandedness and a series of bad bounces against a US team that was arguably playing its best soccer in a while, and still didn't lose. IIRC, Italy fielded nine players for the majority of that game (or at least the majority of the second half), and seemed at times like they were trying to boost the morale of a country known for its work ethic. They practically wrote a Hollywood script for the American team, and still weren't beat.

[chowder]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

If, and that's a big if, the USA really took football, OK soccer, to heart and put their all into it I firmly believe that in 20 years or less they would be the new Brazil.

Given the American will to win, the facilities available to all its athletes, the general desire to be top dogs I don't in all honesty think they could fail.

Disagree if you want, but that's what I believe

[GargoyleWB]

That's why I say shorten the field by 20-30% and reduce the number of players appropriately, and you got a popular game.

Nope, has already been done with arena soccer and indoor soccer. They even get the result of much higher scores, and lots of flashy offense. While it has some popularity in the US as an amateur sport, pro viewership has never caught on to make it more than a niche novelty. I think this evidence alone says that people's proposals of soccer "fixes" would do nothing of the sort.

[Yookeroo]

When an attacker gets fouled in the penalty area, he was probably 90% likely to score anyway. Almost universally, fouls in the penalty box--like handballs on the goal line--are committed as a last resort against a sure goal.

Wow. You must be joking. 90% likely? Every foiul in the box prevents this? If that was actually true, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But of course, it isn't. Not even close. And that is on the fouls that get called.

Anyway, anyone who believes penalty kicks don't involve skill on the part of the shooter and (especially) the goalie clearly didn't watch the Germany-Argentina game in the last World Cup.
:confused: That was a non-sequitor.


Bullshit. When a great offense is cutting up the defense with perfectly-timed passing and quickly heading towards goal, losing the ball for a restart can be devastating. It can neutralize momentum (sometimes up to 20 minutes' worth) and crush morale. I'd argue that games are sometimes won and lost based on fouls that result in a free kick from "your own 18", because of the ripple effect of the sudden momentum change.

I think you're arguing my case. You commit the foul to prevent the perfectly-timed pass in your attacking area killing the opponent's momentum...what's the punishment? The opponent gets a harmless free kick in their own end of the field. You've gained an awful lot for breaking the rules.

[Snarky_Kong]

As for the 1-1 tie between Italy and the US earlier in the tournament, Italy withstood a very long spell of shorthandedness and a series of bad bounces against a US team that was arguably playing its best soccer in a while, and still didn't lose. IIRC, Italy fielded nine players for the majority of that game (or at least the majority of the second half), and seemed at times like they were trying to boost the morale of a country known for its work ethic. They practically wrote a Hollywood script for the American team, and still weren't beat.

Italy played up most of the game.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/match/25/mr.html

The red on Mastroeni was weak and the second yellow on Pope was a horrible call. IMO the US should have had a man advantage pretty much the whole time. That being said the US attack was and is horrible and Italy gave up 0 goals scored from the run of play (an own goal and a pk were conceded) the whole tournament, so they deserved at the draw at least.


As to the general sentiment of 1-0 games being boring and only scoring opportunities being exciting, go watch the Brazil-France quarterfinal. Zidane was amazing in that game without scoring.

[Hostile Dialect]

Wow. You must be joking. 90% likely? Every foiul in the box prevents this? If that was actually true, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But of course, it isn't. Not even close. And that is on the fouls that get called.

Well, I'm only talking about the highest levels of the pro game. I've seen lots of defenders in youth games etc. commit dumb fouls in the penalty box. In the pro game, though, whenever I see a foul get called in the box it's a defender's last resort against a sure scoring opportunity.

That was a non-sequitor.

Can you tell me with a straight face that Jens Lehmann didn't win that game with his saves in the penalty-kick tiebreaker? Lehmann kept notecards in his sock detailing the penalty technique of each opposing kick taker, and it showed; his saves were pure skill and absolutely made the difference in an otherwise deadlocked game.

I think you're arguing my case. You commit the foul to prevent the perfectly-timed pass in your attacking area killing the opponent's momentum...what's the punishment? The opponent gets a harmless free kick in their own end of the field. You've gained an awful lot for breaking the rules.

You misread me. The momentum killed is that of the attacking team. The free kick kills the momentum set up by the passing rhythm. Would you not agree?

Italy played up most of the game.

OK, sorry, I misremembered. I think my point still stands.

[Snarky_Kong]

OK, sorry, I misremembered. I think my point still stands.

Wasn't your point that even though the better team was playing against horrible circumstances, they still managed to get points out of it? At that point in the tournament a draw was very bad for them. Everything about both teams points towards Italy winning by multiple goals, yet with a man advantage they draw. I think that contradicts your point.

[Hostile Dialect]

Wasn't your point that even though the better team was playing against horrible circumstances, they still managed to get points out of it? At that point in the tournament a draw was very bad for them. Everything about both teams points towards Italy winning by multiple goals, yet with a man advantage they draw. I think that contradicts your point.

I meant my point stands in general, even though that specific example isn't valid.

[Snarky_Kong]

I meant my point stands in general, even though that specific example isn't valid.

Ah. I agree the stronger team usually wins, but by what other metric would you call a team strong? Take a look at Greece in Euro 2004 though. Greece is nowhere near a global soccer power. Not a European soccer power even. They might be the 10th strongest team in Europe, but they won the tournament.

[Hostile Dialect]

Ah. I agree the stronger team usually wins, but by what other metric would you call a team strong? Take a look at Greece in Euro 2004 though. Greece is nowhere near a global soccer power. Not a European soccer power even. They might be the 10th strongest team in Europe, but they won the tournament.

What, by luck? I didn't watch Euro 2004, but I doubt that very much. They're a good team--good enough to qualify for the WC regularly from most regions, that's for sure, and even when you take that recent upset into account, championship and tournament upsets are rarer in soccer than in other sports.

[Extra Strength]

After reading this thread (and many other similar discussions) I have come to the conclusion that Americans would like football better if they understood and appreciated the game for what it is. It isn't rugby or American football or basketball or ice hockey or anything else. It is what it is.

"Why don't they do this?" "Why don't they do that?" I dunno - why don't they allow tackling in golf? Why don't they allow substitutions in tennis? Why do they call balks in baseball? Why can't you throw a forward pass in American football in front of the line of scrimmage? Why are ping pong tables so damn small? Why does ice hockey have two metres of playable ice behind the goal line? Why are NASCAR vehicles considered "stock"?

BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! If you don't get it, fine - ask and hope for an explanation, but if you still don't get it stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2 year old saying "whywhywhywhywhy", for fucks sake.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

After reading this thread (and many other similar discussions) I have come to the conclusion that Americans would like football better if they understood and appreciated the game for what it is. It isn't rugby or American football or basketball or ice hockey or anything else. It is what it is.

"Why don't they do this?" "Why don't they do that?" I dunno - why don't they allow tackling in golf? Why don't they allow substitutions in tennis? Why do they call balks in baseball? Why can't you throw a forward pass in American football in front of the line of scrimmage? Why are ping pong tables so damn small? Why does ice hockey have two metres of playable ice behind the goal line? Why are NASCAR vehicles considered "stock"?

BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! If you don't get it, fine - ask and hope for an explanation, but if you still don't get it stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2 year old saying "whywhywhywhywhy", for fucks sake.
I concur.

You either "get it" or you don't. The majority of the world does, the majority of America doesn't. To each his own.

[RickJay]

Also being forgotten here is that the reason Americans haven't gotten into pro soccer - and remember, Americans play soccer in droves - is that the United States doesn't have top level pro soccer.

The standard in the USA for professional sport is, generally speaking, the BEST professional sport that can be had. Major League Baseball is the world's finest brand of baseball, the NFL is the cream of the crop in football (granted, there's not much else) the NBA is the world's best basketball, and the NHL is the world's best hockey. No other pro league anywhere can match them. In individual sports, the USA hosts many of the world's top events; tennis has the U.S. Open, gold has the Masters and the Open, pro boxing has always been dominated by U.S. boxers and fought in U.S. venues, so on and so forth.

Soccer, however, is NOT being played in the USA at its top level. The best soccer in the world is in Europe. The USA (and Canada now) has Major League Soccer, which I'm sure is better soccer than I could play but it's still third rate pro soccer; it's likely inferior to the J-League. To make a comparison, it's further below the English Premier League than the CFL is below the NFL.

Why would you expect Americans to want to follow a third rate pro league when what they're used to are FIRST rate pro leagues?

It doesn't have anything to do with the way soccer is played.

[Yookeroo]

Well, I'm only talking about the highest levels of the pro game. I've seen lots of defenders in youth games etc. commit dumb fouls in the penalty box. In the pro game, though, whenever I see a foul get called in the box it's a defender's last resort against a sure scoring opportunity.

If the only fouls you see in the penalty area are last resort fouls, you need to watch more soccer.

Can you tell me with a straight face that Jens Lehmann didn't win that game with his saves in the penalty-kick tiebreaker? Lehmann kept notecards in his sock detailing the penalty technique of each opposing kick taker, and it showed; his saves were pure skill and absolutely made the difference in an otherwise deadlocked game.

So? What's the point? I never claimed there was no skill involved.

You misread me. The momentum killed is that of the attacking team.
Hard to kill the momentum of the defending team

The free kick kills the momentum set up by the passing rhythm. Would you not agree?

Well, yeah. That's the point. When you break the rules and give up a momentum killing (harmless) free kick, you have gained far more than the price you pay for breaking the rules. Sometimes it's not just momentum that is killed; I've seen great scoring opportunities killed by a midfield foul.

[Hostile Dialect]

If the only fouls you see in the penalty area are last resort fouls, you need to watch more soccer.

Well, I won't argue with that, but there's only so much I can do. I'm certainly not about to waste my time watching the MLS, and I can't afford the sports package.

When you break the rules and give up a momentum killing (harmless) free kick, you have gained far more than the price you pay for breaking the rules. Sometimes it's not just momentum that is killed; I've seen great scoring opportunities killed by a midfield foul.

I don't get what you're saying here. You seemed to simultaneously disagree with me and then reaffirm my point and even take it a step further. What does an attacking team gain by committing a foul and conceding a free kick in enemy territory, other than maybe some kind of cathartic release?

[Yookeroo]

I don't get what you're saying here. You seemed to simultaneously disagree with me and then reaffirm my point and even take it a step further. What does an attacking team gain by committing a foul and conceding a free kick in enemy territory, other than maybe some kind of cathartic release?

I'm talking about the attacking half of the field, not the team with possession. You commit a foul in your attacking half, i.e. the opponent's half of the field, and you potentially kill their momentum, maybe prevent a quck and dangerous counter, and you don't get punished for that. Giving your opponent a free kick in their own half of the field doens't hurt you in the least. The only disincentive is that you might get cautioned if you're not careful. This is a poor punishment/reward system.

[Hostile Dialect]

Ah, now I see--and yes, I must agree. That said, what else can you really do? The punishment isn't quite proportional to the crime, but then the crime isn't all that important to begin with if it happened in the attacking team's back third. I can't think of anything else that fits well within the context of the game. The hockey-style penalty box idea would be a big punishment for a small crime--considering that the player removed would likely be a key attacker. Some teams have enough trouble scoring when their world-class striker is playing.

[chowder]

According to BBC Ceefax, the powers that be are contemplating doing away with a draw result.

Instead they are considering whether or not all games should be subject to a penalty shoot out should scores remain equal at the end of 90 minutes

Bloody hell!! this is ridiculous and I can't see it being adopted, at least I hope not

[Malacandra]

That would be teh dumb. :rolleyes:

[NBYodo]

Yes. It does seem that way sometimes. A problem we have here in the states is that when an American TV crew is used to do the camera work and directing etc. for a soccer match they generally don't know the game very well, if at all. Any videographer will tell you that if you don't know what is happening in front of you or what to expect next, shoot the scene a little wider.

The game is just shot too loose in America. Plus, the director doesn't fully understand the flow so he doesn't know how to make crisp camera changes. It really hurts the presentation of the game from the fans point of view.

...


True, but I was noticing during the World Cup last year (presumably by cameramen that know what's going on), that if the play is filmed wide, you can't see (and appreciate) the ball handling skill; if the play is filed (skilfully) close, then you don't get a feel for the teamwork because you can't see the other players moving around.

There didn't seem to be a happy middle ground where you could see the footwork detail and still see the play around the player. Maybe it's not possible because the field is too big...


NB

[GargoyleWB]

Why would you expect Americans to want to follow a third rate pro league when what they're used to are FIRST rate pro leagues?

It doesn't have anything to do with the way soccer is played.

I don't even think this is quite correct, since this makes it sound more like ego. American pro soccer still suffers greatly on play quality. MLS gameplay is essentially unchanged from youth league soccer, except that the pros run faster and kick harder. Much of the full field strategy and nuance are absent, so that low level Scottish club soccer is still an aesthetically superior game to the best that America can field.

So I don't think that the new viewers in America trying to discover soccer as a spectator sport are ever going to get an appreciation of the subtelties that make the game so appealing.

The exception to this being the American women's teams. They in general play beautifully (and very unamerican style).

[Snooooopy]

After reading this thread (and many other similar discussions) I have come to the conclusion that Americans would like football better if they understood and appreciated the game for what it is. It isn't rugby or American football or basketball or ice hockey or anything else. It is what it is.

"Why don't they do this?" "Why don't they do that?" I dunno - why don't they allow tackling in golf? Why don't they allow substitutions in tennis? Why do they call balks in baseball? Why can't you throw a forward pass in American football in front of the line of scrimmage? Why are ping pong tables so damn small? Why does ice hockey have two metres of playable ice behind the goal line? Why are NASCAR vehicles considered "stock"?

BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! If you don't get it, fine - ask and hope for an explanation, but if you still don't get it stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2 year old saying "whywhywhywhywhy", for fucks sake.

The reason they call balks in baseball is because, waaaaay back in the late 1800s, some people decided that pitchers shouldn't be able to fool the other team in that manner. I imagine that those people had to put up with other baseball fans who yelled, "BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! Stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2-year-old saying, 'whywhywhywhywhy.' The game is what it is." But they persisted, the rule was changed, and the game was better for it.

[Baron Greenback]

Much of the full field strategy and nuance are absent, so that low level Scottish club soccer is still an aesthetically superior game to the best that America can field.



I've never watched an MLS game, but I have been to a lot of lower league Scottish games and "aesthetic superiority", "strategy" and "nuance" are almost wholly absent. :D

[Hostile Dialect]

I've never watched an MLS game, but I have been to a lot of lower league Scottish games and "aesthetic superiority", "strategy" and "nuance" are almost wholly absent. :D

Which says more about the MLS than the lower level Scottish leagues, BTW. Try watching an MLS final sometime. As in, the best two teams in the league. Yuck. I almost fell asleep during the last one.

[RickJay]

I don't even think this is quite correct, since this makes it sound more like ego. American pro soccer still suffers greatly on play quality. MLS gameplay is essentially unchanged from youth league soccer, except that the pros run faster and kick harder. Much of the full field strategy and nuance are absent, so that low level Scottish club soccer is still an aesthetically superior game to the best that America can field.

So I don't think that the new viewers in America trying to discover soccer as a spectator sport are ever going to get an appreciation of the subtelties that make the game so appealing.
I don't see where we are in disagreement.

[Hostile Dialect]

Re camera angles, I totally agree with the inditement of American camera crews, but check this (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-SOC-MLS-Bundesliga.html?ref=soccer) out:

Major League Soccer is teaming up with Germany's Bundesliga to promote the sport in the United States and exchange knowledge...

Bundesliga, which has created its own TV production company, also will teach the MLS about producing soccer matches with proper camera angles and other details.

As for now, the agreement seems mostly focused on the exchange of American expertise on salary caps for the German mastery of safe stadium lighting or some such bullshit, but the agreement sets up a semi-annual intercontinental meeting of the minds for an indefinite period of time. I'm often the first to criticize the MLS at every turn, but I'm thinkin' there could be something good here. The Bundesliga is not my favorite league in the world, but show me someone who can say with a straight face that it's not one of the world's top 5.