With the great ratings of this World Cup, come the dumb stuf

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:37 pm

Here is a now "expert" thinks soccer should be played. I apologize that this guy is a Memphis fan.

#1 - TIME
I think I could do a better job with a sundial and an abacus. Why is the time remaining a secret not shared with players, coaches, or fans? I can see why it was done like this 100 years ago, but it sure doesn't make sense now. Stop the clock for injuries and other stoppages and then we could end at the 45 and 90 minute marks.

#2 - OFFSIDE
I've played hockey, bandy (a game popular in Scandinavia that is essentially soccer on ice with modified hockey sticks and a ball), soccer, and basketball. No question basketball wins here. Why is there a disincentive to attack? Don't want the defender behind you? Guard him. Instead, the defense actually runs the OTHER way. It sure reduces the scoring chances.

#3 - YELLOW/RED CARDS
Progressive discipline like this makes sense with little children, but it doesn't work for sport. Hockey wins here with 2, 5, and misconducts. Sometimes a foul earns a yellow, but the team isn't penalized for the infraction. No more so than if there is just a non-yellow foul, although that can change later if there is ANOTHER yellow. (So I suppose you can argue that it makes a player less agressive and thus less effective.) I'd rather see the punishment match the crime. A penalty box wouldn't be a bad idea for yellow cards.

#4 - OVERTIME SHOOTOUTS
I would love to see the shootout abolished for meaningful games. "Decided by PKs" just has an awful ring to it. How about one of the following - a) each overtime period sees the removal of a player from each side so it goes from 11 vs. 11 to 10 vs. 10 and then 9 vs. 9 and so on - this will open the game enough to lead to more scoring chances OR b) an adaptation of the old Iowa girls HS basketball rule where a player cannot cross midfield - 5 on 5 + a goalkeeper would also open the game up greatly.

#5 - OVERTIME SHOOTOUTS, pt. 2
If there are going to be PKs, I don't see why it has to be from the same too-close range used for the free kick when there is a foul in the box during normal play. If the goal is to SEVERELY penalize a team for that foul the short shot makes sense. But why not pull back 5' for the game deciding PKs so it isn't such an unfair match in favor of the shooter. Football's 2-pt conversion and hockey's penalty shot are about equal propositions. The PK isn't an 8' putt, it's darn near a gimme.

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:03 pm

As a casual soccer fan whose interest has intensified because of the World Cup, I kind of agree with points 1 and 2.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:15 pm

The only thing that needs fixing is the diving...

See a dive Yellow it every single time...No talking just yellow...

See an obvious dive in the Penalty Box ...Red card it...No yellow just red...

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:24 pm

This guy is an idoit.

#1 Stopping the clock is just stupid. Could you imagine how many players would go down in the final 15 minutes with a lead. Instead of the winning team faking hurt, the losing team would always be on the ground. The MLS tried this and it was a failure. This part of the game isn't close to broken. How many players and coachs complain because the game was lost because of extra time? I've never seen this complaint in post match interviews, "Oh we got screwed because of the 2 minutes the ref gave." Just stupid.

#2 Again this guy is an idoit. The backline is like a movable "blue line" in hockey. If you move it to far back you might get men behind the ball but you also create too much space for the midfield. If you play too far forward, this creates too room for players to send long passes in between the backline and keeper creating scoring chances.

I think its hilarious that Americans are trying to fix soccer like just because it doesn't resemble hockey or basketball its broken. Could you imagine the horror if the Cubans tried to fix baseball and the Germans tried to improve the NFL.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:28 pm

As a fan of the game since I started playing at the age of 6 I think those ideas are horrible and expected from a fan of American sports who knows little about the game.

1. Part of the allure of soccer is the fact that you don't know exactly how much time is left on the clock. I equate it to overtime hockey or sudden death overtime on a smaller scale.

2. As far as the offside rule, playing the offside trap is a dangerous game for the defense. All it takes is one guy with his head up his arse to give the other team a great scoring chance.

3. A penalty box in soccer? He's got to be kidding right? Playing a man down for two minutes in hockey will likely have more of an impact than a team playing a man down for an entire half in soccer.

4. Penalties do suck as a way of deciding a game but taking players off the pitch is not the solution. They've just run around for 90 minutes and now you want to take players off the pitch and make the already tired players cover more ground? That would likely let the more fit team win rather than the more skilled team. At least penalties require some sort of soccer skill rather than simple endurance.

5. It might be weighted towards the shooter but just ask England about Ricardo or Argentina about Lehman.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:31 pm

All five are the ideas of a moron.

Give cards for diving verified by a 15-second pause for a quick replay, put a ref on each half of the pitch, and everything will be fine.

Take care,
PK

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:36 pm

4 has been mooted before, but let's face it - if you are the team waiting to play the winner of this tie, you're wanting it to go on all night long. They already tried golden goal, and that didn't work.

5 If PK's were that easy, shootouts would last forever. However, I could see taking them from the 18yd line might spice it up a bit, so maybe not so dumb. Might be worth trying in one of FIFA's pointless tournaments...Confederations Cup, CONCACAF qualifying, that sort of thing

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:40 pm

pk500 wrote:All five are the ideas of a moron.

Give cards for diving verified by a 15-second pause for a quick replay, put a ref on each half of the pitch, and everything will be fine.

Take care,
PK

TBH, I think refs in each half are a recipe for disaster - and it's instructive that El Corrupto said that the experiment was less of a success in the more 'mature' soccer nations that it was tried in.

Drawbacks

- who's responsible when a move starts in one half and ends in another ?

- what happens when they disagree ?

The problem isn't that the refs are too far away from the action, it's that simulation etc is extremely difficult to spot, even when you are 5 yards away. And whatever happens, god forbid that we start having endless replay timeouts like the NFL.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:44 pm

NFL replay timeouts are ridiculous because the ref has to go to the little bonnet and look at the camera himself on the field. In rugby and hockey, the ref simply waits for the notification from the replay judge upstairs, which usually is much quicker.

Face it, the NFL and the networks love the horsesh*t theatrics of the ref going to the little peep show booth. Otherwise, that carnival show would have been eliminated for something more similar to rugby or hockey.

As for two refs, maybe one isn't assigned to each half of the pitch. But two sets of eyes clearly are better than one for a game played at a speed much faster than when refs were introduced to the game 100-plus years ago.

Two refs have worked in hockey. Hell, three refs watch only 10 men on a much smaller playing surface in basketball, and the ref-to-player ratio in football is about 1:3. I'm not saying soccer should go to those extremes, but I see nothing wrong with having two officials watching 22 finely tuned, fast athletes on a very large pitch, especially if replay isn't going to be introduced.

Take care,
PK

WillHunting · Post by **WillHunting** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:56 pm

I don't like how the games are decided by PKs either... not sure if I like the suggestions though. I really hope France/Italy game won't be decided by PKs.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:22 pm

BBC has a call-in show with an opinionated host. They made it into a podcast.

Anyways, a lot of callers had ideas about trying to stamp out diving but other ideas like not having any refs on the pitch but rather on sidelines and needing more of them because the game is too fast for most of these refs.

A rugby fan suggested that they let the game play on in the case of a suspected foul and then at the stoppage of play like out of bounds, the ref could retroactively award a card.

Another pointed out all the FIFA officials could form a video panel and punish players for diving after the games, as FIFA suspended Frings from the semi-final.

But the most interesting point was by the host that the traditionalists resist change just because things have been done a certain way for so long, so even if the players change, use new tactics, the rules may not be keeping up.

As for offsides, that sounds like too radical a change. But the NBA adopted the 3-point shot after pooh-poohing it for a long time, as well as the zone defense. The MLB added wild cards and realigned, as did the NFL. All this expansion in all the leagues too, without getting too preoccupied about the affect on the quality of the play. It probably did affect the quality but so what? Have the static rules in soccer preserved the highest level of play?

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:32 pm

Bill Harris (http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com) suggested a few rule changes of his own just today as well.

(And of course, that's the only reason I'm linking to his blog at the present time

)

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:34 pm

BBC has a call-in show with an opinionated host. They made it into a podcast.

link?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:54 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:1. Part of the allure of soccer is the fact that you don't know exactly how much time is left on the clock. I equate it to overtime hockey or sudden death overtime on a smaller scale.

When I watch an NFL or NHL game I know *exactly* how much time is left in regulation or overtime. Even if it is sudden death in the playoffs I know how much time is left in the period or quarter. If it is NHL overtime and there is a faceoff with 2 seconds left in the period, I have an idea of what can and can't happen in that time period. That's nothing like extra time in soccer. It may be the allure of soccer to not know how much time is left, but in American sports even a half-second can mean the difference between a win and loss. Most of us cannot comprehend it. Penn State fans went apesh*t when the refs judgmentally put two seconds back on the clock, which eventually led to a Michigan win last season. At least they announce how much extra time is awarded so it's not as bad as it used to be.

I don't think the powers-that-be have to change anything about soccer to appease Americans, but that's doesn't mean the game couldn't use some tweaking. It's only my opinion and I'm sure many don't agree, but any sport that is basically "first one to score wins" and that has essentially free throw or field goal kicking contests to settle life-or-death matches could probably use some fresh ideas.

edit: OK, I guess there is a goalie involved in penalty kicks so it's more like deciding an NBA Finals game with a some one-on-one or the Super Bowl with the Oklahoma drill

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:03 pm

fsquid wrote:
BBC has a call-in show with an opinionated host. They made it into a podcast.
link?

I found it in iTunes. Just search BBC and filter for podcasts. There will be a bunch of hits but it's called "The Football Phone-In 606."

peabody · Post by **peabody** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:05 pm

I don’t watch much soccer. I’ve only watched a little bit of the World Cup. But it is a little annoying to see so quite a few games decided on penalty kicks. I cringe to think what it would be like to see the Super Bowl decided by a round of field goals, the NBA finals decided by free throws or three-point contest, the World Series decided by a home run derby, or the Stanley Cup decided by a shoot-out. Play until you score I say.

My only thought of why they do penalty kicks is due to health reasons stemming from the general low scoring nature of the game that could drag on for a very long time. All the other sports mentioned above give players a chance to rest through time outs or substitution. Soccer just keeps going and after 3 substitutions for the game (I think), you’re done.

Still, the thought of penalty kicks just doesn’t feel right.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:10 pm

They should just add a few more subs during each subsequent OT until the game is won by someone. I'd also say that you could bring back players that you subbed for in regulation and or previous overtime periods. Screw shootouts...they are horrible.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:13 pm

They should use bigger goals during extra time. Make those suckers twice as large.

Or if they do award penalty kicks, how about you get one for each shot on target that you had in regulation/extra time.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:16 pm

Squid:

In case you dislike using iTunes like me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/606.shtml

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:18 pm

peabody wrote:the NBA finals decided by free throws

Um the NBA Finals were decided by free throws. At least the key game was.

And there probably have been other series decided at the line.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:21 pm

wco81 wrote:
peabody wrote:the NBA finals decided by free throws
Um the NBA Finals were decided by free throws. At least the key game was.

And there probably have been other series decided at the line.

Uhh...no. I didn't see 5 players from each team lineup like you do before picking teams in pickup basketball to decide the game. What game were you watching?

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:24 pm

The clock changes don't make any sense to me. MLS tried it; it offended the hardcore fan and didn't bring casual fans to the game. Signaling the number of minutes of extra time is good enough. There haven't been any controversies involving the amount of time added or the exact timing of the whistle.

Diving is ridiculous of course. But the risk/reward for diving is pretty good, especially inside the area. Even if a review board issues suspension based on video evidence, the damage could already be done. Also, not every game has the number of cameras present. Whatever rule changes are made have to be transferrable to the Tunisian second division. Frankly, I'm stumped on how to handle this, but I'd be willing to consider drastic measures.

PKs get attention every World Cup. I think the move from Golden Goal to two full OT periods is good because it makes teams more attack oriented. But if OT goes on indefinitely, my concern would be that teams would go into a shell. There are occasional suggestions about removing a player every 5 min during OT, but I don't see how this would provide incentive to attack. I like the old MLS shootout better than a spot kick, but the rest of the world will never go along with it.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:25 pm

I went on record months ago as a supporter of an observable official clock as well as multiple refs, and the WC has only strengthened my backing of both.

I've also added post-game video reviews for diving to my laundry list.

I'll let y'all decide if I'm a moron or not, but these are certainly things about which reasonable people can disagree. So much of the defense of the status quo consists of nothing more than reliance on tradition that the more I hear these arguments the less weight I give them.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:28 pm

I love the lack of an official clock for extra time. Adds a ton of suspense as to when the ref will exactly blow his whistle, plus it leaves the ref the discretion to allow an attack to continue even if official stoppage time has expired.

You don't get that in American sports. If the trailing team gets the puck in their end with five seconds left, they have five seconds -- and nothing more -- to get the puck 200 feet to the other end, for example.

Plus the lack of clock gives Graham Poll the chance to blow the whistle to end the game just as a shot is about to rip the back of the net.

Soccer needs a couple of tweaks. But it doesn't need to be "Americanized." It's the world's game, not ours alone, and -- GASP! -- the rest of the world doesn't have an addiction to offense and scoring in its sport that America has.

I'm more than happy with a 1-0 game with lots of chances, plenty of nice saves, no dives and skilled defense than a 3-2 game with diving and endless long-ball offense and defense.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:28 pm

I was watching the game where Wade shot more free throws than the opposing team, which played more than 5 players.

Wade got put on the line if he felt the wake of a Mav player trying to defend him while avoiding contact.