I'm not really trying to knock soccer. I'm obviously not a fan. I just watched my team win the stanley cup. During one game Keith took a hockey puck to the face full force and knocked out 7 teeth. Keith got up quicker than the soccer player. Minus the teeth of course. DUring the match up I think with San jose another player on their team took a puck to the head. I think they said he had 30 plus stitches above his eye. Bleeding profusely. Got right up with a hand over his head drippiing blood, and skated to the bench where he sat waiting as if they could put him back in the game at any moment.
Just saying.
If soccer is your cup o' tea, great, I'm sticking with football and hockey myself.
Forsberg ring a bell ;) Fantastic player (my favorite of all time...)but still a flopper.) But your point is taken. I too wish football (soccer) players would just man up and eradicate this part of the game.
Having played both competitively (D1 soccer...club ice hockey) I can tell you they are much closer in tactics than say..American football. I enjoy both (they are my two fav. sports) because of the non-stop action, intensity, emotion, creativity and skill.
Hey, on the fence, the players do it cause they know it influences the refs (see response to Keita's academy award performance), otherwise they wouldn't do it. The refs could put a stop to it by paying more attention to how serious the hit REALLY was.
And I'm getting sick and tired of people knocking soccer by bringing up the "tough" hockey players and saying "it is a sad part of the culture of the game" and then quoting hockey as the great macho game of people who can take a hit...give me a fucking break. You bring up a game that in North America is played by stopping play every ten fucking minutes and having an all out brawl while the referees stand and watch, and I have to continuously hear hockey defenders say that this is part of the "tradition" of the game...bullshit. Do you even know what a joke that game as played in NA is to people who don't follow it or from other countries...talk about "a sad part of the culture of the game". What's worse, a few overacting players or a fucking war with flying fists on ice. Get out of my face with that hockey shit.
Almost every problem that soccer/football has could be solved by two things:
1. Taking some of the dictatorial power away from the referee (like replay review on really key plays, like the US annulled goal) and having the refs yellow card ALL acting, not just some.
2. Modifying the off-side rule to stop canceling so many great goals (damn it!). Like today, on the (yet another) annulled US goal: what is the fucking sense of having offsides five feet from the goal?!?! An Algerian player could not even have fit between the USA player receiving the pass and the goal mouth! There should be NO offsides in the goalie box; if you can't fucking cover the opponent in such a small area, then that's your goddam problem....GOAL, baby. In fact, soccer should develop a version of the blue line in hockey, behind which everyone is on-side.
If there's anything that turns off more "casual fans" than the flopping it's the low scoring and continual annulment of apparently exciting actions and goals by offsides calls. Oh, man, I could go on all day.
Didn't really see any fights in the payoffs this year. Little pushing but no real punches. And yes in hockey some players take dives. Yet I have yet to see 7 teeth get knocked out of a soccer players mouth. As for basketball, well, it doesn't really inteterest me. There sure is a lot of flopping around in that sport as well. Still at least sometimes there is blood invloved and then overacting. Soccer is more like a player gets touched inadvertantly, the guy goes down or maybe not and the flag comes out. Again, if that is your cup o tea, fine. I am certain people get all involved in. People watch ping pong too and croquet as well. And I understand that a lot of people who like soccer don't like footbal because they game stops a lot. Which is one reason I'm not a fan of soccer. If I wanted a marathon match I'd just watch some track and field. Ususally by the end of a good 26 mile marathon run the score is about the same as the end of a good soccer match. Please don't bring up the 7-0 route. That isn't normal in soccer.
Well, they keep fighting out of the playoffs because then NO-ONE would tune in. It's still rampant during the season, indeed, it's a key part of "intimidation"...disgusting garbage.
Again, the flopping has NOTHING to do with the wimpiness of the player or whether he's hurt (he's usually not): it's beacause "the flag comes out" for the player the player that is not doing the acting, and that's the problem. If the actors started getting the flag, believe me it would stop real quick.
alright fence, you dont like soccer... thats great, lets not have this devolve into a stupid argument about what sport is better... why bother posting on this if you don't care about the world cup?
duncan keith is a god, and hockey is an incredible sport, but his skill set is not the same skill set as lionel messi... obviously, that doesnt make one better than the other...
england germany is an exciting matchup... very much looking forward to that one
lletdownl, I like hockey - I thought the Flyers playoff run this year was superb - and am not saying one game is better than another (although fence is). I'm just finally calling this bullshit by hockey fans criticizing the "culture of the game" of soccer when they rationalize such farcical nonsense in their own game
Also, people who say this "If I wanted a marathon match I'd just watch some track and field" are just like the people who say about baseball "If I wanted to watch a bunch of guys standing on a field, while one guy stands on a mound scratching his balls and occasionally throwing a ball, I'd watch some grass grow instead": that is they know as much about baseball as fence knows about soccer. Scoring in soccer IS much lower: SO FUCKING WHAT? it just makes a goal that much more valuable and the release of tension and elation that comes from your team scoring one (particularly in the World Cup) that much more intense. Is a pitcher's duel, 0-0 game in the 9th inning boring to watch? Only if you don't know shit about baseball.
yea, lletdownl, hats off to the Hawks, they were the better team.....but we did come to within a five-hole (what, was that in?) goal of forcing overtime and maybe a 7th game.
wow..what a day. i'm completely exhausted after watching the US game and then having to go to work... couldn't get anything done. should've been a lot less nerve wracking after all was said and done..and i def would not have been interested in the rest of the tourney if they had been eliminated.
regarding the low scoring in soccer...that is a reason they should attempt to eliminate diving and acting. Diving is such a huge part of the game because games are so low scoring...every free kick, card and especially PK is huge in every game. a single whistle can change the whole outcome of the game.
btw. how many of the tackles in the US game would've been straight red cards if the shirts were reversed? i can think of two i believe. Altidore got stepped on at least three times and also got tackled from behind.
I don't think Donovan at this point in his career can be called overrated. Possibly earlier, but not now. He's playing great soccer/football and is going to end his career most likely as the best US soccer player of all time. I think you can say he's in the top 100 players in the world right now if not top 50. He is clutch and has shown up in most big games the US has had in recent history. In fact I read a quote today that stated that he has had 20% of the US goals in the past 7 years or so..and had assists on 20% more...so he's partially responsible for 40% of the US' scoring over that time.
Congrats for makin' it to the next round...
i'm with Brasil -specially if they play against Spain-, but if Brazil falls then i'm one more USA supporter.
Fact: this Italian team sucked...no ideas on attack and an execrable defense. They woke up in the last ten minutes...two little, too late. They deserve to go ho, so ciao ciao.
That off-side call on what would have been a tying goal for Italy (although the tying goal might have been the one knocked out of the goal box by a Slovak defender, but I haven't seen a definitive replay showing where the ball was) was basically a replay of the one that got annulled for the US: the player was not more than inches off-side. I won't go on again about what an idiotic rule off-side is in situations like that in the goal area (see above), but apparently FIFA prefers rules that stultify the game, not make it more exciting and higher scoring.
landon's goal is scored as 90th minute (stoppage time goals are in 90th minute, 91st minute would be extratime, or overtime as we call it in the states)
but agree, i prefer close games. the 7-0 routing of NK was just asinine. i generally don't mind offsides, it's just the lack of consistency in the calls i can't stand.
No, psheldahl, totally disagree: every sport evolves and modifies its rules as it progresses, every one. Nothing has been for "forever", in exactly the same way. If rules are so onerous and favoring to defensive play that they stultify the game, then they should be changed.
It's not just goals (I already said above that low scoring games are some of the most exciting, but you just ignored that) it's also the cutting off of brilliant and exciting developing actions close in - the off-side rule over the rest of the field is fine, I have no problem with that - but in the penalty area, and particularly in the goal box, off-side should be eliminated, period. Again, in my view (obviously not FIFA's) if the defenders can't cover such a small area and need a rule to help them, then fuck them.
It's patently ridiculous that in four or five feet of space, an attacker receiving a short pass should wait for a defensive player to be between him and the goal: first of all, if he waits, the pass is gone since the space is so short; second, the defenders know this and play the off-side trap every time, and this is an arbitrary rule to favor the defense, and yes, it stultifies the game, makes it less exciting and, to me, unfair to the attacking team (and not because of more goals scored, but that certainly would be a result).
But FIFA has the same attitude you have, no no no, this is the game, it has to stay this way for eternity, we're the might FIFA and you can't argue with us. And they take the same attitude on the imperious role of the referee, who must never be questioned, even when the referee is a total dunce.
also, FYI, the game that has been that way "forever", in the original English FA rules, allowed carrying the ball use of the hands. It was disagreement over banishing this rule that led to the formation of the Rugby Football Union.
(Please note: technical and probably boring information following, so unless you are a soccer fanatic, skip it)
Here is a good recap of why I think the offside rule, in very tight spaces with quick action (like in front of the goal area) is absurd:
The assistant referees' task with regards to offside can be difficult, as they need to keep up with attacks and counter-attacks, consider which players are in an offside position when the ball is played, and then determine whether and when the offside-positioned players become involved in active play. The risk of false judgment is further increased by the foreshortening effect, which occurs when the distance between the attacking player and the assistant referee is significantly different from the distance to the defending player, and the assistant referee is not directly in line with the defender. The difficulty of offside officiating is often underestimated by spectators. Trying to judge if a player is level with an opponent at the moment the ball is kicked is not easy: if an attacker and a defender are running in opposite directions, they can be two meters apart in a tenth of a second.
Some researchers believe that offside officiating errors are "optically inevitable." It has been argued that human beings and technological media are incapable of accurately detecting an offside position quickly enough to make a timely decision. Sometimes it simply is not possible to keep all the relevant players in the visual field at once. There have been some proposals for automated enforcement of the offside rule.
from Wikipedia "Offside" article
Read that last paragraph and tell me that offside calls are not, much of the time and definitely in the recent calls against the US and Italy, random guesses.
emilio - i assume you mean the 8' goal box and not the 18 yard penalty box, and in that case, what would stop attacking players from waiting inside the opposing team's goal box the entire game?
unless you mean the initial passer is also within the goal box when it's being played to a teammate in the offsides position, also within the goal box.
does this ever happen? if you are in the goal box with the ball, you are not going to pass it.
p.s. i use to be a soccer official and went through fifa training. as a line judge, 90% of your duty is dedicated to making offsides calls, and you only cover half the field (the other line official covers the other goal). i don't think it's so hard to make the right call if that's all you're focused on, so long as you are always in the right position and not ball-watching.
despite what the announcers say, in the US game, the US player was offsides. all the TV replays showed it at the angle of a line official in poor position to make the call. when they replayed it from the perspective of the line judge, there was a good chance he was a step offsides.
Emilio...we will just have to agree to disagree. The only people calling for 'more goals' and 'higher scoring games', please forgive me, are ignorant American 'soccer' fans. People that don't understand the subtleties of this game always want more goals..thinking this will equal more entertainment. (...agree with Holz..see Portugal NK...I turned it off..boring).
There is nothing wrong with keeping the offside rule intact in the goal box. Just abide by the rule..if Dempsey took one step back everything is just fine. The human element will always exist and should continue IMO, there will be errors of judgment. I personally prefer the human element to 2 min time-outs and instant replay every 10 min. THIS would ruin the game. If you change this one rule, as you are proposing..what stops the cherry picker from staying in the area while the defense launches the ball down (when the ball is played..in your system he is not 'offside' because he is in the box). The player then leave the area to retrieve the ball and avoid the goaltender. This is cherry picking..this is the reason offside rule exists. This is NOT in the best interest or spirit of the game. Please think again....
There is a reason FIFA is reluctant to just change the game. There is history and integrity to the sport that should be respected. Evolution will happen, but it should be more thought out than your proposal.
hey dot, what is all the feet and yards b.s. - don't you mean meters?
i couldn't watch the NK-portugal. blowouts suck. same with basketball/football/etc. the analogy of the pitchers duel is dead on in my mind. or a rugby match that is so evenly sided there are only a handful of tries, and the crowd goes wild during short breakaways.
without offsides, you would have the lamest cherry-picking. ruud or rooney sitting about 14m off goal, with the offensive goalie booting it all the way down for cheap headers.
i know your joking holz, but to clarify my point, there is a difference between the 8' goal box and the final 8' of the field (width factor). my point is when an attacking player has the ball with the goal box, there is never ever ever an advancing pass. it's a shot on goal.
Yes Holz..the Ballack rule is a good evolution to the tournament. We all want to see the best players eligible in the final.. (and not miss it because of some questionable yellow)
emilio - i assume you mean the 8' goal box and not the 18 yard penalty box, and in that case, what would stop attacking players from waiting inside the opposing team's goal box the entire game?
I should modify that to say an imaginary line (which could be a actual line, like a blue line in hockey) drawn from the top of the 8' goal box to either side of the field, wherein there would be no off-side. This is already so for corner kicks and throw-ins. The "cherry picking" from way outside would not be an issue because the rule would apply only to plays where the ball is TAKEN INTO THAT AREA physically by a player, not by a long pass from upfield. Once a play is taken to that zone and is in action within that zone, which is, in relative terms to the whole field, very short, then everyone would be onside, just like a corner kick.
I believe that both the US and Italy annulled goals fit that description (I would have to see replays to confirm this) - that is, they were not "cherry picking" goals, rather actions that were taken into that area by a player and, realizing he had no open shot, passed it sideways: under my revised rule, these goals would be allowed, and the onus would be on the defensive players to cover everyone and not just play the onside trap (how come no one commented on the onside trap, just the "cherry picking"?).
And I know that both of those goals were in fact offsides, Italy's by probably two inches, but that's just my point, they should not be offsides in those cases.
and let me say that the rule modification I described would absolutely favor - and reward - the offense, because if they are able to take the action legally into such a tight space and score, they SHOULD be rewarded and having the goal taken away by a nitpicky rule in those cases is an unfair, arbitrary advantage given to the defense and it kills many wonderful goals.
emilio - i'm trying to clarify, because i think it might be an interesting rule, but my issues are this:
1. from my experience, players never try to create an offsides trap in the final 8' of the field. it's used around the 18 or deeper to prevent the long ball. trying the trap inside the 8' would be foolish strategy.
2. you have to consider the width of the field. soccer fields are really wide, rotate an offsides play from a long ball 90 degrees in the final 8'. there's plenty of cherry-picking opportunity there and you would need an offsides rule.
3. my point is there is no need to change the rules for something that never happens, that is, an advancing pass within the goal box. most balls played within that box are always a shot on goal, a backwards pass, or a ricochet off the post or goalie in which case you would be onsides.
if you read the fifa rulebook, you'll see that it's beautifully simple and short which is why soccer is one of the most accessible, universal and beautiful sports in the world.
well, whether the players tried to create it or not, in that tight of a space it's essentially what happens by default, because they enforce the rule.
If it never happens, then why did it just happen twice in a World Cup: that is, in both the US and Italy goals, the players who passed were very close to the goal , scoring distance close, (and, OK, forget the goal box or the 8', make another box of a slightly larger dimension, wherein, ONCE THE PLAY IS PHYSICALLY TAKEN THERE there is no offside) but they had no open shot, so they passed it sideways, or more correctly, sideways diagonal and a player was there to knock it in, but because, you know, they were an inch and a half past the last defensive player, then sorry, no goal...ugh. I mean, I'm not a FIFA official, but I know it can be done because it was done in hockey (and yea, yea, I know hockey is a faster game or whatever).
And I agree with the last part of your last sentence about the sport, but not the first part: just because a rule is simple it doesn't mean its a good one in all its parts, or couldn't be improved. The fact is, when I watch soccer with non-fans, they are usually baffled and disgusted by all the beautiful actions and goals that are annulled by this "simple and short" rule, and I am often disgusted too, then usually say "well, it is the rule...until I eventually got sick of saying that and thought, well, how could the rule be modified?
and to all the people saying that "it's the beautiful game" and "it's perfect as it is"...well, I love the game myself, and have watched and played countless hours of it, but goddam nothing is perfect.
i think it would be interesting to put a very minimal chip in the ball... it would clear up goal line disputes, and could help clear up offsides. The refs are already wearing ear pieces.
What if on set pieces ( for instance) you could hear a tone when the ball is struck... allowing you to focus on the off side line and wait for a tone... similar to how 1st base umps generally call outs at home. They watch the bag and listen for the WHAP of the ball in glove.
I haven't kept track of every goal (attempt) in the cup, and i could be wrong, but i'm sure the plays were not forward passes where the passer and receiver were both inside the goal box. they might have been close to the goal box, but more than likely the passer was outside the goal box.
usually what a frustrating call is from is when the receiving attacker is inside the goal box in an offsides position, touches the ball and changes the direction of the ball from a shot on goal from his teammate, in which case i think the attacker has an unfair advantage and should be called offsides
they might have the blue line in hockey, but keep in mind the soccer field is much more spread out.
2010 world cup
I'm not really trying to knock soccer. I'm obviously not a fan. I just watched my team win the stanley cup. During one game Keith took a hockey puck to the face full force and knocked out 7 teeth. Keith got up quicker than the soccer player. Minus the teeth of course. DUring the match up I think with San jose another player on their team took a puck to the head. I think they said he had 30 plus stitches above his eye. Bleeding profusely. Got right up with a hand over his head drippiing blood, and skated to the bench where he sat waiting as if they could put him back in the game at any moment.
Just saying.
If soccer is your cup o' tea, great, I'm sticking with football and hockey myself.
australia's winning?!? goal differential's not gonna help, looks to be DE/ghana
fence, have you ever watched the NBA? flopping left and right. also, diving is an issue in hockey, earning a 2 minute minor.
football's not really a sport. rugby takes more cahones, stamina and skill.
Fence....there is diving in Hockey too...
Forsberg ring a bell ;) Fantastic player (my favorite of all time...)but still a flopper.) But your point is taken. I too wish football (soccer) players would just man up and eradicate this part of the game.
Having played both competitively (D1 soccer...club ice hockey) I can tell you they are much closer in tactics than say..American football. I enjoy both (they are my two fav. sports) because of the non-stop action, intensity, emotion, creativity and skill.
Today's US game was fantastic!
so.... could uruguay possibly have gotten an easier path to the last 4 standing?
Hey, on the fence, the players do it cause they know it influences the refs (see response to Keita's academy award performance), otherwise they wouldn't do it. The refs could put a stop to it by paying more attention to how serious the hit REALLY was.
And I'm getting sick and tired of people knocking soccer by bringing up the "tough" hockey players and saying "it is a sad part of the culture of the game" and then quoting hockey as the great macho game of people who can take a hit...give me a fucking break. You bring up a game that in North America is played by stopping play every ten fucking minutes and having an all out brawl while the referees stand and watch, and I have to continuously hear hockey defenders say that this is part of the "tradition" of the game...bullshit. Do you even know what a joke that game as played in NA is to people who don't follow it or from other countries...talk about "a sad part of the culture of the game". What's worse, a few overacting players or a fucking war with flying fists on ice. Get out of my face with that hockey shit.
example:
"I went to a fight last night and a hockey game broke out."
NL has to go through brazil, potentially.
DE/GB - cameron sinclair has called it a rematch of '66... so since the reffing is as bad this time as then, it might be in GBs favor.
Almost every problem that soccer/football has could be solved by two things:
1. Taking some of the dictatorial power away from the referee (like replay review on really key plays, like the US annulled goal) and having the refs yellow card ALL acting, not just some.
2. Modifying the off-side rule to stop canceling so many great goals (damn it!). Like today, on the (yet another) annulled US goal: what is the fucking sense of having offsides five feet from the goal?!?! An Algerian player could not even have fit between the USA player receiving the pass and the goal mouth! There should be NO offsides in the goalie box; if you can't fucking cover the opponent in such a small area, then that's your goddam problem....GOAL, baby. In fact, soccer should develop a version of the blue line in hockey, behind which everyone is on-side.
If there's anything that turns off more "casual fans" than the flopping it's the low scoring and continual annulment of apparently exciting actions and goals by offsides calls. Oh, man, I could go on all day.
Didn't really see any fights in the payoffs this year. Little pushing but no real punches. And yes in hockey some players take dives. Yet I have yet to see 7 teeth get knocked out of a soccer players mouth. As for basketball, well, it doesn't really inteterest me. There sure is a lot of flopping around in that sport as well. Still at least sometimes there is blood invloved and then overacting. Soccer is more like a player gets touched inadvertantly, the guy goes down or maybe not and the flag comes out. Again, if that is your cup o tea, fine. I am certain people get all involved in. People watch ping pong too and croquet as well. And I understand that a lot of people who like soccer don't like footbal because they game stops a lot. Which is one reason I'm not a fan of soccer. If I wanted a marathon match I'd just watch some track and field. Ususally by the end of a good 26 mile marathon run the score is about the same as the end of a good soccer match. Please don't bring up the 7-0 route. That isn't normal in soccer.
Well, they keep fighting out of the playoffs because then NO-ONE would tune in. It's still rampant during the season, indeed, it's a key part of "intimidation"...disgusting garbage.
Again, the flopping has NOTHING to do with the wimpiness of the player or whether he's hurt (he's usually not): it's beacause "the flag comes out" for the player the player that is not doing the acting, and that's the problem. If the actors started getting the flag, believe me it would stop real quick.
alright fence, you dont like soccer... thats great, lets not have this devolve into a stupid argument about what sport is better... why bother posting on this if you don't care about the world cup?
duncan keith is a god, and hockey is an incredible sport, but his skill set is not the same skill set as lionel messi... obviously, that doesnt make one better than the other...
england germany is an exciting matchup... very much looking forward to that one
just like fighting in hockey would stop real quick (like in the playoffs or in Europe) if it were not tolerated by the refs.
lletdownl, I like hockey - I thought the Flyers playoff run this year was superb - and am not saying one game is better than another (although fence is). I'm just finally calling this bullshit by hockey fans criticizing the "culture of the game" of soccer when they rationalize such farcical nonsense in their own game
Also, people who say this "If I wanted a marathon match I'd just watch some track and field" are just like the people who say about baseball "If I wanted to watch a bunch of guys standing on a field, while one guy stands on a mound scratching his balls and occasionally throwing a ball, I'd watch some grass grow instead": that is they know as much about baseball as fence knows about soccer. Scoring in soccer IS much lower: SO FUCKING WHAT? it just makes a goal that much more valuable and the release of tension and elation that comes from your team scoring one (particularly in the World Cup) that much more intense. Is a pitcher's duel, 0-0 game in the 9th inning boring to watch? Only if you don't know shit about baseball.
you are so wrong emilio, it was the Hawks run through the playoffs that was amazing... gah... such an idiot...
thats a joke
people lose teeth in soccer:
e.g. this poor sap who lost 4 being kicked in the face
and maicon just a few weeks ago.
marathon is a small part of track and field. there are tons of events, from the fast and fleeting to the long and banal.
truf holz... ive had 2 knee surgeries from soccer injuries... its not as wimpy a sport as some my believe....
speaking of hockey... apparently we just traded big buff..... :(
yea, lletdownl, hats off to the Hawks, they were the better team.....but we did come to within a five-hole (what, was that in?) goal of forcing overtime and maybe a 7th game.
wow..what a day. i'm completely exhausted after watching the US game and then having to go to work... couldn't get anything done. should've been a lot less nerve wracking after all was said and done..and i def would not have been interested in the rest of the tourney if they had been eliminated.
regarding the low scoring in soccer...that is a reason they should attempt to eliminate diving and acting. Diving is such a huge part of the game because games are so low scoring...every free kick, card and especially PK is huge in every game. a single whistle can change the whole outcome of the game.
btw. how many of the tackles in the US game would've been straight red cards if the shirts were reversed? i can think of two i believe. Altidore got stepped on at least three times and also got tackled from behind.
I don't think Donovan at this point in his career can be called overrated. Possibly earlier, but not now. He's playing great soccer/football and is going to end his career most likely as the best US soccer player of all time. I think you can say he's in the top 100 players in the world right now if not top 50. He is clutch and has shown up in most big games the US has had in recent history. In fact I read a quote today that stated that he has had 20% of the US goals in the past 7 years or so..and had assists on 20% more...so he's partially responsible for 40% of the US' scoring over that time.
I don't know about everyone else, but I was completely drained after the game today! I hardly got anything done at work. GO USA!
There were some very nice passing combinations and great ideas that the team had. They just couldn't find the back of the net.
And I'm kinda hoping for a couple of upsets tomorrow. Go Slavakia and New Zealand!!
Congrats for makin' it to the next round...
i'm with Brasil -specially if they play against Spain-, but if Brazil falls then i'm one more USA supporter.
wow... 3-2 slovakia...
good bye italy!
i'm shocked. ecstatic, and shocked.
when was the last time les bleus AND le azzuri were sent packing?
poor NZ... one goal and they would have been in it.
fact: No European country has ever won a World Cup not played on European soil.
fact: the host county has won the world cup 6 times
So, after this weekend, the cup could loose; italy, spain, argentina and germany??
fact: since '66 it's always been a South-American champion, than a European team, than a South-American team etcetera.
fact 2: both finalists from the last worldcup came in last in their group.
Fact: this Italian team sucked...no ideas on attack and an execrable defense. They woke up in the last ten minutes...two little, too late. They deserve to go ho, so ciao ciao.
That off-side call on what would have been a tying goal for Italy (although the tying goal might have been the one knocked out of the goal box by a Slovak defender, but I haven't seen a definitive replay showing where the ball was) was basically a replay of the one that got annulled for the US: the player was not more than inches off-side. I won't go on again about what an idiotic rule off-side is in situations like that in the goal area (see above), but apparently FIFA prefers rules that stultify the game, not make it more exciting and higher scoring.
"go home"
Emilio..you are too obsessed with "high scoring". I would rather have the USA-Algeria 1-0 91'st minute thriller than a 7-5 shootout.
Offside is offside..this is the game and has been forever. Why change the rule in the name of "more goals" . Leave the beautiful game how it is.
landon's goal is scored as 90th minute (stoppage time goals are in 90th minute, 91st minute would be extratime, or overtime as we call it in the states)
but agree, i prefer close games. the 7-0 routing of NK was just asinine. i generally don't mind offsides, it's just the lack of consistency in the calls i can't stand.
No, psheldahl, totally disagree: every sport evolves and modifies its rules as it progresses, every one. Nothing has been for "forever", in exactly the same way. If rules are so onerous and favoring to defensive play that they stultify the game, then they should be changed.
It's not just goals (I already said above that low scoring games are some of the most exciting, but you just ignored that) it's also the cutting off of brilliant and exciting developing actions close in - the off-side rule over the rest of the field is fine, I have no problem with that - but in the penalty area, and particularly in the goal box, off-side should be eliminated, period. Again, in my view (obviously not FIFA's) if the defenders can't cover such a small area and need a rule to help them, then fuck them.
It's patently ridiculous that in four or five feet of space, an attacker receiving a short pass should wait for a defensive player to be between him and the goal: first of all, if he waits, the pass is gone since the space is so short; second, the defenders know this and play the off-side trap every time, and this is an arbitrary rule to favor the defense, and yes, it stultifies the game, makes it less exciting and, to me, unfair to the attacking team (and not because of more goals scored, but that certainly would be a result).
But FIFA has the same attitude you have, no no no, this is the game, it has to stay this way for eternity, we're the might FIFA and you can't argue with us. And they take the same attitude on the imperious role of the referee, who must never be questioned, even when the referee is a total dunce.
also, FYI, the game that has been that way "forever", in the original English FA rules, allowed carrying the ball use of the hands. It was disagreement over banishing this rule that led to the formation of the Rugby Football Union.
(Please note: technical and probably boring information following, so unless you are a soccer fanatic, skip it)
Here is a good recap of why I think the offside rule, in very tight spaces with quick action (like in front of the goal area) is absurd:
The assistant referees' task with regards to offside can be difficult, as they need to keep up with attacks and counter-attacks, consider which players are in an offside position when the ball is played, and then determine whether and when the offside-positioned players become involved in active play. The risk of false judgment is further increased by the foreshortening effect, which occurs when the distance between the attacking player and the assistant referee is significantly different from the distance to the defending player, and the assistant referee is not directly in line with the defender. The difficulty of offside officiating is often underestimated by spectators. Trying to judge if a player is level with an opponent at the moment the ball is kicked is not easy: if an attacker and a defender are running in opposite directions, they can be two meters apart in a tenth of a second.
Some researchers believe that offside officiating errors are "optically inevitable." It has been argued that human beings and technological media are incapable of accurately detecting an offside position quickly enough to make a timely decision. Sometimes it simply is not possible to keep all the relevant players in the visual field at once. There have been some proposals for automated enforcement of the offside rule.
from Wikipedia "Offside" article
Read that last paragraph and tell me that offside calls are not, much of the time and definitely in the recent calls against the US and Italy, random guesses.
emilio - i assume you mean the 8' goal box and not the 18 yard penalty box, and in that case, what would stop attacking players from waiting inside the opposing team's goal box the entire game?
unless you mean the initial passer is also within the goal box when it's being played to a teammate in the offsides position, also within the goal box.
does this ever happen? if you are in the goal box with the ball, you are not going to pass it.
p.s. i use to be a soccer official and went through fifa training. as a line judge, 90% of your duty is dedicated to making offsides calls, and you only cover half the field (the other line official covers the other goal). i don't think it's so hard to make the right call if that's all you're focused on, so long as you are always in the right position and not ball-watching.
despite what the announcers say, in the US game, the US player was offsides. all the TV replays showed it at the angle of a line official in poor position to make the call. when they replayed it from the perspective of the line judge, there was a good chance he was a step offsides.
Emilio...we will just have to agree to disagree. The only people calling for 'more goals' and 'higher scoring games', please forgive me, are ignorant American 'soccer' fans. People that don't understand the subtleties of this game always want more goals..thinking this will equal more entertainment. (...agree with Holz..see Portugal NK...I turned it off..boring).
There is nothing wrong with keeping the offside rule intact in the goal box. Just abide by the rule..if Dempsey took one step back everything is just fine. The human element will always exist and should continue IMO, there will be errors of judgment. I personally prefer the human element to 2 min time-outs and instant replay every 10 min. THIS would ruin the game. If you change this one rule, as you are proposing..what stops the cherry picker from staying in the area while the defense launches the ball down (when the ball is played..in your system he is not 'offside' because he is in the box). The player then leave the area to retrieve the ball and avoid the goaltender. This is cherry picking..this is the reason offside rule exists. This is NOT in the best interest or spirit of the game. Please think again....
There is a reason FIFA is reluctant to just change the game. There is history and integrity to the sport that should be respected. Evolution will happen, but it should be more thought out than your proposal.
hey dot, what is all the feet and yards b.s. - don't you mean meters?
i couldn't watch the NK-portugal. blowouts suck. same with basketball/football/etc. the analogy of the pitchers duel is dead on in my mind. or a rugby match that is so evenly sided there are only a handful of tries, and the crowd goes wild during short breakaways.
without offsides, you would have the lamest cherry-picking. ruud or rooney sitting about 14m off goal, with the offensive goalie booting it all the way down for cheap headers.
and FIFA does change the game, e.g. changing the yellow card rule that f*cked over michael ballack last WM
i know your joking holz, but to clarify my point, there is a difference between the 8' goal box and the final 8' of the field (width factor). my point is when an attacking player has the ball with the goal box, there is never ever ever an advancing pass. it's a shot on goal.
Yes Holz..the Ballack rule is a good evolution to the tournament. We all want to see the best players eligible in the final.. (and not miss it because of some questionable yellow)
I should modify that to say an imaginary line (which could be a actual line, like a blue line in hockey) drawn from the top of the 8' goal box to either side of the field, wherein there would be no off-side. This is already so for corner kicks and throw-ins. The "cherry picking" from way outside would not be an issue because the rule would apply only to plays where the ball is TAKEN INTO THAT AREA physically by a player, not by a long pass from upfield. Once a play is taken to that zone and is in action within that zone, which is, in relative terms to the whole field, very short, then everyone would be onside, just like a corner kick.
I believe that both the US and Italy annulled goals fit that description (I would have to see replays to confirm this) - that is, they were not "cherry picking" goals, rather actions that were taken into that area by a player and, realizing he had no open shot, passed it sideways: under my revised rule, these goals would be allowed, and the onus would be on the defensive players to cover everyone and not just play the onside trap (how come no one commented on the onside trap, just the "cherry picking"?).
And I know that both of those goals were in fact offsides, Italy's by probably two inches, but that's just my point, they should not be offsides in those cases.
and let me say that the rule modification I described would absolutely favor - and reward - the offense, because if they are able to take the action legally into such a tight space and score, they SHOULD be rewarded and having the goal taken away by a nitpicky rule in those cases is an unfair, arbitrary advantage given to the defense and it kills many wonderful goals.
emilio - i'm trying to clarify, because i think it might be an interesting rule, but my issues are this:
1. from my experience, players never try to create an offsides trap in the final 8' of the field. it's used around the 18 or deeper to prevent the long ball. trying the trap inside the 8' would be foolish strategy.
2. you have to consider the width of the field. soccer fields are really wide, rotate an offsides play from a long ball 90 degrees in the final 8'. there's plenty of cherry-picking opportunity there and you would need an offsides rule.
3. my point is there is no need to change the rules for something that never happens, that is, an advancing pass within the goal box. most balls played within that box are always a shot on goal, a backwards pass, or a ricochet off the post or goalie in which case you would be onsides.
if you read the fifa rulebook, you'll see that it's beautifully simple and short which is why soccer is one of the most accessible, universal and beautiful sports in the world.
well, whether the players tried to create it or not, in that tight of a space it's essentially what happens by default, because they enforce the rule.
If it never happens, then why did it just happen twice in a World Cup: that is, in both the US and Italy goals, the players who passed were very close to the goal , scoring distance close, (and, OK, forget the goal box or the 8', make another box of a slightly larger dimension, wherein, ONCE THE PLAY IS PHYSICALLY TAKEN THERE there is no offside) but they had no open shot, so they passed it sideways, or more correctly, sideways diagonal and a player was there to knock it in, but because, you know, they were an inch and a half past the last defensive player, then sorry, no goal...ugh. I mean, I'm not a FIFA official, but I know it can be done because it was done in hockey (and yea, yea, I know hockey is a faster game or whatever).
And I agree with the last part of your last sentence about the sport, but not the first part: just because a rule is simple it doesn't mean its a good one in all its parts, or couldn't be improved. The fact is, when I watch soccer with non-fans, they are usually baffled and disgusted by all the beautiful actions and goals that are annulled by this "simple and short" rule, and I am often disgusted too, then usually say "well, it is the rule...until I eventually got sick of saying that and thought, well, how could the rule be modified?
and to all the people saying that "it's the beautiful game" and "it's perfect as it is"...well, I love the game myself, and have watched and played countless hours of it, but goddam nothing is perfect.
i think it would be interesting to put a very minimal chip in the ball... it would clear up goal line disputes, and could help clear up offsides. The refs are already wearing ear pieces.
What if on set pieces ( for instance) you could hear a tone when the ball is struck... allowing you to focus on the off side line and wait for a tone... similar to how 1st base umps generally call outs at home. They watch the bag and listen for the WHAP of the ball in glove.
I haven't kept track of every goal (attempt) in the cup, and i could be wrong, but i'm sure the plays were not forward passes where the passer and receiver were both inside the goal box. they might have been close to the goal box, but more than likely the passer was outside the goal box.
usually what a frustrating call is from is when the receiving attacker is inside the goal box in an offsides position, touches the ball and changes the direction of the ball from a shot on goal from his teammate, in which case i think the attacker has an unfair advantage and should be called offsides
they might have the blue line in hockey, but keep in mind the soccer field is much more spread out.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.