Would Americans Like Soccer Better if There Was a Shot Clock?

[RickJay]

@The Librarian

Answer 2 : Look what you did to crickett and rugby, does it look like we care?

Baseball isn’t derived from cricket.

Defending your goal by stepping AWAY from it has a subtle elegance wasted on people who think you play football with your hands.

I hate to sound like I’m siding with the soccer-haters because I am not, but this is really the one structural problem soccer does have. Allowing defensive players the ability to manipulate a rule solely to negate superior play by the opposition is an absolutely perfect example of a rule that SHOULD be changed. The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn’t meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that; it was implemented for a different reason, and the intentional offsides play was an unintended consequence. Hockey, on the other hand, has a vastly superior offsides rule because it accomplishes the intent of offsides rules (eliminating cherry-picking) while forbidding defenders from using it to save themselves from their own mistakes or lack of ability.

No sport is made perfect. Sports are human inventions and it’s ignorance and hubris to suggest that a sport must be perfectly designed just because it always has been the way it is. Basketball would be an unplayable mess if they hadn’t changed the rules; every game would end 2-0 if you didn’t have a shot clock. Hockey was improved by the addition of any number of rules. There’s no reason to assume soccer must always be the way happens to be right now.

Look, I am an absolutely passionate, lifelong baseball fan, and I know it’s tempting to defend your sport of choice and say it’s perfect, but I’m man enough to know baseball ISN’T perfect, and it’s probably time to consider some major rule changes. There’s not a doubt in my mind that soccer would be improved by implementing a fixed offside boundary, like hockey. I don’t think this just because scores would go up (though they likely would slightly) but because it would focus more emphasis on skill of play, where it belongs.

It would, to paraphrase Bill James (who was talking about basketball) get the defenders to stop screwing around and play soccer.

The thing that makes soccer great is the injustice of a fallable ref.

Horseshit.

The thing that makes soccer great is the beauty and skill of the game. Great players making great plays is what makes soccer great.

Field officials in any sport are best when you don’t notice them at all.

[Arch_Trout]

@RickJay

The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn’t meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that

I’m confused.

If the defender is beaten it means the ball carrier is past him. Presumably on his way to shoot at goal.
What’s that got to do with the offside rule?

Maybe the defender is beaten and there is another player ahead of the attacker?
Ok, it might be nice to pass to him but as there’s no other defender there the ball carrier may as well have the shot. Shouldn’t make too much difference.

Is the superior skill you’re talking about the ability of an attacker to run past a defender? I don’t see that as superior skill as football isn’t always about running fast, and neither should it be.

[The_Librarian]

Horseshit.

The thing that makes soccer great is the beauty and skill of the game.

Sorry, I meant to say “one of the things”

Allowing defensive players the ability to manipulate a rule solely to negate superior play by the opposition is an absolutely perfect example of a rule that SHOULD be changed. The rule as it stands allows a beaten defender to, rather than attempting to actually defend the ball carrier, exploit a rule in a way it wasn’t meant to be exploited to negate superior skill. The offsides rule was not originally meant to allow that; it was implemented for a different reason, and the intentional offsides play was an unintended consequence. Hockey, on the other hand, has a vastly superior offsides rule because it accomplishes the intent of offsides rules (eliminating cherry-picking) while forbidding defenders from using it to save themselves from their own mistakes or lack of ability

How is standing nearer to the goal than the defender in the moment your teammate passes the ball ‘superior skill’? We call it ‘not paying attention’.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Yookeroo

Fox Soccer Channel? Telemundo? Sentanta? GolTV?

There’s a ton of soccer on TV nowadays.

Not on my TV there isn’t. I have basic cable, and I don’t get any of those channels. I’ve never even heard of the latter two. Yookeroo, exactly what and how much do you have access to? Is any of it on regular basic or digital cable?

I’m sure there’s a ton of soccer available for a premium somewhere, but was under the impression I’d have to change my provider and/or spend triple what I spend now to get it. A friend of mine used to get Fox Soccer as part of his package but their coverage changed or something so that’s gone too.

On my TV, the only soccer I get regularly is Serie A games on some Italian channel once a week. And I watch them. Every now and then a Premiership game will come on in the middle of the night on Comcast Sportsnet (that’s our version of Fox Sportsnet; West Ham was on this week), but as far as I can tell it’s totally random. And Univision has Mexican games sometimes. The point is, when I know there’s a game between premiere teams somewhere on the dial, I watch it, but there’s nothing regularly available. So every four years I go nuts because the World Cup is giving me world class soccer on a regular basis, and then I kind of have to just follow scores on the internet the rest of the time. It’s hard to really get into it when you have no idea when or if you’re going to see a particular team play. Even a fucking highlight show would be a big deal. Not like Sportscenter even runs match results on the Bottom Line – otherwise I wouldn’t be able to read the same women’s basketball scores 12 times an hour (and of course as I type the UEFA scores are on the Bottom Line… but those are on ESPN for once).

Speaking of that, I don’t even have ESPN Classic anymore for some reason, so even though ESPN is covering the UEFA, since they’re on ESPN2, ESPN Deportes, and ESPN Classic, I get to watch one game per day in total.

Wow, I didn’t start out angry but I got here somehow.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Arch Trout

I don’t see that as superior skill as football isn’t always about running fast, and neither should it be.

You are correct. Football (known as soccer in America) isn’t just about running fast. It’s also about kicking the ball forward as haaaaaaard as you can. Always forward!! We don’t want no sissy loss of yards!! PROGRESS, dammit, this is AMERICA!!!

And hey, (not you Arch Trout) it’s just a little thing but it bugs me: it’s OFFSIDE not “offsides”. While we’re at it, and in case there are any American network soccer announcers in here who would like a little tip, there is no “sideline” in soccer, it is called a “touchline”. Similarly, there is no “end line” it is called a “goal line”.

You might roll your eyes and say “What difference does it make? You’re being too picky!” Well, perhaps so. But imagine if the announcers in American football called the sideline a “touchline”. Wouldn’t that give you some doubt about if they really knew much about the more advanced and nuanced aspects of the game if they couldn’t even call the sideline by its proper name?

[hr_realist]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think they should let you use your hands. Instead of a net, just make it that you have to carry the ball across some kind of a line to score. There should be some kind of tackling rule that says the play is dead only after you bring the ball carrier completely down to the ground. There should be some kind of rules about throwing the ball forward, but you might have to change the shape of the ball to make it more aerodynamic. My vision of the game would be pretty physical, so the players would probably have to wear pads. You could still have some kicking, but only like to start the game or maybe there could be some kind of point scoring alternative involving a kick if the team with the ball can’t get close enough to the scoring line.

I have other ideas but that would be a start.

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World…

[Malacandra]

@Arch Trout

It’s a terrible idea.
I presume you’re joking.

It’s called football for a reason. Anyone other than the goalkepper using their hands would ruin the game.

Well, Gaelic football works, from the little I’ve seen of it.

@hr realist

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World…

Big talk about a country that hasn’t won the World Cup in 20 years!

[si_blakely]

@hr_realist

yeah, and in a sport anything like that New Zealand would probably dominate the World…

yeah, but without the pads, cause kiwis are tough.

Si

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

You want to improve soccer? Allow unlimited substitutions and allow players who leave to come back into the game as often as they like. The problem with soccer is that at many points in the game, most players are standing around catching their breath. A soccer game can be very exciting during the moments when there are real scoring opportunities. Case in point: I’ve been in rooms with die-hard European and South American soccer fans watching the World Cup games on the big screen. At many points, they get into conversations and aren’t really fully paying attention to the game. But when a corner kick is about to occur, all eyes are glued to the screen. Needless to say, the same goes for a penalty kick.

The strongest teams in Europe (and many national teams) have extremely deep benches. Oftentimes, some of their best players never even get into the games.

Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of truth in this parody .

[GargoyleWB]

@Jackknifed Juggernaut

You want to improve soccer? Allow unlimited substitutions…

No. One of the truly nice things about soccer, compared to american sports, is the constantly running clock. Substitutions and time outs get manic in the final seconds of basketball and football, and are often done to intentionally freeze play, or burn time from the clock. Going deep into your bench just waters down and homogenizes the talent on the field. If your star player can’t hack the running, then he/she shouldn’t be playing.

It would be far more dramatic for basketball, IMO, if they subbed like soccer. Lets see some genuine tactical lineups and player selections, instead of shotgunning endless subs onto the court because your big guy gets winded in 3 minutes.

[asterion]

Well, how about making all substitutions like line changes in hockey, with play not stopping for the substitution and the player coming off the field having to be all the way off before the substituting player can get on the field?

[GorillaMan]

Unlimited substitutions? That’s missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality. No good having a top striker if they don’t have a good understanding of how the midfield are working as a unit. If your back line aren’t able to function as one, then any time the opposition get into your half, you’re screwed. Remind/acquaint yourself with the best goal ever (no arguments because I say so), which couldn’t have happened if any player hadn’t been aware of where everyone else was and also what they would do next.

@Jackknifed Juggernaut

The problem with soccer is that at many points in the game, most players are standing around catching their breath.

You must be watching some rubbish teams! You’re right that there’s plenty of moments which have less tension. The only difference is these are included as part of the flow of the game, rather than the stop-start nature of baseball or American football. Those people chatting away will have half an eye on the screen and will be aware of when something’s building up, and you might find them cut off the conversation as a result.

[Snooooopy]

When was the last really significant change to the rules of soccer?

[Arch_Trout]

@Snooooopy

When was the last really significant change to the rules of soccer?

I think it was the 2000/2001 season that introduced the six second rule for goalkeepers.

The goalkeeper can take as many steps as he likes as long as he releases the ball from his hands within six seconds.

The offisde rule has been recently tweaked (2 years ago?) so that an attacker not intefering with play is not called offside.

[GorillaMan]

@Arch Trout

The offisde rule has been recently tweaked (2 years ago?) so that an attacker not intefering with play is not called offside.

…but can subsequently be called offside if he is involved in play without going onside in the interim, IIRC.

I’ve no idea when the last fundamental rule (called law) was changed. All sorts of tweaks go on all the time - backpasses to keepers, definitions of fouls, etc. But the principles remain the same, not least because of their simplicity.

[Yookeroo]

@GorillaMan

The whole “referee as final arbiter” concept seems to be another part of the America/Europe divide. The referee being the official timekeeper is one part of this. Also bear in mind that another principle affects this: that the same rules are used at every level of the game. So referee+watch is the timekeeper both in the Premiership and in amateur sunday league matches. (This argument also affects things such as video replay, goal-line detection, etc.)

That the referee + watch is the timekeeper isn’t the problem. The fact that only he knows what the official time is is. Give us a visible, official clock. Hiding the official time when it’s unnecessary is dumb.

@GorillaMan

Please do elaborate!

For example, every penal foul in the penalty area results in an almost certain goal. This is clearly unfair. So much so that it is rare for a referee to award a PK on fouls on the edge of the PA, fouls clearly in the PA are spotted outside the area. There are many clear fouls commited in the area, fouls that would be called anywhere else on the field, that are ignored because they are in the PA (handling the ball is one that seems to be ignored the most). Clearly the PK is much too harsh a punishment for many fouls in the PA.

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. It’s only when the foul becomes a cautionable offense that it becomes a real punishment.

Not that i have the answers, but it really doesn’t seem right.

@Jimmy Chitwood

Not on my TV there isn’t. I have basic cable, and I don’t get any of those channels. I’ve never even heard of the latter two. Yookeroo, exactly what and how much do you have access to? Is any of it on regular basic or digital cable?

I get Fox Soccer Channel (part of my digital cable package) & Telemundo (basic cable). I left out ESPN Deportes. which is available to me (digital), but I’m too cheap to pay for.

GolTV is available on Dish Network, DirecTV, Comcast, Adelphia, Charter, Cablevision, Atlantic Broadband, Bresnan Communications, Midcontinent, RCN, Mediacom, Paul Buyan y Citizens Cablevision. I believe Setanta is only available on DISH. But even if you can just add FSC, you’ll have plenty of soccer to watch.

And while I’m here, unlimited substitution is a horrible idea. One problem is that it leads to too much specialization. And professional soccer players aren’t spending time catching their breath :rolleyes:.

[Arch_Trout]

@Yookeroo

There are many clear fouls commited in the area, fouls that would be called anywhere else on the field, that are ignored because they are in the PA (handling the ball is one that seems to be ignored the most).

What kind of football are you watching?
If anything, I would say the opposite happens in the SPL and English Premiership.
Penalties are sometimes given for infringements that would be ignored elsewhere on the field of play due to the fact it happened so near the goal.
I’ve seen many many soft-penalties in my time. Also seen some stone-wallers ignored. Referee competence is the main issue not the rules.

Regarding handling getting ignored.
There is the “hand to ball”, “ball to hand” rule. I don’t think I’ve seen many incidents of a clear hand to ball in the area getting ignored.
Again, maybe it’s the referees you are watching that are flawed rather than the rules.

[Yookeroo]

@Arch Trout

What kind of football are you watching?

EPL, Champions League, MLS, World Cup, high school, club. Gold Cup & Copa America are coming up.

@Arch Trout

If anything, I would say the opposite happens in the SPL and English Premiership.

There’s no way the opposite happens. It’s just those rare times it does, it’s very noticeable. I find myself comenting “that’s a foul, but they’ll never call it in the box” far more often than “that was a soft penalty”.

But even if you are right, there’s still a real double standard. That’s a problem.

@Arch Trout

Penalties are sometimes given for infringements that would be ignored elsewhere on the field of play due to the fact it happened so near the goal.
I’ve seen many many soft-penalties in my time. Also seen some stone-wallers ignored. Referee competence is the main issue not the rules.

Still doesn’t address the issue. The punsihment (near certain goal) for many fouls in the box is much too harsh.

@Arch Trout

Regarding handling getting ignored.
There is the “hand to ball”, “ball to hand” rule. I don’t think I’ve seen many incidents of a clear hand to ball in the area getting ignored.

No, but there are plenty “hand to ball” incidents that get called outsisde the PA. There are clearly different standards.

And if the problem is officiating, then it’s universal. And if it’s universal, then maybe it’s a problem with the laws.

[RickJay]

@GorillaMan

Unlimited substitutions? That’s missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality. No good having a top striker if they don’t have a good understanding of how the midfield are working as a unit.

That’s a coaching issue. A well coached team with good players should be able to function as a unit even if a substitution is made.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

Half court. That’s the answer. Keep your offsides and everything else. Make it half, maybe even smaller, and you’ll have Americans interested.