# Would Americans Like Soccer Better if There Was a Shot Clock? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 7, 2007, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912 "2007-03-07T04:01:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/81 "2007-03-10T02:43:48Z")
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] It’s just how the game is played. Teams must base their overall strategy and tactics (in part) on the fact that the game has limited substitutions. [/QUOTE] It would take top soccer teams about six minutes to adjust to unlimited substitutions. The nature of unlimited subbing in soccer would, in any case, be pretty simple; you’d probably just be rotating in two guys, three at most, to give players a little more wind. A player given a yellow card might be rotated out more until the game was closer to its conclusion, the way a basketball player who gets three early fouls will sit out some time. Towards the end of the game, if it were close, they’d keep the starters on. Frankly, most of the time I don’t think you’d even notice it. > [@](#): > > Some sports don’t have any substitutions at all. In doubles tennis you can’t (as far as I know) sub for one of the players if they get tired. The very idea sounds ridiculous. > > To many people, the idea of unlimited substitutions in soccer sounds ridiculous too. Not to press the issue, but the difference is that a soccer team does have other players available. More substitutions just means you have the option of using the bench more. In doubles tennis, the doubles partners ARE the team. They don’t have substitutes available, and it would be pointless to have them because there’s almost never be a use for them. All team sports have some sort of limitations. Basketball doesn’t allow subs during play, nor does football. Baseball doesn’t allow a player to re-enter the game once he is removed. Literally “unlimited” substitutions is not really what anyone’s suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/82 "2007-03-10T04:18:26Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] It would take top soccer teams about six minutes to adjust to unlimited substitutions. [/QUOTE] I agree with your point. Of course it would take more than six minutes, but I know you didn’t mean it literally. Yes, pro soccer teams could and would adjust to unlimited substitution. Personally, however, I am against it. I don’t want to press the point too much either. If I was discussing all this is person I would be rather low-key about it all. I simply prefer the way the timing and substitutions are handled now. I find those aspects of the game and the sport in general to be quite elegant the way it is. But everything must go through changes. Everything evolves. I’m not going to get very agitated over the whole thing, but there are certainly some fans who would if anybody “messed with their game”. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/83 "2007-03-10T10:01:25Z")
[QUOTE=Trivial Trivia] A 2-0 soccer score is THE EXACT SAME THING as a 14-0 football score. No. Serious. Don’t argue with me because you’re wrong. Just stop. Don’t even bother to respond because whatever argument you make is illogical. [/QUOTE] What I think the problem is, though, is not the scoring, but how defense is viewed. In American Football, a defense can be very exciting to watch. Big hits, big plays, fumbles, interceptions, etc. Though baseball is a completely different animal, for those who enjoy the game, a 2-1 pitcher’s duel can also be a very exciting game to watch. (I’ll digress on the story of having to explain a no-hitter to a foreigner 😛 ). Unfortunately, in soccer, defense is not viewed as exciting, but rather a obstacle to action. I personally, see defense in hockey and basketball the same way, but the saving grace of these other sports is the fact that when on defense, you will likely regain possession and have a scoring chance very quickly. On a turnover in soccer, it will often take a long time to move the ball down the field back into scoring range. Making the field smaller would help. Making the field 80 meters/yards long. Pull the sidelines in a corresponding amount. This would allow for a quicker transition from defense to attack. With the reduced space, drop it down from 11 to 8 or 9. This would create more lanes to attack through without having every attacker collapsed on by 4 different players every time they make a move. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/84 "2007-03-10T18:37:59Z")
Well, the point is that soccer really isn’t going to go anywhere until they jazz it up (in the USA of course) If soccer ever gets to be a popular sport, then it won’t be similar to European soccer. It’ll be different, with a shot clock, or maybe less players. Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game, and there would have to be rules that would prevent abuse such as diving. Watching a typical game, I see about 80 percent of this: (guy makes a pass, sees another guy looking like he could pass it to him, and his pass gets intercepted by the opposing side. The other side does the same, etc. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/85 "2007-03-10T18:52:59Z")
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe] Well, the point is that soccer really isn’t going to go anywhere until they jazz it up (in the USA of course) If soccer ever gets to be a popular sport, then it won’t be similar to European soccer. It’ll be different, with a shot clock, or maybe less players. Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game… [/QUOTE] Football games don’t have ten touchdowns a game. Baseball might average 10 runs a game in a really high offense year. Why 10 goals? Remember, a soccer game is a relatively SHORT sporting event as compared to baseball or football, and is certainly no longer than hockey or basketball. I’m sorry, but the notion that soccer lacks action is preposterous. Professional (or college) football is excruciatingly slow as a live spectator sport, packing twelve minutes of play in amongst three hours of nothing. Baseball’s a very deliberate sport, and many games become plodding snoozers. NASCAR is essentially three hours of guys driving in a circle. Why’re they all popular? Pro soccer lacks popularity in the USA (and Canada) for historical and business reasons, not because the sport’s boring. People around the world are not physiologically different from Americans; they’re not magically entertained by things an American brain finds boring. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/86 "2007-03-10T21:34:44Z")
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] But it is _because_ the referee is the official timekeeper that you can’t have a visible display of the clock. He often needs to make corrections to the amount of time left in a half because of time lost due to injuries, substitutions, and deliberate time-wasting by players. If the referee had to make the effort to press some little buttons or something that would send a signal to a clock in the stadium and change the amount of time, then he would not be able to concentrate on officiating the match. [/QUOTE] You’re joking, right? Pushing a button during a period when time is being wasted (i.e. when there’s no actual soccer being played) will be a distraction? No. [QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] Further, if the referee could adjust a displayed clock while the game was going on then imagine what would happen if say, the home team was up 1-0 late in the match and the ref kept adding time (or just stopping the clock) because the home team was deliberately delaying the game. The home fans, who could now see exactly when time was added and how much was added, would go nuts and possibly even riot. [/QUOTE] Like all those riots in the other sports. :rolleyes: [QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] Currently, they now display approximately how much stoppage time will be added near the end of each half. I think that’s a decent idea, but you can see how pissed off the fans get if the referee blows his whistle either a little earlier or later than the time that was indicated on the board. [/QUOTE] Indeed. Showing the official time fixes this. [QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] If you want to keep track of the match time do what everybody else does (including the managers and the assistant referees. And if it’s good enough for them, then I think you can live with it too). Note the time that the match starts and then add 45 minutes to that. That is when the half will end unless time needs to be added for stoppages. [/QUOTE] Really? Thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious. [QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] It is certainly a bad idea to have the official time displayed in the stadium. They do that in USA college soccer (or at least they used to) and it is part of what is so very, very bad with their brand of soccer. [/QUOTE] The clock? Seriously? There are things about college soccer that I think do hurt soccer (although I think the damage is very much exaggerated…count the former collegians who have caught on in Europe), but the clock? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/87 "2007-03-10T21:44:05Z")
[QUOTE=Arch Trout] I don’t see how it’s too harsh. You’re not meant to foul players. It’s meant to be a game of skill and if a player is in the box it then _really_ means you’re not allowed to foul because if you do then you’re probably going to give away a penalty and thus a goal. Penalty box football is the game at it’s purest, it’s all about skill. You see some of the best tackles in football inside the box as they have to be perfect tackles. [/QUOTE] Then why not make every foul a PK? Then you get “pure” play everywhere on the field. You shouldn’t be allowed to foul anywhere. [QUOTE=Arch Trout] In baseball is it too harsh that with bases loaded when a player is walked that the player on third base should score? Could you argue that it seems harsh that a walk to first base should result in someone else scoring. [/QUOTE] 😕 How are these analogous? One is a punishment for a rules infraction, the other isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/88 "2007-03-11T05:41:13Z")
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe] Scores would need to be above 10 points on a typical game, [/QUOTE] I don’t believe it’s lots of scoring the US likes, it’s having lots of “scoring opportunities.” :::Snicker::: 😛 Football is popular because the offense can break a TD run or pass on pretty much any given play. A homerun can be scored on any given pitch in baseball, and in basketball, you’re back on offense and in a position to score about every 30 seconds. > [@](#): > > Watching a typical game, I see about 80 percent of this: (guy makes a pass, sees another guy looking like he could pass it to him, and his pass gets intercepted by the opposing side. The other side does the same, etc. EXACTLY! And all this typically happens in an area where scoring is not even POSSIBLE. It turns the game into a snoozer. That’s why I say shorten the field by 20-30% and reduce the number of players appropriately, and you got a popular game. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2007, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/89 "2007-03-11T07:11:42Z")
**Yookeroo** , I suppose FIFA could change the game to suit you personally, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I am sorry for this, but I believe that you are quite free to start your own brand-new, turbo-charged version of AmeriSoccer and take the country by storm. Opportunity knocks… More seriously and less snarkily–I won’t reiterate any of my explanations for why I feel the timing and officiating and the Laws operate as they do in international soccer. I am comfortable offering my opinion on soccer in general and officiating in particular. I will not offer up a CV, however, because I don’t want some pissing contest. (With many subjects on the SDMB I am more than willing to jump in, spout off, and get in over my head. Not with soccer.) I am quite happy with the way the game is, but I am also quite happy for others to tinker with it if they see fit. If it works out and makes an interesting offshoot sport, that’s fine with me. I played indoor soccer for a bit. They displayed the time on a scoreboard for all to see. There were a lot of goals scored. It was a lot of fun. It wasn’t soccer. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2007, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/90 "2007-03-11T07:50:39Z")
We’ve played “soccer” as it is for over 100 years with minor rules alterations, nothing really drastic. It is still the most popular game on this planet, it is still the “Beautiful” game. FIFA has more members than the UN…that tells you something 😛 It is the ultimate spectator sport, nothing even comes close and I mean nothing. The agony of relegation ☹ , the ecstasy of promotion 😃 , the winning of the FA Cup/Premiership/Champions League to name just a few. 😃 The supporting a team all your life even though they may be, and always will be, firmly ensconched in Division 3. This is true allegiance. This is FOOTBALL and I love it just the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/91 "2007-03-12T07:17:16Z")
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] **Yookeroo** , I suppose FIFA could change the game to suit you personally, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I am sorry for this, but I believe that you are quite free to start your own brand-new, turbo-charged version of AmeriSoccer and take the country by storm. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: I guess this is what you do when you can’t support your argument. MLS started out with a visible, official clock (one of the few changes that league got right. Amazingly enough, the sport didn’t self-destruct. I don’t like using MLS for these sorts of experiments, it just gives the snots around the world (and in this country) more ammunition. [QUOTE=chowder] We’ve played “soccer” as it is for over 100 years with minor rules alterations, nothing really drastic. [/QUOTE] Why the quotes around soccer? It’s a perfectly legitimate term for the sport. Do you use quotes around “calcio”, too? I’d say makiing a win worth 50% more is pretty drastic. Changing the offside rule form 3 players back to 2 is pretty drastic. Even eliminating the back pass the the GK had a pretty big effect. You are aware that FIFA experiments with the rules all the time, right? Can’t say that I’m surprised that most soccer fans are terrified of change. They’ve got to be some of the most conservative people out there. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/92 "2007-03-12T08:00:59Z")
The quotes around “soccer” are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you. Hence the ruling body being known as FIFA and not FISA 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/93 "2007-03-12T08:14:44Z")
[QUOTE=chowder] The quotes around “soccer” are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you. [/QUOTE] Not everywhere. In Italy it’s called CALCIO. In the USA (and even in many other countries), it’s called SOCCER (and guess what, there are very good reasons they don’t use “football” in some of those coutries, I[ll clue you in if you want). In Croatia, it called NOGOMET. In Korea, it’s called CHOOK GU. Different countries call it different things. You’re welcome. I’m always glad to dispel ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/94 "2007-03-12T08:22:56Z")
[QUOTE=Yookeroo] Not everywhere. In Italy it’s called CALCIO. In the USA (and even in many other countries), it’s called SOCCER (and guess what, there are very good reasons they don’t use “football” in some of those coutries, I[ll clue you in if you want). In Croatia, it called NOGOMET. In Korea, it’s called CHOOK GU. Different countries call it different things. You’re welcome. I’m always glad to dispel ignorance. [/QUOTE] Ignorant? moi? In England, the country which first formulated the rules of FOOTBALL, it is still called just that. Now not being as intelligent as yourself :dubious: I’ll hazard a guess that the words used in Croatia, Italy, Korea etc translate to FOOTBALL. Of course I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/95 "2007-03-12T08:48:31Z")
1. Soccer is great when viewed as 10-minute highlights from each game. You get to see all the great shots and plays, and skip the boring parts 2. The offside rule is stupid when there are defense players in the penalty area, or anywhere near their own team’s goal. 3. One major problem I have with soccer is that humans just don’t have that much control of the ball using their feet. 4. I don’t like the low scoring, but I think it is one of the indirect reasons behind soccer’s immense popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/96 "2007-03-12T10:21:28Z")
did for almost every decision. [/quote] And the game takes forever. There’s no such thing as momentum and it’s easy to lose focus during even the most exciting drives, even if you’re a diehard fan. (I blame that on the TV timeouts mostly, of course, but see what I said above about referees keeping the game moving.) > [@Shagnasty](#): > > We don’t have any riots during professional games either. Are you familiar with a league called the NBA? I believe there’s a team near you. > [@garygnu](#): > > I love American football because I like the pacing I guess I believe you, but I don’t get it. The difference in pacing is why I can hardly stand to watch the NFL. And this is coming from a diehard football fan. > [@RickJay](#): > > A player given a yellow card might be rotated out more until the game was closer to its conclusion That would kill the point of the yellow card. > [@Cyberhwk](#): > > Unfortunately, in soccer, defense is not viewed as exciting, but rather a obstacle to action. That’s because you’re not paying attention. Soccer defense _is_ exciting in exactly the same way football defense is. Striking the perfect balance between giving enough space so you don’t get burned, and making the attacker feel pressured, is tough, and a defender who does it right often ends up with a “steal” or a “block” just as exciting as those in basketball or hockey. And I will contend that there are not many displays of athletic skill more exciting than watching Carles Puyol spearhead a defensive effort [to block five shots on the goal line one after the other](http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uMMTqPxjBs). > [@chowder](#): > > The quotes around “soccer” are there 'cos the game is called FOOTBALL as any FOOTBALL devotee will tell you. “Soccer” is an English abbreviation for “Association football”, and the fact that it was replaced by the more general term in some countries and not in others is a matter of timing, coincidence and context, not of “right” and “wrong”. To expand on **Yookeroo** ’s point, is it “wrong” that the Italians call the game “calcio” when the Spanish call it “futbol”? (I’m too lazy to put in the accent.) > [@Polerius](#): > > One major problem I have with soccer is that humans just don’t have that much control of the ball using their feet. Bullshit. Ronaldinho can control a soccer ball with his feet much, much better than Jerome Bettis can control a football with his hands. > [@Polerius](#): > > In a high-scoring game like basketball, there are fewer “quantization effects”, and the resulting score is usually a reflection of the underlying strenghts of the teams. In a low-scoring game, the quantization effects are so large that you get some games between vastly unequal teams, where the weak team wins by 1-0. (e.g. it’s almost impossible for a country with a crappy basketball team to beat the U.S., but it’s not that unlikely for a country with a crappy soccer team to beat the World Cup winner) Then how come the US is defeated in international basketball games all the time while the same teams win in soccer year after year after year? It’s not unusual for the best soccer team to win five championships in a row in their league. It’s completely normal for a top league to have no more than three champions in a decade. Why is that, if the game so often comes down to chance as you say? The World Cup is the same way–half of the soccer world can accurately guess which team will win before the tournament starts, even though the second half of the tournament is single-elimination. All teams enjoy moments of good luck and suffer times of bad luck; in soccer, as in most worldly exploits, mediocre competitors fall in times of bad luck (Australia in the 2006 WC again comes to mind) while the best win regardless (most recently Italy in the 2006 WC and Chelsea in the current Champions League campaign). ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/97 "2007-03-12T10:25:41Z")
Wow! The first half or more of my post were cut off by my bad luck in the cut-and-paste game. Let me see if I can paste it back together here. The intended beginning of that last post follows: (to answer the OP’s question) Irrelevant. I like the analogy, and your heart’s in the right place–but there’s a reason soccer doesn’t have a shot clock: great goals are more like sentences than exclamation points. Each dribble move, stutter-step and fake-out is a word and each pass a space or a comma. A great goal, like a great sentence, is constructed gradually through creativity and the proper sense of pace. An effective choice of words or moves, and a few well-placed commas or passes, make the difference. Neither great poets nor great playmakers earn their living by pumping out frantic attempts under stringent time limits. > [@Cyberhwk](#): > > During the last World Cup I stopped giving a shit whether we won or lost, at least we didn’t drop and cry like a little bitch every time we were touched. I took more pride in this picture than if we would have won the whole damn thing. I’m 100% serious. Hear, hear! That said, there’s much less diving in club soccer than the international game. Watch the Champions League (the tournament between the best league teams in Europe) – the next games are on April 3 & 4 on ESPN2, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes, around 3 PM in your time zone I think – and you’ll see what I mean. The European club game is much more exciting than most modern international competitions. > [@I Love Me](#): > > But, it may be be time to move to another system of officiating, Perhaps a 2 or 3 referee system like basketball. FIFA has supposedly been testing out 2-referee systems and hasn’t found anything it’s liked. Now, I’m not one to trust FIFA when they say they’re examining progressive changes in the game with an objective eye. But it makes sense to have one referee: the whole reason the referee is there isn’t to keep the law, but to keep the game moving. Two referees would disagree about exactly where the restart would be, whether or not the foul was inside the box, whether or not the ball flicked across someone’s fingers, etc., and it could theoretically slow the game down. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Cut the field to half or a third of its current size. Overpopulation intensifies conflict. Indeed, if the last World Cup [taught](http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/media/Zidane%20HeadButt.jpg) us [anything](http://images.worldcupblog.org/www/rooney%20stomp.jpg), it’s that soccer doesn’t have enough interpersonal conflict. > [@RickJay](#): > > Basketball is still a foulfest in the last minute of any close game. Not to mention that nobody calls traveling anymore, so that the tallest players can do some amazing dunk that everybody’s seen a million times before for two ill-gotten points. That’s one of a number of reasons I don’t watch the pro game anymore–but even in my high school league traveling was hardly ever called. > [@John DiFool](#): > > For some strange reason in soccer there was no such evolution in terms of player numbers and/or other changes to help the offense. I am convinced that with the current rule set 8 or 9 would be a more optimal number. As it stands, each position has a very distinct role and each player brings a unique spin on it. If you don’t see that, it’s not the sport’s fault. > [@John DiFool](#): > > I dislike the offsides rule, because unlike the blue lines in hockey there’s no objective mark on the field to tell you where the offsides is-and you get that inane offsides trap stuff, where offensive players are in effect penalized for getting a good jump on a arguably lazy defense. Do you know how much coordination it takes to run an offside trap? The defense has to see where the ball is going to go and trap the attacker before the pass, all as one unit, and if even one of the (generally) four defensemen mistimes his movement by a fraction of a second or misjudges the flow of the offense, the goal is almost guaranteed. > [@Ichbin Dubist](#): > > Also speaking as an American, adopting World Cup soccer as your sport of choice would be like a Brazilian deciding he’s going to be a Cubs fan. I don’t see how this makes sense. When was the last time MLB officially considered a Brazilian team the fifth-best in their league? And when was the last time Brazil fielded a team, let alone a relatively highly-regarded team, in a field of 32 MLB teams? > [@I Love Me](#): > > The game is just shot too loose in America. [snip] This doesn’t even get into how HORRIBLE the U.S. announcers are. And this is even when the color folks have played at the international level. They simply don’t know how to call a match properly. And the play-by-play guys… YIKES! THANK you! > [@Rysto](#): > > Ugh. The International Ice Hockey Federation(hockey equivalent of FIFA) does this. The difference is, the IIHF is completely ignored in the two countries where the world’s best hockey players dream of playing. > [@RickJay](#): > > solely to negate superior play by the opposition “Superior play”? Offenses who get caught in an offside trap get that way because they’re outplayed. Superior play is when a midfielder boots a pass to a striker right before the striker breaks free of the defense, collects the ball and scores. Cherry-picking is not “superior play”. > [@Yookeroo](#): > > For example, every penal foul in the penalty area results in an almost certain goal. When an attacker gets fouled in the penalty area, he was probably 90% likely to score anyway. Almost universally, fouls in the penalty box–like handballs on the goal line–are committed as a last resort against a sure goal. Anyway, anyone who believes penalty kicks don’t involve skill on the part of the shooter and (especially) the goalie clearly didn’t watch the Germany-Argentina game in the last World Cup. > [@Yookeroo](#): > > Meanwhile, the punishment for hard fouls commited on the opponent’s side of the field is tiny. A direct free kick from your own 18 gains you almost nothing. Bullshit. When a great offense is cutting up the defense with perfectly-timed passing and quickly heading towards goal, losing the ball for a restart can be devastating. It can neutralize momentum (sometimes up to 20 minutes’ worth) and crush morale. I’d argue that games are sometimes won and lost based on fouls that result in a free kick from “your own 18”, because of the ripple effect of the sudden momentum change. > [@Yookeroo](#): > > I believe Setanta is only available on DISH It’s on DirecTV too, but you have to pay $12/mo extra for the sports package (which also gets you GolTV and Fox Soccer Channel). > [@RickJay](#): > > Then teams should prepare for that sort of thing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. (In case you’re wondering, it ain’t broke.) As it stands, substitutes play a much different role in soccer than in other sports. Basketball subs each create a subtle difference in the game’s flow or just spell a winded player for a while. If a team is down 2-0 at halftime and they bring in two substitutes, the idea is often to completely rework the attacking formula for the rest of the game; though there are more recent and more meaningful examples, the one that sticks out in my mind was the group stage game between Australia and Japan in the last World Cup, where Australia brought in substitutes Tim Cahill and John Aloisi in the second half to overcome a 1-0 deficit and win 3-1. Cahill scored twice and Aloisi scored in stoppage time after the revamped attack they led wore down the relatively stoic Japanese defense. > [@Martiju](#): > > Heh - in that case I’ll consider my ignorance fought. It’s just a shame that it doesn’t continue through to the teen and adult years in the same volume I guess. Do yourself a favor and read “How Soccer Explains the World” by Franklin Foer. Most of the book won’t be as informational to you as it is to its American audience, which doesn’t have much exposure to the way the world sports culture works, but the chapter on soccer in America proposes (IMO) the best theory yet as to why: most Americans first came to know soccer as a way for upper-middle-class parents to keep their kids too busy to cause trouble; in addition (and partly because of that), the game’s serious adult following here is comprised mostly of misunderstood hipsters, nonconformists and the elite in general; and as a result the love of soccer is seen as snobbish. Ironic, considering that (the way I understand it) following soccer is considered one of the most low-brow, common-man pastimes in England. Anyway, young testosterone-filled American men hate soccer for the same reason they hate escargot. > [@Jackknifed Juggernaut](#): > > No reason to have a top running back if he doesn’t have an understanding of how his linemen work. Same goes for the quarterback. And when was the last time you saw more than one quarterback and two halfbacks get serious playing time on a Super Bowl-winning team? > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Ummm…our most popular sport, U.S. football is almost completely transparent with regards to officiating. Get this, the head official actually has to stand in the middle of the field with his microphone on and explain to millions of people why they just decided what they did for almost every decision. And the game takes forever. There’s no such thing as momentum and it’s easy to lose focus during even the most exciting drives, even if you’re a diehard fan. (I blame that on the TV timeouts mostly, of course, but see what I said above about referees keeping the game moving.) ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/98 "2007-03-12T10:36:34Z")
[QUOTE=fetus] Bullshit. Ronaldinho can control a soccer ball with his feet much, much better than Jerome Bettis can control a football with his hands. [/QUOTE] Ronaldinho notwithstanding, do you disagree with my statement “even when the best players and best teams are playing, you constantly see ball possession changing sides. You see a lot of good plays starting, and then, after a couple of passes, the other team somehow gets the ball, and the process repeats as nauseum.” > [@](#): > > Then how come the US is defeated in international basketball games all the time Are they defeated by much lesser teams, and how often does this happen? > [@](#): > > while the same teams win in soccer year after year after year? It’s not unusual for the best soccer team to win five championships in a row in their league. It’s completely normal for a top league to have no more than three champions in a decade. Why is that, if the game so often comes down to chance as you say? This is because, as I said “Over many games, of course, the quantization noise averages out, and the stronger team wins the most games.” That is why championships do result in the best team winning. But not necessarily individual games. And this discrepancy between performance in individual games and longer term performance (as measured in championships) is wider in low-scoring games than in high-scoring games. It’s just not likely that a bad basketball team “just happens” to score 97 points and win, but quite likely that a bad soccer team “just happens” to score 1 goal and win. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/99 "2007-03-12T11:37:44Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Ronaldinho notwithstanding, do you disagree with my statement “even when the best players and best teams are playing, you constantly see ball possession changing sides. You see a lot of good plays starting, and then, after a couple of passes, the other team somehow gets the ball, and the process repeats as nauseum.” Turnovers happen frequently in basketball, pretty damn often in hockey (where you’re much more likely to see them happen because of handling errors, IME), are often the deciding factor in football games, and almost define baseball. In soccer, they happen relatively often, sure, but at the highest levels they’re far more likely to be caused by a brilliant defensive play or a generally effective defensive scheme than by a dribbling error. In a word, yes. If you watch a game between any two decent teams in the English Premiership, players with little to no notoriety in the international game regularly perform dribbling moves that are amazing to the casual observer who pays close enough attention. > [@Polerius](#): > > Are they defeated by much lesser teams, and how often does this happen? I stopped watching basketball shortly after it seemed to become a regular occurrence that our national team lost or came very close to losing to much lesser teams. Liechtenstein is the last example I remember. I concede that I may be exaggerating my memory of what could have been a handful of rough years. I still believe my point stands. > [@Polerius](#): > > This is because, as I said “Over many games, of course, the quantization noise averages out, and the stronger team wins the most games.” That is why championships do result in the best team winning. But not necessarily individual games. I don’t know. Most of the time, the team that wins an individual game earns it. IME as an obsessive soccer watcher and a former season ticket holder. I’ve also held season tickets for baseball and football, and played on a basketball team, and in all three sports I’ve seen a number of games where the outcome was often traced to a handful of simple mistakes and tricky bounces. (OK, maybe not so much in basketball. Mostly we lost because we were terrible.) > [@Polerius](#): > > It’s just not likely that a bad basketball team “just happens” to score 97 points and win, but quite likely that a bad soccer team “just happens” to score 1 goal and win. “More likely”, I’ll swallow, with maybe half a spoonful of sugar. “Quite likely” is a stretch at the highest levels. Again, keep in mind that the more important part of the World Cup is single-elimination, and even when “luck” or outside forces such as weather, bad calls, etc. come into play, the favored team almost always wins. Now, you could look at a game between two of, say, the four best teams in the world, and you might say that a couple of bad bounces broke the camel’s back, but I think in those cases you can still say that the winning team earned it. Again, I present the case of Italy v. Australia in the 2006 World Cup. It was the first single-elimination round, and Italy were awarded what was clearly a fraudulent penalty kick, and converted it to win the game 1-0 IIRC. Australians were pissed, as were many other fans, but I don’t think anyone will argue that Italy wasn’t far and away the better team of the two. As for the 1-1 tie between Italy and the US earlier in the tournament, Italy withstood a very long spell of shorthandedness and a series of bad bounces against a US team that was arguably playing its best soccer in a while, and still didn’t lose. IIRC, Italy fielded **nine** players for the majority of that game (or at least the majority of the second half), and seemed at times like they were _trying_ to boost the morale of a country known for its work ethic. They practically wrote a Hollywood script for the American team, and still weren’t beat. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912/100 "2007-03-12T14:19:46Z")
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If, and that’s a big if, the USA really took football, OK soccer, to heart and put their all into it I firmly believe that in 20 years or less they would be the new Brazil. Given the American will to win, the facilities available to all its athletes, the general desire to be top dogs I don’t in all honesty think they could fail. Disagree if you want, but that’s what I believe [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-americans-like-soccer-better-if-there-was-a-shot-clock/394912.md?page=6)