It exists in Canada as well. I grew up making fun of soccer and soccer players since I was a kid. We play men's sports up here (hockey) so we make fun of effeminate soccer players and their gay sport. It's not that complicated really.
American Soccer Hate is a unique brand of idiocy that doesnt exist in relative terms anywhere else in the world. That is to say, you wont find a bunch of guys sitting in a pub over in Manchester talking about how much American Football sucks.
I don't know why it exists and I can't explain it.
It exists in Canada as well. I grew up making fun of soccer and soccer players since I was a kid. We play men's sports up here (hockey) so we make fun of effeminate soccer players and their gay sport. It's not that complicated really.
American Soccer Hate is a unique brand of idiocy that doesnt exist in relative terms anywhere else in the world. That is to say, you wont find a bunch of guys sitting in a pub over in Manchester talking about how much American Football sucks.
I don't know why it exists and I can't explain it.
There are no breaks in play except for substitutions, goals, and injuries. Those are the only things for which time is added on.I thought there were no breaks in the action in soccer? Wasn't that your first argument against replay?
It's a proper noun and is therefore capitalized in the English language. Sorry that the rules of the English language are so offensive to you.And stop Capitalizing Laws of the Game, it doesn't make the rules any more important that the rules for rugby, football, baseball, basketball, hockey, polo, cricket, chess, or checkers.
Because the half/game is allowed to continue during an offensive run by either team. Anyone with experience can tell you when the game is going to be whistled and how much time is going to be added on - this has not been contentious in any game thus far in the entire World Cup. Sorry that you can't wrap your head around such a simple timing system. Do you really think the timing system in the NBA, NFL, or NHL is any better? If so, you should read a bit on human factors engineering so you could learn how absurd and arbitrary it is that they track time to the tenth of a second, making your method of timekeeping even more ridiculous than that employed in soccer.The fact is that the current rules of soccer are structured to cater to the easiest and cheapest way to run a match rather than the most fair way possible with adjustments to the officiating and/or utilizing modern technology.
I'll give you simple example. If the 4th official is keeping time, or even the referee is keeping time, why the fuck can't the scoreboard clock be linked to their watch? eh? Then when there's a card, or a (fake) injury, or other stoppage, the ref can just go beep. stop the clock while he deals with the situation. then beep. start the clock on his whistle to resume play. meanwhile the players, the spectators, the announcers, the TV viewers are all informed that yes, because of that yellow card, only 32 minutes 22 seconds has elapsed instead of 33 minutes 41 seconds.
Its fucking ridiculous that the scoreboard doesn't show the actual game time in a multi-billion dollar tournament like the World Cup. (It's also retarded for the game clock to show how much time has elapsed instead of how much time remains, but that is another issue I'll discuss another day).
But beyond not knowing how much time exactly is left, clock management is worthless in soccer because the refs tend to let a trailing team fuck around a bit to get their last chance shot in, even if the game should have really ended 30 seconds ago.
Can you imagine the refs letting an NBA game carry on another 15 seconds so the Lakers can set Kobe up for a better game tying/winning shot? rofl.
A lot of things are legacy rules that are being updated, a lot of things are human error, and a lot of things are in place to encourage creativity. FIFA tries to make the game uniform across all age levels by applying the same rules for everyone, but the rules get interpreted differently in many cases. They try to solve this by issuing new official interpretations every year rather than rewording the Law. I'm not sure that this is the best solution, but I'm not sure it's not either. The reason soccer appeals to so many people is that the game has relatively few rules, most of the rules are simple, and the rest is left up to the players to decide the outcome. I think FIFA is trying to maintain that spirit even at the expense of 100% accuracy. This might not be the best approach, but as I mentioned previously, it hasn't influenced the outcome of the tournament to any degree... yet.soccer is really cool and really fun to watch in a lot of ways but its also got some completely retarded elements that are just so blatant they really diminish what the game could be.
In principle, I agree. However, it's not practical in soccer because it's not really possible to overrule a bad call in soccer since the clock keeps running, a quick restart is often made, and the advantage is lost as soon as the whistle is blown. For the purposes of carding, diving, et cetera, the assistants and fourth official do have input - that's why all of them are wearing headsets so they can communicate with the center ref and each other to try to get these things right. They don't seem to be using them much in this World Cup, unfortunately, but it's there and it's already in the rules.--football (US) does have 3 refs. There is one head official, essentially responsible for reporting the calls on the field and reviewing challenges. ALl 3 have equal power to make any call, however, and can instantly overrule another official on a play if they have a better angle. They don't even debate being overruled, as they each of the same power, trusting that the ref overruling the other is right. And they are, maybe 98% of the time. It's crazy how accurate they are on making calls.
I agree, and the rules explicitly tell refs to issue cards for time-wasting. Unfortunately, I have only seen one so far in the entire World Cup. Ghana should have had about four against the US.--stalling in football (US) is about specific clock management. Yes, stalling exists everywhere, I don't think anyone debates this, but the tactic is essentially established within the rules that are in place (having a set clock, with timeouts, and real strategic clock management).
I wouldn't argue for imposing a clock-management style system for soccer of course, but in games like basketball and US football, taking a knee or dribbling out is a strategy only available after successfully managing the clock throughout the 2nd half. sitting on the ground to wind the clock down, after not being hit, doesn't strike as "a part of the game."
The problem is that people don't understand that which sport is better is purely a matter of opinion.People don't hate soccer, you're overreacting. There are simply better sports in the country, if anything people are apathetic toward soccer.
The problem is that people don't understand that which sport is better is purely a matter of opinion.
There are no breaks in play except for substitutions, goals, and injuries. Those are the only things for which time is added on.
The problem is that people don't understand that which sport is better is purely a matter of opinion.
Not really. If ranking athletic difficulty, soccer is lower on the list than ice hockey, football, basketball, and baseball in that order.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills
Better can be quantified although it's splitting hairs because any of those sports in the top 10 are dam hard to play on a professional level.
When would you do the goal reviews? Obviously the time could be added on - no one ever said it couldn't be. This is the sort of strawman I'd expect in P&N.So if "substitutions, goals, and injuries" was changed to "substitutions, goals, injuries, and goal reviews" then the Laws of the Game (lol) that bind the universe together would become invalid and we would all cease to exist? If that's the case, then fine. Otherwise it's just sentimental garbage. If people would just admit that, instead of trying to conjure up faux-logical reasons for never changing the rules, then I wouldn't have a problem.
Make the reviewer another qualified center ref. Hockey changed to two refs without the world exploding.
How can "better" be quantified? Even metrics of difficulty are questionable at best, but it's absolutely ridiculous to equate difficulty with how good a sport is. If that were the case, then attempting to cross a busy interstate on foot would probably be the best sport around.Not really. If ranking athletic difficulty, soccer is lower on the list than ice hockey, football, basketball, and baseball in that order.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills
Better can be quantified although it's splitting hairs because any of those sports in the top 10 are dam hard to play on a professional level.
How can "better" be quantified? Even metrics of difficulty are questionable at best, but it's absolutely ridiculous to equate difficulty with how good a sport is. If that were the case, then attempting to cross a busy interstate on foot would probably be the best sport around.
Correction: you don't possess the qualifications of that panel. But that makes no difference to the argument, as it is clearly specious to suggest that difficulty is in any way related to the "better-ness" of a sport.It was done by a panel of 8 ESPN industry experts so while it's still an opinion it's something quantifiable. E.g. Would you take the advice of 8 doctors on whether your symptoms = XYZ sickness, or the opinion of ATOT posters? If the president was ill, should he take the advice of the presidential doctor or an ATOT poster? Who is more qualified to opine on the matter is what is comes down to. You and I do not possess the qualifications of that panel: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=degree/bios
WTF?No forward passing = fail
Helmets = failNo two guys running at 20 MPH colliding (because they'd kill each other) = fail
Obviously you lack quality discernment capabilities.Other than that it's pretty good. 10x better than soccer but so is table tennis.
When would you do the goal reviews?
Then I could simply throw the challenge flag when the other team has a breakaway and kill their advantage. A goal is easily worth losing a substitution.Have a type of challenge system along the lines of the NFL, 2 per game, no more (NFL has 2 and if you win both challenges then you get a 3rd). If you lose a challenge you lose a substitution.
As soon as the challenge flag goes down play is halted for two minutes (added in stoppage time) while it goes directly to a booth and then the call is relayed to the ref. This can be done in 1 minute in some cases.
There would need to be specifications to when a challenge flag can be thrown, like on a questionable goal.
Correction: you don't possess the qualifications of that panel. But that makes no difference to the argument, as it is clearly specious to suggest that difficulty is in any way related to the "better-ness" of a sport.
Then I could simply throw the challenge flag when the other team has a breakaway and kill their advantage. A goal is easily worth losing a substitution.
Adrenaline said:There would need to be specifications to when a challenge flag can be thrown, like on a questionable goal.
Then I could simply throw the challenge flag when the other team has a breakaway and kill their advantage. A goal is easily worth losing a substitution.
That's how *real* injuries occur.3) Not sure if the OP mentioned it, but shootouts are fcking lame. This includes regular season hockey. There is no place for a shootout in sports, the game should go on indefinitely until the team with less stamina gives in.
1) I have a PhD in engineering with specialization in biomechanics and am a former NCAA D1 athlete. But why does that matter? They didn't even give any statistical analysis in this "quantifiable" opinion survey, so there is no way to see by how much the experts disagreed in their assessments. Thus, the article is simply another fluff piece which can be used by the ignorant to bolster their opinions with "facts" which are nothing more than a collection of someone else's opinions.1) What are your sporting qualifications... pHD in sports science? Pro athlete? Major sports columnist, ESPN anchor, or Olympic comittee member? If not, you are not >= their qualifications.
2) Difficulty of a sport that has been quantified = 1 area that a sport is "better". Of course there are many other areas where US soccer fails as well, such as marketing/fiscal value/superstardom but that's not what we're discussing.
3) Not sure if the OP mentioned it, but shootouts are fcking lame. This includes regular season hockey. There is no place for a shootout in sports, the game should go on indefinitely until the team with less stamina gives in.
It exists in Canada as well. I grew up making fun of soccer and soccer players since I was a kid. We play men's sports up here (hockey) so we make fun of effeminate soccer players and their gay sport. It's not that complicated really.