An observation about soccer....

[Big John]

And hockey is different how?

The NHL eliminated ties in 2005.

[Big John]

thatbrings up a whole different point - fn ties, I can't stand them.

 

 

The most poular sport in the world on the big stage in the World Cup and these geniuses can't even play 1 OT period? so weak

Not until elimination play. Then the OT is not sudden death - two 15 minute OT periods regardless if any scoring was done. If tied after that, then there are penalty kicks (best of 5, then 1 round each afterward if still tied)

[Azazello1313]

I like soccer pretty well. I think the big american team sports make better spectator events, but I like soccer. I don't follow it all the time, so I'm a bit of an outsider, but not a hostile one.

 

in any case, I have to say, this world cup is reinforcing a lot of the things that, to me, kind of suck about soccer. low scoring? that doesn't really bother me per se. but half the games ending in a tie? something pretty lame about that. and while I kind of like the "any given sunday" aspect of a team like switzerland being able to topple a powerhouse like spain, there's a fine line between that and a game where a team can totally dominate the play for 90' and still come up with a loss or a tie. you see that sometimes in hockey, but it's because a goalie is playing out of his mind. in soccer, it's more luck than anything else. and I think we're seeing a lot of that in this world cup. I REALLY hate the flopping (which, yeah, other sports have a problem with as well, but I feel safe in stating unequivocally that it is WORSE in soccer), although I have to say, the flopping in the WC games I've seen this time hasn't been AS bad as in some past big international tournaments.

 

soccer is a great sport, and the world cup is an unbelievable sporting event. but the sport's mostly american critics have some valid points as well, IMO.

[wiegie]

Let's be real, here... Saying that soccer is the world's most popular sport is like saying that rice is the world's most popular food...

I'm a big fan of soccer, but this comment is pretty amusing.

[Gopher]

So, gopher, perhaps it is the simplicity and lack of required equipment that makes the game accessible to people of all ethnic/national backgrounds, economic status, etc. that drives it;s popularity. To me, that would explain popularity at a low level, but, played at the highest levels, it is still the most popular sport worldwide with top level leagues throughout Europe and South America, MLS emerging, and strong teams in Asia and Africa, though not neccessarily leagues.

 

 

I would think baseball could reach this level for similar factors, however, Europe as well as Australia/New Zealand play cricket which is abouot the closest we get, and then you have rugby/Aussie Rules Football that compete with American football.

 

 

So, to be perfectly clear, I too find basketball and American Football more enjoyable to watch, but I have a growing appreciation of soccer. Part of it is likely due to my British heritage and thus talking about the Premier League with family over there, giving me insight into some of the strategies.

 

 

Regarding offsides, etc., I'm sure many of our sports have rules that seem odd or pointless when viewed by others less familiar with the sport, be it 3 in the key in basketball, holding in football etc

The part in bold is pretty much all that I'm saying. If you take all of the nations in poverty out of the equation (most of Africa, much of Asia, some of South America, and a few others), soccer is still the most popular, but it's not quite as much of a foregone conclusion, in my opinion. In other words, there are some pretty significant countries, besides just the U.S. and Canada, that favor a sport other than soccer. Sure, it is obviously very popular in Europe and, in large part, South America. As for the rest of the world, I'm not so sure it's #1... Central America? Maybe in poverty-ridden Mexico, but baseball has the rest of that area wrapped up, for the most part. The U.S. and Canada? Not even in the top four or five sports. India? Nope... cricket rules there. Japan? Baseball. The Phillipines? Basketball. Russia? Maybe, but hockey is pretty popular as well. Not sure about China, but table tennis is actually listed as their "national sport." Not sure about Australia, either, but I do know that they play a lot of rugby, Australian football, and cricket there as well. All I'm saying is that I think my rice analogy is a good one, to a certain degree. It may be the world's most popular food, but a large part of that world has very little choice in the matter. In the one nation that has proven to be the most "diverse", in terms of sports watched (the United States), you can make the argument that soccer isn't even in the top five most popular sports. In several of the other countries that have plenty of sporting options, soccer isn't necessarily the favorite in many of them.

 

Sorry, I sort of hijacked this thread... my comments had nothing to do with the original post (regarding offsides). Like I said, I agree that there is no one reason that explains soccer's popularity. Tradition, and people taking pride in that tradition, plays a large part in it... Europe has been around a lot longer than the U.S. Add in the fact that people, as a general rule, are hard-nosed and resistant to change, and it doesn't surprise me that soccer is still so popular in Europe. There's nothing wrong with that. I have European heritage as well (although I'm more of a "mutt" in terms of where my ancestors are from). All I'm saying is that there's more to the story... A large part of our world is in poverty. There's no way to prove this, but I'm guessing a large part of this world has never heard of or seen American football, hockey, basketball, or baseball. Let's face it... a large part of this world doesn't watch TV like we Americans do. Millions have never seen a television set. Many of those people have never seen sports like basketball and hockey played.

 

Again, I'm not here to bash soccer. If anything, it's the exact opposite. It's the sport I pay the least attention to, but I certainly respect those who follow it closely, and find it interesting that soccer's popularity worldwide greatly exceeds its popularity here in the U.S. For that reason, I enjoy having discussions like this, and getting to hear the perspectives of those who follow soccer a lot more closely than I do.

[Gopher]

I'm a big fan of soccer, but this comment is pretty amusing.

And, again, don't take my comments the wrong way. I truly have no problem with soccer, its fans, etc. I never played it competitively, which may be part of the reason that I don't follow it like I do baseball, basketball, football, or even golf. I can relate to all of those, in some way, shape, or form. Soccer, I really can't. The last time I played "organized" soccer was probably grade school.

 

My rice comment shouldn't be taken as a jab against soccer... In reality, all I was trying to say is that a large part of the world doesn't have the choices that we are fortunate/blessed enough to have, whether it be in terms of the foods we eat, or the games/sports we play. For that I am very thankful.

[wiegie]

And, again, don't take my comments the wrong way.

I didn't.

[Seahawks21]

And hockey is different how?

Never said it was much or any better.

 

 

I just had a new very shallow and unnecessary theory. Europeans love to drink with their mates right? Is it possible that they are all such huge soccer fans because it gives them a reason to get together and get drunk? Then, when they get there, soccer works out perfect because it is so boring that they can have drinks and talk to their friends and have laughs and forget to pay attention...and still not miss anything. By the time they get nice and wet, a goal is scored causing them to erupt in extreme joy or agony. I think I just might be on to something!

[Seahawks21]

The Phillipines? Basketball.

This still absolutely blows my mind. There isn't a guy on any of the 7,000+ islands over 5'8", and they all seem to have been born with quick feet, but I haven't seen a single soccer field during my travels there and there is a basketball court on every block. Just poor planning.

[bpwallace49]

I would rather watch Rugby 9 times out of 10. English Premiere League soccer is watchable, but I agree with other posters that games that routinely have no winner can make it difficult to really get behind the sport.

 

I cant imagine soccer without the offsides rule after watching EPL this year . . .

[untateve]

A perfect example of why offsides is a stupid rule in soccer to begin with.

 

Sorry, soccer purists, you're not convincing me at all.

 

I'm not trying to convince you.

 

Every four years, I get to hear from people how much soccer sucks. Your point has been made. The game is boring, the game sucks, and the rules are dumb.

 

I would have replied sooner but I just got done watching all 3 of today's games.

[Chief Dick]

It's pretty simple really

 

You cannot truly appreciate the game of soccer unless you have played it, or have the ability to appreciate the finer points of the game.

 

The mistake of organized professional soccer in the US is trying to attract the casual fan. It will not happen. Never has and never will. Soccer is just way too sophisticated of a sport to appeal to the "Sports are boring unless there is scoring" mentality.

[Gopher]

It's pretty simple really

 

You cannot truly appreciate the game of soccer unless you have played it, or have the ability to appreciate the finer points of the game.

 

The mistake of organized professional soccer in the US is trying to attract the casual fan. It will not happen. Never has and never will. Soccer is just way too sophisticated of a sport to appeal to the "Sports are boring unless there is scoring" mentality.

Ahhhh.... So, now I understand. I didn't realize that you have to be a genius to understand and appreciate soccer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I do think the part in bold is true, and probably applies to most sports.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Gopher

[Cunning Runt]

I'm not trying to convince you.

 

Every four years, I get to hear from people how much soccer sucks. Your point has been made. The game is boring, the game sucks, and the rules are dumb.

 

I would have replied sooner but I just got done watching all 3 of today's games.

 

 

Well here's the part then you might be surprised by - I've had the world Cup on almost non-stop and am absolutely watching. I'm a sports fan to the core and I couldn't fathom NOT watching. I enjoy all sports (for the most part). I don't hate soccer. I hate the offside rule and the lack of scoring as a result. I want to see more scoring. That's all.

 

edit: I will say though that when the US Open starts their broadcast for the day, it's bye-bye soccer.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Cunning Runt

[untateve]

The moment that offsides was done away with, soccer as we know it would be over. It would turn into a game where 3-4 forwards were kept up by the keeper and the opposing keeper, fullbacks, and midfielders would just keep dumping the ball up to the forwards. Why the hell would anyone want to watch that?

 

 

W I hate the offside rule and the lack of scoring as a result. I want to see more scoring. That's all.

 

And again, forget about everything else, this is why the offside rule is necessary.

[detlef]

Not even close to the same in the context of this discussion.

Not really. You hate the offsides rule and think the game would be better without it. So, if you're going to point to an instant that "proves your point", you need to point to a situation where someone interpreting the rule as it should be interpreted made the game worse. Pointing to someone screwing up a call just proves that if a ref screws up a call at the wrong time, he can ruin the game.

 

So, again, if a batter is called out on strikes with his team trailing by 1 and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, on a pitch that was 6 inches off the outside of the plate, does that mean that strike zone is a bad thing?

 

Or, at least explain how this is different.

[Cunning Runt]

Not really. You hate the offsides rule and think the game would be better without it. So, if you're going to point to an instant that "proves your point", you need to point to a situation where someone interpreting the rule as it should be interpreted made the game worse. Pointing to someone screwing up a call just proves that if a ref screws up a call at the wrong time, he can ruin the game.

 

So, again, if a batter is called out on strikes with his team trailing by 1 and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, on a pitch that was 6 inches off the outside of the plate, does that mean that strike zone is a bad thing?

 

Or, at least explain how this is different.

 

If you want to say that a blown judgement call is a blown judgement call, be it soccer or baseball, then just say that.

 

I still do not agree with you though about your analogy as relates to the context of this thread. The USA game happened after I initially posted. It just happened to be an opportune example after the fact. I wasn't basing my argument on it. So while you're right, a blown judgement call sucks across the board, but had there been no offside rule to begin with, it'd be a non-issue.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you want to say that a blown judgement call is a blown judgement call, be it soccer or baseball, then just say that.

 

I still do not agree with you though about your analogy as relates to the context of this thread. The USA game happened after I initially posted. It just happened to be an opportune example after the fact. I wasn't basing my argument on it. So while you're right, a blown judgement call sucks across the board, but had there been no offside rule to begin with, it'd be a non-issue.

Offside wasn't an issue at all in the USA incident, that was entirely an "opinion of the referee" call insofar as he apparently saw an infringement by a USA player. The linesman didn't raise his flag for offside and the free kick awarded to Slovenia was not indirect, which is the award for offside.

[untateve]

If you want to say that a blown judgement call is a blown judgement call, be it soccer or baseball, then just say that.

 

I still do not agree with you though about your analogy as relates to the context of this thread. The USA game happened after I initially posted. It just happened to be an opportune example after the fact. I wasn't basing my argument on it. So while you're right, a blown judgement call sucks across the board, but had there been no offside rule to begin with, it'd be a non-issue.

 

You need to explain this further. No one on the field called offside during that play and yet, not for the first time, you blame the offside rule on the blown call. Help me understand what you mean.

[detlef]

Offside wasn't an issue at all in the USA incident, that was entirely an "opinion of the referee" call insofar as he apparently saw an infringement by a USA player. The linesman didn't raise his flag for offside and the free kick awarded to Slovenia was not indirect, which is the award for offside.

 

 

You need to explain this further. No one on the field called offside during that play and yet, not for the first time, you blame the offside rule on the blown call. Help me understand what you mean.

In fairness, the graphics on TV said "offsides" when the call was made, so it is certainly fair to assume this was the case. I, for one, had no idea about the indirect or direct kick deal as being an indicator of what sort of call it was and have been operating under the assumption that the call was, in fact, offsides. Perhaps wrongly so, but understandably since that was what everyone was talking about from the outset.

[detlef]

A perfect example of why offsides is a stupid rule in soccer to begin with.

Sorry, soccer purists, you're not convincing me at all.

 

 

If you want to say that a blown judgement call is a blown judgement call, be it soccer or baseball, then just say that.

 

I still do not agree with you though about your analogy as relates to the context of this thread. The USA game happened after I initially posted. It just happened to be an opportune example after the fact. I wasn't basing my argument on it. So while you're right, a blown judgement call sucks across the board, but had there been no offside rule to begin with, it'd be a non-issue.

It may have not been your entire argument, but it was still a "prefect example" of why it's a dumb rule. Again, a perfect example of why it's a dumb rule is something that shows that the game suffers from situations where the rule, interpreted correctly, affects the game. So, this is not an example at all. And, it seems, actually was not even the call at all anyways.

 

Regardless, you are standing on the outside of a game postulating at what would make the game more interesting for you. The problem with that is that you likely have not thought the issue through enough to realize what the implications would be.

 

Do you think that off-sides has been a rule from the very beginning? I would guess not because it seems like a somewhat random rule to throw out there without context. My guess is that people playing the game realized dudes were just camping in front of the other team's goal and that the game play was just as unta described. Dude's kicking the ball as far as they could to these guys. Ultimately, it was just sort of stupid. Perhaps more goals were scored but the game was less interesting. So people who actually played the game and understood the game, decided to fix it.

 

I can't begin to mention the number of suggestions people have given me over the years about how to improve things at the restaurant (this is usually something that annoys them in general about restaurants). Then I explain to them why it is done that way. The rational ones then realize they just lacked perspective and understand that it's just the best way to handle things. Those less so dig in and insist that what they're suggestion would improve the industry as a whole but all of us are just too stupid to realize it.

 

ETA: Before the elitist police come out and castrate me, let me qualify the last bit by saying that this certainly does not apply to all suggestions, nor does it imply that all restaurants (including mine) are perfect and not in need in improvement and the suggestions that lead to said improvements. I should also add that this applies to every single trade and service out there. My point is simply that most things are done for a reason and that reason is often not apparent to those not intimate with the inner workings of the industry. TIA.

Edited June 19, 2010 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

In fairness, the graphics on TV said "offsides" when the call was made, so it is certainly fair to assume this was the case. I, for one, had no idea about the indirect or direct kick deal as being an indicator of what sort of call it was and have been operating under the assumption that the call was, in fact, offsides. Perhaps wrongly so, but understandably since that was what everyone was talking about from the outset.

The ref called a foul. The graphics are ESPN's so it's hardly surprising they were wrong, I guess.

[Ursa Majoris]

Do you think that off-sides has been a rule from the very beginning? I would guess not because it seems like a somewhat random rule to throw out there without context. My guess is that people playing the game realized dudes were just camping in front of the other team's goal and that the game play was just as unta described. Dude's kicking the ball as far as they could to these guys. Ultimately, it was just sort of stupid. Perhaps more goals were scored but the game was less interesting. So people who actually played the game and understood the game, decided to fix it.

Not from the very beginning but certainly very early, in the 19th century.

 

Offside rules date back to codes of football developed at English public schools in the early nineteenth century. These offside rules were often much stricter than that in the modern game. In some of them, a player was "off his side" if he was standing in front of the ball. This was similar to the current offside law in rugby, which penalises any player between the ball and the opponent's goal. By contrast, the original Sheffield Rules had no offside rule, and players known as "kick-throughs" were positioned permanently near the opponents' goal.

 

In 1848, H. C. Malden held a meeting at his Trinity College, Cambridge rooms, that addressed the problem. Representatives from Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools attended, each bringing their own set of rules. They sat down a little after 4pm and, by five to midnight, had drafted what is thought to be the first set of "Cambridge Rules". Malden is quoted as saying how "very satisfactorily they worked".

 

Unfortunately no copy of these 1848 rules exists today, but they are thought to have included laws governing throw-ins, goal-kicks, halfway line markings, re-starts, holding and pushing (which were outlawed) and offside. They even allowed for a string to be used as a cross bar.

 

A set of rules dated 1856 was discovered, over a hundred years later, in the library of Shrewsbury School. It is probably closely modelled on the Cambridge Rules and is thought to be the oldest set still in existence. Rule No. 9 required three defensive players to be ahead of an attacker who plays the ball. The rule states:

 

If the ball has passed a player and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries' goal.

 

As football developed in the 1860s and 1870s, the offside law proved the biggest argument between the clubs. Sheffield got rid of the "kick-throughs" by amending their laws so that one member of the defending side was required between a forward player and the opponents' goal. The Football Association also compromised slightly and adopted the Cambridge idea of three. Finally, Sheffield came into line with the F.A., and "three players" became the rule until 1925.

 

The change to the "two players" rule led to an immediate increase in goal-scoring. 4,700 goals were scored in 1,848 Football League games in 1924–25. This number rose to 6,373 goals (from the same number of games) in 1925–26.

 

Throughout the 1987–88 season, the GM Vauxhall Conference was used to test an experimental rule change, whereby no attacker could be offside directly from a free-kick. This change was not deemed a success, as the attacking team could pack the penalty area for any free-kick (or even have several players stand in front of the opposition goalkeeper) and the rule change was not introduced at a higher level.

 

In 1990 the law was amended to adjudge an attacker as onside if level with the second-to-last opponent. This change was part of a general movement by the game's authorities to make the rules more conducive to attacking football and help the game to flow more freely.[9]

 

The law HAS been modified over the years but the basic concept remains the same and, as Unta and I have stated repeatedly, it is to avoid exactly the long ball situation Detlef has so accurately described.

[wildcat2334]

It's pretty simple really

 

You cannot truly appreciate the game of soccer unless you have played it, or have the ability to appreciate the finer points of the game.

 

The mistake of organized professional soccer in the US is trying to attract the casual fan. It will not happen. Never has and never will. Soccer is just way too sophisticated of a sport to appeal to the "Sports are boring unless there is scoring" mentality.

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Seattle Sounders are attracting hugh crowd at Qwest field in Seattle and the MLS is a pretty big success - Goin to go out on a limb and guess most of them are casual fans and not wannt-be hipster cake-eating soccer experts

 

I love this argument - the simplest sport ever invented on the planet but you have to have played the game to understand it - comical

 

sophisticated? enlighten me please - soccer is tic tac toe compared to other sports

 

get the f outta here with this nonsense

[untateve]

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Seattle Sounders are attracting hugh crowd at Qwest field in Seattle and the MLS is a pretty big success - Goin to go out on a limb and guess most of them are casual fans and not wannt-be hipster cake-eating soccer experts

 

I love this argument - the simplest sport ever invented on the planet but you have to have played the game to understand it - comical

 

sophisticated? enlighten me please - soccer is tic tac toe compared to other sports

 

get the f outta here with this nonsense

 

You clearly don't like soccer.