Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
The beautiful game
I joined this forum for one primary reason. After listening to Geek Nights for about 6 months I've become tired of the dissings the beautiful game has suffered at the hands of Rym and Scott.
With noone to defend it's corner in the actual shows I think this is the only option.
What it your problem with football (soccer to you US types)?
With noone to defend it's corner in the actual shows I think this is the only option.
What it your problem with football (soccer to you US types)?
Comments
Of course, my scale for spectator sports is roughly:
Hockey > Tennis > Football > many other misc. sports > Soccer > Baseball > Basketball
It's chess sped up son...
I never fundamentally liked or disliked soccer. When the recent World Cup came around I really tried to watch it online and get to know it. Fundamentally, I think the sport is actually pretty good. The only problem I have with the rules are that the offsides rule is extremely poorly thought out. But even with the offsides rule as it is, the extremely subjective officiating ruins the whole thing. If they get some instant replay, and use some objectivity in handing out fouls and cards, then I'll try it again. Without them, the beautiful game is more like a beauty pageant. Just replace the swimsuit round with the diving competition.
I've often defended this accusation as follows :
I don't know of any other major sport where the advantage of play-acting is quite so dramatic. If a player fakes a foul and gets an opponent sent off that is, by and large, game over for the
opposing team. They are sent off, the team are reduced by one man for the duration of the game. I don't think that sort of thing can happen in football, hockey, baseball, basketball?
> refs who openly allow such behavior
With no replays I think the ref has a tough time differentiating between a real foul and a fake. My sympathies are with the refs on this.
> and a luddite governing body which does nothing to improve the sport itself.
You forgot the phrase 'corrupt' in this sentence.
Interesting. In what way?
Part of the problem with instant replay is that it slows down the game. This has pros and cons. Stopping play is good for athletes to catch a break and good for owners and TV networks to have more commercials. It's bad for spectators who have to sit there waiting, and bad for the game because it removes an element of testing endurance.
Right now every sport that uses instant replay stops play while making judgement. The fact is that most replay judgments take a matter of seconds. The vast majority of the time, viewers at home can see the correct call long before the official judgement is passed down. On top of that, officials on the field often completely miss calls that happen outside their line of sight. Here is the solution.
Have a huge crew of officials in booths watching every part of every game from every camera angle. Keep officials on the field to see what cameras can't see. Sometimes every angle in the universe still isn't enough. Then, just make the calls in real time without stopping play.
For example, some guys will be playing hockey. Then there will be some hooking going on where the ref doesn't see it. The guy upstairs sees it. He calls the ref and tells him "number XX hooking 2 minutes." Without stopping play, the ref puts number XX in the box for 2 minutes. In soccer it's even easier since you don't have to open or close any doors to take someone out of the game. You just run up to the guy and stick a card in his face without stopping play. The player just leaves the field if necessary. If players refuse to leave the field, you can force them off and apply an additional penalty.
Without it the most effective strategy would be for an offense to camp out in the goal of the opposition and wait for long balls from the defense. Thus, bypassing the midfield and creative midfield play.
Having said that, the offside rule is basically,
When a team in possession of a ball makes a forward pass the player who receives the ball for that team must have been either,
1. In his own half
2. At a position on the field where at least two players on the opposition team stand between him and the goal.
at the time when the ball was kicked.
This applies to all plays except a throw-in.
As for offsides, I too am curious as to what big problems there are with it. It's a pretty straight forward rule in practice, a little harder to explain, and allows for a decent amount of defensive strategy.
That pro is that it can be played in exactly the same manner with exactly the same rules and equipment at any level.
The world cup final is played with a field, goalposts, line marking, corner flags, a ball and 22 players and 3 officials.
The last time I played an 11-a-side game the same setup applied.
Compare that with the Superbowl.
The reason sports like hockey and soccer have offsides rules is to force people to actually have some sort of offensive strategy. Without such a rule, teams could have one player simply sit next to the opponent's goal at all times. Then whenever they got possession of the ball/puck they could send it all the way across the field for a relatively easy goal. With an offsides rule, you actually have to move it down the field/ice slowly. Imagine in football if receivers could start out inside the end zone instead of behind the line of scrimmage. Every play would be the hail mary.
One way to solve this problem is to have playing fields so large that you couldn't cover the ground. Because that's just stupid, we have the offsides rule. In hockey, the rule is good. You have a blue line. The puck must cross that blue line before any offensive players cross the blue line. It's simple, easy to officiate, and effective.
In soccer, this rule has unintended consequences. For example, it is possible for me to dribble the ball down the length of the entire field. Then when I'm right next to the goal, it is possible that I could make a short pass to a teammate that would be offsides. Why should there be any possibility of offsides in that case? The point of the rule is to make people actually take the ball down the field instead of just launching it to someone camping near the goal. Well, if I dribble the entire length of the field, all the way to the goal, why would you want to outlaw that? Such a feat deserves a good scoring chance, not a penalty.
Your argument is a good one but I feel that there are some good side-effects in defensive strategy to be had by the rule as-is. The offside-trap for example is a very tricky and complex thing to pull off and can backfire spectacularly.
But I am just as wowed by a good goal, as a good pass, as a good tackle etc.
Basketball is played differently at every level. 3 point lines are at different distances from the net. Different balls are used. It is played indoors and outdoors. It's played with different backboards, different rims, with different nets, or no net at all. NBA, college, and international basketball all have different rules. Didn't seem to be much of a problem for anyone. Especially not the dream team of NBA players who won multiple Olympic Gold medals under very different rules.
F1 is completely different from every other kind of race out there. Not only that, but within the sport of F1 itself the rules change almost every year. Doesn't seem to be a problem.
Hockey has been known to change the rules mid-season. High school, college, AHL, NHL, Canadian, European and Olympic hockey all have different rules. Doesn't seem to be a problem.
Football changes the rules almost every season, and is played differently at every level from pee-wee to NFL to the CFL and UFL. Doesn't seem to be a problem. You mean all the third world countries that have no problem playing all the other sports that are different at every level. It's not like you need to play the game differently or train differently when instant replay is involved. It doesn't actually change the game, it just enhances the officiating. NFL teams don't have instant replay at practice. You don't train differently when you know replay is involved. You just play the game, and you rest easy knowing the refs will make the right call. Maybe if you practiced kicking instead of falling you would win.
It's not like F1 or golf where the actual sporting equipment is actually expensive. Oh wait, yes it is. Not including cost of fancy cleats, World Cup soccer balls go for $90 on Amazon. I'm sure all the poor countries were practicing with them.
Most amateur games I've seen have been touch football for a start. I don't see any real amateur (ie people like you and me) baseball either. Just softball.
Honor.
Also, this is a sport where the fans destroy cars when they lose. Hooliganism is in the culture. What are you talking about? High School American Football and Baseball are super popular, and they don't have instant replay! Why can't we treat soccer the same way?
Also, baseball is what kids play all the time.