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

In My Humble Opinion
61

Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
I’d probably me more apt to watch and follow soccer if they had a way of giving a slight edge to team’s offences. A game with a final score of 7-9 would probably be thrilling to watch.
Given that a typical soccer game has a score like 2-0 means not much in the way of excitement for the typical American. Even when baseball games have scores like 1-2 they are usually labeled a “snoozer”.

Basketball has the opposite problem. Too much scoring then why bother watching the thing till the last 5 minutes of the 2nd half.
[/QUOTE]
In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

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.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c’mon, when’s the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison’s sake you review your favorite team’s last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.

62

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
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.
[/quote]

Nonsense. What does often happen is fouls outside the area appear to be inside, because that’s where the player falls.

[QUOTE=RickJay]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Nope. Maybe in silly sports where they wear pads :stuck_out_tongue: Soccer doesn’t work that way - the integration of players into position takes far more than a bit of coaching, and the combination of individual abilities means you can’t swap players in and out without affecting it. A single half-time substitution is often to create a complete change of formation.

63

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Nope. Maybe in silly sports where they wear pads :stuck_out_tongue: Soccer doesn’t work that way - the integration of players into position takes far more than a bit of coaching, and the combination of individual abilities means you can’t swap players in and out without affecting it. A single half-time substitution is often to create a complete change of formation.
[/QUOTE]

Then teams should prepare for that sort of thing. All soccer teams have substitutes available; are you actually trying to tell us that the subs aren’t incorporated into the team’s practices and strategy, and that quality players can’t make adjustments in-game?

That’s preposterous; it’s nonsense. Any decent team will plan for that sort of thing. Good teams don’t just fall apart because they have to make a substitution. They adjust accordingly. The ability to incorporate the benchwarmers into a team’s plan when things go awry and someone gets hurt is a critical part of good coaching. If you have to change formations and tactics, then that’s what you do.

64

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

And the bottom line is, so what? I don’t care if the US doesn’t take much interest in the most popular sport in the world - their loss!

And, slightly less tongue in cheek - the point about it being what you’re used to seems to me to be the valid one. What does surprise me, I guess, is that as it is one of the few games you can play with just a couple of people, a ball and the archetypal jumpers for goalposts, it isn’t more popular amongst younger children.

65

There are plenty of cities where it’s extremely popular with children and young adults. My kids will definitely be playing - my daughter is already adept at kicking a ball around the backyard (must be a recessive gene).

66

[QUOTE=Martiju]
And the bottom line is, so what? I don’t care if the US doesn’t take much interest in the most popular sport in the world - their loss!

And, slightly less tongue in cheek - the point about it being what you’re used to seems to me to be the valid one. What does surprise me, I guess, is that as it is one of the few games you can play with just a couple of people, a ball and the archetypal jumpers for goalposts, it isn’t more popular amongst younger children.
[/QUOTE]

Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it’s not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don’t necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it’s a blip.

67

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it’s not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don’t necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it’s a blip.
[/QUOTE]

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.

68

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Nonsense. What does often happen is fouls outside the area appear to be inside, because that’s where the player falls.

[/QUOTE]

Duh…I’m quite aware that this happens. I’m not talking about those calls. It’s very rare for a PK to be called on fouls just inside the line, those are almost always spotted just outsied the area. I’ve seen this happen literally hundreds of times. And no, they all aren’t players falling inside the box. Referees are reluctant to give a PK on those fouls…which I understand, it’s too harsh a punishment (usually).

Still none of this nitpicking addresses my point that the reward/punishment system is out of whack.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

That’s changing. We went a long time without a viable professional league which meant there wasn’t much of a future for players who wanted to pursue a career. The MLS id on pretty solid footing and will be around for the long haul. Plus, our players are improving enough that we’re getting increased presence in the Euro leagues (these two points aren’t unrelated). Slow growth is what we’re looking at.

69

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
The MLS id on pretty solid footing and will be around for the long haul.
[/QUOTE]

Nitpicking here, but it really annoys me. It’s MLS, not the MLS. Would you say the Major League Soccer?

70

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SIDE NOTE: I and many others (I think) believe that college soccer has had a terrible effect on America’s ability to progress at the international level. It has, and continues to, set us back years–maybe decades.

And, the bastardization that is NCAA soccer accounts (in part) for why Steve Sampson was such a bad manager, and although he was a pleasant change at first (mostly just because Sampson was gone), it’s why Bruce Arena was a bad manager too.

Bring back Bora! (Okay, maybe not Bora, but USA Soccer desperately needs their new manager to have cut his teeth in top-level international soccer.

71

[QUOTE=Trivial Trivia]
Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

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.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c’mon, when’s the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison’s sake you review your favorite team’s last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.
[/QUOTE]

What you say is true, but a 14-0 or 21-6 score is low scoring by today’s standards in American football. In the NFL playoffs, the average total points for a game was a tad over 46. There were just over 51 points scored per game in this past season’s NCAA college bowl games. I don’t know what the average scores are in top level soccer games, but when I turn on an ECL or World Cup game, I’d expect to see a 2-1 game, a 4-3 game would be high scoring, and a 6-4 game would be completely unexpected. But if I turned on a NFL or college football game, a 14-7 game would be low scoring, a 28-21 game somewhat average, and a 42-28 game wouldn’t seem abnormal at all, even in a matchup between top teams.

72

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Unlimited substitutions? That’s missing the fact that soccer tactics are about how players work together, never individuality.
[/QUOTE]

All team sports are like that. Even moreso, IMHO. This is why football and baseball have so many specialized coaches. You need that kind of brain power for all of the strategy, tactics and communication required.

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.

Impressive goal. Unfortunately, with 1-0 final scores, it’s usually not skill like this that determines the winner, but rather a solitary defensive screw-up or an accidental mis-direction. With more scoring chances, you’d see a bigger proportion of teams that deserve to win, actually win. I’ve heard plenty of soccer announcers say something like this: “A bit of back luck for Arsenal today. They deserved better.” You don’t hear too much of that in sports where skill has a better correlation with results.

With soccer, I ONLY watch the best teams. It’s either Champion’s League, Euro Championships or World Cup. By the way, believe me, I’m a fan of soccer. I jus think that it could be better.

73

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Soccer is in fact one of the most popular participation sports in the United States. FAR more kids play soccer than (American) football - it’s not even a close call.

What people play and what they watch don’t necessarily have to be the same thing. Automobile racing is immensely popular throughout the world, but very few people race cars. Figure skating is one of the most popular draws at the Winter Games, but as a participation sport it’s a blip.
[/QUOTE]

Yea, all kids play soccer. Not the same thing as people watching professional soccer.

Maybe it’s the pace that doesn’t appeal to people in the U.S where most games have large scores. Just a guess.

74

[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.

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]

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.

We don’t have any riots during professional games either. Afterall, it isn’t 500 AD anymore. You would think that the game itself would be exciting enough so that attendees wouldn’t have to resort to criminal behavior just to bring in a little excitement.

75

[QUOTE=Trivial Trivia]
Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

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.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c’mon, when’s the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison’s sake you review your favorite team’s last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.
[/QUOTE]

I agree- I use the “one goal equals app. 10 points in American football”- 2-1 is like 20-10 5-0 is like 50-0, etc.

76

[QUOTE=Trivial Trivia]
Sorry, only got 20 posts in when I read these comments. Apologies if someone else has made the point:In a word, what a bunch of horseshit.

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.

I will bend a bit and admit that a football score of 14-3 is ALMOST like a soccer score of 2-1, but given the modern structure of American football (c’mon, when’s the last time you saw a 2-point conversion or safety?) I suggest that for comparison’s sake you review your favorite team’s last season, assign 1 point for every touch down, 1/2 point for every field goal, and see if that 3-2 soccer game has fewer scores than that 21-6 football game.

I double-dog dare you.
[/QUOTE]

I agree- In the past I have used the “one goal equals app. 10 points in American football”- 2-1 is like 20-10, 5-0 is like 50-0, etc, because the math is easier. :slight_smile:

77

[QUOTE=Yookeroo]

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

[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

78

Shagnasty’s right, “fear of causing riots” should not dictate policy.
I enjoy the occasional soccer match, I even managed to watch the Zidane head-butt match live last year. I love American football because I like the pacing; it’s a perfect spectator sport. I’ve recently started to thoroughly enjoy ice hockey, which shares many elements with soccer.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to have a small amount of playing area behind a soccer goal?
I refuse to believe soccer players are too dumb to be able to play together if unlimited substitutions were put in place. Ice hockey manages with line changes.
A smaller field would speed things up a bit, and make substitutions quicker.

79

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I agree- In the past I have used the “one goal equals app. 10 points in American football”- 2-1 is like 20-10, 5-0 is like 50-0, etc, because the math is easier. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Why not divide by 20? Then you could say soccer has more scoring than American football.

80

[QUOTE=garygnu]
Shagnasty’s right, “fear of causing riots” should not dictate policy.
[/QUOTE]
That fear should not dictate policy, and I don’t think FIFA bases their Laws on such fears. I was simply pointing out (and yes, using a slight exaggeration to do so) that you can’t have the time displayed in a soccer match like you would in American football. American football has definite starts and stops–soccer doesn’t. The clock keeps running so you don’t need a scoreboard clock to tell you how much time is left. You need only to look at your wristwatch.

But it is within the referee’s discretion to add time to a half to make up for time lost due to foreseeable and unforeseeable circumstances. It is a judgment call. You can’t put judgment calls up on a scoreboard. Nor should you stop the game every minute or so to announce into your wireless microphone that 15 seconds here and 30 seconds there will be added to the half.

You are correct doubt that they are too dumb because they are not. 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. 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.

IF, however, FIFA were to have scary brain seizures and somehow allow unlimited substitutions, I agree that line substitutions like in hockey would be the way to go.