That article is some of the most facile crap I've ever read, and I use the internet most days.
The 'anti-colonial' part was both hilarious and poorly researched. Most former British colonies play some form of British game as their national sport, be it Cricket in the West Indies, or Rugby in New Zealand. Canada and the USA are the notable exceptions to this, but then hey, America is the world....
Seriously, some American pundits need to discover the difference between racism, jingoism, nationalism and plain old dickishness before they start commenting on things.
Seriously, some American pundits need to discover the difference between racism, jingoism, nationalism and plain old dickishness before they start commenting on things.
Allow me to assure you, American pundits can't tell the difference between racism and anything else.
I was under the impression that was universal to the first world, with Americans being the "leaders" in that field of "thought."
To be fair it seems that Glenn Beck started the commentary, or at least it appears that way to me.
In any case, the entire conversation is so puerile that only one of the commentators listed in the Week article was able to maintain any semblance of rationality.
It is an odd thing, the need some people have to say they don’t like soccer. It isn’t a particularly American thing, lots of Australians complain about soccer, otherwise good natured and agreeable people will jump right into the middle of a World Cup conversation to tell everyone that they don’t like soccer. It’s weird. I don’t particularly like soccer myself, but my dislike of it is not such a big part of my identity that I need to express that to people all the time.
There is a similar one with cricket, the need to tell people that cricket is hard to understand. I don’t know why that bit of silliness keeps getting repeated, or why the speaker assumes we care.
But then there’s other ones as well – for a long time, up until the series restarted basically, any Dr Who conversation would be interrupted by a regular person saying either ‘When I was a kid I thought the Daleks were so scary’ or ‘the sets were so wobbly’. There weren’t unreasonable comments, but it’s odd that they seemed the only ones possible. As if thirty years of broadcasting and the only memorable elements were one monster and one element of production.
There isn’t some wide reaching political message underneath it all. I think it’s more likely that our thoughts and opinions aren’t really as unique as we like to assume. Other people say “I don’t like soccer a lot” so when soccer comes into the conversation we say it too. Same goes for “I don’t understand cricket” and “When I was a kid I thought the Daleks were so scary.”
People. Less interesting than you might have guessed.
Hmmm, I don't hate soccer because I'm a racist. I hate soccer because it's bore fest and I like my sports to have a definitive winner and loser, not this tie BS.
I think its the weird rules system they have. Stoppage time, yellow/red cards, variable field sizes, stuff like that. Of course, other sports have their own weird rules, but most of them are fairly simple to explain, not like Offsides in soccer, which is probably the most complex rule in all sports.
The Offside Rule and Offside Trap in Football(Soccer)
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
•he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
•he is in his own half of the field of play
•he is level with the second last opponent
•he is level with the last two opponents
Commiting an Offside Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
•interfering with play
•interfering with an opponent
•gaining an advantage by being in that position This is the one that causes the issues
No Offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
•a goal kick
•a throw-in
•a corner kick
It's been proven, by boffins in the UK, that women are biologically incapable of understanding the rule. I suspect this may be due to them not having people shout "Goal hanger!" at them when they are young.
But I find gridiron and baseball rules rather odd Hegrenze.
It is a simple fact that growing up with a sport or not determines ones' ability to understand it imho.
What's hard to understand about the offside rule anyway? If you are behind the last defender when the ball is played you are offside. Except these days you have to be active.
Offsides in Ameican football- when a player on the defense crosses the line of scrimmage, (a line drawn across the field through the spot where the ball is placed) prior to the ball being put into play by the center.
Offsides in Hockey- When a player crosses the opposing blueline prior to the puck crossing the same line.
Now explain offsides in soccer in a single simple sentance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:But I find gridiron and baseball rules rather odd Hegrenze.
It is a simple fact that growing up with a sport or not determines ones' ability to understand it imho.
What's hard to understand about the offside rule anyway? If you are behind the last defender when the ball is played you are offside. Except these days you have to be active.
True enough. and yeah I can understand about baseball rules.
And I thought the iobject of the game was to get the ball past the defenders and into the goal.
When we were kids playing without offside rules there would always be some annoying git just waiting around in front of goal - a goalhanger as they were called. I assume this is why the rule was introduced.
It means strikers just have to time the run to get beyond the defender.
helgrenze wrote:
Now explain offsides in soccer in a single simple sentance.
When the ball is played forward no attacker can be further forwards than a defender.
Ah, but the penalty isn't quite that simple, as there are other factors to be considered such as gaining an advantage. A breakaway play still has to keep the goaltender and another player infront of them so as to not gain an advantage, which limits the effectiveness of such a play.
But that really isn't the issue in the OP. Some conservatives don't like soccer because they don't understand it. To them it is as foreign as american football is to other countries. And as a rule, some extreme conservatives don't like things that are foreign to them.
A breakaway play still has to keep the goaltender and another player infront of them so as to not gain an advantage, which limits the effectiveness of such a play.
err...I think I get ya here. No it doesn't, if you're either running with the ball or coming from your own half of the pitch.
The rule is there to prevent a team from just permanently sticking someone in the opposing penalty area and hoofing the ball to him regardless. I guess its a bit like you guys not just being able to have a receiver standing in/along the endzone for the entire game.
er...well it seems roughly the same idea/principle anyway.
If you start in your own half then you can't be offside, which seems the sort of thing the hockey game has.
But the summary is on the previous page, it's no real biggie to understand IMO. But it's kind of a recurring joke about women/foreigners/whomever don't "get". British teeth.fat Americans/adulterous Frenchman etc etc kind of cliche.
The no fun for anyone is the thing.
If someone is just hanging around the penalty box for someone to hoof it up to it would be boring.
Mind you I have seen some deadly dull games where both teams push up to the half way line to bring offside into play. Fortunately it doesn't happen now afaik.
The exciting teams have good movement and one or two touch paces at pace to get in behind the defence to create chances.
Penalty means something very specific in footie, Helgrenze. The defening team are awarded an indirect free kick for offside.
A penatly is awarded to the attacking team if a direct free kick is given in the 18 yard box (penalty area)
so to go off topic but South Africa have just scored a 2nd goal and France have had a man sent off. If South Africa win by 3 goals they may now qualify!
Just had a goal disallowed for off side!
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That is my "have to say" line Sebster.
helgrenze wrote:I think its the weird rules system they have. Stoppage time, yellow/red cards, variable field sizes, stuff like that. Of course, other sports have their own weird rules, but most of them are fairly simple to explain, not like Offsides in soccer, which is probably the most complex rule in all sports.
The field is always the same size. In cricket it isn't, you might be thinking of that.
Offside isn't that complicated. Pretty much the whole of American Football is weird, on the other hand. I quite like watching that game, but the rules are really weird.
Offside isn't that complicated. Pretty much the whole of American Football is weird, on the other hand. I quite like watching that game, but the rules are really weird.
You mean the sport of Egghand?
The simpliest explanation is that the team with the ball must advance at least ten yards on four tries (downs) in order to maintain possession (but usually coaches will opt to have their team kick the ball on the fourth down to avoid allowing the other team a closer position to their respective endzone). The objective is to get it into an area called the endzone, where in they score 6 points. Then they kick it through two upright poles for an extra point, or get it into the endzone again for 2 more. Kicking the ball through the uprights before reaching the endzone nets 3 points, and being tackled in the opposing team's endzone nets the defending team 2 points. The ball can only be passed in a foward motion per 1 down, and can only be thrown behind the line in which the ball rested before the down. Each time points are scored, the ball reverts to the other team after a kick off.
There are more rules and such, but the basic objective of the game is to advance that ball to your endzone and stop the opposing team from scoring.
Dimensions
The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.
Length (touch line): minimum 90 m (100 yds) - maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width (goal line): minimum 45 m (50 yds) - maximum 90 m (100 yds)
International matches
Length: minimum 100 m (110 yds) - maximum 110 m (120 yds)
Width: minimum 64 m (70 yds) - maximum 75 m (80 yds)
Looks variable to me. The Laws go on to say as long as the field is not square.....
helgrenze wrote:Offsides in Ameican football- when a player on the defense crosses the line of scrimmage, (a line drawn across the field through the spot where the ball is placed) prior to the ball being put into play by the center.
Actually that's encroachment, not offsides. Offsides is when the offensive player crosses the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped by the center.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:You are also allowed to backwards pass during any play even if having advanced beyond the line of scrimmage.
And here is the best example of this in action, Cal vs Stanford in 1982...
Yup
Footie pitches are of variable size, there are minimum dimensions as stated.
It makes the game more diverse imho rather than having a standard size. Of course the centre circle, penalty areas, penalty spot and goal sizes are standard.
helgrenze wrote:Offsides in Ameican football- when a player on the defense crosses the line of scrimmage, (a line drawn across the field through the spot where the ball is placed) prior to the ball being put into play by the center.
Its more complicated than that. Any player who is over the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped by the center is offside. This is most often called on the defense, but is also a fairly common penalty for receivers and, in some blocking schemes, guards. Encroachment is the penalty called on the defense for crossing the line of scrimmage and striking an offensive player prior to the ball being snapped. It is necessary to differentiate these two infractions, as the defense is not required to remain set after becoming so. They can jump offside, and the return onside with no penalty; provided it isn't repeated in such a fashion as to warrant an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Conversely, if the offense sets up offside, a false start penalty would be called should they attempt to relocate. This is why the officials will work with receivers far away from the ball to indicate an official line of scrimmage.
Its also worth noting that there additional rules regarding the offense being too far from the line of scrimmage, in effect regulating whether or not a player is 'too far' onside.
helgrenze wrote:
Offsides in Hockey- When a player crosses the opposing blueline prior to the puck crossing the same line.
Its more complicated than that. In the NHL the offside rule is based on a tag-up rule whereby, if the puck is played ahead of the offensive team, any offensive player ahead of the blue line may come back to the blue line in order to be considered onside for the play. An infraction is not considered to occur unless an offside player touches the puck, or the puck is carried in by a member of the offensive team while one of his fellow players is offside.
helgrenze wrote:
Now explain offsides in soccer in a single simple sentance.
Its impossible to fully explain the rules for being offside in any sport in a single, simple sentence.
Dogma, try reading the WHOLE thread before picking apart a single post that was made hours ago. The discussion was well beyond the above point several posts ago.
helgrenze wrote:Dogma, try reading the WHOLE thread before picking apart a single post that was made hours ago. The discussion was well beyond the above point several posts ago.
I did indeed read the whole thread, I found your post to be the most intriguing for its inaccuracy. Seeing as there are only two pages, and the format is such that we are not involved in a live chat, the matter of 'hours' seems irrelevant.
The point I was trying to make was that it is somewhat easier in both American football and hockey to tell what an offsides penalty is when compared to soccer.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:When we were kids playing without offside rules there would always be some annoying git just waiting around in front of goal - a goalhanger as they were called. I assume this is why the rule was introduced.
It means strikers just have to time the run to get beyond the defender.
We didn't even have goals when i was a kid and just had two jumpers and had to guess how high the crossbar was and spend HOURS arguing if it missed
helgrenze wrote:The point I was trying to make was that it is somewhat easier in both American football and hockey to tell what an offsides penalty is when compared to soccer.
For you, because you don't understand soccer. But hey, don't feel bad.
How "easy" it is to tell if somebody is offsides also has two dimensions...
1) How easy is it to understand the offside rules.
2) How easy is it to observe if a player is offside at game speed.
In that respect, 1 is fairly irrelevant, since it can be figured out eventually, and any ref will certainly understand (Malian refs in US World Cup games, notwithstanding).
Number 2 is more relevant, since any sport that can't be accurately and consistently refereed is a sport with a problem.
Football is probably the most complex when it comes to #1, but it's probably the easiest to enforce when it comes to #2. There's all sorts of variations on who is where, who they touched, who caused who to move, etc. etc. But ultimately a ref can just line up on scrimmage and watch the snap.
By comparison, soccer is pretty straightforward in terms of #1, but very difficult in terms of #2, since you have to be watching when the ball is kicked AND see if a player is offside at that moment, AND be running around at game speed to keep lined up with the rearmost defender, etc. etc.
The real issue I have with soccer, is that there is so little scoring, that one blown call can have a MASSIVE impact on a game.
In general, I think the past few World Cups have given a very, very poor impression of soccer. It's just not a viable sport at this point, IMO. If you can't play a game without constant drama with the refs, and without frequently resorting to pentalty kick tie breakers, it's just not a valid sport.
A lot of people say "there needs to be more scoring!" That's true, IMO, but not for the reasons people mean. The reason there needs to be more scoring isn't because it's "boring" to watch people play the game... It's because when your scores are 1-0 and 0-1, things are so granular, it's hard to really measure the teams against one another. It causes bad luck and referee mistakes to mean too much, and leads to shootouts.
Hockey, for whatever good fortune of game balance, ends up being a 5-10 goal a game affair, which allows for a clear winner and loser. It's a very similar game to soccer in terms of layout and gameplay, but it ends up with a few more goals.
I wonder if the offside system in hockey wouldn't benefit soccer?
The only other things I'd change about soccer are some of the stupid administrative cuteness it has. Clocks that go the wrong way, arbitrary "stoppage time" etc. etc. etc.
The simpliest explanation is that the team with the ball must advance at least ten yards on four tries (downs) in order to maintain possession (but usually coaches will opt to have their team kick the ball on the fourth down to avoid allowing the other team a closer position to their respective endzone). The objective is to get it into an area called the endzone, where in they score 6 points. Then they kick it through two upright poles for an extra point, or get it into the endzone again for 2 more. Kicking the ball through the uprights before reaching the endzone nets 3 points, and being tackled in the opposing team's endzone nets the defending team 2 points. The ball can only be passed in a foward motion per 1 down, and can only be thrown behind the line in which the ball rested before the down. Each time points are scored, the ball reverts to the other team after a kick off.
There are more rules and such, but the basic objective of the game is to advance that ball to your endzone and stop the opposing team from scoring.
Yeah, I get the general idea of the game. I've watched it on telly a bit and it looks a fun game. It's more the technical side of things, what's pass interference and what isn't. That's a lot weirder than any offside rule, and there's a lot of those kinds of weird rules in soccer.
Phyrxis that is a neat Analysis but if you want scoring ebert 5 seconds watch basketball.
To me that is boring - Team A attacks scores, Team B attacks scores, Team A attacks.... you get the idea
Please if you love B Ball that is cool, is just personal preference on my part.
Some of the most exciting games I have seen have been 0-0 draws. The quality of the football played and intensity of the game is more important than the result ultimately in my opinion. Note that most of the world disagrees with the general American take on soccer.
It is purely a cultuaral thing that the game did not develop in the USA.
There is a footie game called Subbutteo which has a shooting area, approximately half way between the penatly area and halfway line. iirc you were onside outside the shooting area. This may help but tbh as I said earlier the game doesn't tend to get compressed to the half way line anymore.
To return to the original question I can see how a conservative (in the American sense) would dislike football because it is very much a foreign game in the states. All the posts about certain rules being wrong or silly, purely because thy are different, proves this. However there are plenty of reasons for hating football besides being a racist.
I play in a 5 a side league and enjoy it, however I would rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than watch other people play a game. I far prefer Rugby, where the tension builds as a team aporaches the try line and the whole team are envolved in good tactical play. Compared with this football seems more like pinball.
Phryxis wrote:
By comparison, soccer is pretty straightforward in terms of #1, but very difficult in terms of #2, since you have to be watching when the ball is kicked AND see if a player is offside at that moment, AND be running around at game speed to keep lined up with the rearmost defender, etc. etc.
That's why there are multiple officials. They follow the play and raise the flag to inform the ref of an infringement.
The real issue I have with soccer, is that there is so little scoring, that one blown call can have a MASSIVE impact on a game.
Drama. Drama is exciting. Entertainent should be exciting. Sport is entertainment.
In general, I think the past few World Cups have given a very, very poor impression of soccer. It's just not a viable sport at this point, IMO. If you can't play a game without constant drama with the refs, and without frequently resorting to pentalty kick tie breakers, it's just not a valid sport.
Christ, you're arrogant. Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't care that you think football isn't a valid sport. Football is by the far the most watched sport in the world, Premier League matches sometimes get upwards of 1 Billion viewers. Not that it matters of course.
Face it, you don't understand the game. That's fine. I personally don't understand the attraction of Baseball or American Football. I find it artless.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. Last I checked, Obama's jackbooted FEMA stormtroopers aren't rounding people up into camps and forcing them to watch the World Cup.
A lot of people say "there needs to be more scoring!" That's true, IMO, but not for the reasons people mean. The reason there needs to be more scoring isn't because it's "boring" to watch people play the game... It's because when your scores are 1-0 and 0-1, things are so granular, it's hard to really measure the teams against one another. It causes bad luck and referee mistakes to mean too much, and leads to shootouts.
Why do you keep talking about 'shoot-outs'? They usually only occur in the knock-out phases of tournaments. Again, lower scoring games make for more drama, as every point counts. And Football isn't just about scoring goals - as someone once said 'the play's the thing'. I'm paraphrasing, but it still applies. I find it more exiting to see a player like Messi or Zidane bring the ball out of midfield and dance past 4 players on his way to smashing the ball against the post, than to watch a sport in which points are scored every 5 minutes or less. That just strikes me as pedestrian.
Who's being arrogant? I was criticizing soccer, and somehow that makes me arrogant?
But thanks for turning it into insults. I give an opinion on soccer, you give an opinion on me. You must have won, huh?
Face it, you don't understand the game.
Standard excuse of a soccer apologist. "It's too sophisticated for you." I understand the game just fine. I think it can be fun to watch. The problem isn't whether or not it's fun to watch, even though that's the only argument you can think of to make.
The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup. Over a long season of league play, things even out, and ties make sense in the overall points total. When you're trying to run a relatively short elmination tournament, you end up with too little time to create space between teams, and stopgap measures like shoot outs.
But, please, feel free to scream some more about how it's fun to watch, as if I ever said it wasn't.
I played soccer all the way through high school. I understand the game just fine. I enjoyed playing it. I never said it's not fun to watch. I said it's been given a poor impression by the World Cup.
I personally don't understand the attraction of Baseball or American Football. I find it artless.
Does this mean you're "arrogant" too? No, it means you're both unaware of the definition of arrogant AND a hypocrite.
You're also just another one of these soccer fans who can't hear somebody criticize the sport without frothing at the mouth. I happen to like American Football. It's my favorite sport to watch on TV. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not gonna get all upset and start throwing around insults about it.
I think Shakespeare was speaking about soccer fans when he wrote "the lady doth protest too much."
The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup
oh dear.
According to your theory the long running FA Cup is also hopeless.
The problem is that some Americans have an "I don't care about footie so it is not a worthwhile sport" attitude .
As already pointed out is that the rest of the world disagrees, and will party regardless.
You may know how to play the game, but you sure as eggs don't understand it. Two different things mate.
Phryxis wrote:
Hockey, for whatever good fortune of game balance, ends up being a 5-10 goal a game affair, which allows for a clear winner and loser. It's a very similar game to soccer in terms of layout and gameplay, but it ends up with a few more goals.
I wonder if the offside system in hockey wouldn't benefit soccer?
Its worth noting that most hockey games are decided by 1 or 2 goals. There's more scoring, sure, but the average margin of victory is comparable to that of soccer. Moreover, luck plays a pretty big part in determining who wins on any given night; note how San Jose lost an overtime game by scoring on themselves.
Additionally, the offside system in hockey can be easily exploited in order to create a trap effect along the demarcation line, as the dead puck era illustrated so annoyingly well.
Phryxis wrote:
The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup. Over a long season of league play, things even out, and ties make sense in the overall points total. When you're trying to run a relatively short elmination tournament, you end up with too little time to create space between teams, and stopgap measures like shoot outs.
Ultimately, no matter the structure of the tournament, the victor will always be the better team given the format and time of competition. Things like shootouts aren't stopgap measures, they're an element of the game as defined by the rules. If a team loses in a shootout, then they weren't as good as the team that beat them in the context of the competition.
You may know how to play the game, but you sure as eggs don't understand it.
AGAIN, with this. It's amazing how a soccer fan can be told that we're onto this trick, and they just keep doing it. It's like an involuntary reflex. "If him not like soccer, him not understand!"
You're wrong. On more than one level.
I never said I don't like soccer. I said it's not well suited to short tournaments. But like all soccer cultists, if you hear "soccer" and a negative adjective in the same general vicinity, you start accusing the speaker of ignorance.
Even if I DID say I don't like soccer, that doesn't mean I don't understand it. It means I don't like it. People are capable of disliking things they well understand. Contrary to what you may think, it's not impossible to love soccer. Albatross doesn't like MLB or NFL. Maybe he understands the sports, maybe not. He didn't say. He just said he doesn't like them. Fair enough.
Its worth noting that most hockey games are decided by 1 or 2 goals.
Sure, but they're much more often decided. There are a lot more ties in soccer.
And, just for the fun of saying it AGAIN... That doesn't make soccer a bad game to watch. It makes it a bad game to try to pick a winner in a relatively short period of time. It makes it a much better game for a long season.
Compare that to American football. It's so violent and dangerous that teams can't play more than once a week, can't play more than 20 games a season, and there are constant injuries and other impediments to enjoyment. That makes it impossible for all the teams to play, other problems like that.
Things like shootouts aren't stopgap measures, they're an element of the game as defined by the rules.
Sure, it's all fine by the rules, but it's not soccer. Soccer fans want to see soccer played. They want to see their "beautiful game." Penalty kicks are a boring, pointless sideshow compared to real soccer.
Phyrxis enough already, you are just embarrassing yourself.
I neither commented on you liking footie or not
Read what you said then what I said.
You claim that a competition that has run for donkeys years is unfeasible!?! Like the FA Cup? or the European Championship? Yeah they don't work as tournaments either. Are they unfeasible as well?
You really are showing your ignorance and doth protest too much.
If you make statements like this you clearly have no idea what football is all about!
Again, there is a difference between understanding the game and knowing the rules. I say that to you not as an American, but to you as someone talking silly stuff.
Okay so I am a soccer cultist? If you want me to take on that role, which is a massive and incorrect assumption on your part. I can play the part just to please you.
"How many years have you stood on concrete terrace in all weathers to follow your local team, through more downs than ups? A team you support with passion and pride whatever they go through! Older English members will laugh at me when I say I have done just that at St, Andrews but will also know what it means. Many may well support teams with even less success than Brummagem have had over the years.
To quote Shakespeare, PAH! you sirrah are indeed a fairweather gadfly, a flibberdegib of nothingness in a pisspot of delusion.
You know bugger all coz it ain't in your heart and soul pal, nothing to do with soccer or Americans. Now button it unless you' have something worthwile to say!"
Who's being arrogant? I was criticizing soccer, and somehow that makes me arrogant?
But thanks for turning it into insults. I give an opinion on soccer, you give an opinion on me. You must have won, huh?
Hey, I call it how I see it. Your feelings mean jack to me. Sorry.
The way I see it, THIS:
In general, I think the past few World Cups have given a very, very poor impression of soccer. It's just not a viable sport at this point, IMO. If you can't play a game without constant drama with the refs, and without frequently resorting to pentalty kick tie breakers, it's just not a valid sport.
...Is an arrogant statement. The fact that you have a problem with some of the rules, or the tournament structure, does not make for an invalid sport, or even an invalid competition. The World Cup has been watched by billions of people and raised billions in revenue since it's inception in 1930. It's the worlds most popular sporting competition.
But hey, internet person, 'it's just not a valid sport'.
Face it, you don't understand the game.
Standard excuse of a soccer apologist. "It's too sophisticated for you." I understand the game just fine. I think it can be fun to watch. The problem isn't whether or not it's fun to watch, even though that's the only argument you can think of to make.
The problem is that it's not conduscive to running a competitive tournament like the World Cup. Over a long season of league play, things even out, and ties make sense in the overall points total. When you're trying to run a relatively short elmination tournament, you end up with too little time to create space between teams, and stopgap measures like shoot outs.
But, please, feel free to scream some more about how it's fun to watch, as if I ever said it wasn't.
I played soccer all the way through high school. I understand the game just fine. I enjoyed playing it. I never said it's not fun to watch. I said it's been given a poor impression by the World Cup.
Who's screaming? What are you talking about? You said it was more difficult to measure the teams against each other than in other sports. That's not the case for someone who understands the game properly. If you've played the game you should have no problem determining which team was best on balance of play, the quality of attacking or defending , not to mention the score. I find football exciting becase the best team DOESN'T always win. Again, it's the drama of the game that makes it exciting to me - as I've said, I find American Football artless and pedestrian because in the games I've seen there has been little in the way of drama. And I'm not just talking about controversy, I'm talking about a last minute snatched equaliser, a near-miss, or a team hanging on to a one-goal lead by the skin of their teeth. Everything can change in a second during a football match.
But I'll freely admit to not having a great understanding of American Football, Baseball, Hockey etc., so perhaps that's why I don't enjoy them as much as other sports.
I don't feel the need to go around constantly puffing out my chest.
I personally don't understand the attraction of Baseball or American Football. I find it artless.
Does this mean you're "arrogant" too? No, it means you're both unaware of the definition of arrogant AND a hypocrite.
Does someone have hurt feelings...? I can't believe how personally you are taking this. Just to be clear, I expressed my opinion on American Football and my reason for that opinion. I didn't try to say that it's somehow 'broken' just because I dislike the format.
Start your flame-crusade somewhere else, with someone else.
You claim that a competition that has run for donkeys years is unfeasible!?!
Well, whatever, it's a sport, it's very popular, lots of people enjoy it. So is it "feasible?" Clearly it's being played, enjoyed, money is changing hands, the world is turning. It's the biggest sport in the world.
So, I guess I didn't realize I needed to admit this, since it's already been stated, and is totally obvious.
YES. I the big picture it's feasible. Earlier I said it's not "viable." I understand why you took it as you have, but I don't mean to suggest that we should cancel soccer and not play any more. Such an argument would be ridiculous, but then again, in your world it's EXACTLY that ridiculous to not be a foamy mouthed soccer lover, so you think I'm exactly that stupid.
I promise, though, I'm not.
All I'm saying, and I don't know why I'm pretending like saying it again will help, is that soccer's not well suited to these short tournaments. If I recall correctly, you yourself said that the World Cup is THE event for soccer. That being the case, it'd be nice if it could really capture soccer at its best, and I don't think it does. By constraining things to such a small number of games, and in later rounds resorting to shoot outs, it forces soccer into a context where it's not at its best.
YES, the drama is there.
YES, the national pride is there.
All of that is wonderful, and I understand the enthusiasm. The problem isn't that that stuff is missing, or that I can't see it... It's that it needs to be given the chance to reach its conclusion. Giving up and having a shootout doesn't allow all that excitement to reach its full potential.
If anything, I'm saying the problem isn't with soccer, but with the format of the showpiece tournaments.
But, on top of that, because I think showpiece tournaments are also cool, I'd like to see the game evolve to fit them better. Slightly more scoring would allow for more affirmative results, and thus more satisfying conclusions to games.
Of course I can't say "more scoring" without triggering yet another soccer cultist response. "That bloody American wants to turn our game into basketball! We don't want your high scoring mess, American! You're just not refined enough to appreciate a 0-0 tie!"
Ugh...
So let me be proactive. I UNDERSTAND FULLY that there's a whole game being played between the nets, and it's not just empty time between goals. I just wish there was a way to get finer granularity into the scoring. I'd almost rather see them go to counting shots on goal than to penalty shots. On goals are at least something that's part of the game, representative of productive offense, rather than a random sideshow.
If you make statements like this you clearly have no idea what football is all about!
And if this argument had any merit at all, you'd be able to provide better support for it than just repeating it over and over again.
If you want me to take on that role, which is a massive and incorrect assumption on your part.
It's only incorrect because you live in a country with people who are so insane about the game as to make you look moderate.
But make no mistake, you still exhibit the behavior of the cultist.
The whole "you don't understand, you don't understand" chant is like an unthinking mantra. It's cult behavior. It's the behavior of somebody who doesn't think, but instead repeats programming.
You take soccer personally. It's not just a sport you love, it's a religion. You might be a less devout practitioner, but it's still a religion.
Just because it's widely accepted where you come from to treat it as a religion, that doesn't make it my problem, nor does it make you rational.
There, did that fit the bill?
I don't know what bill we're talking about, so I'll just say "yes."
Hey, I call it how I see it. Your feelings mean jack to me.
Then you won't care that you didn't hurt my feelings... You simply don't know what words mean, and I thought you might like to know that, since you seem to fancy yourself very clever.
But hey, internet person, 'it's just not a valid sport'.
And I will take responsibility for the poor wording. I understand why you took this as you did, and it's my fault for not expressing myself clearly. I should have known I was talking about a religion, and I shouldn't have been careless.
It's not an invalid sport. I made my opinions on this much clearer earlier on in this post.
If you've played the game you should have no problem determining which team was best on balance of play, the quality of attacking or defending , not to mention the score.
Absolutely, we can see which team was dominating possession, shots on goal, etc. etc. But that's not what we're talking about. We don't just judge soccer like it's figure skating. We look at the score. Apparently you enjoy it when the worse team wins, and if that's fun for you, that's fun for you, but I'd argue that's a minority opinion, and while I respect your right to have it, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anybody else to share it.
I don't feel the need to go around constantly puffing out my chest.
It's my perception that this is exactly what you're doing. It's my perception that is is exactly what MANY soccer fans do when somebody doesn't show sufficient admiration for the game.
I'm not mad at soccer. I'm not mad at it at all. But I am given the strong impression that you (and others) are mad at my opinion of it.
And, please, if you don't like the word "mad" replace it with a less extreme word that you feel is appropriate. "Down on." Whatever.
I can't believe how personally you are taking this.
I promise, I'm not. I do get very annoyed by things I view as false logic, and I want to correct them, but it doesn't hurt my feelings.
The three of you are consistently managing to mischaracterize eachothers arguments while using significant amounts of loaded language in every post.
Soccer is a valid game and a very valid sport. In fact its the most popular one on the planet and by virtually all objective measures it's "Valid".
-
Low point spread games make objective classification of team worth more difficult to determine, making short elimination tourneys like the world cup more contentious by their nature. This both is and is not to the games favor.
-
Shootouts are a facet of the game and their existence does not invalidate it as a sport anymore than penalty kickoffs in football
-
Football isn't about anything. It's a fething game where dudes kick a ball into a net. It's about kicking a ball into a net. Scratch that, I guess it's about something. It's about kicking a ball. Into a net. Magical. I can see how thats "hard to understand" for the American.
You're all being a bit childish here. Theres nothing magical or dysfunctional about soccer.
Phryxis wrote:And I will take responsibility for the poor wording. I understand why you took this as you did, and it's my fault for not expressing myself clearly.
It's not an invalid sport. I made my opinions on this much clearer earlier on in this post.
Do you accept that what you said (or rather, the way you said it) made you sound rather arrogant? Because applying your arbitrary value judgement to something, and treating it as given fact, is fairly arrogant. 'I think THIS, therefore THIS is true'. That's what I was driving at.
But you didn't mean that. Cool. You're not arrogant. Well, you're LESS arrogant.....
If anything, I'm saying the problem isn't with soccer, but with the format of the showpiece tournaments.
Ah. I can see what you're saying, although I don't agree. The 'showpiece' isn't actually the whole tournament. The World Cup actually starts almost two years before The World Cup Finals, which is what is going on at the moment. The qualification process is closer to a league format.
I think it comes down to a matter of taste - many people like the current method of scoring. It's been like that for years. If it was changed it would be a different game, and I can't see many people outside of the USA being in favour of it.
Do you accept that what you said (or rather, the way you said it) made you sound rather arrogant? Because applying your arbitrary value judgement to something, and treating it as given fact, is fairly arrogant. 'I think THIS, therefore THIS is true'. That's what I was driving at.
as I've said, I find American Football artless and pedestrian because in the games I've seen there has been little in the way of drama. And I'm not just talking about controversy, I'm talking about a last minute snatched equaliser, a near-miss, or a team hanging on to a one-goal lead by the skin of their teeth. Everything can change in a second during a football match.
You managed to match an arrogant statement with an arrogant statement there. One that is essentially it's equal. Do you plan to retract yours as well?
ShumaGorath wrote:The three of you are consistently managing to mischaracterize eachothers arguments while using significant amounts of loaded language in every post.
Feeling left out? Isn't this normally your territory?
Soccer is a valid game and a very valid sport. In fact its the most popular one on the planet and by virtually all objective measures it's "Valid".
Yup.
Low point spread games make objective classification of team worth more difficult to determine, making short elimination tourneys like the world cup more contentious by their nature. This both is and is not to the games favor.
Yup.
Shootouts are a facet of the game and their existence does not invalidate it as a sport anymore than penalty kickoffs in football
Yup.
Football isn't about anything. It's a fething game where dudes kick a ball into a net. It's about kicking a ball into a net. Scratch that, I guess it's about something. It's about kicking a ball. Into a net. Magical. I can see how thats "hard to understand" for the American.
It's because 'the American' (whatever THAT is...) often seems to think that it's just about kicking the ball into the net. Game not understood.
Do you accept that what you said (or rather, the way you said it) made you sound rather arrogant? Because applying your arbitrary value judgement to something, and treating it as given fact, is fairly arrogant. 'I think THIS, therefore THIS is true'. That's what I was driving at.
as I've said, I find American Football artless and pedestrian because in the games I've seen there has been little in the way of drama. And I'm not just talking about controversy, I'm talking about a last minute snatched equaliser, a near-miss, or a team hanging on to a one-goal lead by the skin of their teeth. Everything can change in a second during a football match.
You managed to match an arrogant statement with an arrogant statement there. One that is essentially it's equal. Do you plan to retract yours as well?
No, I'm just going to bold it in the hope that you'll be able to understand it better.
as I've said, I find American Football artless and pedestrian because in the games I've seen there has been little in the way of drama. And I'm not just talking about controversy, I'm talking about a last minute snatched equaliser, a near-miss, or a team hanging on to a one-goal lead by the skin of their teeth. Everything can change in a second during a football match.
I make it perfectly clear that it's just my opinion based on the relatively few games I've seen. I didn't say that it IS artless, just that I find it so. It's not to my taste.
In any case, I AM arrogant. I'm comfortable with that.
I make it perfectly clear that it's just my opinion based on the relatively few games I've seen. I didn't say that it IS artless, just that I find it so. It's not to my taste.
In any case, I AM arrogant. I'm comfortable with that.
All subjective qualifications are inherently based in the first person perspective. What you said is no better than what he said simply because you stated that it's what you personally determine to be the truth. You are using unscientific and immeasurable wording (artless, really?) to quantify a sport as poor in comparison to another. When phryxis did the same it was implied that it was his opinion by the fact that he was not using consensus or empirical data. Don't hide behind your opinion just because it's "your opinion".
art·less [ahrt-lis] Show IPA –adjective 1. free from deceit, cunning, or craftiness; ingenuous: an artless child. 2. not artificial; natural; simple; uncontrived: artless beauty; artless charm. 3. lacking art, knowledge, or skill. 4. poorly made; inartistic; clumsy; crude: an artless translation.
Lets be real here. By the first definition world cup football is significantly more artless than NFL football. NFL Football is a game of formation movement and deceit. Plays are tested against one another and doing something so simple as monitoring the common plays of another team is of paramount importance to discover their tactics. Soccer is a game of personal athletic skill and improvisational co operation between players. It has a fraction of the planning and coordination. By objective measure using the definition of the term it is "artless" by comparison.
ShumaGorath wrote:All subjective qualifications are inherently based in the first person perspective.
Since we're playing this game I'll point out that his statement implied objectivity, whereas mine didn't. Presenting one's subjective viewpoint as objective fact strikes me as arrogant.
You are using unscientific and immeasurable wording (artless, really?) to quantify a sport as poor in comparison to another.
I wasn't aware that I was comparing the two - outside of my own personal preference, of course. 'Artless', or 'lacking in art/artistry' pretty accurately sums up how I feel about American Football. I prefer the free-flowing aesthetic and the improvisational nature of football.
Why do you give a feth anyway? Have you run out of sudoku books?
Shootouts are a facet of the game and their existence does not invalidate it as a sport anymore than penalty kickoffs in football
What is a penalty kickoff?
And I realize that shootouts are a part of soccer (and hockey for that matter)... I just don't think they're very good for the sport. Officially they're part of the game, and they look like the game in a general way, but in the end, they're a shallow imitation of the game, and it's awful to see a pitched battle end with that.
I still recall Roberto Baggio missing the net. It was quite a moment, but not in an amazing way, more in a "wow, that was sad" sort of way. Do we want to end our World Cup with "wow, that was sad?"
Total whimper, no bang. Not good for the game.
Because applying your arbitrary value judgement to something, and treating it as given fact, is fairly arrogant.
Do we care about this? If we must...
First off, I'd say that "arrogance" involves self-aggrandizement. In order to be arrogant, you have to be presuming that you're wonderful. I don't feel like criticizing something is really a display of arrogance. It could be bad, but it wouldn't be arrogance. You're bringing something down, not bringing yourself up.
That said, if somebody treats all their opinions as facts, that's much more like arrogance, but probably still not arrogance. I'd call it hubris, maybe. But, regardless, I presume that my opinions are understood as such. I can put "IMO" at the end of everything I say, but really, is anything that anybody says NOT their opinion?
I didn't mean to come across as taking my opinions for facts... Some things I say are pure opinions. I like chocolate. Some things are opinions that I think are true for us all, but I realize not everyone agrees. Soccer fans view it with religious devotion. Some things are facts. 1+1=2.
My statements about the benefit of soccer "evolving" are somewhere between 1 and 2. I think it'd be better for soccer, but it might just be a matter of taste. But I still think people might appreciate the game even more if there was less ref controversy, fewer shootouts, and more games ending on real goals scored on the pitch during normal play.
The World Cup actually starts almost two years before The World Cup Finals, which is what is going on at the moment. The qualification process is closer to a league format.
Sure, but this is only because there are so many teams that want a shot, and isn't met with the same excitement. It lacks the drama of the big tournament, because it's drawn out over time and space.
This is why the Cup is exciting. It's a big, brief moment of major significance in the soccer world. I wish that soccer were better able to compress itself into that moment.
I think it comes down to a matter of taste - many people like the current method of scoring.
Meh... I don't think they like it, so much as there's no obvious better option. I think everyone is frustrated with penalty shootouts and refs changing games. The only question is if there's a better way. There I'd agree that many MANY people don't think there's a better way.
I also think that there's an element of pride that makes them unwilling to consider a new way, which is not rational, and not good for the sport, but is probably an unavoidable side effect of things that ARE good for the sport (enthusiasm, tradition, etc).
Everything can change in a second during a football match.
It's actually the same way in football. A bit less so in basketball or baseball.
But football has goal line stands, two minute drills, etc. It's actually much more prone to "moments" than soccer is. But it's also less fluid and dynamic. That's just a function of the timekeeping and game flow.
I think a lot of this comes down to volume of sport watched. Most soccer games are pretty boring and one sided, as it is with pretty much any sport. But, if you watch enough of any sport, moments will happen, and will stay with you. The more you watch of a given sport, and the more invested in the game you are, the more memories you'll have.
I'm actually less interested in soccer than in sport and competition in general. I think it's all good. I just think that there needs to be care taken to tweak the rules so that the best competition can be wrung out of the game. It's my perception that there's a stubbornness and traditionalism around soccer that has prevented it from being the best game it can be, ruleswise.
Since we're playing this game I'll point out that his statement implied objectivity, whereas mine didn't. Presenting one's subjective viewpoint as objective fact strikes me as arrogant.
Oh yes, that was definitely also arrogant.
I wasn't aware that I was comparing the two - outside of my own personal preference, of course. 'Artless', or 'lacking in art/artistry' pretty accurately sums up how I feel about American Football. I prefer the free-flowing aesthetic and the improvisational nature of football.
And when "artless" or "improvisational" in this context starts to mean things that make that sentence work beyond a simple (and arrogant) comparison between two sports I'll ride down in my kwanzika canoe and gives you a giant cookie.
Why do you give a feth anyway? Have you run out of sudoku books?
Upgrading to snow leopard broke VAC and I don't like playing civ 4 anymore unless I'm playing with friends. I've managed to assemble most of my con costume today, and it's raining (and I need to rest up so I'm not sore at the con) so I'm not taking the 20 minute walk to the gym.
Also I love to bicker with you Albion! *huggles (no homo)*
@Phryxis - I don't really want to continue the whole 'arrogant' thing - you said something that was meant to mean something else, so I said something, so you said something...
Meh. You didn't mean it that way and I take back what I said. Cool?
I'm actually less interested in soccer than in sport and competition in general. I think it's all good. I just think that there needs to be care taken to tweak the rules so that the best competition can be wrung out of the game. It's my perception that there's a stubbornness and traditionalism around soccer that has prevented it from being the best game it can be, ruleswise.
See, I think this is a very 'American' viewpoint: 'How can we make this better?' I find it problematic to some degree because, well, what is 'better'? And better for whom? How will we know when it's better? Should we even try? The game has remained the way it is (more or less) because enough people enjoy watching it and playing it that it's hard for many people to imagine how it COULD be made better. In trying to make it better, we could make it worse. It has, historically, been tweaked here and there, but I think the format has pretty much settled into a groove that works. How would you change it? Make the ball the size of a tennis ball? Make the goal bigger? Give the keeper boxing gloves?
The only thing I can think of would be video refereeing, but I think that might sterilise it a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Since we're playing this game I'll point out that his statement implied objectivity, whereas mine didn't. Presenting one's subjective viewpoint as objective fact strikes me as arrogant.
Oh yes, that was definitely also arrogant.
Wait...what was? What year is this? Is Micheal Jackson still black?
I wasn't aware that I was comparing the two - outside of my own personal preference, of course. 'Artless', or 'lacking in art/artistry' pretty accurately sums up how I feel about American Football. I prefer the free-flowing aesthetic and the improvisational nature of football.
And when "artless" or "improvisational" in this context starts to mean things that make that sentence work beyond a simple (and arrogant) comparison between two sports I'll ride down in my kwanzika canoe and gives you a giant cookie.
So art can't be improvisational?
Uh, jazz called - it wants it's Jackson Pollock back....
Why do you give a feth anyway? Have you run out of sudoku books?
Also I love to bicker with you Albion! *huggles (no homo)*
Sorry, life is short and art is long. So have skipped the walls of text which are long but not art.
If you think that the Tourney needs tweeking that is fine. FIFA have been doing that for yonks, but your former statement about footie not being condusive to such tournaments is still misinformed. The analogy, since we are on Dakka, is for me to grasp the rules of the 8th Edition, then start proclaiming that WHFB is not condusive to big tourneys.
Most soccer games are boring? Really, that is even more ridiculous than saying I will ever grasp the rules of WHFB.
The comments about pride and stubborness and the reluctance to change actually show just how little you know about footie. The game has altered radically over the last 10-15 years.
Refs make mistakes. What you need is better refs not new gimmicks to make the sport more TV watcher friendly. It can be frustrating, but you watch a few games and complain? Sheesh
You want perfection? Man, you are going to be very disappointed in life.
But I aint ever gonna forgive Maradonna!
The bottom line is if the game is seen as boring then people won't watch. But they continue, worldwide from the school playing field to national stadia, to do so. There are long traditions with clubs, and you wish to tinker with a game you admit to be not particulary interested in.
Just not getting why you are being so vociferous about a sport that holds little value for you
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jazz and Jack the Dripper are cool.
Albatross, ever watched a game of footie and just been entranced by the patterns of movement when the players know what they and their team mates are doing?
Only ever fully experienced it at the ground as tv cuts and compresses the viewing space, so you don't always appreciate the full movement off the ball.
Meh. You didn't mean it that way and I take back what I said. Cool?
That's fine, I'm not upset. I'm very arrogant, it's just that in this case I don't think I was displaying it.
I find it problematic to some degree because, well, what is 'better'?
Well, for our purposes, consider it to be "truly better." I agree, it might be that for the majority of fans, soccer is perfect right now under FIFA rules, so making it "better" is ridiculous.
I just really doubt that's the case. Television is changing every day, and most fans watch the game on TV. It's simply not very likely that the same rules and conventions that worked in 1980 are right for 2010. And that's just one aspect. We're all miniatures gamers, and we know that even perfectly good rules aren't good once they've gotten stale and the metagame is no longer evolving. Sports can get stuck in ruts when everyone gets locked into a certain style of play, and a rules change here and there can stir things up and get people thinking creatively again.
The NFL, for example, is CONSTANTLY messing with the rules, often in pretty drastic ways. I think the NFL probably changes more from year to year than soccer has in the past 25 (but I don't know enough about soccer rules evolution to say that authoritatively).
How would you change it?
Well, one way, which is relatively minor and inconsequential, is I'd fix the clocks. No more counting up to a random point in time when the ref feels as if things have gone on long enough.
In fact, in general I find soccer refs to be give too much free reign, they're too imperious, too empowered, and don't really have to explain themselves.
So, I'd change it thus: 2 45 minute halves... The clock counts down. If there's an injury, the ref waves his hand or whatever, and the clock stops. When play resumes, the ref waves again, the clock resumes. When the clock hits 0, and THEN the ball crosses half field, the game is over. So, in theory, an attack could continue until the ball is cleared after 0.
To me, this is a classic example of the strange stubbornness of soccer. The timekeeping is backwards, arbitrary and mysterious, but it's never been changed, because "that's how we bloody do it, Yank!"
Another change: Refs have to explain themselves. The play in US v Slovenia was odd, and it happened, but as I understand it, the ref never explained what the call was, nor was he required to. I didn't even realize this was a thing. I always understood what the call was when I played soccer, and assumed it was required that it be explained. It's certainly required in every other sport I've played.
Most soccer games are boring? Really, that is even more ridiculous than saying I will ever grasp the rules of WHFB.
Thanks taking it out of context and then missing the point. I think I was clear enough that must have taken some effort to do.
But let me be clear again, as is my dysfunction: when it comes to professional level sports, there are a lot of games in a season, and a lot of times the teams just phone it in, or one team blows the other one out, or things just aren't all that exciting. In NO sport is every single match a riveting experience. In most cases, it's pretty dull.
But when the championship/cup/big game rolls around, and players start picking it up, that's when great games happen.
The game has altered radically over the last 10-15 years.
Yeah? How?
But they continue, worldwide from the school playing field to national stadia, to do so.
Sure, it's the number one sport in the world.
It's also the mainstream sport with the lowest equipment costs as well... So, while I'm not saying that soccer is bad, everyone who praises its widespread support needs to remember that it's often the only option. The average kid in Ghana can't afford a full set of hockey gear, and probably doesn't live within 500 miles of a rink.
Just not getting why you are being so vociferous about a sport that holds little value for you
I'm not. I'm not mad at soccer, as I've said. I do have a mental problem that causes me to restate my points endlessly when people choose to ignore them, and as you've already admitted, you're not reading what I'm writing.
Phryxis wrote:
Sure, but they're much more often decided. There are a lot more ties in soccer.
In the NHL, overtime losses are recorded in much the same manner as ties in soccer. Two points to the victor, one point to the loser, so there is an incentive to win, but there is also an incentive to extend a game for extra play.
Phryxis wrote:
It makes it a bad game to try to pick a winner in a relatively short period of time. It makes it a much better game for a long season.
Compare that to American football. It's so violent and dangerous that teams can't play more than once a week, can't play more than 20 games a season, and there are constant injuries and other impediments to enjoyment. That makes it impossible for all the teams to play, other problems like that.
How is football any different? Given the way pass interference is called, its entirely possible for an official to decide a game by putting a team within scoring distance at the end of the fourth quarter. Sure, football scores are a lot higher, and that can make it seem as though one team is clearly better than the other, but a team that loses by 14 wasn't necessarily on the receiving end of 14 bad calls, only 2.
Phryxis wrote:
Sure, it's all fine by the rules, but it's not soccer. Soccer fans want to see soccer played. They want to see their "beautiful game." Penalty kicks are a boring, pointless sideshow compared to real soccer.
I'm not sure why you don't consider penalty kicks to be 'soccer'. The rules governing extra time are as much a part of soccer (or, at the very least, tournament soccer) as any other rule defining the game. It isn't as if there is a Platonic form of soccer, floating on high, with which we can compare our understanding of the game.
When college football games go to overtime, are they no longer playing football because each team starts at the 25, and there is no clock?
This is a comment that American Football fans will get.. mostly.
I am a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, have been for more than 30 years. In this country, that is equal to saying I am a Man.U. Fan. No other city sports team in this country has the fan reputation that Philadelphia ..enjoys.
So I understand the rabid team support idea.
And Soccer/footie is primarily about kicking the ball into the net. That is how points are scored and the points are what determine the games outcome. EVERYTHING else that happens on the field is secondary to the score. A perfect pass or increadible steal is meaningless without a subsequent score. Making great plays in a losing effort does not change the outcome.. you still lost.
All the art and poetry in the world do not make a loss any less a loss.
That holds true for any sport. Yes amazing plays happen, and sometimes the only hero on a team is the goal tender/keeper in those sports that have them. Which is why hockey makes for the best comparrison sport with Soccer.
Comparing 'footie' to american football is in the apples/potatoes catagory. They may look kind of similar but are far too different for a even half decent comparison.
How is football any different? Given the way pass interference is called, its entirely possible for an official to decide a game by putting a team within scoring distance at the end of the fourth quarter.
No question, refs can screw things up in ANY sport... My point about soccer is that the low scoring makes a single bad call disproportionately crippling. Especially when a foul inside the box is basically a free goal, which (to be fair) makes it very hard on refs as well.
When college football games go to overtime, are they no longer playing football because each team starts at the 25, and there is no clock?
Certainly less so, but this isn't as severe an example.
Obviously hockey shootouts are identical... But this would be like having a basketball team shoot free throws for the game after two OTs.
I'm not really sure where the confusion is... It seems like maybe you think I mean it's not actually part of soccer? I mean, clearly, it's in the rules, it's part of the game... But soccer is about ball control, passing, shooting accuracy, speed, fitness, game intelligence, mental toughness, etc. etc. etc. Penalty shots are only a small subset of that. So when I say it's "not soccer" I mean to say that it's just a tiny subset of what makes soccer great. To have to reduce the game to that tiny subset is unfortunate.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but around my neck of the woods, my friends will often light into me for not liking soccer.
Friend: Hey, want to watch the soccer game on TV?
Me: I don't like soccer.
Friend: What? Why?
Me: Uh, I find it boring.
Friend: Well, what kind of game do you want to watch?
Me: Football.
Friend: Dude, football is soccer.
Me: Dude, whatever.
Friend: How can you like "American" football anyway? At least soccer players don't have to put on any pads like a bunch of pussies!
Me: Soccer is a fine game, like it if you want to. I just don't.
Friend: What, cause all the players aren't roid-freaks or slamming out fifty homeruns or whatever a season? Jeez, man, some sports are more of a close competition, know what I'm saying?
Me: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *Tears face off like Geena Davis in Beetlejuice*
The off side rule for one obvious example
4th official
Technical areas
Number of substitutes
back passes to goalkeepers
what the keeper can do with the ball
There is a whole pile of stuff that has changed besides. Point is the game is evolving and changing in terms of rules and the social/cultural aspects.
You are constantly making assertions based on false premises.
You don't care about the game, so what the heck difference does it matter to you how the World Cup is run?
Rhetorical question.
The world will continue to party with or without you.
Phryxis wrote:
No question, refs can screw things up in ANY sport... My point about soccer is that the low scoring makes a single bad call disproportionately crippling. Especially when a foul inside the box is basically a free goal, which (to be fair) makes it very hard on refs as well.
I guess I don't see the distinction as particularly significant. Soccer in unarguably a low scoring game, but with that comes a greater emphasis on field play; serving to take the place of scoring when regarding mistakes by the officials. Instead waving off a bad call by saying "they had their own opportunities to score", it can be waved off by saying "the offensive player never should have gotten into that position to begin with".
That said, soccer could benefit from an modified officiating system. FIFA place 5 officials on the field, but I can see some wisdom in appointing a sixth (essentially a second referee) in order to divide the officiating crews on the basis of side or half.
Phryxis wrote:
Obviously hockey shootouts are identical... But this would be like having a basketball team shoot free throws for the game after two OTs.
I'm not really sure where the confusion is... It seems like maybe you think I mean it's not actually part of soccer? I mean, clearly, it's in the rules, it's part of the game... But soccer is about ball control, passing, shooting accuracy, speed, fitness, game intelligence, mental toughness, etc. etc. etc. Penalty shots are only a small subset of that. So when I say it's "not soccer" I mean to say that it's just a tiny subset of what makes soccer great. To have to reduce the game to that tiny subset is unfortunate.
Yeah, that clears things up. For full disclosure: I'm one of those people that likes the fact that the NHL returned to shootouts in the regular season. I like the tension that comes from a shooter going up one on one with a goalie. And, in general, I feel the same way about the contest taking place between the striker and the keeper.
Phryxis wrote:So, I'd change it thus: 2 45 minute halves... The clock counts down. If there's an injury, the ref waves his hand or whatever, and the clock stops. When play resumes, the ref waves again, the clock resumes. When the clock hits 0, and THEN the ball crosses half field, the game is over. So, in theory, an attack could continue until the ball is cleared after 0.
I'm not sure about that - I think it would make the game too 'stop-start'. That's actually one of the main things I don't enjoy about American Football (and Rugby, to be fair) - I just think football flows better. It could also be abused. If a team was caught on the back foot, with 4 attackers vs. 2 defenders running back towards goal, one of them could trip and pretend to have a pulled hamstring. The game would be instantly stopped, giving the defending team time to get players back to defend. This doesn't happen (at least, to my knowledge) at the moment because the ref can elect to play on. I can see how a lot of the rules look pointlessly arcane, but I think they are kept the way they are in order to maintain the flow and tempo of the game.
I can't see whats so good about the clock counting down, it's just convention. Your more used to it as that is how American sports work. It makes no practicle difference.
Also if play stopped as soon as someone fell over it would only increase diving etc.
I also can't see why shoot outs are considered an opt out. Saying that the players 'just give up' is non sensicle. After a full game plus extra time neither teams is going to be playignat its best so why not let it decide on a high tension decider?
I think one of the issues in soccer also crops up in Am. football and hockey...
Playing to not lose.
This is, in hockey and soccer at least, like playing the childs game of 'Keep Away'. After scoring a goahead piont, the lead team tried to keep the ball/puck out of their opponants control. They make no effort to advance the score and just try to not lose through extremely conservative play. This causes the down team to play much more agressively and can lead to worse penalties than normally seen.
It does not show up in baseball because of the nature of play. In basketball they have the 'shot clock' that keeps teams from using this tactic.
helgrenze wrote:...And Soccer/footie is primarily about kicking the ball into the net. That is how points are scored and the points are what determine the games outcome. EVERYTHING else that happens on the field is secondary to the score. A perfect pass or increadible steal is meaningless without a subsequent score. Making great plays in a losing effort does not change the outcome.. you still lost.
All the art and poetry in the world do not make a loss any less a loss.
As an american who likes soccer A LOT I have to disagree with this. The physical act of the ball actually crossing the goalline is no where near as interesting as what lead up to that titular moment. Sure the goal is the crescendo but the artistry that led up to the goal, whether that be an amazing pass, or for example amazing goaly throw like what our USA goal keeper did yesterday to start that "fast break", to end with a game winning goal, is what make soccer interesting.
I would compare it to something like when Rajon Rondo does a behind the back pass, or when magic Johnson did his magic on the basketball court. Or even going way back to pistol pete marovich's artistry. No one remembers the ball going through the hoop, but they do remember the way in which the play unfolded.
Also the struggle involved in getting a goal. The struggle creates drama.
Artistry and struggle.
THESE TWO THINGS ARE WHAT SOCCER IS ABOUT. In my humble opinion.
And this coming from a college football junky. I wouldn't rate soccer as my favorite sport, but I would probably rank it about 4th behind American football,Basketball, and Hockey. Unless the USA is playing then I would probably move it to 2nd behind American football.
generalgrog wrote:
As an american who likes soccer A LOT I have to disagree with this. The physical act of the ball actually crossing the goalline is no where near as interesting as what lead up to that titular moment. Sure the goal is the crescendo but the artistry that led up to the goal, whether that be an amazing pass, or for example amazing goaly throw like what our USA goal keeper did yesterday to start that "fast break", to end with a game winning goal, is what make soccer interesting.
I definitely think that one of the reasons Americans tend to 'not get' soccer is that it has a far higher emphasis on field play than any of the more popular alternatives. Americans, in general, seem to view sport as a function of scoring, rather than scoring as a function of sport. As a side-effect, we seem to pretty bad at playing 'as a team' in most cases.
With the exception of hockey, its rare to see any press given to the team players.
dogma wrote:I definitely think that one of the reasons Americans tend to 'not get' soccer is that it has a far higher emphasis on field play than any of the more popular alternatives. Americans, in general, seem to view sport as a function of scoring, rather than scoring as a function of sport.
Ah! This! This is what I was getting at, you just put it better. 'Functional' is probably better than 'artless' as a description, in all honesty. It seems like the entertainment is derived from scoring, as opposed to the play.
dogma wrote:I definitely think that one of the reasons Americans tend to 'not get' soccer is that it has a far higher emphasis on field play than any of the more popular alternatives. Americans, in general, seem to view sport as a function of scoring, rather than scoring as a function of sport.
Ah! This! This is what I was getting at, you just put it better. 'Functional' is probably better than 'artless' as a description, in all honesty. It seems like the entertainment is derived from scoring, as opposed to the play.
So, take the goal out of the game. Completely remove that objective from the game itself. Keep the art and all that. Make it more like figure skating, where an indivdual judges opinion is all that matters.
The game will lose something primal to its nature, but at least it will be artful.
dogma wrote:I definitely think that one of the reasons Americans tend to 'not get' soccer is that it has a far higher emphasis on field play than any of the more popular alternatives. Americans, in general, seem to view sport as a function of scoring, rather than scoring as a function of sport.
Ah! This! This is what I was getting at, you just put it better. 'Functional' is probably better than 'artless' as a description, in all honesty. It seems like the entertainment is derived from scoring, as opposed to the play.
This is not really true. We love the scoring but the scoring is nothing to us if it's not well played or exceptional. Bird or Magic weaving through opposing players to sink a basket is art in and of itself. The 80 yard long bomb toss that gets caught just before running out of bounds gets our blood up.
The difference I see is the time scale. Baskets are made up to several times a minute, football is dissected into downs. So it becomes more like do you like to watch sprints or a long distance run. In soccer there is just too much field play for our shortened attention spans.
Notice I don't use baseball in examples because baseball is as boring as golf.
as I tend to call them. 
*shrugs* ..take your word for it here.
