babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Soccer exciting - who knew?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Soccer exciting - who knew?
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 04 January 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Soccer not as eye-bleedingly boring as it seems - scienticians

quote:
American football, basketball and baseball have millions of followers, but they can't match soccer for sheer excitement, says a team of scientists.

The article fails to add, "...scientists working for FIFA", or possibly, "...celebrating opposite day"


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 04 January 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I sure do love these "Soccer is so boring, innit?" jokes that are about as exciting as the offending comedians think soccer is.

I defy you to watch the World Cup seriously this year and come back with your witty one-liners. How people can negatively compare the dramatic buildup of a decent team's attack to the constant stoppages and penalties in American Football or the unflinching monotony of what passes for Baseball these days is beyond me. Basketball gets exciting, if your lucky, in the last five minutes, and Hockey, the only one that comes close to Soccer in terms of excitment only became watchable when they removed the red line to allow the long through-pass; which—surprise!—is a quintessentially soccer-like play. In fact, mopst people find the larger ice-surface of international hockey more exciting than NHL, which, like soccer, gives the good players more room to maneuver and creates more offense.

Not to mention, the relegation tradition European soccer leagues employ actually make basement-dwelling teams' games interesting up to the last day of the season. See if you can get as much interest watching the Raptors in a couple weeks as Portsmouth will.

Hmm. Something must have touched a nerve. Sorry about that. Glory to the Beautiful Game!


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 04 January 2006 08:03 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I defy you to watch the World Cup seriously this year and come back with your witty one-liners

Watch me.

Come back when you find a sport that doesn't have nil-nil ties as the norm, or corrupt Russian mobsters owning a popular team just to launder his money.

By the way, basketball is boring too, it's just not as stupid as soccer.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 January 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Shows how much you know.

Nil-nil ties are by no means the norm in professional soccer.

I don't know what corrupt team owners have to do with what happens on the field, but I know you will find them in any sport.

In our elctronic global village, people around the world have the opportunity to see almost any sport they want on TV. What do they watch, in their overwhelming numbers? Soccer.

You need to get out more.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 04 January 2006 08:38 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would anyone be so *opposed* to soccer? I can understand indifference, but christ...
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 04 January 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kingblake:
Why would anyone be so *opposed* to soccer? I can understand indifference, but christ...

Because it leads to minivans?


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 January 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you seen what hockey players' parents drive?

All that equipment!


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 04 January 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I used to watch soccer lots. I liked to play but was no good. After a while, watching the top level gets boring cos they all play the percentages defencively. When I played, as a defender, if you marked tight, (and i was good at that) your opponent never got the ball. (so guess what? To get some time actually playing, I just let the forward loose. Bad play but less boring than jogging around with him for an hour and a half.
And thats what makes soccer exciting at the lower levels. You dont have to take it so bluddy seriously. Mistakes is what makes soccer interesting. You look at world cup soccer and many of the goals are mistakes. A referee makes a mistake, a linesman or a defender. Even some goals happen because the forward totally screws up his shot and fools everybody.
When I was in school, and the grass was the right height, I sometimes dribbled with the ball just behind me (controlling it with the insides of my heels).
Good players never do stuff like that because there is little percentage in it. So, it is boring! But even the boring ones have wonderful gifts, you just never see them using them!
So, go watch your local team before you say soccer is boring! You might be pleasantly surprised.
And watch some video of the greatest entertaining players (like maradona and george best).
Or of great teams like the france of platini.
But in general, nowadays, I think at the top level, people dont express themselves and it is boring.
I have a few questions about basketball and hockey. Does all the line changes make it better?
In Soccer, and rugby, and gaelic football and hurling, you more or less have to stick with the players you put on the pitch in the first minutes.
No real line changes at all. Would hockey be better with no line changes and just 2 substitutes to be used once in the game?
It would certainly be different. Speed for speeds sake does not necessarly make a game better.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 04 January 2006 10:39 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The issue with soccer is the lack of opportunity to see a scoring play. North Americans are used to dramatic plays from most of their sports. Notice the hostility to hockey when play degenerated into dump n' chase and the trap.
Big plays draw crowds - we don't have the patience to wait the way the rest of the world has been forced to.
Plus we resent it when told how great soccer is,despite it's obvious faults.

From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
peppermint
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7221

posted 05 January 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for peppermint     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They really need to market soccer towards women. Athletic men in shorts- works for me.
From: Korea | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 05 January 2006 09:44 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, the lame nil-nil, or "no one ever scores in soccer" argument. Have you ever actually watched a soccer game?

As M. Spector said above, nil-nil is not, by far, the typical score in soccer.

And also, scoring does not equal excitement. How exciting is a field goal? A foul shot? A desperate shot from the blue line that is banged in by a tip in through lots of traffic? These have nothing on the typical soccer goal which is nearly always a beautiful display of panache and power.

Anyway, it's clear you won't be convinced, and I'm not sure what axe you've come here to grind. But, if it makes you feel better, continue you're witless, ignorant anti-soccer rant.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 05 January 2006 10:43 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But, if it makes you feel better, continue you're witless, ignorant anti-soccer rant.

The only one whose witless around here would be you. Would you like me to shove hockey down your throat with the same immature vitriol your showing over a sport?

I have watched soccer and watched it some more and been lectured on it by smarter folks than yourself and no, it's not fun to watch if you don't like it. It's fun to play but it fucking sucks to watch. It's no where near as exciting as hockey or rugby with their speed (not much besides hockey compares to watching New Zealand play rugby). And the hits in boths hockey and rugby are a things of power and agility. And the resilience of those players is unreal. The unfliching willingness to take one for the team. And then we have soccer where we can watching a bunch of men roll around screaming on the ground over a hangnail. Yee haw!

quote:
These have nothing on the typical soccer goal which is nearly always a beautiful display of panache and power.

Bullshit. Not many can bend it like Beckham. And the keepers are mostly usless and boring as hell. They have nothing on an NHL netminder who can steal a game for you.

See? Now how much fun was that. Geez, so cynic thought soccer was boring. Big deal. Need you act like he insulted your mother?

quote:
You need to get out more.

Seriously people it's a sport, not the conflict in the Middle East. No wonder soccer fans have such a bad reputation for being hooligans.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 05 January 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think football (let's call it by it's proper name) is the most exciting sport to watch. It is the only sport where you can't leave your tv for 5 minutes at a time and not miss anything. A game also doesn't last 4 hours. So even if you don't like it, at least it's over quickly!
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 05 January 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the backup Scout but I should have expected that kind of reaction, as fans tend to be sensitive to complaint from fans of other sports.
I didn't even touch on the fake injuries, racist fans, or the corruption that seems to dog the sport. Those issues should be debated from within the soccer community, if it looks like those problems are being addressed then outsiders will have less with which to mock the sport.

The original article is kind of a setup for this type of argument - take one very specific aspect of the game (whether or not a poor team can beat a better team) and use that to make blanket statements about the quality of the sport. It's like someone claiming curling is the most exciting sport in the world because it has the most shouting.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 05 January 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stats from this season:

English Premier: 6 matchdays: 112 goals scored : average 2 per game

France L1: 7 matchdays : 137 goals scored : average 1.95 per game

Maybe they should make the nets bigger?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 January 2006 02:19 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
what if all the baseball we had to watch was the quality of AA, and the best leagues were in europe, and we needed the 149-channel rogers package to occasionally watch only england and italian games? of course we don't like soccer. we grow up with the best hah-key league in the world on TV each saturday night. so, surprisingly, we end up liking hockey.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 05 January 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pffff. Football (soccer) is a brilliant game. That some people lack the patience or the wit to appreciate it matters little to me, it must surely be the most popular sport on the planet, for obvious reasons. Any kid can play it anywhere with anything roughly ball-like, it doesn't need ridiculous quantities of equipment, its a game of the people; at the same time the best professionals develop their ball-handling and teamwork to the level of ballet or acrobatics. The wholesomeness of the sport is indicated by the lack of beer bellies, tobacco and steroid addictions and the superb general fitness of its professional players. Most players still have all their teeth and unbroken bones and their knees don't quit before they're thirty from ill use.

The game has an aesthetic component few sports can match, the flow of inspired passing sequences, the excitement as a forward accelerates through a pack of defenders, the heart in mouth penalty kicks. It is at once a beautifully simple concept and a sport of great depth. For those whining about low scores, maybe you should check out bowling. I mean, what a completely irrelevant point, you've utterly failed to understand the game.

I'm fascinated watching two well-matched sides probing one another in a goalless first half and perhaps settling the match with one or two goals in the second. The play is the thing, unencumbered with a lot of arcane and idiotic statistics and it certainly doesn't require a goal every two minutes to generate excitement.

Each to his own I suppose.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 05 January 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't even touch on the fake injuries, racist fans, or the corruption that seems to dog the sport. Those issues should be

Fake injuries? Italian league maybe, but not the Enlish Premier League.

Racist fans? Ask Ted Nolan about that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 January 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's like someone claiming curling is the most exciting sport in the world because it has the most shouting.

no, curling is the most exciting sport in the world, since it's chess on ice.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Prima Donna
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10672

posted 05 January 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Prima Donna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I hate about Soccer is the cowardly way the players go down when they are injured. That and penalty kicks.
From: Alberta | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 05 January 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Poker is the most exciting sport in the world.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 January 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
curlers keep playing, loaded with morphine, due to kidney stones. curlers don't dive.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 05 January 2006 03:03 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The wholesomeness of the sport is indicated by the lack of beer bellies, tobacco and steroid addictions and the superb general fitness of its professional players. Most players still have all their teeth and unbroken bones and their knees don't quit before they're thirty from ill use.

Well, notwithstanding the typical 350 lb. OG for a pro football team, I wouldn't classify soccer players as "wholesome". Maradona, Roy Keane, Paul Gascoigne, etc, etc, etc? How about this guy?

And your second point? I would just point out that it's just another example of loafing. But when I think of soccer I think of the Brazilian guy going down in the corner at the last world cup when he was hit in the shins. The way he grabbed his face though I swore he had been hit with a sock full of quarters.

Real sportsmen like that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 05 January 2006 06:30 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ummm, this is all very amusing, reading pro 'ice' hockey (as opposed to 'hockey', a great, skilful sport without the violence) supporters dumping on football, but it's astounding how touchy people are about their sports. In the end, they're ALL 'just' sports.

Arguing which is better/more exciting is more pointless and boring than any sport. The fact is sports bring out the best and worst in everybody, players and supporters alike. Loyalty and disloyalty. Love and hate. Tolerance and prejudice. Fairness and inequity. Objectivity and bias. Understanding and ignorance. Skill and brute.

As a relative outsider to both football and ice hockey (but knowing more about the former), I can easily list the faults and failings of both. But it is laughable for ice hockey fans to display their ignorance with throwaway lines about racism and organised crime in football. Maybe that's because it's the only football 'news' you get over there.

As M. Spector said, you need to get out more.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 05 January 2006 06:52 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And as a neat bookend to that lovely picture Tommy Shanks unearthed showing the ugly side of football, how's about the same for ice hockey?

And a quote from AP sports columnist Tim Dalhberg to go with it:

The culture of violence that's so much a part of the NHL, though, will continue. It's too inbred in the league to stop without some drastic action. Maybe someone will have to pay the ultimate penalty for it to stop. Maybe someone has to die. And with players now bigger, stronger, faster and more reckless than ever, maybe someone will.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 05 January 2006 07:12 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like soccer and hockey. Hate to see y'all scorn and slander each of the sports.
Like 'em both from a playing and watching point of view.
Unfortunately, we don't get much chance at either playing or watching hockey over here. They don't show NHL or any other hockey (other than Winter Olympics) here in the Netherlands. Once in a while, you get some short summary of a match in the national league. If those summaries were worth watching, they still come on unannounced.
We used to have NHL on tv, but that must have been about 10 yrs ago. Blast, I really miss those... *snif*

And since we've only had a couple of nights (not even consecutive) of sub-zero temperatures, playing hockey on a pond or lake is out of the question. And since ice rinks don't allow you to play hockey amongst the regular crowd, the only option remaining is joining up with a hockeyclub.
From that point of view, I'd have to favour soccer: You just need 1 ball and the fun can start. No further equipment required and weather conditions aren't of too much influence. But that's just a matter of playability, not of joy derived from playing/watching it. The joy derived from playing either of the games is equal to me...

[ 05 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 05 January 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I love soccer & I love hockey, as long as they are both played the way they are supposed to be played, with skill, strength, speed, and intelligence.
I have almost given up on hockey though and I am not sure I would want to end up sitting next to some of the boorish fans of a European soccer game. The last time I went to a hockey game - Boxing day- I witnessed the Canucks get dumped by Calgary. The conduct of the Canucks was dismal, when they couldn't score they went out and deliberately started a fight which delighted the fans who all rose to their feet cheering on the Canuck player. I was totally disgusted. As they went on playing the game the cheap shots started to interfere with the pace of the game, slowing it down due to refs having to make calls and assess penalties.
The American player Johnson who has been booed during the Junior tournament for hitting the Canadian with an elbow was still not condemned for it by the fans - they just shrugged and said 'that's hockey' with a grin on their face.
The empahsis on sportsmanship needs to be put back into sports. Athletes used to be role models for our kids. I really can't think of a professional athlete in any sport that comes readily to mind as a role model for kids.
Olympians still have some great role models but notice how that is changing with the commercialisation of the games and the commodification of the athletes.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 06 January 2006 02:24 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sadly, players are trained to dive in soccer.
It used not be so bad. But there is a reason to stay down when you are injured. The players are expensive and it is necessary to access the damage in case it gets much worse.
Not so many soccer players have the denture thing, Joe Jordan looked like a hockey player for sure but there are tons of injurys.
Back groin knee and ankle especially. And an oldish soccer player often walks like a granny who had 15 kids.
There is the size of the ball and the ability to bend it that makes it different than other ball games (except gaelic football). Beckham is not the only guy who can bend the ball and he is a bit boring because he doesnt have much variety to what he does. Matt le tessier had a totally different way of bending it. Probably more effective too. He seemed to kick it with almost no spin on it and 35 or 40 yards later, it would suddenly drop from 11 ft to 6ft and just under the crossbar. And it happened so often, that it was not a fluke.
The guy had some strange knowelege of physics that nobody else understood.
Some people bend the ball with the outside of their foot. Much harder to do than what beckham almost always does does. The point about the armour in hockey and american football is a good one. The soccer player goes out there with boots, shin guards and shorts and a shirt and thats really it. That makes them much more identifiable as people than guys in helmets. Much more easily damaged too.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 06 January 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Both soccer and hockey are good games, though very different. I'm one of the neanderthals who likes hard, clean checks in hockey (not hooking, charging, cross-checking etc, but good solid legal hits). Its part of the game, in the same way as hard contact is part of wrestling and judo, and despite what people say, takes a fair amount of skill to do well (step on the ice with a pro hockey player and see how easy it is to line them up for a clean hit ... if you can do it there's an easy million a year job for you out there). There's no reason a second sport couldn't be made which disallowed checks (I think ringette is played that way) if enough people prefered the game without hits.

I like the strategy in soccer, the game has its own rhythm. And like all sports, at the elite level the skill and athletics are amazing. I sometimes think there should be challenge matches between armchair athletes and pro teams in any sport, just so people don't forget how hard the athletes have trained to reach the pinacle of their sport, and how bloody good they are.

I don't like the theatrics in soccer (or diving in hockey, though at least they don't roll around on the ground for a minute trying to draw a penalty against their opponent). It has nothing to do with equipment; 99% of the time the person isn't injured at all, just trying to get the ref to card one of the opponents ... easily seen by how quickly they get up and run down the field after their act is over. But I'd put the fault on the refs for allowing it.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 06 January 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hockey allows body checking, I don't think anyone is arguing that the game should change in that regard.
It is the illegal high sticking,slashing,cross checking, spearing and fist fighting that needs to go.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 06 January 2006 01:51 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think they should take body checking out too. Why do you need to hit somebody to play a sport, that is just mean. Make it more like.......ringette. Yeah. Put picks on the front of the players skates so they can do a pirouette after each goal. Maybe even start using those 'nerf' street hockey pucks so aas no one gets hurt.
From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 06 January 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The issue with soccer is the lack of opportunity to see a scoring play. North Americans are used to dramatic plays from most of their sports.

Well, that's swell, but misses the point entirely. Not every sport is designed to be an orgy of goal-scoring (that's what makes basketball so dull). The beauty of soccer comes from the ebb and flow of the play, the passing, the one-on-one battles and the displays of individual skill. In that way it's much like hockey.

quote:
Not many can bend it like Beckham.

Feh. Referring to Beckham as a good soccer player is a dead giveaway of the utter lack of knowledge of the sport.

quote:
I didn't even touch on the fake injuries, racist fans, or the corruption that seems to dog the sport.



From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 06 January 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Soccer needs to:

1. Go to stop time like every other sport in the world (except baseball and cricket).

2. Fix the offside rule. This rule was devised when every team used five forwards, now they use 1 or 2. Use some version of hockey's blueline.

3. Resrict handling of the ball by the keeper.

4. Not let goal kicks go directly over centre. You miss a shot and the goalie gets to kick the ball safely away. Talk about a disincentive to shoot.

5. In stead of fowls and yellow cards etc. make the players sit out time like in hockey. Rugby has I believe adopted this. One player off won't make a difference but get 11 on 8 and watch the goals go in.

6. No more shootouts to break ties in competitions. Keep playing until somebody scores. If necessary take 1-2 players off every 5 minutes or take the goalies out.

7. Severely penalize diving.

8. Instead on throw-ins let the players kick the ball in. The defenders have to give 10 yards just like on a free kick. Or make offensive throw-ins inside the 18 yard line a corner kick.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 January 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
7. Severely penalize diving.
A lot of people here don't seem to realize that "diving", or pretending to be the victim of a non-existent foul, is a yellow-card offence.

There are a few professional players who are notorious for their "diving". They are well known to the other players and to the referees. It is not a huge problem any more, if it ever was.

Yes, soccer needs some updating and rule changes. The offside rule is always a problem, and it was made worse by recent tinkering by FIFA. There should be a system of hand or arm signals, like in Canadian football, so that referees can communicate why the play has been stopped or why a player is being penalized, instead of everyone having to guess.

But fundamentally the nature of the game is well established and well accepted by the vast majority of the world.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 06 January 2006 10:04 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:

But fundamentally the nature of the game is well established and well accepted by the vast majority of the world.

There are lots of things that are "well established and accepted by the vast majority of the world" that are quite abhorrent.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 January 2006 10:30 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but soccer isn't one of them.

The point is that the game is not some new-fangled sport like snowboarding. It's been around for centuries, and there has been plenty of fine-tuning done over the years, but the basic nature of the game remains the same, and it has proved popular.

I don't know why you'd suggest there's something abhorrent about that.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 07 January 2006 12:13 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason for offside is to stop the big forwards from just standing there beside the goalie like they do in Hockey. They used to allow forwards to smack into goalies like they do in hockey too.
I dont know why they changed it. But the reasons had something to do with safety and improving the spectacle of the game. They changed offside a few years back to get more goals in the games. They also changed from 2 points for a win to 3 to get more goals and more trying in games. Because under the old rules in league matches, 2 draws were worth a win and a loss. So teams played more defensive (which is easier) and often only really worked at attacking when they were already losing. Back home, they even had a thing with 4 points for an away win, 3 for a home win, 2 for an away draw and 1 for a home draw for a while. (Because teams playing away classically just play defensive and attack on the breakaway).
So they have done lots of things to improve the game as a spectacle. And one of those improvements was the offside rule. Believe it or not!

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 07 January 2006 12:43 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:
I like soccer and hockey. Unfortunately, we don't get much chance at either playing or watching hockey over here.

quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
Football (soccer) is a brilliant game. That some people lack the patience or the wit to appreciate it matters little to me, it must surely be the most popular sport on the planet, for obvious reasons. Any kid can play it anywhere with anything roughly ball-like, it doesn't need ridiculous quantities of equipment, its a game of the people; at the same time the best professionals develop their ball-handling and teamwork to the level of ballet or acrobatics.

The game has an aesthetic component few sports can match, the flow of inspired passing sequences, the excitement as a forward accelerates through a pack of defenders, the heart in mouth penalty kicks. It is at once a beautifully simple concept and a sport of great depth.

I'm fascinated watching two well-matched sides probing one another in a goalless first half and perhaps settling the match with one or two goals in the second. The play is the thing, unencumbered with a lot of arcane and idiotic statistics and it certainly doesn't require a goal every two minutes to generate excitement.



I never miss a Stanley Cup final, and I never miss a World Cup final.

Which is better? A weird question. Both are the greatest games. As good as a close election. But there's a Stanley Cup every year, and it involves teams from only Canada and the USA. The World Cup comes only once every four years, and involves teams from 32 countries around the world. Only "the game of the world" would bring teams from Korea, Iran and Angola to Leipzig.

So nothing compares with the World Cup.

But the beautiful game and Canada's national sport are equally exciting. We used to say soccer was a great game to play in the off-season. But of course, now, more Canadian kids play soccer than hockey.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DavisMavis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7508

posted 07 January 2006 01:13 AM      Profile for DavisMavis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
3. Resrict handling of the ball by the keeper.

8. Instead on throw-ins let the players kick the ball in. The defenders have to give 10 yards just like on a free kick. Or make offensive throw-ins inside the 18 yard line a corner kick.



Just regarding the above points, the keeps actually have been restricted as far as handling the ball. There is a six second time limit now on how long they can hold the ball in their hands and they have to get rid of it before that time expires or incur a foul. I've never noticed a big problem with how long the keepers have handled the ball with their feet.

As for kicks instead of throw ins, I believe there would be a strong incentive to attempt scoring plays on throw-ins, thereby slowing the game down significantly (set plays and such). And as you get up into the professional leagues, the stronger players can chuck the ball into the 18 yard box from the sideline anyway, so I can't see it making much difference. Might make for higher scores, but I love seeing a scoring opportunity develop off of a quickly-taken throw. Guess you could call me a soccer traditionalist, I've played since I was six and it's been one of my great loves


From: the occupied territory of nova scotia | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 07 January 2006 07:19 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DavisMavis:
Just regarding the above points, the keeps actually have been restricted as far as handling the ball. There is a six second time limit now on how long they can hold the ball in their hands and they have to get rid of it before that time expires or incur a foul. I've never noticed a big problem with how long the keepers have handled the ball with their feet.

Another change for keeps is the fact that they're no longer allowed to pick up balls played to them by their own team-mates. Up till about 10 years ago, defenders were allowed to pass the ball to their keep, after which he could pick it up.
Nowadays, a keeper is only allowed to pick up balls which are headed or chested to him by his own team. If a keeper picks up a ball played back by foot, he's penalized with an indirect free-kick (since they always take place in the goal area, they tend to be exciting free-kicks!)


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavisMavis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7508

posted 07 January 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for DavisMavis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:

Another change for keeps is the fact that they're no longer allowed to pick up balls played to them by their own team-mates. Up till about 10 years ago, defenders were allowed to pass the ball to their keep, after which he could pick it up.
Nowadays, a keeper is only allowed to pick up balls which are headed or chested to him by his own team. If a keeper picks up a ball played back by foot, he's penalized with an indirect free-kick (since they always take place in the goal area, they tend to be exciting free-kicks!)



Wow!! I guess it's just been that the keep cannot pick up a ball that's been passed back via one's foot for as long as I've played with the big boys, so I've never known any different. I thought that rule was always in place, so I guess I've learned something today! Thanks CG


From: the occupied territory of nova scotia | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 January 2006 06:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, the throw-in replaced the kick-in over a hundred years ago:
quote:
At the very beginning, when a ball crossed the touch lines the rules was very similar to the ones concerning the ball crossing the goal line, and the ball was kicked onto the field again. When throw-ins was first introuced the player had to throw it onto the field at a right angle to the touch line, and only when the ball had touched the ground, was it in play. In 1877 this was changed so the player could throw the ball in any direction he wished. Because of the considerable distance the ball was thrown, it was decided in 1882 that the throw must be with both hands.
Source

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca