How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams?
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams?
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
Sorry I meant to get back to you on that post. I understand where you are coming from and thank you for your examples. You did a good job of explaining your point.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
Sorry I meant to get back to you on that post. I understand where you are coming from and thank you for your examples. You did a good job of explaining your point.
You realize of course this rule has been tweaked on occasion. As recently as 1990? to aid offense?
I do realize this. I also realize this tweaking of the rule cost Netherlands a shot at beating Brazil in the '94 World Cup. However, tweaking the rule and eliminating it all together, as is the OP's argument are two completely different things. In fact, the tweaking of the rule only applies to players that aren't involved in the direct play. Eliminating the rule altogether would completely change the structure of play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpIam1hf09Q (See 1:25 for the play)
This is a pretty good example of the tweaking of the rule (not calling a player offside because he isn't involved in the play, despite being in an offside position) and what could happen if the rule were eliminated altogether. I do think Romario or Bebeto, or even both, would just hang outside the 18 yard box and cherry pick goals.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
You realize of course this rule has been tweaked on occasion. As recently as 1990? to aid offense?
I do realize this. I also realize this tweaking of the rule cost Netherlands a shot at beating Brazil in the '94 World Cup. However, tweaking the rule and eliminating it all together, as is the OP's argument are two completely different things. In fact, the tweaking of the rule only applies to players that aren't involved in the direct play. Eliminating the rule altogether would completely change the structure of play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpIam1hf09Q (See 1:25 for the play)
This is a pretty good example of the tweaking of the rule (not calling a player offside because he isn't involved in the play, despite being in an offside position) and what could happen if the rule were eliminated altogether. I do think Romario or Bebeto, or even both, would just hang outside the 18 yard box and cherry pick goals.
Somewhat---but could be tweaked---in CFL WRs can get running start, etc.
Also, soccer every play does not start at a set line of scrimmage, it is constant, flowing action
Thoughts?
I think there is a difference between getting a running start to the line of scrimmage, as is in the CFL, and starting the play 40 yards beyond the line of scrimmage.
The second to last defender or the midfield line could be considered the line of scrimmage for comparisons sake.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Somewhat---but could be tweaked---in CFL WRs can get running start, etc.
Also, soccer every play does not start at a set line of scrimmage, it is constant, flowing action
Thoughts?
I think there is a difference between getting a running start to the line of scrimmage, as is in the CFL, and starting the play 40 yards beyond the line of scrimmage.
The second to last defender or the midfield line could be considered the line of scrimmage for comparisons sake.
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
Do I think soccer will eliminate the offside rule? No, I see no reason to make such a significant change to the worlds most popular game, because a few people in America think it slows the game down. Nor do I think the offsides rule will keep soccer from growing in America, as is the OP's claim.
Soccer is growing, despite the OP's claims it isn't, and will most likely continue to grow with the increase in immigration to America, concussions in football, the rising of the median age of fans in baseball, and major tv networks regularly showing European games, among other reasons. I don't see significant rule changes being needed to grow the game of soccer in America.
If there is any part of the game that needs attention, it is the diving/flopping aspect that needs to be addressed.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
I hope I explained what I meant by this well enough since I did not see a follow up. But there are places online to read about how these tactics came about because of rule changes and developed over time. My question to you is do you think something like this could/would happen to soccer over time? I understand that EVERYONE just adores it the way it is. But does that mean we have to be inflexible on everything.
Do I think soccer will eliminate the offside rule? No, I see no reason to make such a significant change to the worlds most popular game, because a few people in America think it slows the game down. Nor do I think the offsides rule will keep soccer from growing in America, as is the OP's claim.
Soccer is growing, despite the OP's claims it isn't, and will most likely continue to grow with the increase in immigration to America, concussions in football, the rising of the median age of fans in baseball, and major tv networks regularly showing European games, among other reasons. I don't see significant rule changes being needed to grow the game of soccer in America.
If there is any part of the game that needs attention, it is the diving/flopping aspect that needs to be addressed.
Do you mean first thing on national teams for trap or when kids start playing soccer?
If you mean youth, sorry but you are dead wrong. Ive coached HS for 4 years and between both our jk and varsity teams I've seen about 2-3 schools that even do the trap (and they do it well).
Why am I saying you are wrong? Well like someone else said...most defenses are working on other skills like positioning, ball skills etc. It also takes a talented back line to perfect the trap as well as a group that has great chemistry. Also at the high school level most teams (girls at least) don't even play a flat back. Playing in a diamond is harder on the trap. More boys go flat 4 than girls. And beating a trap is not as hard as you think.
1. Midfielders need to dribble more 2. Through balls 3. Long balls to the corner 4. Quick give and go's
You seem to act as if it is killing the game. If you play it well you will lose a few opportunities but you will gain some as well.
0
Sportsfan...
Do you mean first thing on national teams for trap or when kids start playing soccer?
If you mean youth, sorry but you are dead wrong. Ive coached HS for 4 years and between both our jk and varsity teams I've seen about 2-3 schools that even do the trap (and they do it well).
Why am I saying you are wrong? Well like someone else said...most defenses are working on other skills like positioning, ball skills etc. It also takes a talented back line to perfect the trap as well as a group that has great chemistry. Also at the high school level most teams (girls at least) don't even play a flat back. Playing in a diamond is harder on the trap. More boys go flat 4 than girls. And beating a trap is not as hard as you think.
1. Midfielders need to dribble more 2. Through balls 3. Long balls to the corner 4. Quick give and go's
You seem to act as if it is killing the game. If you play it well you will lose a few opportunities but you will gain some as well.
I can only speak to my experience... when I was playing HS soccer we practiced and utilized the OS trap, and our competition in our region did as well.
I was a goalkeeper, and I HATED the rule and the strategy of the OS trap. Of course if you whiff on the trap, it is a clear fast break to the goal. Goal keepers don't care for that too much.
It is not about me. I thought the rule was inorganic and led to silly strategies that tried to force the refs to help you out. I just think athleticism should rule, not an arbitrary line, and HOPING the ref would call it correctly.
0
I can only speak to my experience... when I was playing HS soccer we practiced and utilized the OS trap, and our competition in our region did as well.
I was a goalkeeper, and I HATED the rule and the strategy of the OS trap. Of course if you whiff on the trap, it is a clear fast break to the goal. Goal keepers don't care for that too much.
It is not about me. I thought the rule was inorganic and led to silly strategies that tried to force the refs to help you out. I just think athleticism should rule, not an arbitrary line, and HOPING the ref would call it correctly.
But you said it was the first thing they learned. That is definitely not the case. It takes a cohesive unit to pull off a trap with legit success. It is much harder to perfect than I think an average person thinks...it is not unfair at all in my eyes. It can be beaten and when it is beaten it blows up in your face
0
But you said it was the first thing they learned. That is definitely not the case. It takes a cohesive unit to pull off a trap with legit success. It is much harder to perfect than I think an average person thinks...it is not unfair at all in my eyes. It can be beaten and when it is beaten it blows up in your face
I can only speak to my experience... when I was playing HS soccer we practiced and utilized the OS trap, and our competition in our region did as well.
I was a goalkeeper, and I HATED the rule and the strategy of the OS trap. Of course if you whiff on the trap, it is a clear fast break to the goal. Goal keepers don't care for that too much.
It is not about me. I thought the rule was inorganic and led to silly strategies that tried to force the refs to help you out. I just think athleticism should rule, not an arbitrary line, and HOPING the ref would call it correctly.
I'm not quite sure how the rule is "inorganic". Maybe you could explain that a little further?
Strategy is a part of teams sports. I can't think of any team sports where athleticism completely rules all. Lebron, who is probably the best athlete in the NBA, didn't win a title this year. If you're looking for true athleticism ruling all then maybe you should watch track and field.
I understand that you don't like the offsides rule. However, your not liking it does nothing to support your argument that it's hindering the growth of soccer in America.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
I can only speak to my experience... when I was playing HS soccer we practiced and utilized the OS trap, and our competition in our region did as well.
I was a goalkeeper, and I HATED the rule and the strategy of the OS trap. Of course if you whiff on the trap, it is a clear fast break to the goal. Goal keepers don't care for that too much.
It is not about me. I thought the rule was inorganic and led to silly strategies that tried to force the refs to help you out. I just think athleticism should rule, not an arbitrary line, and HOPING the ref would call it correctly.
I'm not quite sure how the rule is "inorganic". Maybe you could explain that a little further?
Strategy is a part of teams sports. I can't think of any team sports where athleticism completely rules all. Lebron, who is probably the best athlete in the NBA, didn't win a title this year. If you're looking for true athleticism ruling all then maybe you should watch track and field.
I understand that you don't like the offsides rule. However, your not liking it does nothing to support your argument that it's hindering the growth of soccer in America.
Do you mean first thing on national teams for trap or when kids start playing soccer?
If you mean youth, sorry but you are dead wrong. Ive coached HS for 4 years and between both our jk and varsity teams I've seen about 2-3 schools that even do the trap (and they do it well).
Why am I saying you are wrong? Well like someone else said...most defenses are working on other skills like positioning, ball skills etc. It also takes a talented back line to perfect the trap as well as a group that has great chemistry. Also at the high school level most teams (girls at least) don't even play a flat back. Playing in a diamond is harder on the trap. More boys go flat 4 than girls. And beating a trap is not as hard as you think.
1. Midfielders need to dribble more 2. Through balls 3. Long balls to the corner 4. Quick give and go's
You seem to act as if it is killing the game. If you play it well you will lose a few opportunities but you will gain some as well.
You can also add some diagonal passes and diagonal runs to help beat a trap as well. There are several ways to beat a trap.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
Sportsfan...
Do you mean first thing on national teams for trap or when kids start playing soccer?
If you mean youth, sorry but you are dead wrong. Ive coached HS for 4 years and between both our jk and varsity teams I've seen about 2-3 schools that even do the trap (and they do it well).
Why am I saying you are wrong? Well like someone else said...most defenses are working on other skills like positioning, ball skills etc. It also takes a talented back line to perfect the trap as well as a group that has great chemistry. Also at the high school level most teams (girls at least) don't even play a flat back. Playing in a diamond is harder on the trap. More boys go flat 4 than girls. And beating a trap is not as hard as you think.
1. Midfielders need to dribble more 2. Through balls 3. Long balls to the corner 4. Quick give and go's
You seem to act as if it is killing the game. If you play it well you will lose a few opportunities but you will gain some as well.
You can also add some diagonal passes and diagonal runs to help beat a trap as well. There are several ways to beat a trap.
Do I think soccer will eliminate the offside rule? No, I see no reason to make such a significant change to the worlds most popular game, because a few people in America think it slows the game down. Nor do I think the offsides rule will keep soccer from growing in America, as is the OP's claim.
Soccer is growing, despite the OP's claims it isn't, and will most likely continue to grow with the increase in immigration to America, concussions in football, the rising of the median age of fans in baseball, and major tv networks regularly showing European games, among other reasons. I don't see significant rule changes being needed to grow the game of soccer in America.
If there is any part of the game that needs attention, it is the diving/flopping aspect that needs to be addressed.
Gotcha I agree it is growing---There are some good rivalries developing in MLS even---but I do think it would grow more and be more attractive in U.S. if it was more open.
Why do you think that is the only sport that the rest of the world is so avid about? They have been exposed to some of the others that U.S. enjoys but none seem to take off. But U.S. seems to like more physical, faster sports and soccer has been slow to take off. Of course, if our best athletes only had soccer to choose from we would be a force. But soccer is way too diluted here.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Do I think soccer will eliminate the offside rule? No, I see no reason to make such a significant change to the worlds most popular game, because a few people in America think it slows the game down. Nor do I think the offsides rule will keep soccer from growing in America, as is the OP's claim.
Soccer is growing, despite the OP's claims it isn't, and will most likely continue to grow with the increase in immigration to America, concussions in football, the rising of the median age of fans in baseball, and major tv networks regularly showing European games, among other reasons. I don't see significant rule changes being needed to grow the game of soccer in America.
If there is any part of the game that needs attention, it is the diving/flopping aspect that needs to be addressed.
Gotcha I agree it is growing---There are some good rivalries developing in MLS even---but I do think it would grow more and be more attractive in U.S. if it was more open.
Why do you think that is the only sport that the rest of the world is so avid about? They have been exposed to some of the others that U.S. enjoys but none seem to take off. But U.S. seems to like more physical, faster sports and soccer has been slow to take off. Of course, if our best athletes only had soccer to choose from we would be a force. But soccer is way too diluted here.
Gotcha I agree it is growing---There are some good rivalries developing in MLS even---but I do think it would grow more and be more attractive in U.S. if it was more open.
Why do you think that is the only sport that the rest of the world is so avid about? They have been exposed to some of the others that U.S. enjoys but none seem to take off. But U.S. seems to like more physical, faster sports and soccer has been slow to take off. Of course, if our best athletes only had soccer to choose from we would be a force. But soccer is way too diluted here.
I don't have much time to fully answer this but I can give a quick answer right now.
I think football is huge here because of the fan involvement in it. Football has always been popular but it really exploded with the creation of fantasy and increased ways to gamble on it i.e. survivor/suicide pools, squares, etc. Plus it's only one game per week as oppose to fantasy baseball, so it's easier to follow for the average fan. Fan involvement is key to growing a sport.
I think football is slow to take off overseas because of how complicated the rules and strategies are for the average overseas fan to comprehend. The game and laws of soccer are designed so that two countries/teams that speak entirely different languages can play a game and be refereed by an individual that speaks an entirely different language than the two teams that are playing. There is no way that could ever happen in football. The game is too reliant upon language and several refereeing hand signals. That's why I think it is slow in catching on.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Gotcha I agree it is growing---There are some good rivalries developing in MLS even---but I do think it would grow more and be more attractive in U.S. if it was more open.
Why do you think that is the only sport that the rest of the world is so avid about? They have been exposed to some of the others that U.S. enjoys but none seem to take off. But U.S. seems to like more physical, faster sports and soccer has been slow to take off. Of course, if our best athletes only had soccer to choose from we would be a force. But soccer is way too diluted here.
I don't have much time to fully answer this but I can give a quick answer right now.
I think football is huge here because of the fan involvement in it. Football has always been popular but it really exploded with the creation of fantasy and increased ways to gamble on it i.e. survivor/suicide pools, squares, etc. Plus it's only one game per week as oppose to fantasy baseball, so it's easier to follow for the average fan. Fan involvement is key to growing a sport.
I think football is slow to take off overseas because of how complicated the rules and strategies are for the average overseas fan to comprehend. The game and laws of soccer are designed so that two countries/teams that speak entirely different languages can play a game and be refereed by an individual that speaks an entirely different language than the two teams that are playing. There is no way that could ever happen in football. The game is too reliant upon language and several refereeing hand signals. That's why I think it is slow in catching on.
Today's first, incredibly boring, uninspiring match is why SOCCER will NEVER EVER come close to being a major sport here in the USA...look how few scoring chances there were...unbeeleevable There was little to no excitement except for those 2 scoring chances in last 15 minutes..
I don''t recall ANY other WC game this year so unentertaining especially considering all the hype and build up..... Luckily all these games haven't been nearly as uneventful...
0
Today's first, incredibly boring, uninspiring match is why SOCCER will NEVER EVER come close to being a major sport here in the USA...look how few scoring chances there were...unbeeleevable There was little to no excitement except for those 2 scoring chances in last 15 minutes..
I don''t recall ANY other WC game this year so unentertaining especially considering all the hype and build up..... Luckily all these games haven't been nearly as uneventful...
Today's first, incredibly boring, uninspiring match is why SOCCER will NEVER EVER come close to being a major sport here in the USA...look how few scoring chances there were...unbeeleevable There was little to no excitement except for those 2 scoring chances in last 15 minutes..
I don''t recall ANY other WC game this year so unentertaining especially considering all the hype and build up..... Luckily all these games haven't been nearly as uneventful...
Once again, more opinions and zero evidence or stats to back up a claim.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Crusher13:
Today's first, incredibly boring, uninspiring match is why SOCCER will NEVER EVER come close to being a major sport here in the USA...look how few scoring chances there were...unbeeleevable There was little to no excitement except for those 2 scoring chances in last 15 minutes..
I don''t recall ANY other WC game this year so unentertaining especially considering all the hype and build up..... Luckily all these games haven't been nearly as uneventful...
Once again, more opinions and zero evidence or stats to back up a claim.
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
0
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
MLS is not 3rd in total attendance but in average per game. So, last among the bigger outdoor arenas. But it is growing.
Still not sure about why it has to be a big secret exactly when the game is gonna end. But not like a last second goal decides many games. Of course the match stops. Every time someone dives.
Yes. Can be very exciting to see lots of 'action' and no scoring. Maybe instead of keeping score with goals you could keep score by total of who has greatest moves or passes in the game. Actually, just do away with nets.
It is number one everywhere because it is the only sport most places have.
Why is doing away with offsides the worst? Just because teams might score then? It didn't kill NHL.
It is asinine and arrogant to think just because a sport has been a certain way for so long that it can't be tweaked some. It is arrogant to ignore that Americans might have some interesting ideas just because they didn't invent soccer.
Also arrogant to say well you just don't understand the game. People may understand and just not like it in its current form.
I love soccer. Just didn't like the tone of the post. Just dont like the way people in any sport or in life think change is always bad. Wouldn't mind some tweaking though.
0
MLS is not 3rd in total attendance but in average per game. So, last among the bigger outdoor arenas. But it is growing.
Still not sure about why it has to be a big secret exactly when the game is gonna end. But not like a last second goal decides many games. Of course the match stops. Every time someone dives.
Yes. Can be very exciting to see lots of 'action' and no scoring. Maybe instead of keeping score with goals you could keep score by total of who has greatest moves or passes in the game. Actually, just do away with nets.
It is number one everywhere because it is the only sport most places have.
Why is doing away with offsides the worst? Just because teams might score then? It didn't kill NHL.
It is asinine and arrogant to think just because a sport has been a certain way for so long that it can't be tweaked some. It is arrogant to ignore that Americans might have some interesting ideas just because they didn't invent soccer.
Also arrogant to say well you just don't understand the game. People may understand and just not like it in its current form.
I love soccer. Just didn't like the tone of the post. Just dont like the way people in any sport or in life think change is always bad. Wouldn't mind some tweaking though.
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
Thank you
0
Quote Originally Posted by KinKAID:
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
If an individual can't find any excitement on these World Cup matches because of the scoring issue, then maybe the sport isn't for that person. It's perfectly alright because hardly anyone likes every single sport. It's just funny that a lot of the same people would suggest "improvement" when they clearly aren't into it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KinKAID:
First of all to say The Beautiful Game needs to change just to accomodate for people in America is both asinine and arrogant. This is the number one most popular sport in the world, both modern and historically, hands down. No contest, in fact it's not even a conversation, but yet people in this country constantly feel that it needs changing and an injection of "excitement"? I say "excitement" in quotations because there's plenty of it already, you just have to fully understand the sport, and most in the US don't even have a clue, nor do they want one really.
Baseball is one of the most mundane, boring to watch, un-athletic "sports" ever created, and yet people continuously boast about it being "America's past time". Comical really, at the very least ironic.
Any rule changes that may be needed are tweaks more than anything, and the continual clock is not and never will be one of them. Why would you want the clock to stop? So you can watch beer and car ads every time there's a stoppage in play? There's a reason the clock doesn't stop and that's because the match doesn't stop. The ball going out of play is irrelevant and any injury or stoppage time is noted by the ref and added on at the end of that half. Usually no more than 5 minutes unless extreme circumstances occur. It's not a secret that's kept from anyone, and it's certainly not a way the refs are "controlling" the game.
If you want simulation (diving, flops) to stop, referees need to issue bookings for it and do it on a regular basis. Blatant ones in the penalty area are deserving of a red card for me, you know the risk going in, and therefore would be more likely to exhibit "fair play". Most infractions would likely be yellow cards though. This would immediately cut down on simulation in and around the penalty area. Increase the penalty for it and players would be less likely to try and get away with it.
Injuries/Stretchered off - This is one of the most frustrating things right now imo, even more so than simulation. If a player has to be stretchered off or even taken off the pitch, they shouldn't be able to return for at least a minute or so. Too many times you see someone barely limping off or even taken off on the stretcher, only to return to the pitch immediately. Frustrating, and I do agree that something must be done to curtail the exaggerated injury claims.
Anything else is outlandish and ignorant. As far as substitutions, I could possibly see allowing 1 extra sub if the match goes to extra time. Anything else is unnecessary. In other words football is chess, not checkers, and everything that the manager has at his disposal (tactics, formations, subs, clock management, etc, etc) goes into his strategy. An absolute perfect example of this would be Van Gaal bringing in Krul before the penalty shootout with Costa Rica.
Removing the offside rule would be one of the absolute worst things you could ever do to the game. A close second would be shortening the size of the pitch. Only skilled teams and defenses can work the offside trap like we saw with Costa Rica, if you can do it then yes it's a vital weapon to have in your arsenal, but if you get bit on it, your opponent is now in on goal 1 v 1 with the goalkeeper. Better training is needed though because far too often the referee's assistant gets it wrong, and sometimes obviously wrong.
Just because a match ends 0-0 or 1-0 doesn't mean there wasn't action, excitement and intensity. One of the hardest things in all of sport is to score a goal, that's why you see players the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Suarez, etc, etc, etc being paid absurd amounts of money by their clubs, because even after all the work has been done in the build up (and that's where the excitement stems from) you still have to put the ball in the back of the net. It's also why you see people in the stands and the broadcast booth alike going mental when it happens, because it is a huge deal. Football is not all about scoring goals though, that's just how we keep score.
As far as MLS attendance, it's now the 3rd most attended major sport in the US behind only the NFL and MLB, narrowly beating out both the NBA and NHL. Also it is the only sport who's average attendance continues to grow year after year. Also it's the 8th most attended league in the world, ranking slightly higher than the Championship division (2nd tier) of English football.
If an individual can't find any excitement on these World Cup matches because of the scoring issue, then maybe the sport isn't for that person. It's perfectly alright because hardly anyone likes every single sport. It's just funny that a lot of the same people would suggest "improvement" when they clearly aren't into it.
But its popularity is vastly overstated--only 45% of the world really cares about it, not the 95% (the world, minus the US) many people would have you believe. China and India don't even bother to compete in this sport, focusing instead on gymnastics, diving, kung fu, and urinating in the Ganges.
Also, it's popular in most of the countries because they are so poor, and soccer is the cheapest sport available--all you need is a ball. This is the same reason basketball has become so popular worldwide--all you need is a ball and a hoop.
0
But its popularity is vastly overstated--only 45% of the world really cares about it, not the 95% (the world, minus the US) many people would have you believe. China and India don't even bother to compete in this sport, focusing instead on gymnastics, diving, kung fu, and urinating in the Ganges.
Also, it's popular in most of the countries because they are so poor, and soccer is the cheapest sport available--all you need is a ball. This is the same reason basketball has become so popular worldwide--all you need is a ball and a hoop.
Regarding the professional games in Latin America and Africa, most of those in attendance don't pay much attention to the games other than championships and WC games.
Most of the people attend them as a social event. They don't have the money for movies, or bowling, or billiards. They--especially the young ones--go to the games to drink, make dates, have sex, etc.
0
Regarding the professional games in Latin America and Africa, most of those in attendance don't pay much attention to the games other than championships and WC games.
Most of the people attend them as a social event. They don't have the money for movies, or bowling, or billiards. They--especially the young ones--go to the games to drink, make dates, have sex, etc.
MLS is not 3rd in total attendance but in average per game. So, last among the bigger outdoor arenas. But it is growing.
Still not sure about why it has to be a big secret exactly when the game is gonna end. But not like a last second goal decides many games. Of course the match stops. Every time someone dives.
Yes. Can be very exciting to see lots of 'action' and no scoring. Maybe instead of keeping score with goals you could keep score by total of who has greatest moves or passes in the game. Actually, just do away with nets.
It is number one everywhere because it is the only sport most places have.
Why is doing away with offsides the worst? Just because teams might score then? It didn't kill NHL.
It is asinine and arrogant to think just because a sport has been a certain way for so long that it can't be tweaked some. It is arrogant to ignore that Americans might have some interesting ideas just because they didn't invent soccer.
Also arrogant to say well you just don't understand the game. People may understand and just not like it in its current form.
I love soccer. Just didn't like the tone of the post. Just dont like the way people in any sport or in life think change is always bad. Wouldn't mind some tweaking though.
8 goals in today's game (Germany vs. Brazil) and it really couldn't have been more boring of a match. Scoring doesn't always equal excitement. Hell, they could have scored one less and it would have been a thriller at 4-3. More exciting games have ended 0-0 in this tourney.
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
MLS is not 3rd in total attendance but in average per game. So, last among the bigger outdoor arenas. But it is growing.
Still not sure about why it has to be a big secret exactly when the game is gonna end. But not like a last second goal decides many games. Of course the match stops. Every time someone dives.
Yes. Can be very exciting to see lots of 'action' and no scoring. Maybe instead of keeping score with goals you could keep score by total of who has greatest moves or passes in the game. Actually, just do away with nets.
It is number one everywhere because it is the only sport most places have.
Why is doing away with offsides the worst? Just because teams might score then? It didn't kill NHL.
It is asinine and arrogant to think just because a sport has been a certain way for so long that it can't be tweaked some. It is arrogant to ignore that Americans might have some interesting ideas just because they didn't invent soccer.
Also arrogant to say well you just don't understand the game. People may understand and just not like it in its current form.
I love soccer. Just didn't like the tone of the post. Just dont like the way people in any sport or in life think change is always bad. Wouldn't mind some tweaking though.
8 goals in today's game (Germany vs. Brazil) and it really couldn't have been more boring of a match. Scoring doesn't always equal excitement. Hell, they could have scored one less and it would have been a thriller at 4-3. More exciting games have ended 0-0 in this tourney.
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
But its popularity is vastly overstated--only 45% of the world really cares about it, not the 95% (the world, minus the US) many people would have you believe. China and India don't even bother to compete in this sport, focusing instead on gymnastics, diving, kung fu, and urinating in the Ganges.
Also, it's popular in most of the countries because they are so poor, and soccer is the cheapest sport available--all you need is a ball. This is the same reason basketball has become so popular worldwide--all you need is a ball and a hoop.
I'd like to know where you got your 45% stat from, if you don't mind.
Also China has two professional soccer leagues and India has one and India is also partnering with the BPL to form a super league. So I actually do believe they have an interest in soccer and an interest in competing, despite a lack of success at the world level.
But its popularity is vastly overstated--only 45% of the world really cares about it, not the 95% (the world, minus the US) many people would have you believe. China and India don't even bother to compete in this sport, focusing instead on gymnastics, diving, kung fu, and urinating in the Ganges.
Also, it's popular in most of the countries because they are so poor, and soccer is the cheapest sport available--all you need is a ball. This is the same reason basketball has become so popular worldwide--all you need is a ball and a hoop.
I'd like to know where you got your 45% stat from, if you don't mind.
Also China has two professional soccer leagues and India has one and India is also partnering with the BPL to form a super league. So I actually do believe they have an interest in soccer and an interest in competing, despite a lack of success at the world level.
If an individual can't find any excitement on these World Cup matches because of the scoring issue, then maybe the sport isn't for that person. It's perfectly alright because hardly anyone likes every single sport. It's just funny that a lot of the same people would suggest "improvement" when they clearly aren't into it.
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
If an individual can't find any excitement on these World Cup matches because of the scoring issue, then maybe the sport isn't for that person. It's perfectly alright because hardly anyone likes every single sport. It's just funny that a lot of the same people would suggest "improvement" when they clearly aren't into it.
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
I agree it is growing---There are some good rivalries developing in MLS even---but I do think it would grow more and be more attractive in U.S. if it was more open. 
There was little to no excitement except for those 2 scoring chances in last 15 minutes..
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve. 
Hot Forum Topics
