Objectively true
We are just better at sports -- playing them, and, as important, arranging for the playing of them by sensible, action-promoting, fair and easily understood (except for the Infield Fly) rules. The ROW -- I'm sorry -- just can't get the knack of how to make a sport sporting. All the proof you need comes from the monumentally boring World Cup final, just now at last fini.
In the real, observable world, Italy won 2 to nil, but in the false reality of World Cup soccer, France was given a gimme penalty shot on a Gallic dive and Italy was deprived of a goal on an offside that any replay camera could have corrected. So after an allegedly exciting score-packed 20 minutes (two goals!), they "played" one hour and 40 minutes at a one to one tie -- and sauve qui peut it was almost impossible to determine whether the Italians were toying with the pasta or sipping Barolo in the shade of a grapevine trellis, they were that langourous. As for the French, all the badinage about the great Zizou was revealed as horsefeathers when that glorious sportsman jumped the shark on his retirement by head-butting an Italian. ZZ failed to recall that a gentle breeze can send an Azzuri flying like a leaf in a tornado and so the bang of Z's shaved skull quel surprise flattened, for the requisite moment, the opponent from the nation famous for rigging the outcomes of its games (so charged by a prosecutor from Naples!).
Because the truly stupid governors of this runaround exercise permit only one referee to cover an area about as big as Luxembourg, justice would have been blind to the outrageous whack (he should have shoved, but was afraid of a "hands" call, perhaps). Yet the crowd was interrupted in its brainless singing by a big screen replay that under the sport's terminally illogical rules was not supposed to be examined by the ref; he was obliged to dig dirt out of his cleats while a 100,000 people roared at the true version of what he had inevitably overlooked. They booed loudly enough to wake the referee from the dead. Risen from his grave ignorance, the official, like Dante questioning Virgil, asked the sideline umpire "what's up"? Upon being told that his reputation for consciousness was at risk, the referee threw Zidane out of the game.
In any sensible sport, even when a star is exiled, a replacement is allowed so that the fans can continue to see a game. Not in "football." When a noxious fouler draws a red card, not only is the bad fellow's team down the offending player, but he cannot be replaced. Thereafter, his team effectively gives up the effort to score, which one would think might have been the entertaining part of the game. But since scoring is so unlikely the abandonment of offense is like a Democrat going silent during a Washington talk show -- nothing much is missed. In any case, further to prove that scoring is inferior in the world's sport to just jogging around, ever more slowly, even volitional replacements are limited to two. The purpose of this rule is to make sure that teams deep with speedy, tall and energetic players cannot call on them to replace the tired and worn starters, since that might increase the odds of scoring. Bien sur, the limitation on replacements encourages the fatigued and lame starting players to slow to a walk during the game's final, climactic moments. But since a climax in this sport typically is the final horn calling a halt to a gripping zero to zero or one to one deadlock, perhaps it matters little that by the end of overtime all the players look like they are waiting for a bus and hoping to bum a cigarette.
After today's tie -- kissing your sister in the phrase of Eddie Ederlatz, Navy football coach a generation or two ago, but something really sexy in the ROW apparently -- we came to the nearly totally static conclusion called penalty shootout. In this parody of soccer, everyone waits for the goalie to dive one way so that the kicker can then shoot the other way. The winning side is the one that makes the most of five shots, a number as arbitrary as many other aspects of the sport, or after five (so long Oh Lord so long, was what was carved on the desk of a lecture room in college that seemed always assigned to the most unendurable of the professors) it's mano a mano, not that it often gets to that. If the kickers were a little further away, some small drama could be momentarily injected at last by a balance in offense and defense in the shootout, but that's again not allowed by the rulemakers. So one expects not so much that the goalie will accidentally to brush the ball away but rather that some exhausted kicker will miss. This always happens to the English, because it is part of their national character to lose. But in most other cases it is as if Wade took all Miami's foul shots. Yet eventually someone will bungle the sure shot, to eternal chagrin sans doute, and in this grand finale of a final, merci a dieu, a member of the French team at last failed to make a shot. Neither goalie ever had the slightest idea how to reach, much less block, any of the kicks, since their preparation apparently did not include knowing the left vs. right tendencies of any of the shooters. In brief, the game is all defense and the shootout is all offense, when the opposite would be an entertaining way to present the players' skills.
In the ROW folks will talk about the "flow" of the match for four years, waiting anxiously for the next play-off cycle, which should of course occur at least every other year, but doesn't because that repetition could increase the pressure to adopt rational rules so as to make the sport fun to watch.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, every year, in the Final Four of March, the NBA playoffs culminating in June, the baseball playoffs ending in the World Series of November, and the the NFL playoffs leading up to the truly Super Bowl of January or February, we show how sports should be organized, presented and played. Even hockey, dangerously non-American in its antecedents, is, thanks to the American touch, made interesting, at least as long as the players are willing to take pay cuts, although no one below the unguarded border to our North knows when the finals occur. But enfin compared to World Cup soccer, curling is entrancing.
In summary, members of the jury, a guilty verdict for le futbol is deserved simply because hardly anyone ever scores durng regular time through the exercise of offense. Only penalties and set pieces, such as free kicks and corners, reduce the immense advantages of defenses that pack the goal area with more players than the decks of a man of war at Trafalgar. The teams therefore play endlessly for no purpose, and victory is awarded by what they call set-pieces. It is as if the coin flip that determines who gets the ball for a football overtime were how the game ended. Alas world, the reason we Americans don't play your game is not because we can't, it's because we are too alert and active to bother with it. If you let us have a crack at the rules, however, you'd all be better off, and we might deign to win your Cup.
I know this was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it's still a stupid post.
July 9, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it was tongue in cheek at all, and I think it was fucking brilliant, in the running for best post ever.
July 9, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, I'm not sure if this was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, serious or somewhere-in-between.
Either way - analyzing sports is obviously not your calling; go back to what you do best.
July 9, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
my man!
July 9, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
Great post! Soccer has so much potential as a great sport with simply some minor rule changes. Americanize the game, if that's what we must call it, but let's do it, at least in our league.
1) Instant replay on all off-sides and penalty kick calls. Instant replay on other calls based on a limited number of protests each team is allowed. Hopefully these will reveal and diminish the ridiculous amount of diving in the sport.
2) Players booted for a limited amount of time instead of the rest of the entire game (take this from ice hockey). Second yellow gets you 10 minutes out. 3rd yellow you're off for 30.
3) Loosen the offsides rule a little so it is called less often.
4) Widen the goal mouth till there's an average of 6 or 7 goals a game.
5) Allow freer substitution, four or five subs a game and one guy allowed on and off. Allow extra subs in o.t.
6) 4 quarters of 24 minutes each. This is to increase revenues with a few more commercials, and what does it hurt? Not much.
I'm a big fan of the game, but MY GAWD the defensive style can be boring sometimes. The cool thing about my American perspective and yours is that we aren't tied down by the deep traditionalism of the game in other nations, where it is treated as a religion.
Hey, this was more fun than writing about politics!
July 9, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
zzzzz
July 9, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just to be a contrarian, I enjoyed the game. I don't watch soccer to compare it to something else. It is what it is. And, it is an exciting sport. It is true that the officiating is absurd, but not because of off sides calls - those are not called by the main official, but by a sideline official. And, corner kicks are one of the most exciting parts of the game. I can remember too well years ago when World Cup games were sometimes just kicking the ball back to ones own goal keeper, then around a couple of times and back again to the goal keeper. Back then it was an exception to see a team actually try to score. Most teams just played for a tie.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 9, 2006 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I like soccer - a lot. But this was funny.
It is true that soccer does have certain rules and traditions that seem bizarre by the standards of not just American sports, but almost all other sports in the world.
You have already mentioned the strange continuous manner of timekeeping, the minimalist refereeing, the odd treatment of injuries and the highly constraining substitution rules.
I would also add the unique offsides rule. In most sports, if they even have an offside rule or something similar, the rule is based on stable features of the court of field of play. Soccer is unique in allowing the defense to dictate a moving offsides line. It's as if the offense is required to allow the defense to successfully defend it. I would disagree with you that scoring is limited by the large number of defenders packed into the penalty area. More often the offsides rule and a four-man back line do the job.
But all this said, I do enjoy watching soccer. And so do a couple billion more people in the world. So rather than assume the minority who don't like it are the ones who "get it" and who undertand what makes a sport "sporting"; and rather than assume the other two billion are idiots, I prefer to look for the reasons why the sport has so many fans, and why so many of those fans are insanely devoted to the sport. What grips them? What grips me? Perhaps if one could identify the attraction, and communicate it, others who are non-fans could come to at least have some respect and understanding for those who are fans - even if they are not won over.
In any earlier post, I used the example of boxing. Soccer is a sort of team boxing. In boxing there are no substitutions. There are breaks between rounds, but the fight itself is so grueling that the breaks barely allow the contestants to catch their breath - literally. Fights frequently drag on with spent, arm-weary opponents struggling on the brink of exhaustion. At that point, the fight is not "exciting", but it is quite absorbing. The referee plays a similar role in boxing and soccer. There are also usually only one or two knockdowns in a 15 round fight, sometimes none - like goals in soccer. Occasionally a knockout comes very late in an even fight (similar to Italy's "final round" knockout of Germany in the semis.) Sometimes a fighter's strategy is precisely to drain his opponent gradually, out-endure him, and then achieve that late knockout - and surely the Italians knew they had the advantage in a PK sitution, with Buffon vs. Barthiez.
But often fights are decided in a less decisive manner. Real fans of boxing don't automatically say a fight was a bad fight if there is no knockout or knockdowns, and the fight is decided on rounds and points. They enjoy the overall quality of the struggle itself, not just the dramatic punctuation marks. Fans of the sport often register lusty appreciation at just seeing the opponents remain standing to the end.
We could also say that soccer like boxing is mainly focussed on defense. It is about not fucking up. The best teams and boxers are often those who have no defensive holes, make few defensive mistakes, and outlast opponents. In boxing this is especially true in the lighter weight classes.
Chess presents a similar experience. Novice chess players launch all sorts of stupid early attacks. But the better you get, the more you focus on controlling space, protecting each piece with other pieces, and gradually prevailing by attrition and improved overall board position.
In appreciating soccer, it may help to accomplish a sort of Gestalt switch - a figure/ground switch. Think of a goal not so much as an achievement for the offense, but as a failure for the defense - a sort of hole or blotch on an otherwise perfectly constructed defensive masterpiece. Don't think of the goals as the main events taking place on an empty uneventful ground. Think of each thwarted runs as the "scores" or achievements. If you watch the game in this way, it does become more gripping. The individual defensive successes are individually beautiful, and part of a beautiful strategic pattern. There is something interesting happening in each moment. Or think of martial arts or fencing. The most entertaining martial arts and fencing exhibitions are those in which each blow is parried and turned into a counter-blow, which is in turn parried, in a continuous pattern.
Unfortunately soccer is only imperfectly captured by television. Standard television coverage is very good at the global view of the game - seeing it from a distance in terms of positioning and development - but it isn't so consistently good at the local, close-up view. Many times a play that looked mundane when seen from a distance turns out to involve some amazing exercise of skill when replayed up close. These world class palyers have amazing trapping, tackling and dribbling skills, and often a phenomenal first touch. Having played the game, and knowing how hard certain things are to execute, it is breathtaking to see someone head a ball accurately to the foot of a teammate off of a towering 80-yard drop kick - to take one example.
Finally, although I know people who dislike soccer hate to hear fans go on about the "beautiful game", but you really do have to try to watch soccer with an artistic eye. If you think sport is essentially a contest, and a constest only, you lose half of what makes soccer enjoyable to watch. For example, if you watched a skilled performance by a juggler, you wouldn't think that it was a failure because the juggler failed to win some juggling competition, or thouw a pin through some hoop or net. The flowing and adjusting patterns on the field, the quick and creative movements of the ball, the beguiling music of changes of pace and direction, and the dazzling individual displays all contribute to the overall experience. Even if the players weren't trying to achieve anything but the creation of beauty, it would still often be well worth watching. The art is the whole point, since the game is purpose-driven, but it is an essential element. In the best games, the beauty and the pitched competition all come together in a wonderful fusion.
But, I won't try to argue that today's game was either an artistic success or a compelling competitive drama. The teams were older than average, and seemingly exhausted by a long tournament played in hot and humid conditions. They were spent, and it showed. And the pace and flow of the game was further interrupted by injuries. It was perhaps one game too many for these two aging teams. The Germany-Italy semifinal was a wonderful game - but not today's.
July 9, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So rather than assume the minority who don't like it are the ones who "get it" and who undertand what makes a sport "sporting"; and rather than assume the other two billion are idiots...
That's not what I was doing, and I don't think that was the case with Reed either. In my post I said the US league, the MLS, should try my suggestions as a kind of demonstration project, not the whole world.
I think Reed and I are expressing the frustration with the game of a US audience unbound by much of the world's traditionalist devotion to keeping it the same forever. (Although foreigners I talk to about soccer don't seem much less frustrated with the sport's dead obvious problems and nearly as obvious solutions.)
My hope is that rule changes in the MLS would pressure FIFA and other countries' leagues in the same way the ABA pressured the NBA to adopt some of its innovations (and not adopt others). If fans say, "Hey, that rule makes the game better," after checking out the MLS, this might push the traditonalists who control the game to let go a bit.
By the way, I believe FIFA disallows leagues from implementing any rule innovations. I think it's really just that organization that has the fear of experimentation and change problem.
July 9, 2006 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a big soccer fan and some of the suggestions for adding more offense to the game are OK with me. Some.
But, if you want to destroy the game completely then by all means add instant replay.
It is the one thing that will destroy the flow of a game, any game. Just try watching "American" football. Instant replay will cause the game to stop for minutes on end while the referee sticks his head under a hood to watch slow motion replays from multiple angles to try to decide if a catch was good or a knee was down. He's got a time limit. At least I see a clock counting down on the TV screen. But I've never seen anything happen when the time expires. (Oh, wait. Maybe it's stoppage time like in soccer!) And after that they sometimes STILL get it wrong!
Put more officials on the field if one can't see everything. But please don't use instant replay. Please.
July 9, 2006 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the American view of soccer was best summed up by a Johnny Carson joke
(quoting sources so I am not caught in the Ann Coulter trap)
"How is it that in basketball where you have a small basketball several feet of the floor teams can score 100 points, but in soccer where the goal is several feet wide an on the ground, teams only score 1 or 2 points?"
That being said, Europeans may have the last laugh as they become a dominant force in the NBA.
July 10, 2006 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll see your 5 z's and raise you 5 -- zzzzzzzzzz.
July 10, 2006 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely! Thank you for pointing out all of the nuances that Reed missed. The "truly Super Bowl"? Give me a break. Reed, if you find it that soporific, I can't believe you kept watching.
Reed's point about the Italians winning 2 to 0 is well-taken though, even if they were outplayed by the French for 75% of the game.
July 10, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is to increase revenues with a few more commercials, and what does it hurt? Not much.
Yah right, but give it a couple of years and it would become the 5-hour infomercial that the Stupid Bowl is.
July 10, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that just like an American. "I'll play your silly little game. Just let me make the rules."
July 10, 2006 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up: it's a game, and nobody owns it. If messing with it entertains Americans better, let us do it in our own league.
July 10, 2006 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are few Americans who should never comment on soccer in a public forum (which includes the horrendous ESPN commentary, which contibutes to the overall problem.) Mocking something one clearly does not understand only makes the mocker look foolish. Even toungue in cheek, the post is just horrendous.
Reed knows goals do not equal excitement. If you didn't like the GER-ITA semifinal (0-0 after 110 mins), then you're beyond help. Or is a 1-0 extra innings playoff game boring as well? Nor were the Pistons the most boring team to watch the past few years.
Also, if you cite the NBA playoffs as a prime example of what it means to be "sporting," when fans could predict the outcomes based on the referees, then the "sporting" clearly is shorthand for "sports I like."
PKs are, however, the dumbest way possible to decide any match.
July 10, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well the ROW adopted pretty much the same attitide toward basketball, which Americans invented, and the international rules for basketball are now quite different from those used in the NBA or NCAA. So fair is fair.
However, I don't know that changing the rules will have much of an effect on the popularity of the sport, and doubt the realism of the ABA/NBA analogy. I can't see lots of people from around the world tuning into to watch a hip new-rules MSL - not when they can watch a lot of better players in the English, Spanish, German and Italian leagues. The ABA hit it big when interest in the NBA was waning, but the big global soccer leagues seem as popular as ever.
Nor to I think American players want their chances of succeeding in the global game impaired by playing under a bunch of novel rules in America. They are already at enough of a handicap.
July 10, 2006 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I think this is the dumbest, most condescending post I've ever read on TPMCafe.
July 10, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you are not a golfer.
July 10, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Team USA didn't do so well, so clearly there has to be something wrong with soccer, right?
If the post was supposed to be funny, the execution was fantastically poor. If it was supposed to be serious, I don't know what to say. The whole point of a red card is to send a player off so that one side is considerably weakened. Yes, football is an endurance sport, which means that players have to last 90 mins and getting doped on steroids won't do them much good.
If you don't like football, don't watch it...
July 10, 2006 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Reed you're so right. During the final minutes of Regulation, OT, and then the final PK, I kept wondering why the hell they couldn't just stop the action for several minutes at a time so we could all watch a decent car, deodorent, or beer commercial. But no, they had to keep right on playing.
Jeeze, what's up with these rubes anyway? Don't they know that there are vital commercial messages we all need to see RIGHT NOW?
-Dave Adams-
July 10, 2006 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't criticize what you don't understand." -Dylan & Elvis
July 10, 2006 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a huge sports nut who believes baseball is the greatest game ever devised. In no other sport is their such a unique, nuanced conglomeration of skill, strategy, and athletic ability. Sure, soccer, football, hockey, and basketball all require more athletic ability but they do not even compare to the finesse and strategy of baseball; much less its pure aesthetic beauty. Watch the Ken Burns documentary "Baseball" if you need any more proof.
I will say that I respect soccer, but I certainly don't have to like it...
July 10, 2006 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought baseball was one of the most bizarre and boring sports -- then again, I'd never even think of suggesting that it has to be changed in order to suit my tastes; I simply ignore it. That way, everyone is happy.
July 10, 2006 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, thanks to the miracle of computers, you could see that a lot of the offsides calls were correct. Your proposed change would slow down the game considerably.
As for card fouls, it took a long time for the current system to become established. It was after a referee was inspired by a streetlight that it was invented. Before that, players would pretend not to hear sometimes to the point of absurdity. Adding penalty minutes seems fair, but you might even see players abusing this, drawing a foul to go take a breather.
The current version of the offsides rule has the advantage that even I understand it. It has transformed the game into one with more movement in comparison to earlier variations.
The size of the goal is pretty much sacrosanct. making it any wider would mean that a penalty shot would be a farce. Even the best keepers can barely reach the sides.
As far as using quarters versus halves, or even an exact clock, I think you'll find that part of the attreaction of soccer is the way the clock puts more pressure on the players, how you have no "bathroom breaks". If the clock were stopped for each foul, players would foul more often when behind to keep the clock from running out. More than any other team sport, soccer is an endurance game, for fans as well as players.
Er. It seems I've rambled a bit.
By the way, I used to feel the same. But after a while you realise the serious repercussions these changes would have. Players in a league that used these rules would get slaughtered in FIFA competition.
July 11, 2006 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem here is that the Americans were rather late in setting standards, and to this day there are different rules for high school basketball, college basketball and professional basketball. Hell, when I was in high school they even had different rules for the girls. Is it any wonder the international/olympic rules are another set entirely, down to the court size?
July 11, 2006 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Of all the countries in the world, we have the least "creds" to suggest rule changes in soccer!
I'll bet that if a woman had bared BOTH her breasts during a break, the World Cup community would have thought it great sport rather than screaming that their little kiddies were damaged for life!
Jan Knaus
July 11, 2006 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind that things can be bogged down in the other direction, too. Basketball is a deluge of scoring, which often overshadows the incredible athleticism of athletes dribbling and defending. How often do you see the camera zoom in on someone's great head fake or a great defensive response to that head fake? In the NBA, players don't even bother with defense until a couple rounds into the playoffs. The game is plagued by hour-long stints of commercials followed by 50 seconds of clock time, because the rules encourage using up all of ones fouls over sportsmanlike competition through to the end.
One of the great side effects of soccer's adherence to tradition is that it has essentially kept the game center stage and the commercials in the supporting role, which is as things ought to be. And the fact that excessive fouling deeply penalizes the team keeps at least some spirit of sportsmanship. Those elements are worth protecting.
I think Reed and other commenters are spot-on that the off-sides rule should be amended to something like a static line, two or three refs to distinguish fouls from dives (really, just bring the linemen in and let them call fouls, but PUHLEASE no instant replay) and the bizarre ban on substitutions needs to be reconsidered, but the game doesn't need to be made into football or basketball just cause that's what we know in this country.
July 11, 2006 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
pitch-heads, read slowly and pay careful attention: we GET it, we just don't LIKE it! it is possible to UNDERSTAND how a game is played yet still think it stinks on wheat.
your supposedly enlightened sport features little scoring, tired slogging players (because of limited subs), nonsensical offsides rules, missed calls, more flops than the world series of poker, and throngs of fans that are insufferable snobs and/or racist thugs.
i GET it...i just think it's dull, boring, bizarre, and far inferior to american sports.
July 12, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink