<sigh>
If you think the “yellow card” has anything to do with the way the foul is penalized, at least in the sense of resulting in a direct free kick, it isn’t surprising you don’t understand and like soccer. You don’t even know the rules of the game very well; you may have played it, but you didn’t learn it. 
What he said.
I’m not much into any professional sport these days (except tennis), but when I was, the main thing that bugged me about soccer were the draws. I mean, what the hell? You invest 90 minutes as a fan and you don’t even get a conclusion?
And the PK system after overtime during elimination play is ridiculous as well. It would be like settling baseball games with a home run derby. The logical thing to do with soccer would be to continue playing, but each overtime period would make it easier to score. The best way, IMO, would be to subtract a man per side per OT period. 10 on 10, then 9 on 9, then 8 on 8, and so on. Yes, it could potentially become slightly ridiculous, but it all ends after a single score. And it would be far less ridiculous than the PK shootout, as the outcome would be decided by actual soccer. And it would be infinitely preferable to a bloody draw.
… 90 minutes? I’ve never met anybody who was a fan for only 90 minutes! Oh wait yes. In Philadelphia. All those guys who’d been wearing Eagles stuff all over the office suddenly forgot anything about any bird-things when the team lost. OK; so I did meet people who could be fans for 90 minutes.
You only get draws in “league” situations; either the 9-month ones or the minileagues at the start of other tournaments. I’ve met people who’d chosen to support a specific club, rather than falling in love with one, but even those and even when the club they’ve chosen to support is in the bottom of their range stay fans for as long as the league is on.
90 minute fans. Must be on batteries!
With nobody on base the pitcher has 12 seconds to pitch the ball. (page 6)
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/08_the_pitcher.pdf
This assumes the batter is ready and in the batter’s box.
I am not sure if umpires enforce this rule strictly or at all.
What is so “wrong” about a draw?? In the course of a season that lasts anywhere from 36 to 40 games, draws have a value in establishing the relative playing abilities of the teams. As long as those draws are not the majority of results, it doesn’t seem to me to be objectionable. Indeed, this objection to draws is another somewhat uniquely American concept.
Let’s put it this way: has the NHL become so much more awesome to watch now that they don’t allow a game to end in a tie?? :smack:
What to do about a drawn match depends upon the sport. Basketball has no trouble with resolving draws, because scoring is easy. Usually, one simple period of extra time, lasting about an eighth of the original game’s length, is sufficient. It allows both teams plenty of time to establish superiority without letting luck be the determinative factor. Baseball similarly has an easy mechanism for resolving draws, because while the possibility of having to go multiple extra innings is there, the game is not as physically taxing, and it does add an element that has to be factored into the tactics the managers use to win a game.
But I will argue that, except for playoff games, where there must be a winner, and where the tension that extra time creates is a real bonus (I can think of any number of Washington Capitals OT playoff games that have gone 2 or even 3 OTs where I was rooted to the seat watching), intensely physical games with low scoring should not be sent to extra time to resolve a draw. For such games, the draw is a fitting and proper conclusion to the struggle that went on. Manufacturing an artificial method for ending play with a victory does nothing but cheapen the effort the teams made to finish level.
And look at all the methods used. In each and every case, some form of artificial limitation has to be imposed, because in the case of such games, it’s not feasible to simply play forever during the regular season. Hockey has a shootout after one brief period of OT. Pro football (American) has one period of OT, often won by the team who receives the ball initially, because they insist on playing sudden victory, instead of letting the teams have the whole of the extra time to try and reach a victorious result. College football avoids the rap against the pro game by making sure both offenses get a chance to participate, but to do so has to create the functional equivalent of a soccer shootout.
Anyone who suggests that soccer could resolve its draws simply by letting the players continue to play until a goal is scored quite obviously has not played upper-level soccer. Since there are no free subsitutions (players able to go in and out as needed), you don’t have the advantage hockey has of letting players rest for 3 out of 4 minutes played, nor do you have the advantage gridiron football has of simply taking out a player for a breather. When soccer does play extra time, the quality of play usually deteriorates significantly during the second 15-min. extra half, often to the point of players effectively standing around and doing not much of anything (VERY noticeable during the World Cup games played in summer heat). What value a win played under such circumstances?
Yes, it is true: as a fan, coming home from a draw is not as much fun as coming home from a win. But it sure as hell beats coming home from a last-second loss!!! :eek:
Not only that, but what many critics seem to forget is that virtually every professional soccer league in the world rewards wins proportionally more than draws. Instead of two points for a win and one for a draw, they have three points for a win and one for a draw.
This system gives considerable incentive for all teams, and especially those in contention for the championship or in danger of relegation, to play as hard as possible for a win. If you’re in a tied game, and need the points, the potential reward for pushing for the win is two extra points, while the potential downside is only one point lost.
Yes, and this one change has at least altered the perception of wins and draws. I’ve not done a study to see if the result has actually been fewer drawn games, though.
the only thing I like about soccer is what it does for a womans ass that plays the game…DAYUM!!!
Soccer could allow extra subs for OT right? That would be just a rule change.
It seems to me that soccer is very, very resistant to rule changes. Have there been any major rule changes in the past 20-30 years?
I think that FB, BB and hockey have probably had too many rule changes in the past 20 years. Almost all those changes have been to increase scoring/offense. Others are for safety reasons, mostly in FB.
If you’re talking about being able to sub in more than 1 or 2 extra players, that would completely upset the current roster system. Most professional leagues allow 3 substitutions from among 5 bench players, so there’s not a lot of room there.
There aren’t very many rules in soccer, at least not relative to most American pro sports, so there aren’t that many to change.
Off the top of my head:
They banned the deliberate back pass to the goalie ~15 years ago, which sped up the game a little.
Timing rules have changed a lot- injury time used to be played more or less at the referee’s whim; if he wanted to blow the whistle, he blew the whistle. Now the approximate amount of extra time has to be announced beforehand.
Various competitions have switched from a fixed amount of extra time (not “overtime”) to a “golden goal” (ie., first goal wins) system.
They can also allow a person who is subbed out to go back in during the OT period. I’ve always thought baseball was odd with their rule that says once you are out you cannot go back in.
You mean if you pass the ball to the goalie he can’t use his hands? They can still be passed to. I don’t see that as a big rule change.
If you head or chest the ball to him he can use his hands- and you’d be surprised. Since any mistake by the goalkeeper with the ball at his feet is likely to result in an opportunity for the other team to score, it’s a reasonably major change.
Recently I discovered part of the offside rule that to me is odd. If player A and player B are both past every defender (except the goalie) then A cannot pass to B if B is in front of A. Why on Earth is that not allowed? Two men totally beat the entire defense and yet the offside rule still applies? This is rare situation which is why I never saw it called until recently.
(yes, I know a similar rule applies in American football but it’s not quite the same since the original line of scrimmage defines where you can throw a forward pass)
It prevents cherry-picking, which results in a very vertical game, without any real width.
It also makes the call very easy to police (relatively speaking, of course, since we see it blown all the time!). As I tell people learning how to referee in my classes, all you have to do is divide the field in two, find the ball, and count to two. 
The rule about the keeper not picking up a ball kicked back to him by a teammate has sped up the game considerably in terms of actual play. It had gotten to the point before the rule change that anytime a defense was pressured, they simply passed the ball back to the keeper, who held on to it until the other team retreated, then rolled it back out to his fullbacks, who knocked it around a bit, then passed it back to the keeper. Rinse and repeat. Bery boring and static.
The other main change in recent memory (occurred at about the same time as the pass-back rule) was the switch allowing an offensive player to be even up with the second to last defender. Prior to that, even was offside, which gave the defensive team a considerable advantage in covering passes into the space behind them.
And the reason soccer doesn’t make a lot of wholesale rule changes is that it doesn’t really need to make them. The world’s most popular sport is not lacking interest, or failing to make money for the owners of the clubs. Why change what works?
There is a concerted campaign to make Americans feel ashamed for not loving the game where you bat the ball with your head for 90 minutes. And for not wanting to emulate little Euro Pixies with lank floppy hair and nylon short shorts.
Having seen this from the days of the NASL in the '70s, I am more than okay with the fact that most Americans like sports where you don’t pretend you are in Riverdance – it’s actually athletic to move, and yea, to use, your upper body and your arms.
Plus: 1-0. 2-1. 2-2. Gripping!
OMG – a shootout, after three hours of back and forth!!!
Fishing or watching fishing on TV?
I keep reading this "most popular game in the world " stuff . Is that supposed to impress me?
Because it does not at all.
Things that are also real popular - American Idol, rap, country music, reality TV, porn, warm beer, onions, and so on. 
There’s no campaign to make Americans feel ashamed about anything. If you don’t like soccer, you don’t like soccer. <shrug> I don’t like NASCAR, but that doesn’t mean I see any reason to shame someone for the fact they want to watch cars make endless left turns. I don’t like NBA basketball, but I don’t run around telling people who watch it how dumb I think they are (mostly because I don’t think they are dumb for watching it; their tastes just differ).
But Americans continually insist that soccer could be made “better” by adopting various changes designed to make them like the game better. They insist it’s boring, or too slow, or they dislike the fact it ends in ties. And the implication isn’t “yeah, soccer’s okay, I guess, I just don’t like it.” The implication usually is “soccer’s about as bad as it gets; no idiot in his right mind would be caught dead watching it.” It is against this sort of attitude that we struggle to educate people. ANY sport is boring (ask my ex-sig other, who disliked watching any of them) if you aren’t interested in the sport. Soccer’s worldwide popularity is a good indication it isn’t in need of modification; whether or not you or anyone else wants to watch it is your choice.
You know who you sound like, don’t you?