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.
I would try to explain to you why soccer is pure capitalism and why its actually American/N American sports that are socialist, but as you are an Anglophobe, you wont listen.
Yes. It is true! I need the clock to count down. I apologize if that offends but that is what i think. Last time i checked nobody has to watch anything. BTW, any guess why I love watching female beach volleyball? No clock necessary. Well i don’t know their might be a clock. Who cares!
I played 12 seasons over seven years (Fall and Spring) at the D-I college level and competitive club level. I retired when my body finally gave out. In my mind, the only team sports that come close to rugby in all-around excitement, athleticism, and physical demands are Hurling and Gaelic football.
Less?.
Sorry but that’s nonsense. And my chiropractic cousins in Australia and England will agree with me.
Every year, several major players in Union alone have to retire early because of major knee, back, ankle, neck and shoulder injuries.
Not to mention broken necks!. In fact broken necks, esp at scrums, are still so prevalent that some are calling for scrums to be outlawed.
Scotland alone has lost two great young internationals to broken necks (Max Evans and Joe Ansbro)in just the last three years. Both the result of bone crunching tackles at speed.
No rugby, union and league, up down and across the leagues and the rugby world, is a sport littered with badly injured players.
Naked (female) Cheerleaders?
Of course no one "has to watch" anything. I guarantee you this, for all my disparaging comments made to soccer bashers on FR over the years, I have never EVER had a negative comment for someone that just said something like: "Soccer?? tried watching a few games and really not my cup of tea". No problem with that whatsoever.
There is a clock in beach volleyball - its the one on my wall that counts down (or maybe up) to the time my wife is coming home and I have to turn it off.
Try me! ;)
I was going to make suggestions similar to yours. You beat me to the post.
Reduce the number of players to each team on the field/pitch to eight, counting the goalie and shorten the field by fifteen yards at each end but keep the same width, for breakaway plays. Also, create a zone five yards in front of the ‘box’ outside of which there is no off side possible.
1) Cover grass field with ice;
2) Replace cleats with skates;
3) Substitute ball with vulcanized rubber disk;
4) Maneuver disk with L-shaped sticks;
5) Enjoy!
LOL
Fair enough. Here goes:
Soccer is capitalist and conservative. Big clubs get the big players, get the big crowds and the big money. Little clubs adapt or die.
Its AMERICAN/CANADIAN sport that’s socialist!. The draft system which makes sure nobody is bigger or better than anyone else, all equal. That’s socialism, baby.
For all my soccer-defending and attacks, I am actually a big gridiron fan, and enjoy ice hockey. I don’t mind lacrosse or basketball.
I do however love soccer (since I was 5) and rugby union. So I like both N American and UK/Euro sports.
Over the long term, you may be correct, but in my experience, far more players leave the pitch for injuries during an American football match than a rugby match. During my playing years, I broke eight of my ten fingers, fibula, and nose; had reconstructive shoulder surgery (which is why I lost a spring and fall season); multiple gashes that required stitches; and more concussions than I can remember (there's a joke there someplace). In my retirement, I have now had a second shoulder reconstruction, lower back surgery, and both hips replaced. No question, rugby takes a long-term toll on the body that is second to no other sport. But, during my playing days, I rarely saw anyone leave the match on a stretcher or even pull themselves from a match because of an injury (although I was yanked from what turned out to be the last match of my career because of a double fracture of the fibula).
I went to a fight one time and a soccer game broke out! ROFL
Other than that, I find soccer to be VERY boring and that is especially true when one guy kicks the ball directly to an opposing player. I call that stupidity. What comes to mind is, ‘What was he thinking,’ if he was thinking at all. ;-)
Yeah me too. Wifey is not the fan of BV that I am. She makes me change the channel.
I don’t care for the political reasons people give for not enjoying soccer. Why does politics get interjected into everything. Watch what you like, play what you enjoy and are reasonably capable of playing. I play baseball, not basketball or soccer because i would run out of wind! I can sprint short distances all day but full court basketball or soccer is too much for my 40 plus body.
Whats a real sport though.
In the UK and Ireland, and also in NZ, Australia and S Africa, the NFL is seen by most people as a joke, a long, boring, padded up and therefore pathetically pansified version of rugby, a real man’s sport, where the only thing of any excitement is the cheerleaders.
And baseball is seen as so boring its not even worth arguing about.
Yet both are almost god-like to your people.
Agreed. Don’t care much either way; was just doing the factually correct thing, that’s all; it was like the Conquistadors taking credit for tlachtli.
Thank you for your kind reply, my friend.
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.