# It's time, once again, for Americans to tell the world how to fix soccer. **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 14, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742 "2014-06-14T00:06:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/221 "2014-07-16T12:38:35Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Regarding the specifics of the final itself, a large part of it is how the game is played. That I’ll agree with, but what I will disagree with is the idea that how it is played now is wrong and it needs fixing. So your contention is that the game was too much of a high scoring shootout before 1990, and the evolution in Finals to very low scoring affairs is an improvement. That right? > [@](#): > > Because as it has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, but you just don’t seem to get, lots of goals doesn’t automatically mean a good game. If by “don’t seem to get” you mean “don’t agree”, then yes. And there are actually a couple real soccer fans ITT who are open to the idea of a bigger goal, or higher scoring in general. What do you say to them? ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/222 "2014-07-16T13:12:38Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > So your contention is that the game was too much of a high scoring shootout before 1990, and the evolution in Finals to very low scoring affairs is an improvement. That right? Nope. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. I’m not sure how many times we can repeat this before you start to get it. Let’s give ten more a go: The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > If by “don’t seem to get” you mean “don’t agree”, then yes. > > And there are actually a couple real soccer fans ITT who are open to the idea of a bigger goal, or higher scoring in general. What do you say to them? I disagree with them, but at least they are coming from a position where they know something about the game and can argue their case, unlike you that seems to think Sepp Blatter controls how the game is played and has got all your knowledge from Wikipedia and watching your son play. My Dad used to watch me play Rugby, I doubt he could tell you how many points you get for a try these days (it got raised from 4 to 5 since I stopped playing). I also think they’d agree with me that you can have an amazing 0-0 draw. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/223 "2014-07-16T13:16:00Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > If by “don’t seem to get” you mean “don’t agree”, then yes. So you think a 0-0 games is, almostby definition, a less entertaining game than a 5-0 thrashing? > [@](#): > > And there are actually a couple real soccer fans ITT who are open to the idea of a bigger goal, or higher scoring in general. What do you say to them? \*I’d \*say the same to them as to you. I have no need of such concepts in my hypothesis. You’ve yet to give me a convincing argument that more goals = better entertainment. Remember, pretty much every one of us has played in a game with massively high scoring, we do it week in, week out. The amateur game is more high scoring than the pro but it doesn’t mean that game is better. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/224 "2014-07-16T13:39:56Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So you think a 0-0 games is, almostby definition, a less entertaining game than a 5-0 thrashing? Nope, not going to let you get by with that straw man. Close games, in any sport, are inherently more exciting. OTOH, if it is my team, my beloved hometown team that I root for through thick and thin, and they are the ones \*giving \*the thrashing, then certainly I would prefer the 5-0 game. I have also noted that very low scoring games can be exciting too, _if they are rare._ I wonder if, as an NFL fan, I’m just inherently more open to change. The NFL tweaks rules all the time, often to keep things higher scoring, and it has only (IMO) improved the game. You always hear a few people grumble whenever they change something, but overall the game is more popular than ever. And in my other favorite sport, tennis, I wish they would change some things. There’s no way the rectangular court they happened to end up with is the ideal configuration. If there were half-circles on each side of the net (picture the top of a basketball “key”), with an “out” area within a few feet on each side of the net, that would be a ferocious-hitting, higher quality game IMO. Less radically, even if they keep all the other rules the same, they should change the scoring. There are too many situations in tennis where the stakes aren’t high enough, because the point being played just doesn’t contribute much to the final outcome, especially in men’s tennis (for instance, when the set is “on serve” and the server is up 40-0). They should play fewer points per game (like if it is 30-0 or 30-15, that is game point); or totally restructure, have players alternate serving two points each (once into each service box) and make it so the first player to 100 points (or maybe 150 for men in the Slams) is the winner. Then every point would count. Anyway, OT but my point is that I’m willing to be flexible even about the sports I already love. Y’all could learn something from me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/225 "2014-07-16T13:57:43Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Anyway, OT but my point is that I’m willing to be flexible even about the sports I already love. Y’all could learn something from me. 😃 Doing a smiley doesn’t immune you from being a dick. We’ve already shown we are not immune to change. I’ve given you examples of good changes that have been made and also examples of what I would like to see changed. It is just that I think your idea is awful. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/226 "2014-07-16T14:11:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Have you allowed this “Public Enemy #1” stuff to keep you from enjoying his delightful musings in general? Because if so, that is \*really \*sad. You say “delightful musings”. I say curmudgeonly moron. The Andy Rooney of Sports. > [@](#): > > BTW, those burgeoning figures for attendance and TV ratings look to me to mostly be because the Latino population in the U.S. is growing so explosively. Which I’m not complaining about, mind you: I’m a Democrat! But the point is, I don’t see much evidence that it is increasingly catching on here among cultural groups that weren’t into it before. That may explain the Univision ratings increase, but what about the ESPN ones? What about the new $90mil per year MLS deal, between ESPN, FOX, and Univision (ESPN and FOX are paying half of that total amount)? The expansion of the MLS into those Latino strongholds of Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver a few years back? NBC paying $80mil per year to broadcast the English Premier League on Saturday mornings (which has done pretty well)? Fox buying the rights to broadcast the German League (Bundesliga) in 2015? It ain’t just because there are more Latinos in the country (from my experience Latinos aren’t super interested in the North European leagues). ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/227 "2014-07-16T14:16:25Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > And in my other favorite sport, tennis, I wish they would change some things. There’s no way the rectangular court they happened to end up with is the ideal configuration. If there were half-circles on each side of the net (picture the top of a basketball “key”), with an “out” area within a few feet on each side of the net, that would be a ferocious-hitting, higher quality game IMO. :eek: what? “higher quality game” ? can you seriously say this with a straight face knowing that we have just had a 5 year period of tennis that is, without any debate, the finest quality amongst the strongest quartet that the world has ever seen. Three of the all-time greats and another that would be a multi-multi winner in any other era. I am speechless. I really can’t think of any way to respond to this. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/228 "2014-07-16T14:44:47Z")
Where did you get that I don’t agree that those _players_ are great? (And there’s also lots of good stuff going on in women’s tennis as well, BTW.) Or even that I don’t greatly enjoy watching (and playing) the game as it is? My entire point was that I can love, _adore_, a game and still think it can be improved. You are just illustrating that many others in this thread do not seem to be able to hold these ideas simultaneously. I think if the court were shaped as I described, it would be even more awesome to see those players hitting into it. But I don’t know that for sure; it is a radical change and it would be a risk. They have grown up with the court we have (though on the other hand baseball hitters seem to be able to deal with hitting in parks with vastly different shapes). And maybe my proposed shape would not be an improvement. But it does seem like folly to argue that the court dimensions, which were set in a completely different era, are ideally suited to the talents of 21st-century tennis players, right down to the last centimetre, buy some incredible stroke of luck or prescience on the part of some official a century plus ago. In any case, though, I don’t see how you can really dispute my point about scoring. You could keep the court dimensions and all other rules identical and change the scoring and you would have far fewer “pointless points”. As it is now, it’s sort of like the electoral college, right down to the possibility that the player who wins the most points loses the match. Except that at least in a presidential election, we don’t have to spend as much time watching candidates campaign pointlessly in Wyoming or Vermont as we do watching them campaign in Ohio or Florida. Why not edit out a lot of that dead space and have the players play, and spectators watch, points that really count towards the final outcome? When we have those great players competing against each other, why wouldn’t we want to see more important points between them, and fewer irrelevant rallies? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/229 "2014-07-16T17:03:05Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > “Rightfully aghast”?!? 😕 In basketball, a game beloved worldwide both in the U.S. and elsewhere, teams run up and down the field of play, changing possession of the ball and trying to get it into a goal–something they do a combined hundred times or so per game. But doing so thirteen times in soccer would be just wild, crazy, and awful? Why? What would be so terrible about it? So, each goal is devalued–but you get more of them! And the winning goal late in the game still has the same value as ever. This is just stubborn traditionalism for its own sake, nothing more. All sporting rules are inherently arbitrary. You could, in theory, still play baseball if the rules were changed to three balls for a walk and two strikes for an out (and in fact 4 balls and 3 strikes weren’t always standard). And you could also argue that your rules would result in a faster-paced game more geared to modern attention spans. You could also put the fences at about 300 feet, because hey, people like home runs, right? In practice nobody would want it because the game that would result would be so fundamentally different in its strategies and style of play that it would be nearly unrecognizable from what they thought of as “baseball.” That doesn’t make them “stubborn traditionalists” it makes them people who don’t want to see their game fundamentally altered. Soccer with routine 7-6 scores is as utterly alien to fans of that sport as suggesting that baseball should have 17-15 scores and seven home runs a game, or that basketball should play with a five-pound ball and have 36-28 scores. It’s ridiculous to propose the game be fundamentally altered into something it is not and never has been, and then insist that people who don’t want to play the new sport you’ve invented are all luddites. Incremental changes are one thing – a couple people in the thread have said that making the goal a half-meter wider might not be a bad idea – but insisting that soccer be just like basketball and goals be made commonplace is something very, very different; basically a reinvention of the sport into something different. You’re responding to rejection of your reinvention as if it included rejection of any change whatsoever. That isn’t the case. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/230 "2014-07-16T17:22:50Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Nope. The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. I think I’m generally on your side of this argument (I don’t see a pressing need to do something to increase scoring), but I think you’re overstating your case. If I was really looking forward to a world cup final, and I encountered a genie in a bottle and got 3 wishes, and one of those wishes had to be to choose ahead of time what the final score of the game would be (without specifying the winner), I would go for either 2-1 or 3-2. I think a game with those final scores are more likely to be exciting and satisfying than 0-0 or even 0-1. The WC final we just saw was a good game and ended 1-0, but it wasn’t a GREAT game by any stretch of the imagination. And while I admit that I’m a pretty casual fan, I feel like there’s some general agreement that goals make a game better. Announcers, who have British accents so I know they’re knowledgeable, often comment that this particular game needs an early goal (particularly one scored by the more offensive-minded team), because that forces the other team to come out and play, etc. None of which is the same as higher-scoring-equals-more-fun, but do think that you’re reacting a bit too far in the other direction. I think the REAL problem (to the extent that there is one) is that elimination-round games tend to be less good games than either the group games in the WC or league games, maybe because everyone is so cautious. I think 8 of the 10 most exciting games at this WC were in the group stages, or something like that. How to fix it? It’s not easy… but one slightly radical possibility is to do the PKs before the game even starts. Then one of the teams knows they HAVE to score and they CAN NOT play for penalties, and (to me) soccer games tend to be at their most exciting when the pressure is on one side, so they have to come forward and attack, and they risk further counterattacks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/231 "2014-07-16T17:23:39Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > The quality of the game has nothing to do with how many goals are scored. You keep repeating this, but it’s missing the point. Yes, a 0-0 game can be well-played and exciting; it can also be dull as dirt. Same with 5-4. The question is: On balance, which of the two is more interesting, especially to people not already attuned to the finer points of the game? I don’t think there’s any question it’s the latter. In and of itself, that doesn’t mean any changes should be made, let alone radical changes. But if soccer wants to grow in the US – and ISTM it does – it does have to at least consider the perceptions of the people it’s trying to woo. When my international friends watch baseball, their immediate reaction is that it’s too slow-paced; and coming from their background, they’re right. If baseball wants to expand into new markets that perceive it as slow-paced, it would be well-advised to look and see if there are ways it can tinker around the edges that would not alienate it’s base. ETA: Simulpost with Max. Love the PK’s before the match idea. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/232 "2014-07-16T17:41:51Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > What is it that you actually want? I’ll answer this first because it will clear up the rest of the post: I want more scoring, less emphasis on defense, more emphasis on offense, no ties, no penalty kicks, a clear winner and loser, more transparency with regards to the time, elimination of stoppage time and the addition of instances where the clock stops, harsher punishment for flopping, reduction of luck playing a part in games, and an increase of situations where skill is important. But most of all I want people arguing against changes to stop making the frankly outrageous claim that any changes would somehow fundamentally alter the game. I want them to acknowledge that any changes to soccer does not fundamentally alter the game and that it merely alters their preferred style. > [@amanset](#): > > Anything can be measured by stats. But not every stat is meaningful. That is why my suggestions specifically focused on luck and skill. It is objectively better to have the game be more skill-based than luck-based and stats can track skill more than luck, I think > [@amanset](#): > > But on the other hand, even I can score with free throws now and again, something that is used as an equivalent to the penalty in Basketball. > > I think you also are ignoring the skill on the goalie’s part to read where the player is going to kick it. That’s something that definitely sets non-players apart from normal players. It simply isn’t as easy to score for a non-player as you seem to think it is. Alright, point taken. But the rate of making a penalty kick is high compared to the relative worth of the point. The low scoring in soccer magnifies the ability of luck to greatly affect the outcome versus a basketball game where consistency takes into account the skill of one team more than luck. I’m not saying luck doesn’t happen, but if you luck into a couple baskets here and there, there’s more than enough time and scoring for the other team to, using their skill, recover from that. In soccer, if it comes down to PK’s, you get 5 chances and may not even use them all if the goalie reads the kick right. > [@amanset](#): > > But the basic problem still is there: this is the way everyone else likes it. Sure, make the goals bigger in MLS, but be prepared for your team to do poorly in the World Cup. That’s not the point of the topic. The point is how soccer can be changed to appeal to Americans. I readily acknowledge that it is the most popular sport in the world and if I had to objectively decide what sports rules out of all sports to change with the goal of appealing to the most people, soccer would be lower on the list. But this is how I would personally enjoy it being played > [@amanset](#): > > Actually, we grow up playing the sport, so we know what it is like to be a small goalie in a big goal (which is pretty much equivalent to a bigger goal with an adult goalie). There are also variants of football, for example five-a-side, that have different sized goals. There’s also when you find two trees vaguely close together, jumpers for goalposts etc etc > > It is nothing to do with the familiar. What I meant was that people are familiar with the rules that have been in place throughout its history and changing it would be unfamiliar territory if those changes have never been implemented. Like if every player got to use their hand once in a game or something > [@amanset](#): > > But to be honest, I’m losing your point here. You seemed to be arguing firstly that goals should be increased in size, but then penalties are too easy to score. Surely making the goal bigger will make it even easier to score. So to reiterate what I said before, get rid of PK’s, but increase the size of the goal for more scoring. I dislike the inherent luck of the PK’s, but I also dislike the low scoring. A bigger goal would fix both of that > [@amanset](#): > > But they do gain points. That’s like saying as you don’t get points for corners, corners are pointless. It is just being stupid to try and “win”. Alright, I won’t fight the premise then. I think 0-0 games should result in no points. To offset that, soccer should eliminate the possibility of 0-0 games. The reason why I think that’s better is because I find 0-0 games boring and pointless no matter what happens in the game, with the emphasis that I understand its not pointless in the context of how soccer teams are ranked in a league or tournament, but in fact pointless TO ME in terms of enjoyment and determining a definitive winner in each game. A 0-0 game will always, to me, be worse than any 7-6 game you can conceive of, even if you replaced the players with monkeys or one ref simply gave points to a team for looking at him funny > [@amanset](#): > > “Better” in your opinion. There was an average of 2.67 goals per game in this World Cup. There was an average of 2.77 per game in the English Premier League last season (and for the record, only 6.8% were penalties). The idea that football is a game burdened by goalless draws is comically incorrect AND EVEN THEN goalless draws are not automatically bad games. I’m sorry if you can’t see that and the only enjoyment you get is seeing the ball hitting the back of the net, but that’s just the way it is. > > 21% of games last season in the English Premier League ended in a draw. Not always a scoreless draw, but still a draw. So 79% of the time the rules of the game worked out who was “best” on the day, with no need for extra time or penalty shootouts. Football is doing fine. My contention is that there should never be a 0-0 game. In that sense, it doesn’t matter what the average score is. So long as there is one 0-0 game, it harms soccer in my eyes. > [@amanset](#): > > I’d also disagree that one team is always “better” by a margin that says that they deserve the three points. I think that’s a weakness of soccer, and that by your logic, I would suggest then that they lower the points given to a winning team and eliminate ties so that wins would still count, but less due to parity > [@amanset](#): > > And as shown, football fans are not against change. Will you honestly answer the 2nd question? Can you admit that you are simply biased towards your style of play and none of my suggestions are detrimental to the game, only detrimental to your preferences? > [@amanset](#): > > I’m pretty sure every tournament, both league and knockout, has a method of deciding who was the actual winner. I’ll ask you to not fight the hypothetical. If ties are valuable because of how it affects rankings, are they still valuable if they don’t affect rankings and a tournament final can result in a tie? Would you still appreciate ties as much as you do now? In my American eyes, it doesn’t matter how you amend the rules to take ties into account, all I see is the tie. Instead of creating a system that takes ties into account in order to make ties valuable, you should eliminate ties in the first place so as not to have to do that. Therefore, my premise was that if you think its valuable inherently, let me test that by hypothesizing that a winner of a tournament like the World Cup could be split between two teams due to a tie. Do you still value it then? Or do you see my point that ties are not something to celebrate? ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/233 "2014-07-16T17:50:57Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > 1. Control flopping. Post-game suspensions/fines/what-have-you. Get it down to controllable levels. Even with replays it’s often impossible to tell if a player was fouled, brought down honestly or dived. Unworkable. > [@](#): > > 1. Increase the count of officials to 7 as follows: 4 linesmen (2 on each half of the field), 2 assistant refs (again one for each half) - their job is to keep an eye on things away from the play and provide a different angle for tough calls, 1 head referee (substantially same duties as now). This would only increase the number of non-players on each half of the pitch by 1 so as not to provide additional obstacles to play. Tried that. Had two extra officials in the last Euros, or the Europa League, or something a couple of years ago. Didn’t help, got rid. Also a World Youth Cup a few year ago played without the offside rule. Didn’t work. We tried the sudden-death extra time, golden goal as it was called, didn’t work. > [@TheBoltEater](#): > > Let me add in something on a bit of a tangent that I don’t think people talk enough about. As a former soccer referee,I _hate_ seeing a ref get confronted by a mob of players on both sides screaming in his face from inches away after a controversial call. Arguing a call is one thing, attempting to intimidate the ref is quite another. I’d love to see soccer introduce some form of the 2 ice hockey rules that apply to this - Dissent is already an offence and the referee can issue yellow card for it at his own discretion. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But much of this thread is about ways to reduce diving or get rid of PKs, and as far as I can tell from many such discussions, no true soccer fan actually LIKES PKs or diving, so responses to the suggestion range from “that’s a good idea” to “that’s a good idea but it has these drawbacks…” to “I fear change!” to “how dare you upstart yanks make suggestions about a game that’s over 100 years old, (but yeah that’s a fine idea)”. Penalties are great drama, and objectively the best way to separate two teams still level after 120 minutes. Other than replays, perhaps, but good luck with that. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > “Rightfully aghast”?!? 😕 In basketball, a game beloved worldwide both in the U.S. and elsewhere, No. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues), it has a lower average attendance in America than Ice Hockey, and also lacks its international appeal. Basketball is, therefore, quite popular in the US and completely obscure almost everywhere else. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yet he gets reelected again and again to head your beloved sport. Which is fine and dandy just as it is. Um, ok? As with America, the President of FIFA get elected by throwing money around and buying votes. Nonetheless, his support for your position effectively removes any possibility that it could be a good idea. > [@amanset](#): > > Personally, I want to see an end to the rule (and I believe I mentioned this in the “Brasil 2014” thread) where a player can use his body to shield the ball with absolutely no intention of playing the ball. This stops decent attacks, with the defender getting in the way of the attacker and then standing still, and it is what allows attackers to take the ball to the corner and just waste time, shielding the ball from the defenders (whose team is losing) with his body. > > I would **love** to see that rule changed. Obstruction is already against the rules, maintaining possession isn’t, and never will be. Maybe some defenders should learn to tackle. In fact one of my first memories is of Lee Dixon being awarded a free kick for obstruction playing for Arsenal against Auxerre in the Cup Winners’ Cup. > [@Remember\_me](#): > > - Increasing the chances of scoring from long distance would mean that the defence has to defend further up the field. This would in turn provide more free space in the 18 yard box, i.o.w. it would make it more difficult to “park the bus”. You decrease shots from distance by putting pressure on the ball, not by maintaining a high line. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I wonder if, as an NFL fan, I’m just inherently more open to change. The NFL tweaks rules all the time, often to keep things higher scoring, and it has only (IMO) improved the game. You always hear a few people grumble whenever they change something, but overall the game is more popular than ever. As is real football. > [@](#): > > And in my other favorite sport, tennis, I wish they would change some things. There’s no way the rectangular court they happened to end up with is the ideal configuration. If there were half-circles on each side of the net (picture the top of a basketball “key”), with an “out” area within a few feet on each side of the net, that would be a ferocious-hitting, higher quality game IMO. That’s not [real tennis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_tennis). ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/234 "2014-07-16T18:25:13Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I’m pretty sure every tournament, both league and knockout, has a method of deciding who was the actual winner. The trouble is, in some cases, you get something similar to what the Rugby Union World Cup used to do: the last tiebreaker was, “If it’s not the final, toss a coin; if it is the final, declare both teams co-champions/joint champions (and worry about what to do with the trophy later).” > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I’ve never understood why offsides couldn’t be made more like hockey. For example, no one on offense can be inside the penalty box before the ball is in the box. MLS’s predecessor, NASL, had a line on each half of the field about 30 yards from the goal line, and offside was not called between the two lines. In fact, I read a story about a match played in England in (I think) the 1920s where they tried a similar rule for one half, and in the other half, reduced the number of defenders needed in order to be onside from three (which is what it was back then) to two. As for making the goals larger, I can think of one reason why it might be a good idea now; goalkeepers have gotten far more athletic over the past few decades. I can also think of a reason why it won’t happen; cost - you’re telling pretty much every club and university (and high school, if they use full-size goals) to buy new goals. If you really want to increase scoring without replacing all of the goals (and without doing something drastic like getting rid of goalkeepers - increase the number of players per side, but nobody is allowed to use their hands), here’s an idea: allow for unlimited substitution - you name up to 18 players (no more than 15 of whom can be non-goalkeepers) who can play in a match, but (possibly except for goalkeepers) they can be taken out and put in any number of times. (Further rule: a player who receives a yellow card must be removed immediately, but can come back in - similar to ice hockey’s penalty box or rugby’s “sin bin,” but there’s no minimum sit-out time.) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/235 "2014-07-16T18:51:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Incremental changes are one thing – a couple people in the thread have said that making the goal a half-meter wider might not be a bad idea – but insisting that soccer be just like basketball and goals be made commonplace is something > very, very different; basically a reinvention of the sport into something different. Wow, hope you’re having fun kicking around that straw man. Weird, too, since your reply to \*\*amanset \*\*below seems so reasonable. Maybe you honestly misunderstood my position? This was from a couple pages back: > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I agree: there is too much scoring in basketball, which is why I’m not aiming for a 40-39 score… Later in the thread I suggested making the goal three feet (less than a meter) wider and one foot higher (to keep it exactly the same shape). > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I want more scoring, less emphasis on defense, more emphasis on offense, no ties, no penalty kicks, a clear winner and loser, more transparency with regards to the time, elimination of stoppage time and the addition of instances where the clock stops, harsher punishment for flopping, reduction of luck playing a part in games, and an increase of situations where skill is important. > > But most of all I want people arguing against changes to stop making the frankly outrageous claim that any changes would somehow fundamentally alter the game. I want them to acknowledge that any changes to soccer does not fundamentally alter the game and that it merely alters their preferred style. Yes, so much this. Your summary here seems eminently reasonable, but I guess in the ideas of many it is absurd, beyond the pale. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/236 "2014-07-16T18:59:07Z")
I don’t know about unlimited in&out substitutions. It may turn the stoppages in soccer into something look and dull, like the NFL between plays. It likely wouldn’t fly due to the effect it’d have on the flow of the game (even now the amount of time some subs take to get off the field is annoying). However, an increase in the number of subs per game for the World Cup may have potential. As pointed out up thread, the amount of goals scored in league play hasn’t really gone down all that much. And likely the biggest benefit to having more talented players in a side is that they can all mark opposing star players (hence better defensive play). So, how about for World Cups alone increasing the max subs to 5. Endurance would still be important, but it would allow for fresher legs, especially when you have potential extra time. Or perhaps add 2 subs at the beginning of Extra Time for both teams to allow for more exciting play during the ET periods. I mean you don’t want to change the game at “league level” for a problem that is really World Cup based? And even if you are thinking, well, Americans like higher scores, here are the scores for this past weekend’s MLS games: Philadelphia 3 - Colorado 3 (Colorado came back from 3-1 - though shoddy defending all game) New York 4 - Columbus 1 Toronto FC 4 - Houston 2 Sporting KC 2 - Montreal 1 Chicago 1 - New England 0 Chivas USA 3 - Vancouver 1 LA Galaxy 1 - Real Salt Lake 0 Seattle 2 - Portland 0 Relatively high scores, comparatively, right? Perhaps that should be kept in mind that it will affect this league as well as all the rest for something that is a result of watching WC matches. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/237 "2014-07-16T19:04:49Z")
None of those games are high scoring \*and \*close \*and \*not a tie. It’s just one slate of games, but none of them strike me as presenting a satisfying scoring result in American terms. Had the Philly-Colorado game not been a tie, that’s pretty decent. But the tie kills it, no matter how many goals were scored. Toronto-Houston and Sporting KC-Montreal look like the most satisfying. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/238 "2014-07-16T19:06:06Z")
I think we’ve already established you’d like a different sort of game than most soccer fans in this country. That’s fine, but that’s not going to happen in the MLS. You are free to start your own league with your own rules. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/239 "2014-07-16T19:09:20Z")
MLS already tried to get the goal enlarged. Your assumption that they are totally against me seems misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742/240 "2014-07-16T19:13:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > MLS already tried to get the goal enlarged. Your assumption that they are totally against me seems misplaced. You did note the fact that they got slapped down, right? MLS also tried to introduce a countdown clock as well, which they abandoned after a few years. I shall quote the Big Lebowski: “So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…” After attempts at “Americanizing” the game and almost completely screwing themselves (resulting in the folding of two original clubs), the MLS went more for embracing the international game. It is when they did that that the league flourished. They are not going down the Americanizing well again. If you followed the MLS, instead of walking into the middle of the movie, you’d know that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-once-again-for-americans-to-tell-the-world-how-to-fix-soccer/690742.md?page=13)