Was eating at a restaurant near Philly yesterday. There were a ton of soccer fans in there watching the Premier League game. Game was over, and 1:00 rolled around. They put on the Eagles game and the place cleared out.
Saw a tweet earlier this month when former Flyers player and current radio analyst Chris Therien was asked what team would be the first to win a game, the Eagles, Flyers, or Phillies. He did not know the answer.
Was eating at a restaurant near Philly yesterday. There were a ton of soccer fans in there watching the Premier League game. Game was over, and 1:00 rolled around. They put on the Eagles game and the place cleared out.
Soccer is definitely on the rise. Heard during an interview on NPR that MLS is now the third best-attended sports league in the USA, and that's not even real European/South American soccer.
I wish I could get excited about this rising sport, but I just find it boring as hell.
Was eating at a restaurant near Philly yesterday. There were a ton of soccer fans in there watching the Premier League game. Game was over, and 1:00 rolled around. They put on the Eagles game and the place cleared out.
Soccer is definitely on the rise. Heard during an interview on NPR that MLS is now the third best-attended sports league in the USA, and that's not even real European/South American soccer.
I wish I could get excited about this rising sport, but I just find it boring as hell.
The game that we watched you could see the good parts of soccer. Some really great goals. But there were also multiple obvious dives. One guy even got taken off on a stretcher. How can I believe in the result of the game when it's just bullshit? We've had this same discussion before. Everything I said before still stands. If they fix the rules, it would be great. Until then, it's a joke.
So back on to real football: I just read a short article that touted the Jets as a possible playoff team. Wow, was not expecting that after their shitty start. It's still a longshot, but totally possible: win three strait games against shit teams, have Cincinnati lose one of three games, and have Pittsburgh lose two out of three.
The game that we watched you could see the good parts of soccer. Some really great goals. But there were also multiple obvious dives. One guy even got taken off on a stretcher. How can I believe in the result of the game when it's just bullshit? We've had this same discussion before. Everything I said before still stands. If they fix the rules, it would be great. Until then, it's a joke.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure there are rules against dives, but they are rarely enforced for whatever reason. Maybe the various soccer leagues should have an instant replay review ala what the NFL does for doling out fines for dirty/illegal hits and such. So even if you get away with a dive during the game, the game's footage will be reviewed and you will be penalized in some form, such as a fine or suspension, in the next game.
Oh, and they really should use goal sensing technology in the balls and goals as well.
Rules against dives are unenforceable. Instead, they need rules that remove any advantage from a dive. Objective officiating is the only way to fix soccer as a competitive game.
Granted, most people aren't into soccer for the truly competitive aspect, but for other reasons, so it will never be addressed.
There's an even easier way to deal with dives if they are so worried about having longer stoppages of play. Simply fine and penalize anyone who does it extremely harshly. If you cause an injury time out, an independent doctor checks you out. If it turns out you are just fine, you are suspended for fib(x) games without pay where x is the number of diving offenses. If you are injured, you must sit at least the next game at minimum with pay, because you are actually injured, right?
Maybe we could start a small soccer league with good rules and officiating to see if anyone cares. Put all the games online, see if they are entertaining. Also, switch to NFL-films style coverage to make it more exciting.
Rules against dives are unenforceable. Instead, they need rules that remove any advantage from a dive. Objective officiating is the only way to fix soccer as a competitive game.
Can you give an example of a rule that would remove any advantage from a dive, other than a rule penalizing dives themselves? I can't think of any offhand as the whole point of a dive is to fool the officials into thinking the other team committed a "playing too rough" infraction. Short of allowing teams to play much rougher than they do now, I can't see of any type of rules change that would remove the advantage from a dive. However, please enlighten me if I missed something.
There's an even easier way to deal with dives if they are so worried about having longer stoppages of play. Simply fine and penalize anyone who does it extremely harshly. If you cause an injury time out, an independent doctor checks you out. If it turns out you are just fine, you are suspended for fib(x) games without pay where x is the number of diving offenses. If you are injured, you must sit at least the next game at minimum with pay, because you are actually injured, right?
That's not too far off from my "post game replay review" idea... and having some sort of replay review might be the only way to enforce this for lesser dives. I mean, diving isn't just to fake an injury, it's also to fake extra rough play that's against the rules but doesn't cause injuries. Your proposal does cover the fake injury-causing dive scenario, though, so it's definitely a good start. Oh, and I assume fib(x) means Fibonacci sequence at position x, right? Just curious as I haven't seen that notation before.
Maybe we could start a small soccer league with good rules and officiating to see if anyone cares. Put all the games online, see if they are entertaining. Also, switch to NFL-films style coverage to make it more exciting.
Hmm, maybe, but it might be hard to get top talent for said league (although that may not matter at first). The top players are all gonna wanna be in FIFA-affiliated leagues as that's the only way they can get any sort of international game on.
Can you give an example of a rule that would remove any advantage from a dive, other than a rule penalizing dives themselves? I can't think of any offhand as the whole point of a dive is to fool the officials into thinking the other team committed a "playing too rough" infraction.
"Playing too rough" is a bullshit rule that simultaneously has too severe of a game-affecting penalty.
The rules should penalize objective, specific, and tightly-defined actions like tripping. Severity or degrees of infractions on these matters should result in increasingly harsh personal penalties for the actor, but not the team, while the base penalty should punish both to a lesser extent.
Penalty kicks should only ever be afforded when the person so fouled had a clear, objectively defined chance to attempt a shot on the goal. Otherwise, the penalty should be something else.
Look at hockey. Charging, tripping, high-sticking, spearing, and so forth are objectively and strictly defined. The penalty is for the action itself, largely regardless of the result. Circumstances can result in severe personal penalties for the player who undertakes these actions, but the game-effect is balanced. It's extremely difficult to "draw a penalty" in hockey, and the reward for successfully doing so is much less than the reward for this in soccer.
So what sport comes closest to a clearly defined victory condition and "anything goes" rules to achieve it? Rugby? I'm not all that familiar with the finer points of Rugby so not sure if that's just more of a reputation thing. Any other sport come close?
"Playing too rough" is a bullshit rule that simultaneously has too severe of a game-affecting penalty.
The rules should penalize objective, specific, and tightly-defined actions like tripping. Severity or degrees of infractions on these matters should result in increasingly harsh personal penalties for the actor, but not the team, while the base penalty should punish both to a lesser extent.
Penalty kicks should only ever be afforded when the person so fouled had a clear, objectively defined chance to attempt a shot on the goal. Otherwise, the penalty should be something else.
Actually, according to the rules, they do come pretty close to this. Basically, if a foul that would reward the victim with a direct free kick takes place in the boxed off penalty area near the goal, then the victim is rewarded with a penalty kick.
Look at hockey. Charging, tripping, high-sticking, spearing, and so forth are objectively and strictly defined. The penalty is for the action itself, largely regardless of the result. Circumstances can result in severe personal penalties for the player who undertakes these actions, but the game-effect is balanced. It's extremely difficult to "draw a penalty" in hockey, and the reward for successfully doing so is much less than the reward for this in soccer.
On paper, soccer's rules also define these pretty well. The problem isn't with the rules, per se, it's with the enforcement of them by the officials, I think.
So, why do people dive then? Because a penalty kick is extremely powerful there's no other way to draw the penalty except to call ridiculous attention to your "injury."
So the enumeration of the rules is meaningless if they can't be enforced to any objective degree.
In hockey, the penalty enforcement isn't perfect, but the game-affecting result is low and spread out due to the difficulty of scoring even with a power play.
So, why do people dive then? Because a penalty kick is extremely powerful there's no other way to draw the penalty except to call ridiculous attention to your "injury."
Also because if the player who "injured" you gets a yellow/red card that is a severe penalty that could cause them to get ejected or miss games, not just two minutes. If you are playing near the best player on the other team, you definitely want the ref to kick them out.
So, why do people dive then? Because a penalty kick is extremely powerful there's no other way to draw the penalty except to call ridiculous attention to your "injury."
Except that penalty kicks (as in a direct kick within the goal's penalty zone) tend to be pretty rare except in overtime shootouts. Granted, I'm not the hardest core soccer fan out there, but I can't remember ever seeing a penalty kick outside of a shootout situation. Now, direct and indirect free kicks are fairly common, but these aren't penalty kicks. I'd argue that, in general, on-goal penalty kicks in soccer are about as rare as penalty shots in hockey.
As far as I can ascertain, the main advantage gained from diving is maintaining possession of the ball after you blew it -- i.e., you get beaten to a pass from your teammate by an opponent, so you dive in order to make his legitimate interception look like a foul, therefore allowing your team to keep possession.
Also because if the player who "injured" you gets a yellow/red card that is a severe penalty that could cause them to get ejected or miss games, not just two minutes. If you are playing near the best player on the other team, you definitely want the ref to kick them out.
That is a greater concern. If you can somehow convince the official that the penalty was so egregious that it justifies tossing the player for the game, then the dive really has a huge tactical advantage. Not only does it potentially result in the elimination of the opponent's player for the rest of the game, but the player cannot be substituted for, meaning that, to use a hockey analogy, your team has a permanent power play for the rest of the game. Red carded (i.e. ejected) players also often get suspended for subsequent games as well.
I did a bit of research and noticed that soccer only has 3 officials for the game -- the referee and two line judges whose job it is to watch for offside and ball out of bounds infractions, basically. Sometimes there is a 4th official whose job it is to make sure all substitutions are handled properly and as a backup time keeper (the on-field referee is the primary time keeper). The referee is the only one who can call a foul, although the line judges can point out to the referee if they thought they saw someone commit a foul. Compare this to the NFL, where on a smaller field they have 7 on field officials, all of whom have the authority to call penalties (although the referee can override them). I can definitely see a scenario where diving is so easy to get away with in soccer because only one official can call foul and he/she may not always be close enough to the play to get a clear view of whether or not a foul is legitimate or a result of a dive. Perhaps they need more officials -- I'd argue for at least as many as the NFL uses due to the size of the field.
More referees would do a lot to resolve the issue and would even avoid soccer's ridiculous fear of technology.
True... which only highlights FIFA's incompetence even more. I mean, even the hardest of hard core European soccer fans in Europe itself despise FIFA and its management even though they rabidly love the game itself.
So what sport comes closest to a clearly defined victory condition and "anything goes" rules to achieve it? Rugby? I'm not all that familiar with the finer points of Rugby so not sure if that's just more of a reputation thing. Any other sport come close?
Oh they are rules in rugby, no high tackles for one. In fact there are so many rules in regards to the rucks and mules in rugby union that not even the refs know them all.
Rugby has so many rules that the ref is continually talking to the players, saying what is allowed or not. A ball can be sitting on the ground, untouched, but a team still has possession. The opposing team can't attack for a certain direction, so the ball is safe. Everyone is waiting for the ref to say when the state of the game changes.
Going back to the soccer discussion, I just realized something...
So in soccer, it's the [main] referee's job to also be the timekeeper and he keeps track of the time on the field. Okay, whatever, this isn't that big a deal as someone has to be timekeeper and I doubt tracking the game clock adds too much to the referee's work load, especially given all the other crap he has to do out there. However, we have the technology where the official game time can be transmitted wirelessly from the ref's stopwatch or whatever to the stadium scoreboard, TV crews covering the game, and so on. Why don't we actually use this technology instead of having just the vaguest estimated ideas as to what the time remaining in the game actually is?
This is just another sign of FIFA's incompetent and irrational fear of technology.
Vague is fine. There is no clock-beating plays as the ref will always wait for a "fair" moment of play to end the game. Soccer just isn't a clock-based sport like basketball or football.
Comments
That fumble touchdown was a sight to see.
I wish I could get excited about this rising sport, but I just find it boring as hell.
Oh, and they really should use goal sensing technology in the balls and goals as well.
Granted, most people aren't into soccer for the truly competitive aspect, but for other reasons, so it will never be addressed.
Maybe we could start a small soccer league with good rules and officiating to see if anyone cares. Put all the games online, see if they are entertaining. Also, switch to NFL-films style coverage to make it more exciting.
The rules should penalize objective, specific, and tightly-defined actions like tripping. Severity or degrees of infractions on these matters should result in increasingly harsh personal penalties for the actor, but not the team, while the base penalty should punish both to a lesser extent.
Penalty kicks should only ever be afforded when the person so fouled had a clear, objectively defined chance to attempt a shot on the goal. Otherwise, the penalty should be something else.
Look at hockey. Charging, tripping, high-sticking, spearing, and so forth are objectively and strictly defined. The penalty is for the action itself, largely regardless of the result. Circumstances can result in severe personal penalties for the player who undertakes these actions, but the game-effect is balanced. It's extremely difficult to "draw a penalty" in hockey, and the reward for successfully doing so is much less than the reward for this in soccer.
So the enumeration of the rules is meaningless if they can't be enforced to any objective degree.
In hockey, the penalty enforcement isn't perfect, but the game-affecting result is low and spread out due to the difficulty of scoring even with a power play.
As far as I can ascertain, the main advantage gained from diving is maintaining possession of the ball after you blew it -- i.e., you get beaten to a pass from your teammate by an opponent, so you dive in order to make his legitimate interception look like a foul, therefore allowing your team to keep possession. That is a greater concern. If you can somehow convince the official that the penalty was so egregious that it justifies tossing the player for the game, then the dive really has a huge tactical advantage. Not only does it potentially result in the elimination of the opponent's player for the rest of the game, but the player cannot be substituted for, meaning that, to use a hockey analogy, your team has a permanent power play for the rest of the game. Red carded (i.e. ejected) players also often get suspended for subsequent games as well.
I did a bit of research and noticed that soccer only has 3 officials for the game -- the referee and two line judges whose job it is to watch for offside and ball out of bounds infractions, basically. Sometimes there is a 4th official whose job it is to make sure all substitutions are handled properly and as a backup time keeper (the on-field referee is the primary time keeper). The referee is the only one who can call a foul, although the line judges can point out to the referee if they thought they saw someone commit a foul. Compare this to the NFL, where on a smaller field they have 7 on field officials, all of whom have the authority to call penalties (although the referee can override them). I can definitely see a scenario where diving is so easy to get away with in soccer because only one official can call foul and he/she may not always be close enough to the play to get a clear view of whether or not a foul is legitimate or a result of a dive. Perhaps they need more officials -- I'd argue for at least as many as the NFL uses due to the size of the field.
This pleases me.
Wow.
NFC North is most dangerous conference, though.
So in soccer, it's the [main] referee's job to also be the timekeeper and he keeps track of the time on the field. Okay, whatever, this isn't that big a deal as someone has to be timekeeper and I doubt tracking the game clock adds too much to the referee's work load, especially given all the other crap he has to do out there. However, we have the technology where the official game time can be transmitted wirelessly from the ref's stopwatch or whatever to the stadium scoreboard, TV crews covering the game, and so on. Why don't we actually use this technology instead of having just the vaguest estimated ideas as to what the time remaining in the game actually is?
This is just another sign of FIFA's incompetent and irrational fear of technology.