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.
# posted by ChuckJerry : 6/19/2006 06:46:00 PM
