2010 World Cup Thread

[wolf stansson]

es, I understand that PKs are a necessity since you can't have players running around for 4 hours waiting for a goal. But if PKs are your best option, then the game itself is flawed.

Says the hockey fan?

 

Regular season PKs are a new thing that most hockey fans hate. But the important games are decided by sudden death until somebody dies OT.

Soccer used to do the "golden goal" (sudden death) format, but it doesn't work. There are 3 subs a game as opposed to 3 minute shifts. People can't just run in perpetuity. The longer you play, the less likely a goal is. PK's are fine.

[SpongeWorthy]

We were 4 minutes and change from ending back to back World Cups on what are approximate coin flips. I think it's a problem.

 

And if you play until someone scores then the better conditioned team would have an advantage. I think that's more in the nature of sport than something like penalty kicks.

[jersey cubs fan]

es, I understand that PKs are a necessity since you can't have players running around for 4 hours waiting for a goal. But if PKs are your best option, then the game itself is flawed.

Says the hockey fan?

 

Regular season PKs are a new thing that most hockey fans hate. But the important games are decided by sudden death until somebody dies OT.

Soccer used to do the "golden goal" (sudden death) format, but it doesn't work. There are 3 subs a game as opposed to 3 minute shifts. People can't just run in perpetuity. The longer you play, the less likely a goal is. PK's are fine.

 

There's no reason why you can't add a sub in OT. And hockey players' legs are usually jello by the 2nd OT. It's not like short shifts means these guys aren't killing themselves out there.

[wolf stansson]

es, I understand that PKs are a necessity since you can't have players running around for 4 hours waiting for a goal. But if PKs are your best option, then the game itself is flawed.

Says the hockey fan?

 

Regular season PKs are a new thing that most hockey fans hate. But the important games are decided by sudden death until somebody dies OT.

Soccer used to do the "golden goal" (sudden death) format, but it doesn't work. There are 3 subs a game as opposed to 3 minute shifts. People can't just run in perpetuity. The longer you play, the less likely a goal is. PK's are fine.

 

There's no reason why you can't add a sub in OT. And hockey players' legs are usually jello by the 2nd OT. It's not like short shifts means these guys aren't killing themselves out there.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say there's no difference in the exertion of hockey players and soccer players?

 

Completely different kinds of conditioning.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's no reason why you can't add a sub in OT. And hockey players' legs are usually jello by the 2nd OT. It's not like short shifts means these guys aren't killing themselves out there.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say there's no difference in the exertion of hockey players and soccer players?

 

Completely different kinds of conditioning.

 

I'm commenting on what looked to me like you scoffing at the wear and tear OT hockey takes on players, as well as stating there is no reason why they can't add a sub in OT.

[wolf stansson]

I'm commenting on what looked to me like you scoffing at the wear and tear OT hockey takes on players, as well as stating there is no reason why they can't add a sub in OT.

I don't think I was giving that impression. I'm a hockey fan. I was just pointing out the difference between the two sports and why it makes sense that one would do away with the shootout in the playoffs and one wouldn't.

[chuckywang]

The rules do incent players to play through the foul. If you get fouled but can stay on your feet and have a good opportunity, the referee can play the advantage and let play continue. It's up to the player to decide whether or not that advantage is better than a free kick.

 

This scenario still is unfair. You should get both the advantage and the free kick (if the advantage turns out for naught).

 

You can, to an extent. Because the game is fluid and doesn't have clearly defined possessions like basketball, and other players can easily touch the ball unlike hockey, you can't really have a delayed penalty. But if a referee decides to play an advantage and the play quickly turns bad for the one playing the advantage, you'll see refs blow the foul they were originally disregarding.

 

Maybe I just haven't watched enough soccer but I don't ever remember something like that happening. My point is that I have never seen a player that stays on his feet get a foul call. It seems like all the fouls are gven to players that go down. This is not to say every time a player goes down, a foul is given. Just that fouls are only given when a player goes down. I know in the official rules of the game, fouls can occur anytime, but that doesn't seem to be the case in practice.

 

Now if that's the case, what incentive does a player have to fight through a foul? Suppose a player is fouled in the box, why should that player fight through it for the advantage when he can just go down and get a penalty kick? Since it is always better to see a goal in the run of play rather than through a PK, this kind of practice negatively affects the game.

[Guest]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

[wolf stansson]

Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

Same here. The same evolutionary refinement that applies to other sports that have been played for decade upon decade with significant fan interest and giant revenues applies to soccer and sometimes Americans don't understand that concept.

[chuckywang]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

That's why basketball has the And-1 play. You are rewarded for trying to play through the foul if you can get a shot off and make it.

[Guest]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

That's why basketball has the And-1 play. You are rewarded for trying to play through the foul if you can get a shot off and make it.

 

Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, as 99% of fouls in soccer aren't disrupting as good of a chance as a foul on a layup would. And in those rare cases you get a PK.

[Guest]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

That's why basketball has the And-1 play. You are rewarded for trying to play through the foul if you can get a shot off and make it.

 

So what do you want? The player to get to have his shot at goal plus a penalty kick/free kick? The And-1 works in basketball because there are tons of points scored every game. It doesn't work in soccer.

[Jon]

Wasn't Robben fouled outside of the 18, anyways?

[Guest]

Wasn't Robben fouled outside of the 18, anyways?

 

Yeah, Puyol reached to pull him down around 25 yards out.

[SpongeWorthy]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

I think your premise is way off, unless you're talking about sports that people don't follow at all rather than sports they only follow superficially.

 

Just look at how much complaining there is about the BCS and tell me that hypercritical eye is reserved for soccer.

[chuckywang]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

That's why basketball has the And-1 play. You are rewarded for trying to play through the foul if you can get a shot off and make it.

 

So what do you want? The player to get to have his shot at goal plus a penalty kick/free kick? The And-1 works in basketball because there are tons of points scored every game. It doesn't work in soccer.

 

Yes, I think it would be more fair to play through the advantage and, if unsuccessful, to get the PK/free kick. However, I think refs should call real fouls even when a player doesn't go down. Now, I understand soccer as a sport probably values continuity of play more than other sports, so there can be some tradeoffs to maintain that continuity. I guess this is one of those tradeoffs.

 

I understand this is probably a rare situation to be in. It just sucks that a lot of these fringe situations that don't happen often all of a sudden show up in the World Cup when everyone is watching. I don't just mean Robben's breakaway. There is also Suarez's handball and Koman Coulibaly's phantom foul call. Americans new to the sport won't understand them and are left wondering why soccer does things this way.

Edited July 14, 2010 by chuckywang

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

Same here. The same evolutionary refinement that applies to other sports that have been played for decade upon decade with significant fan interest and giant revenues applies to soccer and sometimes Americans don't understand that concept.

 

I think both of you sound ridiculous trying to make this claim.

[wolf stansson]

Not to say the sport is perfect, nothing is, but nobody cares whether or not you or some unquantifiable segment of "Americans" can get past concepts foreign to you.

 

 

I think both of you sound ridiculous trying to make this claim.

 

How on earth so?

[SpongeWorthy]

Thank you. You've shattered me of my delusion that my innocuous complaints about the PK system will generate change at the highest levels of international football.

 

I'll now return to more fruitful efforts aimed at producing a college football playoff system by being really whiny on an internet message board.

[SpongeWorthy]

Because asserting that people only complain about soccer is objectively dumb and laughably inconsistent with reality.

[Guest]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

I think your premise is way off, unless you're talking about sports that people don't follow at all rather than sports they only follow superficially.

 

Just look at how much complaining there is about the BCS and tell me that hypercritical eye is reserved for soccer.

 

You really don't see people tying their frustration with the BCS as some sort of inherent flaw in football that implies it's less worthy of your time and fandom. Same with inconsistencies/frustrations in other sports like balks/leaning into pitches/instant replay in baseball, late game fouls in basketball, holding/pass interference(takedowns) in football, etc.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not to say the sport is perfect, nothing is, but nobody cares whether or not you or some unquantifiable segment of "Americans" can get past concepts foreign to you.

 

 

I think both of you sound ridiculous trying to make this claim.

 

How on earth so?

 

People look at soccer with an critical eye they don't look at other sports with, and American don't understand that the sport has evolved and is popular elsewhere?

 

It's a stupid claim on both parts.

 

People are constantly bitching about the ways all sports are played/run. The status of soccer in the American sporting landscape is a constant topic for several decades, and therefore the concept of why it's not as popular here, or what makes it less popular is going to come up. You can't try and make a sport more popular without addressing why it isn't yet.

[SpongeWorthy]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

I think your premise is way off, unless you're talking about sports that people don't follow at all rather than sports they only follow superficially.

 

Just look at how much complaining there is about the BCS and tell me that hypercritical eye is reserved for soccer.

 

You really don't see people tying their frustration with the BCS as some sort of inherent flaw in football that implies it's less worthy of your time and fandom. Same with inconsistencies/frustrations in other sports like balks/leaning into pitches/instant replay in baseball, late game fouls in basketball, holding/pass interference(takedowns) in football, etc.

 

It's entirely possible that the PK system is actually stupid though. I'm not going to make that call but isn't it possible that any sport could have a rule that is just dumb? Once upon a time the forward pass was considered unsportsmanlike in football. NBA Finals games used to be decided in overtime when one team would hold the ball for the entire period because there was no shot clock. Those are objectively dumb things that needed to be changed.

 

In any case, I don't even follow hockey that much, but I know the rule changes made a few years ago were designed ot make the game more fan friendly and up tempo. It isn't a vendetta against soccer.

[Guest]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

That's why basketball has the And-1 play. You are rewarded for trying to play through the foul if you can get a shot off and make it.

 

So what do you want? The player to get to have his shot at goal plus a penalty kick/free kick? The And-1 works in basketball because there are tons of points scored every game. It doesn't work in soccer.

 

Yes, I think it would be more fair to play through the advantage and, if unsuccessful, to get the PK/free kick. Now, I understand soccer as a sport probably values continuity of play more than other sports, so there can be some tradeoffs to maintain that continuity. I guess this is one of those tradeoffs.

 

I understand this is probably a rare situation to be in. It just sucks that a lot of these fringe situations that don't happen often all of a sudden show up in the World Cup when everyone is watching. I don't just mean Robben's breakaway. There is also Suarez's handball and Koman Coulibaly's phantom foul call. Americans new to the sport won't understand them and are left wondering why soccer does things this way.

 

Suarez's handball was a fluke thing. You could easily have seen it happen in the Champions League, Europa League or any one of the league cups across Europe. But if it happened in anything other than the Champions League, you'd probably never hear about it.

 

There are tons of phantom foul calls in the NBA every game. There is holding in the NFL and a ton of plays but only sometimes it gets called. I don't watch enough hockey to know but I'm sure there are phantom calls there as well. It happens in all sports and this isn't something unique to soccer.

[jersey cubs fan]

Okay? Goals through run of play are obviously better than PKs, just like jumpers are better than free throws. Yet no one bats an eye when people foul at the end of games, or when they foul to prevent a layup. I don't quite understand why people who aren't familiar with soccer look at it through a hypercritical lens that they wouldn't bother with for other sports. Well, I do, but it's still frustrating.

 

I think your premise is way off, unless you're talking about sports that people don't follow at all rather than sports they only follow superficially.

 

Just look at how much complaining there is about the BCS and tell me that hypercritical eye is reserved for soccer.

 

You really don't see people tying their frustration with the BCS as some sort of inherent flaw in football that implies it's less worthy of your time and fandom. Same with inconsistencies/frustrations in other sports like balks/leaning into pitches/instant replay in baseball, late game fouls in basketball, holding/pass interference(takedowns) in football, etc.

 

Are you freaking serious? That is absurd. There are all kinds of people who like pro football but not college football or vice versa and they cite things like the BCS. Same with basketball. People are more than happy to list the reasons why they don't like hockey or baseball or track or golf. People bitch about the sports they like and the sports they don't like. Soccer isn't some unfairly singled out sport that gets an undue level of criticism. It's just not that popular and more than most second tier sports has been struggling to get a stronger foothold, so the topic of why it hasn't yet is going to come up.

 

I know plenty of brits who talk about the things they find odd and/or annoying about baseball and football. It's what you do when you talk about a sport you don't understand as much. It would be stupid of me to accuse them of being overly critical of those sports just because they have some sort of disgust for it. Sports are games and games are made up competitions with silly rules and practices. There's never a perfect way to run any event and therefore they are all subject to critique. To act as though soccer should not be judged with a critical eye because of it's global popularity is incredibly arrogant.