Professional soccer sucks just as much as any other professional sport. These professional leagues from each country are still peppered with people from other countries just like the Philadelphia Eagles are not filled with people who grew up in the Philadelphia area. All sports that do not follow the "regional" home team model are not worth my time. Otherwise it just becomes who has enough money to put together the best team. Not interesting. Everyone who watches professional sports is completely wasting their time and should go play World of Warcraft. Better yet go join a local team for fun and play the game for real. If you can't do that support them in some way and if you can't do that go find a different hobby ;-p
Better yet go join a local team for fun and play the game for real.
This is what you should do. Playing soccer is much more fun for me than watching soccer, but seeing a pro pull off some amazing header into the goal or something still gets me.
> 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.
Never seen a high school game (do they have instant replays? that was my point). But I was really meaning the post-college amateur leagues. In soccer they are identical in form to the world cup final right down to the number of refs. In the big US sports that is not the case.
Better yet go join a local team for fun and play the game for real.
This is what you should do. Playing soccer is much more fun for me than watching soccer, but seeing a pro pull off some amazing header into the goal or something still gets me.
I think the source of the disagreements over soccer is the romantic ideal that lives in the heart of the true fan. They see the game with ruby colored glasses. You say we Americans shouldn't talk because it's not our sport, and we don't understand it. Well, it often takes an outsider to see such problems and make them get fixed. Nobody inside of the NFL would have pushed the issue of head injuries. Players did not want stricter penalties and fines for hits to the head. Many even fought against it, even though it was for their own good. Yet, it was forced on them by outsiders who could see what was really going on because an outsider can have a fresh perspective that is not clouded by old thinking and assumptions. They can ask questions that an insider wouldn't even think to ask.
For example, I've heard the story about it being the same exact game with the same exact equipment and rules at every level of play a zillion times. The soccer fans seem to leave it at that. It's as if that's just assumed to be a wonderful thing. Only the outsiders ask why is that good or necessary or beneficial? I personally think it's extremely detrimental. Simple biology dictates you need to scale games up and down based on age and gender. Soccer is one of the only sports I know that does not do this. They put little kids in front of the same gigantic goal as the professionals and expect them to defend it. Why is that a good thing again?
Anyways, enough talking about soccer. Let's talk about the legitimate beautiful game. BTW the goal at :38 would be illegal under soccer's offsides rules.
I think Scott's point is: Humans are not good enough. They make lots of mistakes.
This. We've developed technologies that make our interpretations of events far more truthful.
I fully understand the romantic idea that anyone can play soccer. In the cruel, unfair, inequitable world, it's nice to be able to say that there is at least one venue in which anyone can excel. The truly level playing field and so forth.
That, however, has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. Soccer, as a sport, has issues that can be remedied through technology; allowing something to stay broken because of romantic ideas doesn't help the sport be less broken.
EDIT: Also, the sportsmanship issues that have been noted are pervasive. I understand that it should be honorable, but it's not. You can either keep telling everyone that "guys, you really need to be honorable," or you can nut up and say, "OK, you haven't been good sportsman, so we're changing how we do things."
We developed instant replays and such precisely because the entirety of human history demonstrates that, by and large, we don't behave fairly in competitions. We do everything we can to edge out the other guy. Hence, we need truly impartial rules enforcement.
BTW the goal at :38 would be illegal under soccer's offsides rules.
No it wouldn't have been, although it would have gone out for a throw. The only real problem with the offside rule is the whole inactive or active player stuff that has crept in over the past decade or so. Also even by introducing video refs into football, you're not going to cut out wrong calls, they still happen in sports with video refs, they would still happen in football. Although I agree that they should be used in football in some ways but for some reason FIFA seem to be against new technology been used in their sport, maybe they are not been bribed enough.
1. I enjoy the random factor of human error in enforcing the rules. Many don't. 2. I would be against any adjudication that interrupts the flow of the game more than a human referee would and so would many fans of the game.
The game played the same at all levels :
I didn't mean that it should be played the same. The fact that it can and does is a huge thing for me. That there are no huge material barriers to replicating the 'world cup' game is great.
That there are no huge material barriers to replicating the 'world cup' game is great.
Why is it great?
Because for a species so torn up by ethnic, culture, religious, and monetary boundaries, it is amazing that people everywhere on earth can all appreciate a sport no matter where it is played. There are no needs for footy beyond the ruleset. I've played the game with Guatemalan workers on a pitch at 15k feet that we set up and chalked by hand, and then we discussed the Euro Cup (happening thousands of miles away, which I was keeping up with in the Guatemalan papers despite my chaperones trying to stop me) with the exact same gusto. There was no disdain for the wealth around the European pitch, only a love of the game. I'm Spanish and Columbian, born American, and I was talking to a Guatemalan in Guatemala about a game half a world away.
That is why football's lack of barriers is a beautiful thing. It allows the game to transcend sport and become a unifying force. If you go to a real football game, in Europe or South America, or go to a hardcore expat bar in the US to watch a cup, you'll see it. No one cares who anyone else is, or for their class or stature in life. If you wear the same colors when the whistle blows, you are brothers.
If I am in a bar in Boston and the Red Sox(that's the local baseball team for those not in the know) are playing, the bar will be packed full of drunken Red Sox fans, and they don't care about who you are either or how wealthy you are, as long as you have a blue cap on with a red B or something. In theory, if there were a bunch of ex Bostonians who lived in England and all gathered in a bar in London to watch a Red Sox game against the Yankees, wouldn't the effect be the exact same?
In theory, yes, but Baseball is a very American sport. Football is the most popular sport on Earth, and baseball lacks the same universality. I don't know why, and that's not a bad thing--I love baseball--but its not a fair comparison.
Also, there's definitely classism in baseball stadiums. Most football stadiums aren't divided save by levels of fandom and a few boxes for the crazy wealthy guys--It's just a ring of bleachers all the way around the pitch. Meanwhile, at the Chicago Cell, there's a cordoned-off set of seats behind home where waitresses take orders from people throughout the game, and the entire stadium is ringed by skyboxes. Seats are color-coded as to (more or less) how good they are.
That is why football's lack of barriers is a beautiful thing. It allows the game to transcend sport and become a unifying force. If you go to a real football game, in Europe or South America, or go to a hardcore expat bar in the US to watch a cup, you'll see it. No one cares who anyone else is, or for their class or stature in life. If you wear the same colors when the whistle blows, you are brothers.
That is a beautiful thing. However, it has nothing to do with instant replay. Baseball, while not played everywhere, it not just american. It is played a great deal around the world especially in east Asia and the entire Western Hemisphere. As I said before, Little League has different baseball rules than the professionals. Despite this, people come together on a field and play baseball all the time. It's not exactly the same game the professionals play, but that doesn't matter. People come together for the love of the game just the same. What does it matter if they are playing the real thing or a close approximation thereof?
Basketball is the same. As I said before, the rules of basketball vary wildly based on league. Yet, people around the world from China to the US to Lithuania all play some form of basketball. You can walk onto a court anywhere in the world and shoot hoops. It won't be the exact same game that people in the NBA play, but nobody cares. They still come together for the love of the game just the same.
Apreche, regarding your critique of the offside rule (which I can't seem to quote for some reason).
1. The dribble the length of the pitch and make an offside pass problem. I can't get my head around why this is so egregious. All I can think is why make that pass and why is the receiver in an offside position. Too close to the problem I suppose! 2. What would you suggest as an alternative?
Regarding the use of the offside trap and how this demonstrates that the game is broken, does the fact that there is a way to gain advantage by exploiting a rule for a different purpose equal breakage? I'm not a game theorist.
Because for a species so torn up by ethnic, culture, religious, and monetary boundaries, it is amazing that people everywhere on earth can all appreciate a sport no matter where it is played...
You can argue that this makes soccer a good thing, but it does not make it a good "test of skill," which is one of the primary definitions of a competitive game.
So you really have to evaluate two separate questions.
1. Is soccer/football overall a beautiful/worthy/positive/whatever thing? 2. Is soccer/football a good competitive game?
On the latter, subjective officiating can not but hurt the competitiveness.
Comments
//trolling
> Also, baseball is what kids play all the time.
Never seen a high school game (do they have instant replays? that was my point). But I was really meaning the post-college amateur leagues. In soccer they are identical in form to the world cup final right down to the number of refs. In the big US sports that is not the case.
For example, I've heard the story about it being the same exact game with the same exact equipment and rules at every level of play a zillion times. The soccer fans seem to leave it at that. It's as if that's just assumed to be a wonderful thing. Only the outsiders ask why is that good or necessary or beneficial? I personally think it's extremely detrimental. Simple biology dictates you need to scale games up and down based on age and gender. Soccer is one of the only sports I know that does not do this. They put little kids in front of the same gigantic goal as the professionals and expect them to defend it. Why is that a good thing again?
BTW the goal at :38 would be illegal under soccer's offsides rules.
I fully understand the romantic idea that anyone can play soccer. In the cruel, unfair, inequitable world, it's nice to be able to say that there is at least one venue in which anyone can excel. The truly level playing field and so forth.
That, however, has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. Soccer, as a sport, has issues that can be remedied through technology; allowing something to stay broken because of romantic ideas doesn't help the sport be less broken.
EDIT: Also, the sportsmanship issues that have been noted are pervasive. I understand that it should be honorable, but it's not. You can either keep telling everyone that "guys, you really need to be honorable," or you can nut up and say, "OK, you haven't been good sportsman, so we're changing how we do things."
We developed instant replays and such precisely because the entirety of human history demonstrates that, by and large, we don't behave fairly in competitions. We do everything we can to edge out the other guy. Hence, we need truly impartial rules enforcement.
Kids don't play with the same big goals and big field. There is really no reason why soccer needs to be played the same at every level.
Also even by introducing video refs into football, you're not going to cut out wrong calls, they still happen in sports with video refs, they would still happen in football. Although I agree that they should be used in football in some ways but for some reason FIFA seem to be against new technology been used in their sport, maybe they are not been bribed enough.
Video refs : two things
1. I enjoy the random factor of human error in enforcing the rules. Many don't.
2. I would be against any adjudication that interrupts the flow of the game more than a human referee would and so would many fans of the game.
The game played the same at all levels :
I didn't mean that it should be played the same. The fact that it can and does is a huge thing for me. That there are no huge material barriers to replicating the 'world cup' game is great.
That is why football's lack of barriers is a beautiful thing. It allows the game to transcend sport and become a unifying force. If you go to a real football game, in Europe or South America, or go to a hardcore expat bar in the US to watch a cup, you'll see it. No one cares who anyone else is, or for their class or stature in life. If you wear the same colors when the whistle blows, you are brothers.
Also, there's definitely classism in baseball stadiums. Most football stadiums aren't divided save by levels of fandom and a few boxes for the crazy wealthy guys--It's just a ring of bleachers all the way around the pitch. Meanwhile, at the Chicago Cell, there's a cordoned-off set of seats behind home where waitresses take orders from people throughout the game, and the entire stadium is ringed by skyboxes. Seats are color-coded as to (more or less) how good they are.
Basketball is the same. As I said before, the rules of basketball vary wildly based on league. Yet, people around the world from China to the US to Lithuania all play some form of basketball. You can walk onto a court anywhere in the world and shoot hoops. It won't be the exact same game that people in the NBA play, but nobody cares. They still come together for the love of the game just the same.
1. The dribble the length of the pitch and make an offside pass problem. I can't get my head around why this is so egregious. All I can think is why make that pass and why is the receiver in an offside position. Too close to the problem I suppose!
2. What would you suggest as an alternative?
Regarding the use of the offside trap and how this demonstrates that the game is broken, does the fact that there is a way to gain advantage by exploiting a rule for a different purpose equal breakage? I'm not a game theorist.
Q : Why does soccer suck?
A : Because it does.
Well done sir.
So you really have to evaluate two separate questions.
1. Is soccer/football overall a beautiful/worthy/positive/whatever thing?
2. Is soccer/football a good competitive game?
On the latter, subjective officiating can not but hurt the competitiveness.