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.
And nobody said they were all 0-0, BTW.
I don’t, and part of that is because the offside rule is so annoying. Every other sport with a similar layout makes the defensive player catch up, either stop the pass or reduce shooting options. Soccer lets the rule book bail out the defensive player by making it against the rules to pass him before you get the ball. It eliminates exciting plays, punishes good players capitalizing on mistakes, and rewards bad players by making getting caught out of position a good thing. Most of the soccer fans I know, including guys raised in England and Mexico, think the rule sucks both because it’s over complicated and it outlaws good play.
I was at that game, too. What fun, I remember it being hot. My friend and I went to a bar afterward to let the traffic clear (we were taking the bus! back to LA), and it was filled with morose Argentinians. Then, two girls draped in Argentina flags walked in, and everyone stood up and started clapping. Then the party began (actually, continued).
I was speaking generally, of the myth that nothing happens and nobody scores in soccer.
Whilst all the haters on here were telling us about how boring soccer is, they missed yet another brilliant game, 90 mins of goals, skill and drama.
Aussies won’t make it out, but they played much better than I expected.
I have a feeling Spain are going out, I think Chile pulls the upset.
Interesting enough, at lunch today, I walked through the student union building of the university where I work. Both big-screen TVs had the Royals-Tigers baseball game on rather than World Cup Soccer matches. I've always maintained that anyone who claims baseball is boring has not taken the time to learn the game. I've have always been amazed at how many foreign students become fans of American sports - MLB, NFL and CFB, and NBA.
Gridiron?. Not bad, but way too long.
Then you'd have to feel the same way about soccer.
Hockey?. Great game, but not American.
True. However, the highest level of the game is played in the NHL which is headquartered in the U.S. and where 3/4 of the franchises exist.
Basketball?...not bad, but not American either.
What? You might want to brush up on sports history a bit.
NASCAR?. Sorry, its Monte Carlo, Le Mans, and F1 glamour and cars for me. Redneck F1 just don’t cut it.
Given the elitism in these statements, I'm not surprised that you're a soccer fan too. I enjoy F1 but NASCAR races are generally more interesting. The F1 guys who have tried racing stock cars have discovered that these hillbillies are talented racers.
When people tell me they cannot watch soccer because it’s boring, I tell them to learn by watching baseball. And I’m a baseball fan, so maybe it prepared me for soccer.
Adios, España.
A smaller field, eight players, no offsides. Then it might be interesting.
7. Substitute a nice competitive NASCAR Sprint cup race.
Whatever baseball is, it’s not a chess match. It’s who has the best pitchers that game.
Best pitcher cor the game. That’s part of the chess match.
Then the game should be called pitchball, not baseball.
I’m trying to keep up with it because mi amigas a mi trabajo are talking about it.
One said all of her family would sit “nobody move until goal. Then so much screaming dog go hide.”
It has kind of smoothed over the Mexican/Texican/Californio/other South American friction at work.
Ok
1—I understand baseball, just as I understand cricket. I still don’t like either. And I find both overlong to the nth degree, dull, boring and lacking excitement. I don’t deny individual plays and players are exciting, but its far too long and tedious. Baseball and NFL are way too long. You can get three rugby matches and two soccer matches in the time it takes to play one baseball or NFL game.
I’ve equally always maintained that anyone who claims soccer is boring has also not taken the time to learn the game.
I have watched MLB both as a TV viewer and as an actual spectator (once) and sorry, I am/was bored and much prefer the NFL/CFL, or basketball.
BTW, in the 80s here in the UK, gridiron became a near-phenomenon, yet when CH4 tv channel tried to capitalise on that by showing MLB, it flopped and for nearly 30 yrs it didn’t appear again on our screens. Even the NFL audience here wasn’t interested. CH4’s showing of Aussie Rules at the same time was a huge hit.
2-—A soccer game is 90 mins. A rugby game is 80. Long isn’t one of their faults.
3—No, I know my sports history thanks. James Naismith was Canadian. Scots-Canadian to be exact. He had been living in the US for a very short time, nor would he be a US citizen for decades.
Basketball was invented by a Canadian and to claim its American is rather tenuous, just as Bell was the Scottish born and bred inventor of the telephone, not an American.
4—Jokey and sarcastic rather than elitist. After all, big Dario is a hero in Scotland as well as the US. Again, I am not denying NASCAR isn’t great stuff, but frankly it will never have the glamour of F1: the cars, the history, the racetracks and locations. The one US race that does enthrall us is the Indy 500, that is a race par excellence.
I am a fan of what I jokingly call “feetball” (because they use both feet, as opposed to our football, where the kickers only use one!) when it’s played at the highest level. You’d pretty much have to put a gun to my head to make me watch the MLS, but I’ll watch the World Cup because of the intensity and the level of play. And not *all* 0-0 ties are boring either, just most of them. Brazil and Mexico was probably one of the greatest 0-0 games of all time. That Mexican goalie...sheesh.
Liverpool and AC Milan are playing here in Charlotte in early August. I’m thinking about going if I can find out how much the tickets cost. I’ll be interested to see what kind of crowd two heavyweight clubs like that can draw here in North Carolina (Bank of America Stadium seats ~74,000).
I have to say, way down my bucket list would be to see an EPL game at Old Trafford or Anfield, or an Old Firm game once Rangers get back on their feet. Not so much for the game as for the atmosphere.
}:-)4
I really wish rugby (union or league, either one) would get bigger here. I have seen a few international matches on Youtube and have a tremendous amount of respect for the athletes, combining the running of a soccer player with the hitting of an NFL safety. First time I ever saw a Jonah Lomu highlight reel, my jaw hit the keyboard. It made me wonder how good Lomu could have been as an NFL runningback, or how good an NFL power fullback like, say, Earl Campbell could have been playing rugby. Or, even better, Bo Jackson.
}:-)4
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.