Nope, has already been done with arena soccer and indoor soccer. They even get the result of much higher scores, and lots of flashy offense. While it has some popularity in the US as an amateur sport, pro viewership has never caught on to make it more than a niche novelty. I think this evidence alone says that people’s proposals of soccer “fixes” would do nothing of the sort.
Wow. You must be joking. 90% likely? Every foiul in the box prevents this? If that was actually true, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But of course, it isn’t. Not even close. And that is on the fouls that get called.
That was a non-sequitor.
I think you’re arguing my case. You commit the foul to prevent the perfectly-timed pass in your attacking area killing the opponent’s momentum…what’s the punishment? The opponent gets a harmless free kick in their own end of the field. You’ve gained an awful lot for breaking the rules.
Italy played up most of the game.
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/match/25/mr.html
The red on Mastroeni was weak and the second yellow on Pope was a horrible call. IMO the US should have had a man advantage pretty much the whole time. That being said the US attack was and is horrible and Italy gave up 0 goals scored from the run of play (an own goal and a pk were conceded) the whole tournament, so they deserved at the draw at least.
As to the general sentiment of 1-0 games being boring and only scoring opportunities being exciting, go watch the Brazil-France quarterfinal. Zidane was amazing in that game without scoring.
Well, I’m only talking about the highest levels of the pro game. I’ve seen lots of defenders in youth games etc. commit dumb fouls in the penalty box. In the pro game, though, whenever I see a foul get called in the box it’s a defender’s last resort against a sure scoring opportunity.
Can you tell me with a straight face that Jens Lehmann didn’t win that game with his saves in the penalty-kick tiebreaker? Lehmann kept notecards in his sock detailing the penalty technique of each opposing kick taker, and it showed; his saves were pure skill and absolutely made the difference in an otherwise deadlocked game.
You misread me. The momentum killed is that of the attacking team. The free kick kills the momentum set up by the passing rhythm. Would you not agree?
OK, sorry, I misremembered. I think my point still stands.
Wasn’t your point that even though the better team was playing against horrible circumstances, they still managed to get points out of it? At that point in the tournament a draw was very bad for them. Everything about both teams points towards Italy winning by multiple goals, yet with a man advantage they draw. I think that contradicts your point.
I meant my point stands in general, even though that specific example isn’t valid.
Ah. I agree the stronger team usually wins, but by what other metric would you call a team strong? Take a look at Greece in Euro 2004 though. Greece is nowhere near a global soccer power. Not a European soccer power even. They might be the 10th strongest team in Europe, but they won the tournament.
What, by luck? I didn’t watch Euro 2004, but I doubt that very much. They’re a good team–good enough to qualify for the WC regularly from most regions, that’s for sure, and even when you take that recent upset into account, championship and tournament upsets are rarer in soccer than in other sports.
After reading this thread (and many other similar discussions) I have come to the conclusion that Americans would like football better if they understood and appreciated the game for what it is. It isn’t rugby or American football or basketball or ice hockey or anything else. It is what it is.
“Why don’t they do this?” “Why don’t they do that?” I dunno - why don’t they allow tackling in golf? Why don’t they allow substitutions in tennis? Why do they call balks in baseball? Why can’t you throw a forward pass in American football in front of the line of scrimmage? Why are ping pong tables so damn small? Why does ice hockey have two metres of playable ice behind the goal line? Why are NASCAR vehicles considered “stock”?
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! If you don’t get it, fine - ask and hope for an explanation, but if you still don’t get it stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2 year old saying “whywhywhywhywhy”, for fucks sake.
I concur.
You either “get it” or you don’t. The majority of the world does, the majority of America doesn’t. To each his own.
Also being forgotten here is that the reason Americans haven’t gotten into pro soccer - and remember, **Americans play soccer in droves ** - is that the United States doesn’t have top level pro soccer.
The standard in the USA for professional sport is, generally speaking, the BEST professional sport that can be had. Major League Baseball is the world’s finest brand of baseball, the NFL is the cream of the crop in football (granted, there’s not much else) the NBA is the world’s best basketball, and the NHL is the world’s best hockey. No other pro league anywhere can match them. In individual sports, the USA hosts many of the world’s top events; tennis has the U.S. Open, gold has the Masters and the Open, pro boxing has always been dominated by U.S. boxers and fought in U.S. venues, so on and so forth.
Soccer, however, is NOT being played in the USA at its top level. The best soccer in the world is in Europe. The USA (and Canada now) has Major League Soccer, which I’m sure is better soccer than I could play but it’s still third rate pro soccer; it’s likely inferior to the J-League. To make a comparison, it’s further below the English Premier League than the CFL is below the NFL.
Why would you expect Americans to want to follow a third rate pro league when what they’re used to are FIRST rate pro leagues?
It doesn’t have anything to do with the way soccer is played.
If the only fouls you see in the penalty area are last resort fouls, you need to watch more soccer.
So? What’s the point? I never claimed there was no skill involved.
Hard to kill the momentum of the defending team
Well, yeah. That’s the point. When you break the rules and give up a momentum killing (harmless) free kick, you have gained far more than the price you pay for breaking the rules. Sometimes it’s not just momentum that is killed; I’ve seen great scoring opportunities killed by a midfield foul.
Well, I won’t argue with that, but there’s only so much I can do. I’m certainly not about to waste my time watching the MLS, and I can’t afford the sports package.
I don’t get what you’re saying here. You seemed to simultaneously disagree with me and then reaffirm my point and even take it a step further. What does an attacking team gain by committing a foul and conceding a free kick in enemy territory, other than maybe some kind of cathartic release?
I’m talking about the attacking half of the field, not the team with possession. You commit a foul in your attacking half, i.e. the opponent’s half of the field, and you potentially kill their momentum, maybe prevent a quck and dangerous counter, and you don’t get punished for that. Giving your opponent a free kick in their own half of the field doens’t hurt you in the least. The only disincentive is that you might get cautioned if you’re not careful. This is a poor punishment/reward system.
Ah, now I see–and yes, I must agree. That said, what else can you really do? The punishment isn’t quite proportional to the crime, but then the crime isn’t all that important to begin with if it happened in the attacking team’s back third. I can’t think of anything else that fits well within the context of the game. The hockey-style penalty box idea would be a big punishment for a small crime–considering that the player removed would likely be a key attacker. Some teams have enough trouble scoring when their world-class striker is playing.
According to BBC Ceefax, the powers that be are contemplating doing away with a draw result.
Instead they are considering whether or not all games should be subject to a penalty shoot out should scores remain equal at the end of 90 minutes
Bloody hell!! this is ridiculous and I can’t see it being adopted, at least I hope not
That would be teh dumb. :rolleyes:
True, but I was noticing during the World Cup last year (presumably by cameramen that know what’s going on), that if the play is filmed wide, you can’t see (and appreciate) the ball handling skill; if the play is filed (skilfully) close, then you don’t get a feel for the teamwork because you can’t see the other players moving around.
There didn’t seem to be a happy middle ground where you could see the footwork detail and still see the play around the player. Maybe it’s not possible because the field is too big…
NB
I don’t even think this is quite correct, since this makes it sound more like ego. American pro soccer still suffers greatly on play quality. MLS gameplay is essentially unchanged from youth league soccer, except that the pros run faster and kick harder. Much of the full field strategy and nuance are absent, so that low level Scottish club soccer is still an aesthetically superior game to the best that America can field.
So I don’t think that the new viewers in America trying to discover soccer as a spectator sport are ever going to get an appreciation of the subtelties that make the game so appealing.
The exception to this being the American women’s teams. They in general play beautifully (and very unamerican style).
The reason they call balks in baseball is because, waaaaay back in the late 1800s, some people decided that pitchers shouldn’t be able to fool the other team in that manner. I imagine that those people had to put up with other baseball fans who yelled, “BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES! Shut up and go away! Stop asking questions that are the equivalent of a 2-year-old saying, ‘whywhywhywhywhy.’ The game is what it is.” But they persisted, the rule was changed, and the game was better for it.