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.
One small thing I’d like to see them do: mic up the refs like rugby union and rugby league do. Rugby refs at the international level are wired up not just so the TV audience can hear them, but their dialogue is broadcast over the stadium PA—and unlike NFL refs, they don’t turn it off and on. It’s on all the time.
}:-)4
Have them change the rules to American football, and play on Monday.
The problem with “soccer” is simple— it can never be a man’s sport. It has a huge homosexual and Euro-lib cult following
There is probably some truth in both of our statements. No one is going to invest in learning all the nuances of a game which doesn't particularly interest him at the outset.
Basketball was invented by a Canadian and to claim its American is rather tenuous
Tenuous? While the game was invented by a Canadian who had moved to the U.S. (and who I believed never returned to Canada and later changed his citizenship), the game was first played in the U.S., it developed in the U.S., it spread from the U.S., and was (and arguably still is) dominated by U.S. players? If not the U.S., what other country would have a claim to the sport?
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.
You're probably right about the F1 glamour being unattainable to NASCAR. NASCAR doesn't have the same exotic race sites nor the same prestigious marques (particularly if Porsche returns to F1). In the U.S., NASCAR is far ahead of F1 and IndyCar in terms of popularity. Each of those racing series is very interesting in its own right.
Sports is a matter of personal taste. Some people think all sports are a silly waste of time and they are probably more correct than we are.
Soccer is fast-moving with simply understood rules of playing or observing. It focuses on personal ball-handling skills and team strategy. It doesn't require the surviving players to weigh twenty stone, wear complicated, expensive gear, and be bludgeoned (sometimes to death, often with permanent injuries).
In the American version the only actual playing action is maybe one fifth of the clock time, with a ball that will not roll by itself for any distance, and cannot really be called football when it is mostly only manipulated by hand action or body shielding.
Real football is a pervasive global sport; American football cannot be, and is very boring to to me as a spectator or player.
Just an opinion.,
(In '50s high school I played halfback at 150 to 165 lb, and was selected for end-of-season All-County, from a town too small to raise a football team, and too poor to pay for equipment even if it could. Girls' teams had their own league then with the same field and rules.)
What a load of rubbish.
Thanks for reply.
By tenuous, I was referring to the game’s invention, rather than the history of the sport.
Don’t watch it.
See #1
See #1
See #1
See #1
6. FREE NACHOS!
You should test your theorem outside of The Den in London. The home field for Millwall.
I think that we'll have to agree to disagree: I won't win you over to baseball and you won't win me over to soccer. All three of my children played a year of soccer (at different times), so I studied the game so I could assist them. It is still the only sport I have been exposed to which didn't spark a desire to learn more. Fortunately, none of my children liked the game, although one son showed tremendous potential as a goalie (lanky build, quick reflexes, good footwork, and good spatial understanding so he naturally positioned himself well).
I'm guessing that we can agree on Sir Jackie Stewart. From the world of sports, the Flying Scot is one of my all-time favorites.
Suggestions to Make Baseball More Palatable for American Audiences
1.Don’t watch it.
2.See #1
3.See #1
4.See #1
5.See #1
5 Suggestions to Make
Baseball More Palatable for Non- American Audiences
1.Don’t watch it.
2.See #1
3.See #1
4.See #1
5.See #1
5 Suggestions to Make
Gridiron More Palatable for Non-American Audiences
1.Don’t watch it.
2.Watch rugby union instead, its the REAL version after all.
3.Watch rugby league instead, its the REAL version after all.
4.See #2
5.See #3
I like Gaelic Football more.
Casillas has been so bad, it might cause one to think maybe he has been paid to fix the matches.
The offside rule is not complicated, but you misstated it.
I will agree that it needs some changes. My suggestion is that the offside rule not be applicable once the ball goes below the top of the penalty area, but still remain in effect in the goal box.
James Naismith was a Canuck.
Just get rid of it. Field hockey used to have an identical rule, they jettisoned it in the 90s, nobody is complaining it ruined the sport.
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.