Monday, June 19, 2006
World Cup And What Not
The World Cup is definitely fun to watch. I'm essentially seconding Max's opinion, there. People get mad into it and soccer is not really boring by any stretch. At least not at that level. If the American TV stations were to televise the European leagues, I think I would follow it. Major League Soccer, on the other hand is really just low level shit. Not good and also it's not fun since no one cares about it and the stadiums are just empty for the games. I was tempted to say that the "stadia" were empty, but decided against it. I also want to agree wholeheartedly with Max about the non stop action in terms of commercials and play stoppages that plague other sports, basketball especially.
Here's what I would change about soccer, however. The game is clearly designed for teams NOT to score. All sorts of rules and traditions of soccer are in place to make sure that any team a team gets an upper hand, it is negated. The off sides rule is the best example. I've watched pieces of maybe 7 or 8 games during the World Cup and I've seen at least 1 goal in each game negated by an off sides call. I understand the logic of the off sides, and agree with the principle, but essentially what this does is negate any aggressive play by an offensive player. The purpose of the rule is to eliminate what can best be understood as "basket hanging" which is much easier in soccer than in basketball since the offensive guys don't really have to play defense.
The problem is that 95% of off sides calls are not for basket hanging, but are called because the offensive guy ran faster than the defensive guy. The other thing that might have happened was that the defensive guy put all of his energy into running upfield to trap the guy offsides rather than putting energy into actually playing defense. Any time, and I mean any time, an offensive guy gets past the defense at least three hands go up on the team that just got beat trying to indicate to the official that the guy is off sides and just about every time to official calls an offsides. The USA team had a goal taken away from them for an off sides call where the guy didn't even touch the ball, nor was the ball played to him. The cited him for blocking the goalie, which in my opinion is a pretty good play if you can make it, and should be legal.
Another example of the non-scoring tactics are the referees hyper-selective decisions to call fouls in the penalty box. Technically, any foul made on an offensive player in the penalty box results in a penalty kick, which is akin to a free throw in terms of success rate. In basketball a free throw is not a big deal, but in soccer the game would turn on any one goal and therefore a penalty kick is not desirable from the soccer loving perspective. As this is such, the referees almost never call penalties in the box unless you do something so egregious that you give them no other choice. Why in the world is there selective enforcement of the rules? I understand that soccer people do not want countless penalty shots in a game, which would be the result of them actually enforcing the rules as written, but then they should just change the rules. Let a foul in the box result in a corner kick or something like that. It's asinine in my opinion to have rules that everyone is aware of and are not enforced.
The third thing is the throwing around of red and yellow cards like they're candy or something. Referees are giving yellow cards just because a guy tried to make a slide tackle too early or too late in a play, essentially telling players that they need to play perfectly or they will be removed from the game. The US got shafted with red cards in their last game and so did France. Once a guy gets a red card he's just out and the other team gets a power play. This is a serious thing. Now that rule in itself is silly, but given the rule, shouldn't referees be less likely to actually give out red cards, the same way they don't call penalties in the box?
Now let's talk about that ludicrous red card rule. If you get two yellow cards at any point int he tournament, not even in the same game or anything, you are suspended for your teams next game. If you get a red card either as the result of two yellows in a game, or because you elbow someone in the face, like the Italian guy did the other day, you are out for the next game. And on top of that, if you are removed from the game your team doesn't get to replace you. If you get thrown out of an NBA game, your team doesn't play with 4 guys. If you get thrown out of a baseball game, your team doesn't play with 8 guys. This is just a stupid rule. Every team is given 3 substitutions per game. Assuming a team has substitutions left, they should be able to use one of them to replace a guy who has been removed from the game. I can understand an argument in favor of playing with 10 guys if your team has already used it's substitutions, but not otherwise.
I'd like to see an incentive for aggressive play in soccer. Not mean play, where guys are fouling all over the place, just strong moves and aggressive passes over defense, shit like that. Games would be higher scoring and more interesting in my opinion. Hockey just changed a whole bunch of rules to make the game more wide open and increase the likelihood of scoring, and soccer would be well served to do something similar. I recognize that the likelihood of these changes going into effect are basically zero, but that is my opinion nonetheless. Keep in mind, I am not an avid soccer fan, nor do I claim to know a whole lot about the intricacies of the sport, but from my novice perspective, the game could be more exciting for fans if those changes were put into effect. I guess fans are already pretty excited by it, so there's not much incentive to change, but you get my idea.
Here's what I would change about soccer, however. The game is clearly designed for teams NOT to score. All sorts of rules and traditions of soccer are in place to make sure that any team a team gets an upper hand, it is negated. The off sides rule is the best example. I've watched pieces of maybe 7 or 8 games during the World Cup and I've seen at least 1 goal in each game negated by an off sides call. I understand the logic of the off sides, and agree with the principle, but essentially what this does is negate any aggressive play by an offensive player. The purpose of the rule is to eliminate what can best be understood as "basket hanging" which is much easier in soccer than in basketball since the offensive guys don't really have to play defense.
The problem is that 95% of off sides calls are not for basket hanging, but are called because the offensive guy ran faster than the defensive guy. The other thing that might have happened was that the defensive guy put all of his energy into running upfield to trap the guy offsides rather than putting energy into actually playing defense. Any time, and I mean any time, an offensive guy gets past the defense at least three hands go up on the team that just got beat trying to indicate to the official that the guy is off sides and just about every time to official calls an offsides. The USA team had a goal taken away from them for an off sides call where the guy didn't even touch the ball, nor was the ball played to him. The cited him for blocking the goalie, which in my opinion is a pretty good play if you can make it, and should be legal.
Another example of the non-scoring tactics are the referees hyper-selective decisions to call fouls in the penalty box. Technically, any foul made on an offensive player in the penalty box results in a penalty kick, which is akin to a free throw in terms of success rate. In basketball a free throw is not a big deal, but in soccer the game would turn on any one goal and therefore a penalty kick is not desirable from the soccer loving perspective. As this is such, the referees almost never call penalties in the box unless you do something so egregious that you give them no other choice. Why in the world is there selective enforcement of the rules? I understand that soccer people do not want countless penalty shots in a game, which would be the result of them actually enforcing the rules as written, but then they should just change the rules. Let a foul in the box result in a corner kick or something like that. It's asinine in my opinion to have rules that everyone is aware of and are not enforced.
The third thing is the throwing around of red and yellow cards like they're candy or something. Referees are giving yellow cards just because a guy tried to make a slide tackle too early or too late in a play, essentially telling players that they need to play perfectly or they will be removed from the game. The US got shafted with red cards in their last game and so did France. Once a guy gets a red card he's just out and the other team gets a power play. This is a serious thing. Now that rule in itself is silly, but given the rule, shouldn't referees be less likely to actually give out red cards, the same way they don't call penalties in the box?
Now let's talk about that ludicrous red card rule. If you get two yellow cards at any point int he tournament, not even in the same game or anything, you are suspended for your teams next game. If you get a red card either as the result of two yellows in a game, or because you elbow someone in the face, like the Italian guy did the other day, you are out for the next game. And on top of that, if you are removed from the game your team doesn't get to replace you. If you get thrown out of an NBA game, your team doesn't play with 4 guys. If you get thrown out of a baseball game, your team doesn't play with 8 guys. This is just a stupid rule. Every team is given 3 substitutions per game. Assuming a team has substitutions left, they should be able to use one of them to replace a guy who has been removed from the game. I can understand an argument in favor of playing with 10 guys if your team has already used it's substitutions, but not otherwise.
I'd like to see an incentive for aggressive play in soccer. Not mean play, where guys are fouling all over the place, just strong moves and aggressive passes over defense, shit like that. Games would be higher scoring and more interesting in my opinion. Hockey just changed a whole bunch of rules to make the game more wide open and increase the likelihood of scoring, and soccer would be well served to do something similar. I recognize that the likelihood of these changes going into effect are basically zero, but that is my opinion nonetheless. Keep in mind, I am not an avid soccer fan, nor do I claim to know a whole lot about the intricacies of the sport, but from my novice perspective, the game could be more exciting for fans if those changes were put into effect. I guess fans are already pretty excited by it, so there's not much incentive to change, but you get my idea.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Stealing From Joe
Been a while since I've stolen from Joe, so I'm filling up the empty space with something I got from his site.
The most embarrassing CD I own ...
You could make a case that it is Nelson, as in Matthew and Gunnar, as in "After the rain, washes away the tears, and all the pain, o-only after the rain, can you love again", as in "I can't live without your love and affection. I can't spend another night on my own." That was, incidentally, also the first CD I ever bought. I can't even name any of the other songs on the CD, but I still love those two.
As a child, did you ever wish you had a different name, maybe a name you wish your parents had chosen?
I just wish I could have avoided all the Charles vs. Jerry confusion. I don't think I ever disliked Charles, I just never identified with it. I like it a little more now, especially after having been called Chuck or Charles for a while.
What's the worst present you ever received?
My dad was a pretty bad present buyer. He insisted on buying me clothes from time to time, like on Christmas or something and they were usually lame. Once he bought me these enormous size 13 Timberland boots. To be fair, I wear a size 12 shoe and he wore a 13 and I would sometimes wear his shoes, so he thought I wore a 13. Also in fairness, I still have the boots and wear them whenever it snows. So I guess that wasn't a bad gift.
What was your first concert?
Dave Matthews, Jones Beach, 1996. Brian and I drove out there in my dad's car and we had seats in the 10th row. Ben Harper opened and during Dave's set, Ben Harper came into the crowd and watched for a while and Brian and I both gave him a pound and told him that his set was great, which it was. The whole experience was surreal for someone who had never seen a concert, period, let alone the fact that I was seeing my favorite band at an impressionable time in life. That remains my best concert going experience, as I got a little more and more jaded each concert I've been to since then, still mostly Dave Matthews shows, though Jason Mraz puts on a hell of a concert. After the concert Brian and I, both thinking we were a little wiser to the ways of the world than we actually were at 17, agreed that it was the coolest thing either of us had ever done.
The most embarrassing CD I own ...
You could make a case that it is Nelson, as in Matthew and Gunnar, as in "After the rain, washes away the tears, and all the pain, o-only after the rain, can you love again", as in "I can't live without your love and affection. I can't spend another night on my own." That was, incidentally, also the first CD I ever bought. I can't even name any of the other songs on the CD, but I still love those two.
As a child, did you ever wish you had a different name, maybe a name you wish your parents had chosen?
I just wish I could have avoided all the Charles vs. Jerry confusion. I don't think I ever disliked Charles, I just never identified with it. I like it a little more now, especially after having been called Chuck or Charles for a while.
What's the worst present you ever received?
My dad was a pretty bad present buyer. He insisted on buying me clothes from time to time, like on Christmas or something and they were usually lame. Once he bought me these enormous size 13 Timberland boots. To be fair, I wear a size 12 shoe and he wore a 13 and I would sometimes wear his shoes, so he thought I wore a 13. Also in fairness, I still have the boots and wear them whenever it snows. So I guess that wasn't a bad gift.
What was your first concert?
Dave Matthews, Jones Beach, 1996. Brian and I drove out there in my dad's car and we had seats in the 10th row. Ben Harper opened and during Dave's set, Ben Harper came into the crowd and watched for a while and Brian and I both gave him a pound and told him that his set was great, which it was. The whole experience was surreal for someone who had never seen a concert, period, let alone the fact that I was seeing my favorite band at an impressionable time in life. That remains my best concert going experience, as I got a little more and more jaded each concert I've been to since then, still mostly Dave Matthews shows, though Jason Mraz puts on a hell of a concert. After the concert Brian and I, both thinking we were a little wiser to the ways of the world than we actually were at 17, agreed that it was the coolest thing either of us had ever done.
Rock Smashes Scissors, Paper Covers Rock, Scissors Cut Paper
A federal judge in Florida made two bickering lawyers look like biotches when he ordered them to settle a dispute by playing rock, paper, scissors. They couldn't agree on the location to hear some witness and the judge was tired of their fighting so it was nothing but rocks and papers for these clowns. I'll bet the lawyers don't even consider themselves as having been dissed, but if in my professional life someone told me that I was too much of a complainer to get anything accomplished without having to resort to a game that's been perfected by 8 year olds, I would feel like I wasn't doing my job.
Also of note here, for all you devotees of Chris Hall, who insists on calling the game paper, scissors, rock, or some such nonsense is the official ruling from a federal judge that the game is called rock, paper, scissors. Take that.
Also of note here, for all you devotees of Chris Hall, who insists on calling the game paper, scissors, rock, or some such nonsense is the official ruling from a federal judge that the game is called rock, paper, scissors. Take that.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Let's Make The Punishment Fit The Crime
Some dude on the Dallas Mavericks who I've never heard of, DJ Mbenga, was suspended for 6 games for going into the stands during a game in order to help quash an argument between some fans and Avery Johnson's wife. At the time Mbenga was inactive and in street clothes and when he got to the situation he told Johnson's wife to go watch the game from the locker room and that was it.
Apprently this is worth a 6 game suspension, which won't affect the Mavericks, since this dude doesn't play, but will affect Mbenga because he won't get paid for not playing for the next 6 games. Mbenga is the second Maverick to be suspended in the playoffs since Jason Terry was suspended for one game for punching Michael Finley in the nuts.
How is it that a guy who's not even actuve for the game going into the stands with obviously peaceful intentions get suspended for 6 games and the dude who punches a guy in the nuts gets 1 game? This makes no sense. I understand that the league is trying to keep fans out of the stands after the brawl in Detroit and the rules are very clear. I also understand that the rules for punching guys are very clear, automatic one-game suspension. These two things don't match.
Not everyone is crazy like Ron Artest. The league's stand is that they do not have control over fans and once a player goes into the stands the league loses control of the situation, as evidenced by the arbitrator's decision in the Detroit case when he ruled that the NBA did not have jurisdiction since it was not an on-court incident. I guess that's why they do it, because guys who enter the stands tie the league's hands if something does happen. Still, if they are going to be so harsh with going into the stands, they should be just as harsh with punching guys. In the nuts, especially.
Apprently this is worth a 6 game suspension, which won't affect the Mavericks, since this dude doesn't play, but will affect Mbenga because he won't get paid for not playing for the next 6 games. Mbenga is the second Maverick to be suspended in the playoffs since Jason Terry was suspended for one game for punching Michael Finley in the nuts.
How is it that a guy who's not even actuve for the game going into the stands with obviously peaceful intentions get suspended for 6 games and the dude who punches a guy in the nuts gets 1 game? This makes no sense. I understand that the league is trying to keep fans out of the stands after the brawl in Detroit and the rules are very clear. I also understand that the rules for punching guys are very clear, automatic one-game suspension. These two things don't match.
Not everyone is crazy like Ron Artest. The league's stand is that they do not have control over fans and once a player goes into the stands the league loses control of the situation, as evidenced by the arbitrator's decision in the Detroit case when he ruled that the NBA did not have jurisdiction since it was not an on-court incident. I guess that's why they do it, because guys who enter the stands tie the league's hands if something does happen. Still, if they are going to be so harsh with going into the stands, they should be just as harsh with punching guys. In the nuts, especially.
