Posted on 06/18/2014 6:54:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There are legions of soccer haters in America, including some on this site. As I’ve said in the past, there’s nothing wrong with this. Many soccer haters know the game as well as I do and still can’t stand it. Others don’t know the game at all and hate it, which is illogical. Either way, the haters have their reasons and who am I to try and convince them otherwise?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for the haters, but the World Cup has actually generated some interest in soccer. The ESPN broadcast of the U.S.-Ghana match drew a 7 share overnight, or 8 million viewers. By contrast, a usual broadcast of Monday Night Football draws an 8.6 share, or 9.3 million viewers. Somebody out there in America likes soccer and loves the World Cup.
But it is my belief that a few rule changes would go a long way to getting even more Americans interested in the game. Hopefully, these suggestions wouldn’t alter the character of the game, but simply make it more accessible to American audiences.
The timekeeping problem in soccer is incomprehensible. Are the officials too stupid to keep accurate time? Why not stop the clock for an injury instead of adding on an indeterminate amount of time at the end of the half? (They’re rarely close to being right.) Why can’t they stop the clock after a goal is scored, or when there are long periods of time wasted on arguments with the officials? They rarely stop the clock, except in the case of very serious injuries.
There is nothing exact about timekeeping in a soccer match which is ridiculous in the 21st century. Either keep time or don’t. Add an official timekeeper as they have in football, basketball, and hockey. The ref can control when the clock is stopped and when it starts again. None of this nonsensical, subjective, inaccurate guessing about how much time was lost during a half.
No injury time. No stoppage time. Just 90 minutes of action. Isn’t that what they’re after in the first place?
How often do you see a foul called and, instead of the player placing the ball exactly where the foul occurred, he advances it 5 or 10 yards and puts it in play? Or you may have noticed when a ball goes out of bounds, the throw-in might eventually occur far from where the ball left the field of play.
The referee will occasionally blow his whistle and force the player to move the free kick back, or motion the player throwing the ball in to play to move closer to where the ball went out of bounds. But there’s no precision, no exactitude. (On throw-ins, I’ve seen players dance 20 yards down the sideline before putting the ball in play.)
It offends the American soul to see this demonstration of inexactness. It’s vaguely unfair. We’re used to games where precision makes a difference between victory and defeat. It can in soccer too.
I understand the attraction in not requiring the referee to handle the ball before putting it in play. It keeps the flow of the game going and maintains an advantage for an attacking team if they can quickly put the ball in play. But there are plenty of times when this rule is abused. Penalizing a team for abusing the practice by awarding a free kick to the opposing team should get players to be more exact in ball placement and out of bounds throw-ins.
International soccer would be a lot more watchable if players weren’t diving all over the pitch every time someone tripped them or gave them an elbow. It’s positively nauseating. The histrionics are worthy of a Shakespearean actor. We’ve all seen it. The player gets tripped up, throws his arms out while diving through the air, and goes down to the ground writhing in pain as if he’s been shot. Two minutes later, he’s speeding down the wing going after the ball as if shot out of a cannon.
It’s got to stop. It’s an insult to the game and to the fans. The NBA now calls a technical for diving as well they should. FIFA hands out a yellow card — but refs are afraid to call diving because there are times when even minor contact can lead to very painful injuries.
A baseball player gets hit with a 95 MPH fastball in the middle of the back and saunters to first — a point of pride not to show the pitcher he’s hurt. A wide receiver in football gets absolutely walloped by a D-back and jumps up as if nothing happened. This is the American way, and soccer would do well to adopt it.
But the trend in soccer now — especially in the penalty area — is for an attacking player to seek out contact in order to get a penalty kick. There have been more games decided by fake or questionable fouls than need to be. A few match penalties handed out for diving will go a long way toward discouraging the practice.
The offside rule in soccer is far more complex than it needs to be. In fact, a rule designed to make play fair is actually a detriment to the game.
The basic rule is simple enough: for a play to be onside, there must be at least one defensive player between the attacker and the goalie. But there are several permutations to the rule, and the assistant referees don’t always get it right.
When pro hockey eliminated the center-line offside, the game became much more exciting. The breakaway is the most crowd-pleasing play in hockey and with no center-line offsides, you usually get two or three a game.
Several times during World Cup games, offsides has been called less than 10 yards from the goal. Why is this a problem? You got all the defenders around the goal. If the attackers get lucky and the ball drops at their feet, good for them.
Don’t completely eliminate offsides, but limit it to balls kicked from behind the center line. Once over the center line, all bets are off and defenders better not let an offensive player get behind them.
Not really, of course. But those three countries have almost all their players home grown. The citizenship rules in soccer are baffling, as are the rules governing what country a player with dual citizenship can play for. English should play for England. Brazilians for Brazil, etc. It’s kind of silly that Costa, Spain’s marvelous striker, is a Brazilian by birth. Spain has plenty of home-grown players, they don’t need to go poaching other country’s stars.
It’s almost as if the superannuated gentlemen who run FIFA don’t want the game to open up and become exciting.
Tampa Bay Rowdies!! One of the best sports team names ever.
I am embarrassed because I actually knew, but simply forgot in all the arguing here, that its not French. And have known since I was 10!.....lol. No excuse, none.........
You forgot “allow hitting”
I always thought golf need outside linebackers rushing the putter!
Less hitting, more actual tackling.
The standard of tackling in the NFL is poor, they could learn greatly from rugby, where equally huge men tackle at equally high speed, but do it far better. Brutal, and less flashy.
Too many ‘primetime hits’ in the NFL, I have read college and NFL coaches of 30-50 yrs exp., say the standard is getting worse.
>>The ESPN broadcast of the U.S.-Ghana match drew a 7 share overnight, or 8 million viewers. <<
One weeks worth of illegal aliens watched the game. Whoopee,
Uh, illegal aliens tend to favor teams from other countries . . . shouldn’t that be obvious?
I don’t disagree with any of that about the atrocious tackling skills displayed in an NFL game. All defensive backs seem to think that imparting momentum is the same as tackling.
But I was completing the transformation of soccer into hockey. In hockey tackling is generally frowned upon, whereas hitting is a major component of the sport.
The ESPN broadcast of the U.S.-Ghana
Out of 16 World Cup games played, only two have been 0-0, and one of those was quite entertaining (is a no-hitter in baseball boring?). Even with those two factored in, there's been an average of over 3 goals scored.
By “illegal alien,” I suppose you mean the people chanting U-S-A?
There have been red cards handed out for diving. But they don’t do it nearly enough.
For a 0-0 game, that Mexico-Brazil game was pretty intense.
BTW Holland just scored.
F Rodney Marsh! Fort Lauderdale Strikers Rule!!!
And the Aussies just tied it!!!
Hell. No.
It used to be 2 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss (same as your suggestion, just with a shifted x-axis), but that encouraged teams to settle for ties too often. They changed it to 3-1-0 to provide teams with an incentive to try to win games rather than not lose them, and it's worked.
And Australia just answered. (!)
-PJ
I would say jettison the offsides rule completely. Even when it’s being officiated in a way that’s consistent it’s just not a good rule. Basically it outlaws the pass to a breakaway player, and any hockey fan knows passes to the breakaway player are awesome, now you get a player vs goalie duel with help chasing in rapidly for the goalie, very exciting, and often leads to scores.
Making the arena clock “real” would be great, the whole extra time thing is silly.
I also think unlimited substitutions will help. Same structure they have now, 1 player at a time, stoppages only, you don’t want the game to grind to a halt for subs. But with the ability to rest star players you’d get a lot less of the “resting on the field” that happens. More substitutions more often really opened up hockey, because it made the game less about endurance and more about the actual skills of the sport (puck handling, shooting). Right now soccer is a marathon with a ball and goals, unlimited substitutions would make it a ball and goal game with a fair bit of running.
And what an answer. The ex-Toffee does it again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.