Resolved: I fucking hate soccer!

The BBQ Pit
181

Firstly, i’d be interested to hear what you’d change about baseball, so we can evaluate whether or not it would involve the type of dramatic overhaul that whining Americans want in soccer.

And it’s not like soccer fans are hidebound opponents of any change whatsoever. Most agree, for example, that the rule against the back pass (instituted in the early 1990s), made the game better.

I’ve already made clear in the World Cup thread, i would like some sort of replay system that would prevent things like the Tevez “goal” and the Lampard “non-goal” from last week. I think, in the absence of a full-blown replay system initiated by the officials or by an off-field monitor (which would be my preference), and NFL-style challenge system might work, as it would allow the coach to determine whether the incident were important enough to warrant a challenge.

I would also like a rule where the referee could award a goal in cases where the ball is deliberately kept out of the net by a handball from the opposing team, like in the Uruguay-Ghana match.

I’ve also, in the past, been open to some minor changes in the offside rule. There’s some merit, for example to the idea of making the offside marker a fixed line (like in hockey) rather than a moving plane. In its current format, the offside rule in soccer is incredibly difficult to officiate, even when the assistant referees are excellent officials with the best of intentions. It’s simply very, very hard to keep your eyes on all the different important locations at once. Judicious use of video replay might help alleviate this problem a bit.

I also think that they might look at having a rule whereby the attacking team cannot be offside during a free kick, and also where the attacking team cannot be offside once the ball is in the penalty area. Once play is concentrated right down in the goal area like that, i think the attacking team should be able to run where they like, and the defending team shouldn’t be able to put them offside by pushing forward. This might put me in the minority among soccer fans, but i think it would work.

But most of this is tinkering around the edges, and i make these suggestions in the spirit of the game itself. All the bullshit about changing goal sizes, the number of players, field size, etc. would so fundamentally alter the game as to make it unrecognizable to the fans. Again, i ask why the billions of people who love the game should pay any attention to a small group of blowhard assholes who probably wouldn’t watch the game even if it was constructed to their exact specifications.

182

I would NOT add a replay, soccer should be played with minimal stops. I would add a camera on the goal line so that you can perfectly see if the ball completely crossed over. Maybe this could be a ref on the lens with the ability to make that type of call.

I would add a second ref on the field - one on each side of the game perhaps. Something so that we don’t have a center ref running over 7 miles in a game. I do think that hurts the game a bit when they can’t keep up with the play, and something gets missed.

To make the game work for Americans, I would work on keeping statistics. Americans LOVE their box scores, and finding a way to have more data to analyze (and therefore create a fantasy team with) would really help. Defensive stops, defensive takeaways, broken plays, passes made without losing the ball, time controlling the ball, shots on goal, shots missed, shots deflected by Keeper, shots from outside of the box, etc. I know that SOME of that is kept, but we need a nice summary box so that we can make statements like “Arsenal won the statistics, but Fullham got the points.”

183

That brings up another question – does FIFA or its member associations make minor rules adjustments to help the sport? I look at the NFL, and I know that every season there will be some rule changes. Some of them will be so small as to be invisible to fans, some will be comparatively huge – but there will be changes aimed at improving the game. Do they do the same in soccer?

184

Yes.

An example of the kind of changes that have gone on is the Offside rule. It went from must have two opposition players between the player and the goal line to being allowed to be level with the second-last opposition player. Then they brought in some sort of “interference with play” thing, but the original implementation was flawed and was open to abuse and so it got tweaked again. This probably all happened over a period of a decade or so.

If you look at the rules of the game, the actual rules section is quite simple, but then there’s a rather large “interpretation” section which is probably where most of the changes are made.

Examples of other recent rules changes are the implementation of the backpass rule in the early 90s, rules regarding the removal of clothing after a goal and the crackdown on the tackle from behind.

185

And I forgot the link to the rules:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf

186

But that’s exactly the difference between close scores in basketball and close scores in soccer. If two teams play seven games in basketball and one ends up beating the other in the final game by just a few baskets, you can say with very high confidence, “Wow, these two teams were really close, but the marginally better team at last won.” (This is especially true if none of the seven games are blowouts, or at worst each team has one blowout). In soccer, first of all (correct me if I’m wrong), they don’t bother playing seven game series, or even three game series; it’s just head to head.

Secondly, because scoring is so difficult, what does a 0-0 tie tell you about the relative skills of the two teams? Not as much as an 89-87 game in basketball, certainly. It’s like the next-to-impossible ring toss game at a carnival. Give my little sister 10 rings, give the best 3-point shooter in NBA history (Steve Kerr) 10 rings, and they’ll each miss 10. Does that mean that they’re equally accurate at shooting? Contrast that with 10 free throws, where Steve Kerr will make most of them and my sister will miss most of them, and now you can tell which person has the better shooting skills. Because the goal is more achievable, it’s actually useful in measuring a disparity in skill.

So, to summarize, a close seven game NBA series actually has meaning, because it tells you with high confidence which team is better. A close game in soccer – even non-ties like 1-0 – has comparatively much less meaning because it’s eminently possible that the worse team could have caught a lucky break and scored that single goal, because scoring is so bloody difficult.

And if the game is adjusted so both teams are hammering goals in?

187

Sorry, but I just don’t see that. I just see a team that maybe missed one less basket than the other. That can be luck, skill or anything.

I’d say the same with cricket, where it is common for a single batsman to score over 100 runs. the sheer amount of points isn’t really that much more information, it is just a slightly different game mechanic.

188

I’ll get to my baseball list in a second, but how would widening the goal radically change the game, exactly? That long goal by the Dutch player today, who laser-beamed the ball into the upper right corner, was fantastic. Widening the goal would provide more chances for some of those longer-ranged shots, when 2/3rds of them would be blocked by the horde of players milling around in the middle in any event anyway. Doesn’t need to be a huge change, just 1 foot or to the left, right and top. A mere 22% increase in goal size…

Okay, baseball.

  1. Something to limit the number of throws to first, so as to jump-start the running game. Perhaps every 3rd (unsuccessful) pickoff throw to a base means an automatic ball for the batter.

  2. DH for the NL. This will come to pass this century, I am sure of it.

  3. Moderately smaller mitts/gloves. Would more accurately differentiate between the sure-handed fielders and the fumblers, thus rewarding skill.

  4. Synthetic bats, which won’t shatter into a million bits of wooden shrapnel when the hitter is jammed. Someone (fan or fielder) is going to get seriously injured (as in, impaled) sooner or later.

  5. Even tho this is not something which can be mandated, I would still like to see at least one team build a big ballpark and try to build a team around speed and defense.

Okay that’s only five, but I’m currently dealing with a sore-as-fuck wisdom tooth that I’m getting out on Thursday. While this list of admittedly moderate changes isn’t anything wild at all, I do occasionally wonder about things like a 5 base version, on a 120 degree field (bases laid out in the shape of home plate, 1-2 extra fielders, no DH BTW, but no pitcher batting). For the want of a nail a sport could have turned out very differently from what it started out as; who am I to say that the version in this timeline is the best possible?

189

Agreed, particularly when many (good NBA) games are still tied or 1 point away in the last minute.

190

As for number 4, the real problem is not necessarily the wooden bats, but the use of maple instead of ash. Maple has become more popular but it tends to really shatter instead of just breaking into a couple pieces or cracking. Balls come off a metal bat faster, reducing the amount of time fielders (especially the pitcher) has to react and, if needed, get out of the way. Foul balls will also go into the stands harder and can cause more injuries

191

Tagos made a point that golf is stupid because hole in ones are rare. If that was the point of the game, then he’d have a point. It isn’t. So, I came back with a question as to how many first kicks by a player ever result in a goal. Should we do more to make that happen? Of course not as that isn’t the point of the game.
Nothing to do with who wins or how other than to comment at least in golf the ball gets in the hole eventually whereas in soccer it may not.

192

If you’re just talking to the world at large, I agree. If you’re talking to me specifically, you should note that I never made the claim that popular = good; I was merely responding to a factually incorrect statement that soccer is “small time”.

And while I know it doesn’t matter, it appears that CSI: Miami hasn’t been the most popular show in the world for some time. It’s been beaten by both CSI and House, both of which are good (albeit not always great) television shows. (Granted, I’m pretty skeptical of world-wide totals of TV viewership of any kind, due to possible differences in methodology between countries.)

193

Those are no Baywatch though. At least they ran on the beach an awful lot and that is another part of the universal language, the real beautiful game if you will.

194

I can see the use of replay in soccer, but that’s about it. American football on the other hand is a mishmash of nonsensical and contradictory rules. BTW, I’m an American.

Overtime, for one. A defender slips on a wet field and the receiver goes for a touchdown. Game over. Sorry, other team, you don’t get a chance to even the score. Why the hell not? Because we said so. The NFL overtime policies make penalty kicks look like an ingenious move.

Touch line policies. A receiver has to have two feet in bounds on the sideline for a legal catch, even if the ball is five feet off the field. For a touchdown, the feet don’t matter at all, it’s the ball position that determines everything. The player’s entire body can bet out of bounds, but if the ball crosses a mythical plane that any one of many officials decides it has, it’s a touchdown. Not to mention on a punt or a kickoff, if a player who has two feet in the field of play, this mythical plane disappears - the ball can cross the line as much as it wants as long as the player’s feet don’t. In one situation the ball is considered in the end zone, and in an exactly similar situation, it isn’t.

NFL rules are a complete joke.

195

And jumping up and down? That’d be basketball.

196

Wrong. We play it here in Canada as well, only we call it Canadian Football. Looks the same on tv, and we have a significant number of NFL rejects playing in our national professional league but we do have some different rules.

Next to hockey its our second most favourite team sport to watch.

And a lot of us watch American football as well.

197

Yeah, but Canada is basically America Junior anyway. :slight_smile:

198

Football is not just about the number of goals scored. It is much more than that. Golf is about getting the ball in the hole so the analogy stands.

I second the call for Americans who don’t like football to just STFU. You don’t understand the game as your use of ridiculous terminology derived from American Football that just sounds retarded to the rest of us demonstrates. We have no interest whatsoever in the USA liking the sport.

We don’t care about your comical opinions or suggestions. We like the fact that football scores are not 10-9 each match. We understand draws. We like the fact you don’t have to be an Armoured Steroid Freak to play it.

We don’t want bigger goals, we don’t want the offside rule abolished, we don’t want players to be able to use their hands, we don’t want advert-friendly time-outs.

What we do want is an end to The Idiot Wind that blows every time football comes to the attention of Americans.

You do that and we’ll all try and not snigger too loudly about your own puffed up ‘World’ competitions.

And just as a total freebie we’ll continue to not start or spam Superbowl threads about the comical nature of AF or suggest how much better then game would be if the goalposts were trimmed, nets added, the players not armoured, and they were banned from the use their hands.

199

MLT better Matthew le Tissier’s Top Ten

200

I take on board your wonderful MLT examples, and raise you one Ginger Ninja.