I watched the second half of the this game, as I was boarding down the street when Mexico scored their first goal. So I sat down outside a bar, ordered a drink, and watched the rest. It was quite entertaining.
Also, and this is quite significant for internet humour, no constant vuvuzelas! The must have filtered them out, or they were banned from the stadium, but it was by far the most pleasant experience of the world cup so far.
I just realized something. It seems like the refs are a big deal in soccer (not that I've watched that much of it). I hear so much outrage over how bad so-and-so's calls were. In basketball or football, refs make bad calls, but rarely does it seem to be like such a huge deal. Maybe one bad call against you isn't so bad when you score 40-50 times a game, because it will probably even itself out over the course of a game. When you're only scoring once or twice, it only takes one bad call to screw you.
Now this isn't to say the US couldn't have won, they had other opportunities and didn't convert. But it seems to me to be such a random thing, and that's not good.
I don't have a vast depth of soccer knowledge. Thus, 'll probably get yelled at for saying this, but I'll say it anyway. I have decided that the offsides rule in soccer is bullshit. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an offsides rule. There absolutely needs to be a rule to prevent you from just having someone camp out near the goal. However, the rule as they have it is crap.
Let's say I manage to maneuver my way all the way down the pitch with the ball. I'm pretty close the the goal. The very last defender is in front of me. My friend is three feet away on the other side of the defender. I can't pass it to him, or it will be offside. BULL SHIT. We weren't camping. We didn't make one huge kick all the way down the field. We got it this close legitimately, and now to use a pass to get around the final defender is offside? Give me a break.
Here is what the offsides rule should be. Just like in hockey, only slightly different.
Any player who is in the opposing teams penalty area may not make a play on a ball which entered the penalty area after the player himself entered the penalty area. Basically treat the border of the penalty area exactly the same as the blue line in ice hockey. What would be wrong with that?
THANK YOU. I have been saying for years that the offsides rule is a huge part of why people have a hard time getting into Soccer. I as well don't know a ton about the sport, but that just means I'm the target audience for people who want Soccer to be huge in America, so it's a legit concern. It's a rule that can punish your for simply being better than the other athlete. If you have the speed and agility to slip past a defender, good for you. Yes, forcing you to stay in front of the last defender adds skill and finese to the game, but given the wide variety of skill-based competition in the world, I'd rather the focus be on athleticism for a sport like this.
Things like this occur when a game has a fundamentally optimal and obvious winning strategy due to poor design or sub-game optimization. They're basically hacks to keep the game playable in lieu of more fundamental rule rewriting.
An example would be the Silver Mine in San Juan. It's a near-sure-win if you get the cards, and everyone should strive for it if they want to win. The issue is that the rules, including the card, are broken, in that of the many possible strategies, one is substantially better than all others in almost all facets. The ideal solution would be to re-work the game's rules in some way to make it more balanced and interestingly strategic.
Now, imagine if there were a hundred-year history of playing San Juan, and people hadn't figured out the problem with the Silver Mine in the first fifty years. But, even though they've now figured out that it makes the game less interesting, they are so invested in the history of the game that they would never stand for changing the card in any way.
So, they instead put in a hack, saying that you can't play the otherwise unaltered Silver Mine if you're already winning, or something like that. Rather than addressing the root problem, they put a bandaid over it with an arbitrary high-level rule.
The history of soccer will prevent this from ever being addressed.
The offsides rule is about two centuries old. They recognized the problem almost immediately and started coming up with ways to fix it that do pretty fundamentally change how you have to play the game. They keep changing it and making it more complicated because they can't find a balance.
One thing about the soccer offsides is that it depends entirely on the position of defenders, and not just offenders. Thus, there is an entire sub-game of defenders actively trying to be in a position to force the offenders to be offsides. Whereas in hockey, offsides is only attributable to an error on the part of the offense.
One thing about the soccer offsides is that it depends entirely on the position of defenders, and not just offenders. Thus, there is an entire sub-game of defenders actively trying to be in a position to force the offenders to be offsides.
This is the only thing that makes football work, and it's the thing that creates all the depth (what depth there is) to the attacking strategies. The game doesn't only happen where the balls IS, but at all the points on the pitch where the ball could be next. That is football. To take the territorial control away from the defenders would completely change the game, and to something worse.
That said, I don't find it particularly exciting as a game compared to other sports. The offside rule has nothing to do with that though.
Nah, he just made some harsh decisions. Referees are still humans, and they will make mistakes and bad calls. The majority of calls are good and just. People often agree that the 4th official should have more of a support role with him being able to rewatch the moment.
I have decided that the offsides rule in soccer is bullshit.
Awwwww, your national experiences bad luck after good luck and you start crying? Let's hear it.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be an offsides rule. There absolutely needs to be a rule to prevent you from just having someone camp out near the goal. However, the rule as they have it is crap.
It's not crap at all.
Let's say I manage to [manoeuvre] my way all the way down the pitch with the ball. I'm pretty close the the goal. The very last defender is in front of me. My friend is three feet away on the other side of the defender. I can't pass it to him, or it will be offside. BULL SHIT. We weren't camping. We didn't make one huge kick all the way down the field. We got it this close legitimately, and now to use a pass to get around the final defender is offside? Give me a break.
Apreche, you fail to grasp why the off side rule exists and is what it is. You're calling "BULL SHIT" on exactly the bull shit that the offside rule prevents, regardless of its form long-shot or pass. The offside rule is there so that you must skilfully pass the 2 last defenders (often goalie and 'last' defender) to score.
Here is what the offsides rule should be. Just like in hockey, only slightly different. Any player who is in the opposing teams penalty area may not make a play on a ball which entered the penalty area after the player himself entered the penalty area. Basically treat the border of the penalty area exactly the same as the blue line in ice hockey. What would be wrong with that?
Oh no, fuck you, fuck no. You're suggesting something utterly retarded that will limit the game greatly and ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR CAMPING, so fuck no. It will mean that wingers will not be able to make crosses after they broke out far towards the back line and attackers can just remain grounded right outside of the penalty area. Back to the drawing board idiot.
So, they instead put in a hack, saying that you can't play the otherwise unaltered Silver Mine if you're already winning, or something like that. Rather than addressing the root problem, they put a bandaid over it with an arbitrary high-level rule.
The history of soccer will prevent this from ever being addressed.
At least you guys are fighting to stay in the world cup, our lot (England) seem to want to be able to return home as quickly as possible so they can return to their clubs and remember how to control a ball, pass, shoot and everything else they do almost without fail for their clubs week in week out.
At least you guys are fighting to stay in the world cup, our lot (England) seem to want to be able to return home as quickly as possible so they can return to their clubs and remember how to control a ball, pass, shoot and everything else they do almost without fail for their clubs week in week out.
They don't seem to have that whole "playing as a team" thing down. They're tied with the US for points so they're not out yet, but I think the US has a better chance against Algeria than England has against Slovenia.
At least you guys are fighting to stay in the world cup, our lot (England) seem to want to be able to return home as quickly as possible so they can return to their clubs and remember how to control a ball, pass, shoot and everything else they do almost without fail for their clubs week in week out.
Yeah, it's staggering and a bit sad. I think all commentators across the world talked about the idea of some players just not wanting to play in the World Cup. Though on the other hand it will mean a country other than England (and France) can go through to the next round.
Tomorrow, Saturday, will be an interesting day, and not just because the Netherlands is playing.
I just checked the video, it was definitely not an offside: I am glad I didn't know of this while I was working other wise my results would have come out totally inaccurate.
I just checked the video, it was definitely not an offside: I am glad I didn't know of this while I was working other wise my results would have come out totally inaccurate.
Yes, it's good to have the video on different angles to help you decide if it's a good or bad call. Football (soccer) refs don't have (thankfully) the time to pause the game every 5 minutes to go running towards the monitors to go through the play frame by frame. It's designed to be equally unfair to both teams thus fair for both.
I totally agree with Nine and WindUpBird.
England has a good team, but as Portugal and Italy, the players play because they have to and don't want to risk injury that would affect their chances at their respective clubs.
Football (soccer) refs don't have (thankfully) the time to pause the game every 5 minutes to go running towards the monitors to go through the play frame by frame.
Yeah, checking replays for every little thing (EVERY THROW IN! \o/) is just stupid, but they really should get the fourth official to check the replay in cases of important decisions or things the referees did not clearly see.
EDIT: Denmark vs. Cameroon, 2-1. Very fun match this was. Bit messy, but lots of chances on both sides to score. Denmark's victory means that the Dutch are through to the next round and Denmark and Japan will have to decide for themselves who goes through. Japan has better numbers so in a draw they'll go through. SO WIN DENMARK!
Comments
Woooooooooo!
Also, and this is quite significant for internet humour, no constant vuvuzelas! The must have filtered them out, or they were banned from the stadium, but it was by far the most pleasant experience of the world cup so far.
"BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
"BZZZZ-BZZ-B-B-BZZZ-BZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
"The Lion Sleeps Tonight"
"BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
Now this isn't to say the US couldn't have won, they had other opportunities and didn't convert. But it seems to me to be such a random thing, and that's not good.
Let's say I manage to maneuver my way all the way down the pitch with the ball. I'm pretty close the the goal. The very last defender is in front of me. My friend is three feet away on the other side of the defender. I can't pass it to him, or it will be offside. BULL SHIT. We weren't camping. We didn't make one huge kick all the way down the field. We got it this close legitimately, and now to use a pass to get around the final defender is offside? Give me a break.
Here is what the offsides rule should be. Just like in hockey, only slightly different.
Any player who is in the opposing teams penalty area may not make a play on a ball which entered the penalty area after the player himself entered the penalty area. Basically treat the border of the penalty area exactly the same as the blue line in ice hockey. What would be wrong with that?
Things like this occur when a game has a fundamentally optimal and obvious winning strategy due to poor design or sub-game optimization. They're basically hacks to keep the game playable in lieu of more fundamental rule rewriting.
An example would be the Silver Mine in San Juan. It's a near-sure-win if you get the cards, and everyone should strive for it if they want to win. The issue is that the rules, including the card, are broken, in that of the many possible strategies, one is substantially better than all others in almost all facets. The ideal solution would be to re-work the game's rules in some way to make it more balanced and interestingly strategic.
Now, imagine if there were a hundred-year history of playing San Juan, and people hadn't figured out the problem with the Silver Mine in the first fifty years. But, even though they've now figured out that it makes the game less interesting, they are so invested in the history of the game that they would never stand for changing the card in any way.
So, they instead put in a hack, saying that you can't play the otherwise unaltered Silver Mine if you're already winning, or something like that. Rather than addressing the root problem, they put a bandaid over it with an arbitrary high-level rule.
The history of soccer will prevent this from ever being addressed.
One thing about the soccer offsides is that it depends entirely on the position of defenders, and not just offenders. Thus, there is an entire sub-game of defenders actively trying to be in a position to force the offenders to be offsides. Whereas in hockey, offsides is only attributable to an error on the part of the offense.
That said, I don't find it particularly exciting as a game compared to other sports. The offside rule has nothing to do with that though.
Tomorrow, Saturday, will be an interesting day, and not just because the Netherlands is playing.
I am glad I didn't know of this while I was working other wise my results would have come out totally inaccurate.
Well, at least you win.
I totally agree with Nine and WindUpBird.
England has a good team, but as Portugal and Italy, the players play because they have to and don't want to risk injury that would affect their chances at their respective clubs.
EDIT:
Denmark vs. Cameroon, 2-1. Very fun match this was. Bit messy, but lots of chances on both sides to score. Denmark's victory means that the Dutch are through to the next round and Denmark and Japan will have to decide for themselves who goes through. Japan has better numbers so in a draw they'll go through. SO WIN DENMARK!