Soccer players - the biggest babies on the planet?

[Stink Fish Pot]

One of the reasons watching soccer frustrates me is that every hit results in a flop on the ground that looks like the player was shot with a high-powered rifle from the stands.

Do they have a flop rule in soccer? Do the refs have the ability to get a yellow card? I can imagine a full-out kick that lands in the groin of another player would hurt, but when I see a guy get brushed and flop to the ground, only to get up and continue to play after a few minutes on the ground, it's just embarrassing.

[Švejk]

Yeah, there's a diving rule and refs can hand out yellow cards for excessively theatrical behavior. Most often though they will just ignore a player in agony, since if a player is truly hurting it will typically sort itself out. As for football players being babies: they're acting as though they are, but it is acting, so they're not really babies. And of course it's a mixed bag. Since the play is so heavily focused on the foot and ankle area since that is where the ball usually is, people can and do get heavily injured - one of the Slovenian (not Slovakian) players left the pitch with a broken ankle, and broken bones do occur more often. Also, like you sometimes see in hockey, people can be stitched up off the pitch to continue play afterwards (I remember Jaap Stam getting his eyebrow stitched back up in some game but I can't find any footage).

[ivan astikov]

I'm no fan of floppers myself, but I think people should bear in mind that when a player is running at full speed while trying to control a ball with his feet, it doesn't take much contact to send them tumbling.

[Snarky_Kong]

I'm no fan of floppers myself, but I think people should bear in mind that when a player is running at full speed while trying to control a ball with his feet, it doesn't take much contact to send them tumbling.

Most people don't complain about the falling, it's about the rolling and screaming and "OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO DIE."

I really hope that eventually they review games and hand out fines/suspensions afterward.

[ivan astikov]

I agree. They should make montages of player's "finest moments" and play them on a loop on giant screens in their hometown.

[don't ask]

Well on the one hand watch some Lionel Messi highlights on youtube. He just ignores guys grabbing him or bumping him, and he just jumps over outstretched legs when he can. Which is much to be admired. However the diving popular amongst nations that rely on skill is really a response to the cynical tactics of the past when skillful players were hacked to pieces by thugs.

[Wakinyan]

While I enjoy the World Cup, this is a very annoying and sometimes flat out embarrasing behaviour. The reason it is there, is because it works. If you dive and scream in agony, the chances you get a free kick (which might decide the game), are twenty times higher than if you just stumbled and kept to your feet. So they act, and sometimes it destroys the game.

One rather new thing is to grab the ball when you fall, which always work. If you fall and grab the ball with your hands, without exception -- as far as I've seen -- you get the free kick. It's like, what else should the ref do? The alternative is a red card, but the ref obviously don't have the guts to throw it. Annoying as hell.

Otherwise, great tournament.

[Ike Witt]

The way I have recently heard it described is that in many countries soccer is both sport and theater. The idea of embellishing every little bit of contact is as normal in some places as it is alien in Canada and the US.

That said, some countries seem to bring teams that are better suited for a pool rather than a pitch...

[wintertime]

Usually, I don't like the idea of committees reviewing matches afterwards to change or add to the decisions of the referee. I don't want politics to play a greater role than it already does. But the theatrics of players are one of the few areas where I wished we would punish obvious showmen later to caution copycats. I'd also act more harshly against the opposite: brutal attacks that threaten the health of players. We should suspend such players for more often afterwards and for a longer time. Though we should limit reviews to the obvious occurrences -- or functionaries will start to decide tournaments instead of the men on the field.

[Alka Seltzer]

Agree that sometimes the play acting is just embarrassing to watch, but sometimes being kicked really does hurt, especially hits to the achilles tendon. Also bear in mind that footballers are often carrying knocks, as contact is frequent. You can usually tell from the slow motion replay if they really are in pain, if the player screws up their face immediately it's an involuntary reaction.

[ShibbOleth]

Agree that sometimes the play acting is just embarrassing to watch, but sometimes being kicked really does hurt, especially hits to the achilles tendon. Also bear in mind that footballers are often carrying knocks, as contact is frequent. You can usually tell from the slow motion replay if they really are in pain, if the player screws up their face immediately it's an involuntary reaction.

This. I imagine the OP has never played soccer/football, or maybe any other real sport. I have, and understand how much stuff can hurt, but still sometimes get upset at the embellishment. But it can be difficult to discern between the histrionics of some players and real injuries. For example, in the last moments of the USA v Slovenia game, I was irritated at the player lying on the ground milking out the last few minutes of the clock. Turns out he had a broken ankle. What a pussy, right?

I've seen twice very serious leg fractures, neither of which looked like much when they occurred. On of my teammates had his femur shattered into ten pieces by a slide from behind by an English team that didn't even draw a card. Another was a bit of a freak accident where two players hit the ball at the exact same time. The ball never moved and the energy of the kicks transferred through the ball. My teammate had a "Joe Theisman" type break of the bones of his lower leg, with the whole lower half of his leg at a weird angle from. Both bones broken in two places. The other had just broken the smaller bone is his lower leg.

My personal most painful injury was something I'll never forget. An Argentine player gave me the lightest little flick with the bottom of his shoe while I had the ball on my thigh. If I were watching it, it would have looked like nothing. Suddenly I collapsed in pain. Probably looked like I had been shot; it certainly felt like it. He had somehow burst a vein in my testicles, and by the time I got home my balls were swollen and purple with blood. It actually only hurt badly only for a second, but it was kind of an embarrassing injury - I was only 16 at the time and my father was out of town, so I had to explain to my mother that I was afraid my balls were going to explode so could we please go to the doctor.

Yes, there is acting, and there is pain that comes hard and goes away as quickly as it came. Let me kick you in the shin and I bet I can get you to go down as if you're shot, but in a minute you'll be back up ready to kick my ass.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

I'm glad that this thread isn't all about castigating divers, since seemingly inocuous things can indeed hurt a lot. Another thing I've noticed is that many, almost all really, referees just don't give you a free kick if you stay on your feet. I've seen this a few times with some of the players of the African nations and (I believe) Altidore of the US as well. So when a player is fouled and wants the free kick he desereves he often has little choice but to fall. Also, good defenders are very good at destabalizing attackers without it looking like a real foul. So you have the ball, try to get to the goal and get bumped to the side which takes you away from the ball ending all hopes of becoming dangerous; you can choose to just stand (after stumbling a few times and not going to ground) there without the ball and resign yourself to the fact your life as an attacker sucks, or you can just not try to stay on your feet and just don't put any effort in staying upright. Especially for quick players (Messi, Robben, Rommedahl, Lennon, Walcott, etc.) a slight touch can end any chance of becoming dangerous.


Just to be clear, I hate divers. But then mainly the guys who go down without being touched (yes Portugal and Italy I'm looking at you)* If you get fouled and falling over is the only way to get your deserved free kick, I'm sort of fine with it...if you're on the team I'm rooting for at least :)


*One of the few things where I'm fine with generalizations, despite Germany being the team that had the most obvious dives in the Australia game.

[yastobaal]

Before I post I just want to say I am in no way a football fan. That out of the way I did lightly watch the latest England game in that a player seemed to get slapped in the side of the face. There was then a momentary pause and then the player went to his knees and elbows covering his head in his hands, almost like he was praying or some such. It just didn't look right to me but then I don't know how it felt for him.

On the other side is the possibility of having no injury just the shock of the collision. Playing with some friends in the park and someone slid into the ball which then wiped out my feet. It seemed to me that I spun around the axis of my waist and then fell. I was on the ground on my back just trying to recover my breath.

It just when you watch games like rugby and you see seemingly harsh contact between the players resulting in nothing more than a bit of dirt on the clothing and the player running back into position. It's this difference in the games that I see and results in me agreeing with the op, footballers are the biggest babies on the planet.

[DigitalC]

Getting kicked in the shins or any part of the lower legs hurts really really fucking bad so even a minor hit leaves you in extreme amounts of pain. Some times they are clearly faking but it's mostly the fall that gets faked, if you can actually see contact between players you better believe it fucking hurts even if it looks relatively minor.

[fachverwirrt]

Sometimes something really can hurt like hell momentarily and then be fine in a few seconds. The most painful soccer moment I had was... getting hit in the crotch by a hard shot from ten feet away. But the second most painful was getting hit in the thigh by a hard shot from short distance on a cold, wet, raw day. No bruise, no permanent damage of any kind, but man did that hurt for a minute or so. It also cramped up instantaneously and put me out of commission until it relaxed again.

That said, embellishment is still annoying.

[wintertime]

Getting kicked in the shins or any part of the lower legs hurts really really fucking bad so even a minor hit leaves you in extreme amounts of pain. Some times they are clearly faking but it's mostly the fall that gets faked, if you can actually see contact between players you better believe it fucking hurts even if it looks relatively minor.

Sure, otoh, I played football and team handball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_handball) and the differences in theatrics is amazing. Lately, we see more of that in the second sport too but fortunately, most players still consider it sissy instead of clever.

But I agree with you that kicks to the lower legs deal out a spike of explosive pain that is more often than not impossible to ignore, especially when it comes from men who have trained their legs to kick a ball hard enough to accelerate it far beyond 100km/h.

But we still should do more against obvious dives; counter measures might mostly lead to more sophisticated swindles but I'd still be glad if I didn't have to see a player thrive in pain again while no one has even touched him.

[markdash]

Sure, otoh, I played football and team handball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_handball) and the differences in theatrics is amazing. Lately, we see more of that in the second sport too but fortunately, most players still consider it sissy instead of clever.

But I agree with you that kicks to the lower legs deal out a spike of explosive pain that is more often than not impossible to ignore, especially when it comes from men who have trained their legs to kick a ball hard enough to accelerate it far beyond 100km/h.

But we still should do more against obvious dives; counter measures might mostly lead to more sophisticated swindles but I'd still be glad if I didn't have to see a player thrive in pain again while no one has even touched him.

Well, as an example in the US game against Slovenia, there was a play where Dempsey actually stepped onto the ball, which caused him to slip and fall. Despite a lack of contact with an opposing player, I don't think anyone would doubt that the fall caused Dempsey some pain.

The referee whistled a foul against Slovenia, even though their man likely had nothing to do with it.

[Alka Seltzer]

But I agree with you that kicks to the lower legs deal out a spike of explosive pain that is more often than not impossible to ignore, especially when it comes from men who have trained their legs to kick a ball hard enough to accelerate it far beyond 100km/h.

But we still should do more against obvious dives; counter measures might mostly lead to more sophisticated swindles but I'd still be glad if I didn't have to see a player thrive in pain again while no one has even touched him.

I agree. I've said this before, but the only way to deal with 'simulation' and professional fouls is with after the game video reviews and suspensions.

[Claptree]

I watched the half time discussions in the It - NZ game on Swedish TV, and one ex-footballer said that while diving is a problem, you really have to exaggerate your reaction to a foul to get the ref to blow his whistle. No fall = no call.

Which is a shit situation, IMO.

[Duke]

There are some incidents in soccer that remind me of one of Bill Cosby's old sketches. The setup was that his Temple University football team was playing on local TV (a rare occurrence for the hapless Owls), and his coach gave the team a stern lecture to act maturely for the cameras, including a final admonition: "do not touch certain parts of your body". So of course during the game the Cos gets tackled and kicked right in the groin. He remembers his coach's warning...so he writhes in pain on the ground grabbing his head instead. "They even bandaged up my head!"

A while back I saw a compilation of soccer players getting hit, or not hit, in the legs, stomach, back, anywhere but the head. Every one of them pulled a Cos.

[wintertime]

I watched the half time discussions in the It - NZ game on Swedish TV, and one ex-footballer said that while diving is a problem, you really have to exaggerate your reaction to a foul to get the ref to blow his whistle. No fall = no call.

Which is a shit situation, IMO.

Yeah, he isn't wrong. But we still could make dives less attractive if the referees were quicker to judge them with a yellow card. When Özil faced one in the match "Germany - Australia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqDZurK0BGo)" I agreed with the ref wholeheartily even though I'm German.

[wintertime]

wholeheartedly, of course.

[RickJay]

This. I imagine the OP has never played soccer/football, or maybe any other real sport.
Ah yes, the old "You've never played sports" argument.

I've played every sport there is to be played, including soccer, and you know how often I've seen people REALLY roll around on the ground shrieking like a woman? Maybe twice in my whole life in any sport that wasn't soccer, and in the few cases that it happened it was when a guy actually broke his goddamned leg or some similar thing.

When people get hurt they might go down, sure, but they don't roll around shrieking like little girls. You might yell and swear. You might lie still, clutching the injured area. You might walk around shaking it. But the rolling around and shrieking and then being fine five minutes later is fake, pure fake, 100% fake, all theatrics, unless the man actually has a broken bone.

[mnemosyne]

It's the ones that fall and immediately look for a ref that bother me. If you're hurting, you'll spend a half second in your own zone trying to get your brain to deal with the pain, not turning your head left and right to find the guy with the whistle before you even hit the ground. Those guys ought to get carded a lot more often.

[fachverwirrt]

And as if on cue, an Ivory Coast player goes down clutching his face after being elbowed in the chest.

Do they think people won't watch the replay?

[mnemosyne]

Can anything be done to reverse that terrible red card? That was ridiculous! The Ivory Coaster ought to be suspended.

Also, I'm immature, and giggled every time the announcers referred to Kaka. It's an unfortunate name.

[Duke]

I've played every sport there is to be played, including soccer, and you know how often I've seen people REALLY roll around on the ground shrieking like a woman? Maybe twice in my whole life in any sport that wasn't soccer, and in the few cases that it happened it was when a guy actually broke his goddamned leg or some similar thing...But the rolling around and shrieking and then being fine five minutes later is fake, pure fake, 100% fake, all theatrics, unless the man actually has a broken bone.

I have to laugh a bit here...I've played and reffed a number of basketball games, and I've never seen someone fake an injury. But there was one time a guy went to the floor and shouted in pain for a while, and five minutes later was up and apparently fine.

It was me. The pain went away for a while, then came back the next day, and the school doctor was concerned enough to send me out for an X-ray. I had a broken wrist.

You're right, short of a broken bone or other severe injury I've never seen any basketball player act as theatrically.

[Snarky_Kong]

And as if on cue, an Ivory Coast player goes down clutching his face after being elbowed in the chest.

Do they think people won't watch the replay?

They don't care. Kaka was sent off, that was the reaction the player wanted.

Now, here's a perfect example of where video reviews would be great. Not during the game, but afterward. Cancel out Kaka's one match ban for the red, give the diver a yellow, so that if he had a previous one he'd get a match, and fine him some decent amount.

This wouldn't do too much at the moment, but if during a 40 game club season a player fakes 10 (or 75 if Ronaldo) injuries and loses out on $100k, and misses three or four matches, this sort of thing wouldn't be second nature.

That and more coaching on this sort of thing for the refs. If a guy rolls 6 times, he's not hurt. If he goes down and doesn't move, he's probably hurt.

[SciFiSam]

I loathe seeing players take a dive. Loathe, loathe, loathe it.

All the same, I loathe it less since I started playing football (for fun, but in a team). I guess, if you're not used to playing football, then you might not realise just how much certain injuries can hurt - the players wear very little protection - and cameras do sometimes make it seem like they're reacting more than they really are; a focus on a player's face creased up in agony might seem extreme, when really they were only like that for a few seconds.

When I played football it sometimes ended up looking like we'd been involved in a Fight Club instead, with everyone limping off pitch covered in cuts and bruises. :D Players who'd been injured before would go down wailing even the foul or accidental collision was minor, but that was because being toppled over onto a knee that's only just recovered from one injury is hugely more painful than toppling onto an uninjured knee. They weren't faking. But this was us playing just for fun, so we all knew they weren't faking.

Still, some of the dives in professional football really are so bloody obvious - and I mean really, really bloody obvious - that the player should be carded for it. Rewatching camera shots after the game might not get back that free kick, but they can at least get a carded player off the pitch for the next few games and discourage the practice.

I'd say the same for obvious fouls that only come to light on the cameras afterwards; don't replay the game, but do punish the player. This is a big debate in football, though - stopping the game for camera replays would be bloody boring and managing red/yellow cards after the event would be extremely difficult too. I still think it would be worthwhile.

[fachverwirrt]

They don't care. Kaka was sent off, that was the reaction the player wanted.


But, as I pointed out in another thread, getting Kaka sent off actually hurts his team's chances in the tournament. There was no way that it was going to help them in this game--it was too late and they were down by two goals--and they need Brazil to beat Portugal to have any chance of advancing, so weakening the Brazilian side is profoundly stupid. So this was a move with nothing but downside, and the obviousness of it combined with video replay just ensures universal derision.

[maplekiwi]

They don't care. Kaka was sent off, that was the reaction the player wanted.

Now, here's a perfect example of where video reviews would be great. Not during the game, but afterward. Cancel out Kaka's one match ban for the red, give the diver a yellow, so that if he had a previous one he'd get a match, and fine him some decent amount.
.

I think video reviews would be a good idea during the game. A video ref could check incidents properly & make a decision. You would hope embarrassment would stop the worst offenders.

[Snarky_Kong]

But, as I pointed out in another thread, getting Kaka sent off actually hurts his team's chances in the tournament. There was no way that it was going to help them in this game--it was too late and they were down by two goals--and they need Brazil to beat Portugal to have any chance of advancing, so weakening the Brazilian side is profoundly stupid. So this was a move with nothing but downside, and the obviousness of it combined with video replay just ensures universal derision.

No.

Goal differential counts. Playing up for ~10 minutes (right?) is still a good thing for them.

[fachverwirrt]

No.

Goal differential counts. Playing up for ~10 minutes (right?) is still a good thing for them.

Assuming that Portugal beats North Korea, the only way for Ivory Coast to advance is to beat North Korea and hope that Brazil beats Portugal. Only then will goal differential matter. Taking away an important player from Brazil not only will make it more difficult for Brazil to win, but will also make it less likely for Brazil--in the event they win--to score many goals, which would help considerably with goal differential.

It was more like 5 minutes (88th minute, 3 minutes of extra time); it was exceedingly unlikely for Ivory Coast to score a goal in that time.

[Snarky_Kong]

Assuming that Portugal beats North Korea, the only way for Ivory Coast to advance is to beat North Korea and hope that Brazil beats Portugal. Only then will goal differential matter. Taking away an important player from Brazil not only will make it more difficult for Brazil to win, but will also make it less likely for Brazil--in the event they win--to score many goals, which would help considerably with goal differential.

It was more like 5 minutes (88th minute, 3 minutes of extra time); it was exceedingly unlikely for Ivory Coast to score a goal in that time.

Yes. The only way that goal differential will matter is the overwhelmingly likely situation.

[fachverwirrt]

Yes. The only way that goal differential will matter is the overwhelmingly likely situation.

"Overwhelmingly likely"? Portugal is ranked third in the world.

[Snarky_Kong]

"Overwhelmingly likely"? Portugal is ranked third in the world.

On FIFA's list. Which is notoriously crap. The US was #4 going into the 2006 WC if I remember correctly. Checking wikipedia, it also had Norway 2nd on two separate occasions.

On the ELO rankings Portugal is #12. #10 in Nate Silver's rankings for ESPN.

Brazil is #1 in all three of those rankings BTW. Kaka or not, Brazil is going to dominate Portugal.

[fachverwirrt]

On FIFA's list. Which is notoriously crap. The US was #4 going into the 2006 WC if I remember correctly. Checking wikipedia, it also had Norway 2nd on two separate occasions.

On the ELO rankings Portugal is #12. #10 in Nate Silver's rankings for ESPN.

Brazil is #1 in all three of those rankings BTW. Kaka or not, Brazil is going to dominate Portugal.

Like they dominated North Korea?

One, that's still not a tremendous gap.

Two, this tournament has demonstrated that the superior teams are often vulnerable. Let's look at a few others, using the ELO rankings. Today number 60 New Zealand drew with number 9 Italy. Number 74 Algeria drew with number 5 England. And number 2 Spain was beaten by number 17 Switzerland.

The chances of Ivory Coast scoring a goal in the last minutes even a man up were minuscule. It is "overwhelmingly" more likely that Portugal will compete with Brazil than that Ivory Coast would break through at the end. In the event of a Brazil win, Ivory Coast wants Brazil to score a lot of goals. That chance has also been reduced.

[Snarky_Kong]

The should have let Brazil bang in a couple more to get their confidence up for the Portugal game.

The chance of scoring a goal in any given small period of time is minuscule, but guess what, every game doesn't end 0-0.

And the end of a game, up a man, and pushing for a goal is pretty much the most likely times to score of any time ever.

Anyway, care to make a wager that this group comes down to GD?

[fachverwirrt]

The should have let Brazil bang in a couple more to get their confidence up for the Portugal game.

The chance of scoring a goal in any given small period of time is minuscule, but guess what, every game doesn't end 0-0.

And the end of a game, up a man, and pushing for a goal is pretty much the most likely times to score of any time ever.

Anyway, care to make a wager that this group comes down to GD?

Of course their chances of scoring (or preventing a score) are going to be higher. My claim is that the chances of Brazil being somewhat weaker for the next game is higher than IC's chance of scoring.

And, since half my argument is that a weaker Brazil team is less likely to help IC in the goal differential department, no.

At any rate, we should pick this up after tomorrow's game to see exactly what sort of goal differential we're looking at.

[fachverwirrt]

Besides, if I wagered, it would pretty much guarantee a 14-0 Brazil ass-whuppin'.

Me and gambling don't get along.

[amarone]

Can any of the people here who have played soccer/football enlighten us as to the effectiveness of shin guards?

I played plenty of football in my youth, and know how much a kick to the shin can hurt, but I never wore shin guards. It surprises me how any knock on the shin has the player in agony - don't shin guards actually work?

[Caveat lector]

Can any of the people here who have played soccer/football enlighten us as to the effectiveness of shin guards?

I played plenty of football in my youth, and know how much a kick to the shin can hurt, but I never wore shin guards. It surprises me how any knock on the shin has the player in agony - don't shin guards actually work?

I haven't played in a long time and it was as a youth, but even then shin guards only made it less painful and that was with our puny kid kicks. Heck one of my teammates even had her leg broken through her guard once (if the guy who kicked her was twelve then elephants are really hamsters). I'm sure modern guards are better and the pros have the best there are, but they also kick really hard so I bet it still hurts.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

Can any of the people here who have played soccer/football enlighten us as to the effectiveness of shin guards?

I played plenty of football in my youth, and know how much a kick to the shin can hurt, but I never wore shin guards. It surprises me how any knock on the shin has the player in agony - don't shin guards actually work?

My - admitedly hazy - memmories of playing with shin guards is that they do a fair job in protecting the shins (surprising) no so much the ankles, knees, achilleses etc.

This was all at junior level though, I guass when a full grown man kicks you in the shins it would hurt quite a bit, even with shin guards.

[wintertime]

Like they dominated North Korea?


While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, I'll answer this sarcastic question with an earnest yes. It was one of the more impressive tactical victories during this Cup: Brazil was clever enough to not tire its offence with wave after wave of advances into the Korean half; instead they wore down their hard-running opponents by moving the ball among them over the full width of the field, forcing the Koreans to move players continuously to deny a Brazilian player a one-on-one situation.

In contrast to Spain, that had a similar approach but a less sophisticated deploy of their offensive players, they also kept disciplined a defensive shape that neutralized the few Korean advances well.

If you expect Dunga to opt for hooray-football, you have missed their development in the past months. The clinical way they dismantled Korea is pretty much the coaches idea of successful football. It might not look pretty, it certainly does not look Brazilian but it's a very sophisticated approach to counter the advances in athletics and defensive tactics that have made even mediocre teams competitive on an international level against brilliant but wild offences.

Brazil isn't wild anymore, but it could be successful again.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, I'll answer this sarcastic question with an earnest yes. It was one of the more impressive tactical victories during this Cup: Brazil was clever enough to not tire its offence with wave after wave of advances into the Korean half; instead they wore down their hard-running opponents by moving the ball among them over the full width of the field, forcing the Koreans to move players continuously to deny a Brazilian player a one-on-one situation.

In contrast to Spain, that had a similar approach but a less sophisticated deploy of their offensive players, they also kept disciplined a defensive shape that neutralized the few Korean advances well.

If you expect Dunga to opt for hooray-football, you have missed their development in the past months. The clinical way they dismantled Korea is pretty much the coaches idea of successful football. It might not look pretty, it certainly does not look Brazilian but it's a very sophisticated approach to counter the advances in athletics and defensive tactics that have made even mediocre teams competitive on an international level against brilliant but wild offences.

Brazil isn't wild anymore, but it could be successful again.


I don't agree with you here. I think we have seen a whole bunch of games that fit in the mould you describe. Holland-Denmark, Holland-Japan, Spain-Switzerland, Brazil-North Korea, England-Algeria, Italy-New Zealand and I'm sure there were a few I forgot.

The difference between some teams was very clear, both Italy and England just failed completely to even put pressure on their opponenets - they were just very bad. What Holland, Spain and Holland is concerned, they all controlled the game and were patient enough to create chances. The biggest difference was that teh dutch (twice) and the brazilians were somewhate lucky to get their goals, while Spain - who probably created the most chances - failed to do so. I'm not complaining about any of the results, that is football, but to say Brazil were tactically brilliant and Spain not is just not true.

[wintertime]

I'm not complaining about any of the results, that is football, but to say Brazil were tactically brilliant and Spain not is just not true.

I've never said and meant it so absolutely. However, in their first matches, the differences in tactical awareness were significant: while the Brazilian fullbacks utilized the space they had to their team's advantage, the Spanish ones did little well in favour of the offence and the whole defence fell to pieces twice. And although Spain played their 4-2-3-1 as they so often do, they didn't manage to use the width of the field till Navas entered it. Compare their effort versus Switzerland with their second half against Russia two years ago. Then Fabregas helped the team to overcome the stalemate of the first half by adding to the offence the extra player they needed to utilize the open spaces created by their passing, Russia was outplayed and overrun.

Of course, Switzerland was lucky a dozen times and more – but in contrast to prior appearances, Spain rarely used the spaces that Switzerland had to concede with force and positionally perfectly placed superior numbers.

Another difference in quality was the fluidity of the tactical shape: Brazil switched among them at will, while Spain and most other teams are more rigorous in their deployment of players (though not Chile).

The match against Côte d'Ivoire made me wonder if they will look as versatile against more able and active teams, but they won with efficiency against a pretty good team and stayed focused after their first win, so too much criticism seems inappropriate.

I think, Spain just didn't have a good day and they were still the far superior team with plenty of chances to win the game, so no reason for them to worry; even if they won't play stellar (wich I don't believe), they won't have so much bad luck a second time against an inferior opponent.

[Knorf]

The idea of embellishing every little bit of contact is as normal in some places as it is alien in Canada and the US.
Apparently you've never watched a single NBA game.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

How many refs are on the field for a World Cup match? Just one?

[amanset]

How many refs are on the field for a World Cup match? Just one?

One referee on-field. Two assistant referees (previously called linesmen) on either side of the pitch. An off-field referee, often called the fourth official, helps out with a few minor things like substitutions and showing how much injury time to add on to the end of a half.

[Ellis Dee]

Just saw a baseball highlight where a dude got drilled by a pitch right in the elbow. I winced just watching it. The guy jogged a few yards away and cradled his elbow for a bit, then went back to the plate and kept swinging.

Soccer player hystrionics are orders of magnitude more demonstrative than baseball players getting beaned by pitches, and there is no way in the world I'll ever believe a soccer kick hurts worse than being plunked by a major league pitcher.

And baseball players aren't really viewed as particularly tough in terms of American athletes. Very tough to be sure, but a bit candy-assed compared to hockey or American football players. My gut reaction to soccer player theatrics is to go all Godfather (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbZEkFLXh9Y#t=0m10s)*: "YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!"

* Link goes to audio that is both sudden and loud.

[Ximenean]

Just saw a baseball highlight where a dude got drilled by a pitch right in the elbow. I winced just watching it. The guy jogged a few yards away and cradled his elbow for a bit, then went back to the plate and kept swinging.

Soccer player hystrionics are orders of magnitude more demonstrative than baseball players getting beaned by pitches, and there is no way in the world I'll ever believe a soccer kick hurts worse than being plunked by a major league pitcher.

And baseball players aren't really viewed as particularly tough in terms of American athletes. Very tough to be sure, but a bit candy-assed compared to hockey or American football players. My gut reaction to soccer player theatrics is to go all Godfather*: "YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!"

* Link goes to audio that is both sudden and loud.
Yeah, but there's nothing to be gained from writhing around in agony in that case. You see the same thing in soccer, on the occasions when two players of the same side collide in some painful manner. They don't roll around or make anything of it. Well, unless they don't realise that it was one of their own guys, in which case the embellishment instinct might kick in.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

The theatrics are a disgrace to the game, and should be treated like drug doping or any other form of cheating, i.e. a lifetime ban. There is simply no excuse. Unfortunately, football has become less and less physical over time, and the game has favoured smaller and smaller men (the two are linked: midgets like Messi would get kicked all over the field if more physical contact was allowed). The diving isn't going to go away, as teams like Italy and other southern European sides profit from it enormously.


Can any of the people here who have played soccer/football enlighten us as to the effectiveness of shin guards?

I played plenty of football in my youth, and know how much a kick to the shin can hurt, but I never wore shin guards. It surprises me how any knock on the shin has the player in agony - don't shin guards actually work?


It doesn't hurt that much. At worst you have to sit down for a bit with a grimmace, and that's only if somebody toepokes you straight in the shin. There's no excuse for rolling around screaming like you've been hit by a sniper. It just doesn't hurt that much.

[wintertime]

Yeah, but there's nothing to be gained from writhing around in agony in that case. You see the same thing in soccer, on the occasions when two players of the same side collide in some painful manner. They don't roll around or make anything of it. Well, unless they don't realise that it was one of their own guys, in which case the embellishment instinct might kick in.

That. Plus, the players adapt their style to the referee on the field; if he is whistle-happy and/or easily fooled, they will collapse to the ground as if they all were Italians in disguise.

[wintertime]

Nevertheless, I'd like to remind the participants here who haven't played football that in all experience painful encounters of the close kind happen a dozen times and more in every game and more or less serious injuries are quite common.

[Novelty Bobble]

It doesn't hurt that much. At worst you have to sit down for a bit with a grimmace, and that's only if somebody toepokes you straight in the shin. There's no excuse for rolling around screaming like you've been hit by a sniper. It just doesn't hurt that much.

Well, no.

speaking from experience, I've played adult soccer since I was 14 (mumble mumble 26 years) and have had some lovely injuries over the years and there really isn't any correlation between how severe something is and how much it hurts.

Now I'm not one of life's whingers and play actor but neither do I have an astonishing pain threshold. Nor am I atypical. I know lots of my team mates have the same experiences.

I was kicked full across the face by a team mate, broken nose, blood everywhere, and I merely staunched the flow and drove to hospital.

I had a ball kicked full into the heel of my hand at the start of one game. I felt faint and sick but carried on playing and only when my arm blew up purple the day after did I realise that I'd broken both radius and ulna.

I forward rolled on hard ground and dislocated my collar bone (it still is, it has re-seated now in the wrong place) no pain until the next day

However......all this chest beating bravado is a lead up to saying that BY FAR the most painful thing that happened to me was the most innocuous.
Falling on my elbow and it digging into soggy ground. It was nothing to look at, you'd barely notice it happened, but it was wrenched in and out of it's joint and it felt like I'd been shot. I puked on the sideline from the pain and nearly passed out. Two minutes later I was back on and felt no other ill effects from it ever again.

A close second to that pain was....as has been mentioned....a stud to bare shin. incapacitating agony for a few minutes but aside from bruising, no lasting damage.

[Ellis Dee]

Yeah, but there's nothing to be gained from writhing around in agony in that case. You see the same thing in soccer, on the occasions when two players of the same side collide in some painful manner. They don't roll around or make anything of it. Well, unless they don't realise that it was one of their own guys, in which case the embellishment instinct might kick in.Right, understood. That's the whole point, what many Americans (and quite of few Europeans judging by the posts here and elsewhere) find distasteful.

I was more addressing that to the chorus of posters in this thread who keep insisting that soccer is indeed painful. Painful, sure, but more painful than a major league pitcher plonking your elbow? I'm dubious at best.

[Gray Ghost]

As another fan of soccer who nonetheless absolutely cannot stand the diving, simulation, and embellishment of the slightest contact, what are your thoughts on the following rule/procedure changes?
(Think I got these from Larry Borgia in another soccer thread)

1) Video review of all major professional matches with the power to hand out cards for diving or conversely, retract cards after reassessing the foul. De novo or Clearly Erroneous standard of review, no preference. Add fines too, if you like.

2) Play continues in the event of a player going down. If the player has to have a trainer/stretcher come onto the field with the magical spray can, fine, play stops. But the player has to then leave the pitch for a full 5 (or 10, or whatever) minutes---your team plays 11-10 for that period of time. A team can cancel the man advantage by substituting for the "injured" player via using one of the three regular substitutions.

Adding those two changes would, IMHO, take care of a lot of the hassle and improve the game. Training refs to realize that giving a red card 30 minutes in pretty much hands the game to the other team would help too.

Oh, and credit to Ellis Dee for succinctly linking to how I feel, watching teams like Italy, Chile, and Portugal.

Next, my quixotic quest to change offsides to something akin to the version used in hockey...

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

It isn't going to happen. They'll come out with some bullshit explanation that the game's rules need to be kept consistent at all skill levels. The governing bodies are dominated by southern European and Latin American representatives that profit from the diving.


...


The explanation would be more convincing if the overwhelming majority of players stayed down in apparent agony for less than ten seconds, until the referee has shown a card or given a freekick. If you can get up and run around thirty seconds later, you weren't injured in the first place.

[Tom Tildrum]

Did anyone see the red card in Switzerland-Chile, where a Swiss player was sent off? It looked to me like the Chilean player ignored an elbow to the head when he was still fighting for the ball, but when he was losing the ball and the Swiss player's hand went into his face, he went down. Legitimate red card or shameless dive? I'm a complete amateur, so I can't tell.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Shameless dive. Referees shit themselves when anybody goes down holding their face. The rule was brought in to stop players purposefully hammering each other in the face with their elbows when jumping for the ball or when marking each other. Now it's used to send off anybody who even appears to touch another players face. It's a fucking joke. The Swiss player was clearly just trying to fend off a player wrestling him from behind.

[Novelty Bobble]

Capt. Sir, I realise that my reply sounded like I was totally against you. Not the case, just making the point that it is possible for people to be in real agony and then up and running in a couple of minutes.

but.....big but, and in line with your points........the times such a thing happened to me was rare indeed, most of the time when you are hurt, the thing that gets you on your feet again is the cessation off the pain. It certainly isn't re-start of play or the booking of your opponent.

Personally, I'd be all in favour of very harsh punishment for everyone who obviously feigns injury (i.e. the Ivory Coast player yesterday.) Simply because what they do poisons the well for everyone and makes the ref's job far harder.

[Baron Greenback]

1) Video review of all major professional matches with the power to hand out cards for diving or conversely, retract cards after reassessing the foul. De novo or Clearly Erroneous standard of review, no preference. Add fines too, if you like.



The Scottish Premier League has been making moves in this direction in recent years. It seems a no-brainer to me.

[Gukumatz]

This. I imagine the OP has never played soccer/football, or maybe any other real sport.

Moderator's note:

This isn't a warning, infraction or ruling of any kind, more of an ethics note;

Speculating on the credentials of other posters without any background statement from them can't lead to anything good and frequently leads to offense being taken - in many cases righteously. It also makes it seem, to other posters, that you are pulling others down to establish yourself. I've had PMs about this behaviour in the Game Room lately and I agree that it isn't conducive to a good atmosphere.

While I'm singling you out here a bit, ShibbOleth, that is only because you were blunter than the other case I considered today. You're not being warned or anything and there isn't a Rule against this - this is just a suggestion.

Cheers,
Gukumatz
Game Room Moderator

[Snarky_Kong]

and there is no way in the world I'll ever believe a soccer kick hurts worse than being plunked by a major league pitcher.


Guess what happens next.

http://soccerprose.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/eduardo1.jpg

[Measure for Measure]

As another fan of soccer who nonetheless absolutely cannot stand the diving, simulation, and embellishment of the slightest contact, what are your thoughts on the following rule/procedure changes?
(Think I got these from Larry Borgia in another soccer thread)

1) Video review of all major professional matches with the power to hand out cards for diving or conversely, retract cards after reassessing the foul. De novo or Clearly Erroneous standard of review, no preference. Add fines too, if you like. I was thinking along the lines of keeping the status quo so as to maintain game flow. To that, I'd tack on full post-game video review with the ability to levy fines, which would escalate with both severity and repetitiveness of the behavior. A portion of the fines can be redistributed as bonuses for outstanding play. The results can be announced a week later, with the possibility of appeal -- why not? If players want to hire lawyers to argue their case, that's fine with me as well.

[runner pat]

Guess what happens next.

http://soccerprose.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/eduardo1.jpg

This. (http://murrblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/soccer-injury-oupa-ngulube-breaks-leg-in-half1.jpg):eek:
Not for the squeamish.

[Ellis Dee]

Guess what happens next.

http://soccerprose.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/eduardo1.jpgObviously I was talking about the kind that doesn't injure you. Or outright kill you, in the case of a fastball to the temple.

[wintertime]

Whoa, wait a minute. Quite a lot of matches in football decide the question whose pockets are going to be filled with millions, if not tens of millions of euros.

The more post-game review we allow, the more will the losing side try to correct the result via lawyer and the next opponent will have plenty of reason to weaken the other team by using its influence in the authorized organization to suspend players for fouls, dives or any other culpable act, they may find or claim to have found somewhere on a video.

The severity of a foul and its assumed intent, for example, determine the length of a suspension. Severity is difficult to judge; we had such a case in this year's Champions League.

Franck Ribéry fouled Lisandro López (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv1iAal7l-M) in the first game of the semifinals and faced a red card; the referee's statement prompted the UEFA to rate the situation not as a simple foul or a "serious foul play" but as a "violent conduct" (which adds intent). This leads invariably to a suspension of three games instead of one or two – which meant that Bayern Munich would definitely lose an irreplacable piece of their offence against Mailand in the final.

And though even the unhurt Lopez spoke for Ribéry, the verdict wasn't changed. Now, the foul was of a kind that I think should be judged harshly to warn copycats and give the player reason to rethink his conduct, so the judgment itself is hard but not ridiculous. And though I think "serious foul play" would have been more appropriate, this would still have resulted in a two-game suspension, so they would have played the remainder of the tournament without Ribéry anyway.

Two problems however became apparent in the following arguments: a) other fouls that had indeed led to severe injuries hadn't been punished that hard afterwards and b) the committees that decided the sentence were in the majority ruled by South European officials, while Middle and North Europe are severly underrepresented.

I have no idea if this played any role in the sentence – and I've already said that I could see its point – but I very much doubt that we could escape serious bias if committees were allowed even more influence on the outcome of tournaments than they already have (quite a lot before the matches even begin: the selection of the referees is just one example).

More reviews by clannish organizations don't necessarily lead to justice. If we want to give them more powers, we need to establish balanced representation first.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Whoa, wait a minute. Quite a lot of matches in football decide the question whose pockets are going to be filled with millions, if not tens of millions of euros.

The more post-game review we allow, the more will the losing side try to correct the result via lawyer and the next opponent will have plenty of reason to weaken the other team by using its influence in the authorized organization to suspend players for fouls, dives or any other culpable act, they may find or claim to have found somewhere on a video.


There's already disciplinary hearings in football, but their scope is limited. Why hasn't the current situation descended into chaos, with each club trying to get opposition player suspended as long as possible?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

While I enjoy the World Cup, this is a very annoying and sometimes flat out embarrasing behaviour. The reason it is there, is because it works. If you dive and scream in agony, the chances you get a free kick (which might decide the game), are twenty times higher than if you just stumbled and kept to your feet. So they act, and sometimes it destroys the game.

One rather new thing is to grab the ball when you fall, which always work. If you fall and grab the ball with your hands, without exception -- as far as I've seen -- you get the free kick. It's like, what else should the ref do? The alternative is a red card, but the ref obviously don't have the guts to throw it. Annoying as hell.

Otherwise, great tournament.naw--- wouldn't need to be a red card, but it would be an intentional handball and a yellow probably.

[wintertime]

There's already disciplinary hearings in football, but their scope is limited. Why hasn't the current situation descended into chaos, with each club trying to get opposition player suspended as long as possible?

Because the opportunities for an intervention are still pretty limited and not particularly attractive for clubs or national representatives and after-game decisions that lead to new sentences are so rare that each one is observed closely. Also, where did I talk about chaos? Are court hearings and inner-organizational bias synonyms?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Clubs turning an intra-league disciplinary matter into a legal circus to stifle opposition teams and gain a competitive advantage sounds like a good description of chaos to me!

[ivan astikov]

How do we know that video replay decisions won't make referee's improve their game and make them even keener to get things right first time? Can anyone say that refereeing professional standards have increased at the same rate as the footballer's?

[wintertime]

Clubs turning an intra-league disciplinary matter into a legal circus to stifle opposition teams and gain a competitive advantage sounds like a good description of chaos to me!

Ah, I was talking more about international competitions where other interests play a role too and the arcane bureaucracy of the large continental organizations comes into play. The need to work together within a league are a pretty good restraint against a circus.

Can anyone say that refereeing professional standards have increased at the same rate as the footballer's? --ivan astikov

Interesting question. My first reaction was a decisive "No, of course not!", but .. how much of this is selective perception? I usually don't remember the 20 correct offside-decisions in a game, but recall in detail the obvious blunder that changed its outcome.

Do you know of any study that compares the performances of the referees in the presence with the past objectively?

[wintertime]

In other words, are the referees worse than they were due to the increasing speed of the game and the larger mobility of all players or do the media, their focus on errors and the countless repetitions in slowmo and zoom make it appear that way?

[Mycroft Holmes]

Can anyone say that refereeing professional standards have increased at the same rate as the footballer's?

Before the 2006 World Cup Dutch television showed all the Dutch games from the '74 WC. It was interesting to see how badly some of the linesmen fell for the Dutch offside trap (a relatively unknown tactic at the time). Basically, as soon as a deep pass to the strikers was made, the Dutch defenders would all run forward at the same time and the linesmen would invariably call offsides, even though about 50% of the time there was no player offside at the time the pass was made. Nowadays linesmen don't fall for a badly executed trap.

[GargoyleWB]

Long time amateur soccer player here (going on 40 years now, yikes).

Shin strikes stopped hurting since I was 12 or so. I've been drilled and spike viciously many times, and while the pain still occurs in the background it never overrides my ability to keep going in the flow or get up and get running. Any player falling down clutching their shin after a tackle is faking without doubt.

What does hurt, and may be difficult to distinguish by a referee or fan, is getting chopped in the ankle or tuning your ankle hard. This pain will shut my voluntary body down--even if no real injury, my brain overrides and says "whoa, hold on a few secs, gotta check this out" before it will let me run it off. Quite often, 2 minutes later it will be like nothing ever happened.

The key visual clue for you fans is how the player falls:
Down hard on chest or face, hip or shoulder hit ground first == real
Arms flail and go down on side or back, sliding fall with legs or knees first == theater

[tagos]

If you can get up and run around thirty seconds later, you weren't injured in the first place.

That simply is not true.

[yojimbo]

That simply is not true.
Indeed. All you have to think about is stubbing your toe. For a few minutes all you can do is hop and think about the pain. A few minutes later you can be walking around fine. Pain can take you out of the world for a small time and once it dissipates you're good to go again.