SOCCER SUCKS!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Made ya look!

With the World Cup tournament cranking up, I thought I would stir the pot a little bit with my take on soccer. All you non-Yanks out there probably HATE that term but here in the U.S. we play real football so we needed another word for the sport (calm down now, I’m just jerkin’ y’all’s chain). Wink

Seriously, though, I do have a bit of a problem with the sport. I’m speaking as a fairly successful athlete myself (basketball, not football) in my younger days. I say that not to try to impress anybody but just so it is understood that I have a better-than-average knowledge of high level athletic competition and the nuances of games. Besides, there are many similarities between soccer and basketball so even though I never played soccer I do have an appreciation for the game.

My problem with soccer is not with the sport, per se. Players competing at an international level are phenomenal athletes and I have tremendous respect for their skills. My problem is with the offside rule. I am not a fan of the sport (largely because of this rule) but I have watched enough of it to understand what this rule is and what constitutes a violation. It is this rule, in my humble opinion, that causes so many soccer matches (between teams of comparable ability) to be so low scoring – some times ridiculously so.

Let me cite a specific example to illustrate. Several years ago I watched both semi-final games and the championship game of the women’s World Cup. I believe the teams were Brazil, China, Sweden, and the U.S with the U.S. winning the final. But here is my point… there was not a single goal scored during the normal course of play in ANY of the three games (including the extra period). That is, I think, over FIVE HOURS of play with no goals scored. All the games were ultimately decided by shootout. And the mechanics of the shootout (stationary ball, shooter vs. keeper) never (or, perhaps, very rarely) happens during the normal course of play. In other words, a shootout is a completely artificial arrangement and skewed heavily in favor of the offense.

In my opinion, soccer would be a far more interesting and exciting sport to watch if the game was not tilted so heavily in favor of the defense by the offside rule. It is difficult enough to maneuver the ball down field to create a scoring opportunity without the further impediment of the offside rule. If this rule were eliminated, it would force the defense to spread out which would allow offensive players more room to operate and showcase their ball-handling skills. It would also allow for a much greater variety of offensive plays to be designed and implemented which would force the defense to devise strategies to counter this more varied offensive attack. I won’t bore you with details but I can imagine several basketball offensive sets that would translate quite well to soccer. Most importantly, it would result in more goals being scored which is, after all, the object (and most exciting part) of the game. I think the goal mouth would need to be reduced in size somewhat to give the keeper a fighting chance (a great defensive play is very exciting, too) but I see lots of positives and few negatives.

I believe this rule is the primary reason why soccer has never caught on as a professional sport in the U.S. We wanna see some scoring! I mean, I would be TOTALLY pissed if my team scored their only goal while I was away for a couple of minutes getting a beer. Very Happy

So, all you soccer (errr… “football”) purists out there, tear my argument to shreds. Convince me that the offside rule makes the game better. I’ve got my armor on so fire away! Anybody who agrees with me, feel free to come to my defense.

Hunkering down for the coming firestorm now...

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:42 pm

Quote:

Hunkering down for the coming firestorm now...

Wrong, all wrong Laughing

The only reason they play sports is for the "fans" to watch the commercials, they use rugby/football/soccer depending the area where the highest ratings are expected.

Kicking or throwing a piece of pig skin never brought anyone a $, it's the commercials that pay the big bucks to make it all happen.

Hunkering down for the coming firestorm now...

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:43 pm

Amen to that. Apart from the fact that soccer does suck, the offside rule makes it even worse. I really can't bring myself to watch a full match due to the slowness of the game (in general, the fact that you can only have three substitutions contributes to this too). I'll be evading the World Cup as much as I can.

Take hockey (not ice hockey, but the hockey you play on plastic grass), it's way quicker and more action packed than football. Partly because the field is somewhat smaller, partly because the ball rolls quicker, and partly because you have unlimited substitutions. However, due to the smallness of the ball, the fast-paced speed of the game and the fact that it's sometimes very hard to see what players do makes for a very tv-unsuitable sport (and don't get me started on the special EHL-rules). But it's fun to play.

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:12 pm

Soccer is just a means of keeping the plebes quiet at the week-end.
Instead of taking their aggression out on the streets, they wander down to their local stadium and vent it there.

Rome never died. Soccer is just the gladatorial game for the modern age.

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:23 pm

Quote:

Kicking or throwing a piece of pig skin never brought anyone a $, it's the commercials that pay the big bucks to make it all happen.

I guess that's the difference between US tele and let's say European TV stations. We do not (yet Shocked

) suffer commercials intervals every 3 minutes or so Laughing

As far as earning bucks is concerned: have a look what top players from Real Madrid, Manchester United, AC Milan, etc ... earn on a yearly basis Shocked

@Raga Man: American Football??? Why do they use their hands 90% of the time instead of their feet Laughing

The off-side rule is complicated but well documented, although very liable for misinterpretation or errors by the "line referees". If that rule wouldn't exist, a player could just wait by the goal - chit chatting with the goal keeper untill the ball lands on his foot from the other side of the field Laughing

@MOP: Oranje boven ! (Up the Dutchies) - I'm supporting for The Netherlands because our Belgian Red Devils turned out to be such pussies lately Embarassed

Ya'll might consider to watch matches where Brazil plays - Their (female) fans are just .........

Laughing

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:30 pm

Don't Aussies call it Soccer as well?

Get it "sock her"- Who knew a game could be so violent to women. Laughing

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:34 pm

^^ I get it but please stop taking particular substances Laughing

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:35 pm

^^^I swear I not on the acid I pwomisessss. Laughing

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:03 pm

@bobdemol -

Quote:

We do not (yet) suffer commercials intervals every 3 minutes or so

Be grateful for that, my friend! The only way I can watch pro football is the ability to switch channels and pick up another game while a commercial is on. fortunately there are usually several on at the same time. I'd go nuts otherwise. And, yes, American "foot"ball is one of the great misnomers of all time. It should be called "Imgoingtobreakeveryboneinyourbody"ball. Very Happy

Quote:

If that rule wouldn't exist, a player could just wait by the goal - chit chatting with the goal keeper untill the ball lands on his foot from the other side of the field

Disagree. You can do exactly what you describe in basketball but nobody does. Why? Because that leaves you a man short on defense at the other end leaving the team at a significant disadvantage. There is also a rule in basketball about being in the lane too long.

@bill2 - Nobody would sit still and watch non-stop commercials (see comment @ bobdemol above). Without people playing with the pigskin, nobody would be watching and there would be no commercials.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:12 am

Every sport/game has it own rules and laws that help maintain its uniqueness.
Although sometimes the offside law can at times be difficult to implement it is crucial
as one of the 17 laws of association football. The removal of the offside law would allow
players to loiter in and around the goal (or goalhanging as its known) which in turn would
lead to teams having to pack their defence to counter this.
Also it would probably lead to the midfield being completly bypassed and we would no longer
have skillfull players who can work an opening with an incisive defence splitting pass or a skillfull
run/dribble with the ball and would lead to each team having 5 attackers and 5 defenders stationed
permanantly at each end of the pitch and the focus would be on passing and receiving long punts
from one end of the pitch to the other, which could lead to diminutive players being forced out of the
game as more robust defenders and forwards would dominate.

In the O/P you mentioned in the States you play "real" football (the one where the ball is rarely kicked),
how would it change gridiron if you were to change the rules so as widereceivers were able to completely ignore
the laws regarding the line of scrimmage? If they were allowed to disregard the snap count and run down the field
at will or just park themselves in the touchdown area waiting for the ball to be thrown, or if you were to do away
with the offside rule in ice-hockey, would it really make either game better
or more exciting?

As a football (i refuse to use the S word) fan i would much rather watch and exciting game that
ends in 0-0 (yes, there is such a thing) than a game of hoof-ball that ends 19-18.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:14 am

I agree with Raga... but I'm also a basketball playing American, so don't take me too seriously. I think a small revision of the offsides rule could help.
Instead of using a defending player as the offsides boundary, why not use a line like hockey? Then defenders can't just wait to run until the ball goes past. They would actually have to chase people when the ball isn't coming.

As for a player just standing by the goal, it's not like there are like 50 players on the field anyways; just designate a couple to stand by the goal with the chatterbox.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:24 am

mr.scissorkick wrote:

Instead of using a defending player as the offsides boundary, why not use a line like hockey?

This was actually tried as an experiment in the late 1970's in a
few pre-season friendly tournaments where a dotted line was drawn
from the edge of the 18 yard box (penalty area) to the touchline and
a player could not be offside outside of this line, then the normal
offside rules were applied inside the 18 yard box or past the dotted
line. It was not a great success and did not lead to higher scoring games.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:25 am

At times I feel that they all should get their own ball.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:20 am

That's tirst time I heard this poor excuse as to why Yanks suck at football: the playing rules. Laughing

419Eater is my life Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 441

Interesting enough, what is called "soccer" in America is the most popular sport worldwide by far, whereas American Football is not popular anywhere outside the USA. Which makes the USA the "island", as opposed to the rest of the world.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:22 am

Quote:

At times I feel that they all should get their own ball

Corona, you're so sweet Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

to end this discussion once and for all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn_Qi588ZkU&feature=related

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:39 am

Anyone who doesn't like football is either:

1) American
2) Dumb
3) Blind
4) Taliban
5) Drunk

IT'S A JOKE!

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:42 am

Raga Man wrote:

And, yes, American "foot"ball is one of the great misnomers of all time. It should be called "Imgoingtobreakeveryboneinyourbody"ball. Very Happy

Disagree. The amount of armor those guys play with is just insane compared to the real rugby, where there is practically no armor at all. It should be called 'handegg' or something Laughing

And Goldry:

Quote:

Anyone who doesn't like football is either:
5) Drunk

Have you actually ever been to a football game? Laughing

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:02 am

I didn't say that people ALL who were drunk wouldn't/didn't/couldn't like football, but it can be used as an excuse for those who are mentally challenged.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

As an American who grew up playing both soccer and football (my father is from Europe so I have a healthy appreciation of soccer), I think I can basically differentiate the sports like this (note the broad, sweeping generalizations):

Football feeds the U.S. need for constant satisfaction at a brisk pace. We do everything faster (not necessarily better) and so football gives us 100 small set plays with a defined result coming from each such play. Either there's a score, a tackle, a turnover or a penalty. We in the U.S. love rules and punishment, so football is a perfect sport for us as there is very little ambiguity and the referee's decision is sacrosanct (except when it isn't and we can bring in another of our favorites: fancy technology, with instant replay). It's like any good war -- bloody slogging to gain precious yards of turf where every victory takes it toll on vanquished and victor alike. Plus, we get frequent commercials to get up and eat, drink, etc. and make ourselves fatter.

With soccer, we see the mores of the rest of the world laid plain. Slow, languid, sometimes frustrating, ineffectual acts interspersed with brilliant, lightning quick, artful dashes of inspiration. People in South America or Europe like to take life a bit slower than in the U.S. Rules are meant to be broken (or at least very seriously challenged), hence the diving, the arguing and the dramatic acting (the referee as the local taxing authority). Meanwhile, you have those aforementioned moments of brilliance where everyone holds their breath and something happens that you could have never imagined in any dream. Most importantly -- what just happened was not planned, budgeted or drawn out -- it just ... was.

And then the Australians have rugby and Aussie rules football. I'm not going there.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:44 pm

who's on first Embarassed

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:36 pm

@ Dutch - Hey, our women are bad-asses! Very Happy

At least they were. I have no idea how good they are now.

@ Caligula - Rugby and Aussie-rules footballers are some tough nuts. Much respect to those hardasses.

@ JMR - Great analysis! I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Speaking of the "dramatic acting"... that is another thing that bugs me about soccer. A guy gets bumped and falls writhing in feigned agony trying to draw a penalty. 20 seconds later he is up and running again as if nothing happened. Pull a stunt like that in street ball and somebody will lay you out for real.

The whole "goalhanging" issue (referred to in basketball as "cherrypicking" or "camping") can be solved with some variation of basketball's 3-second rule. It would be illegal to be within some clearly marked distance of the goal unless the ball was in that zone as well.

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:08 pm

Best game I ever saw live was a goalless draw, where Manchester United ended up firing shot after shot at the late Peter Osgood, Chelsea's goalkeeper.

I guess people who want instant gratification in the way of goalfests just wouldn't get how 0-0 could possibly be a good match to watch, like a motor race where they never got back to the Start - Finish line.