Obviously just throwing the flag to stop play could not be allowed.
So what if I score, it's not called as a goal, then your team gets the ball back and scores at the other end, then I challenge the original goal? Would the second goal stand? If not, you'd have a riot on your hands, and if so you'd have a riot on your hands.Obviously the "challenge" could only be done during a dead ball time. To be thrown before the action starts again to challenge any part of the prior action.
So what if I score, it's not called as a goal, then your team gets the ball back and scores at the other end, then I challenge the original goal? Would the second goal stand? If not, you'd have a riot on your hands, and if so you'd have a riot on your hands.
I love playing soccer, it's as demanding as just about any other team sport. I can understand not enjoying watching it though. It's not everyone's cup of tea.
Baseball on the other hand, how the hell did that miserable excuse for a sport become our "national pastime?" A three hour game where most of it is spend either sitting on a bench or standing in the field and watching other people play? Baseball has to be one of the worst sports in the world.
Baseball sucks nascar sucks golf sucks but this thread is about soccer sucking,
...two prime examples today.
First in the Jap/Par game goes to tie 0,0 and OT too 0,0 and decided by a PKs devastated japanese go home even though they outplayed majority of game.
Second a spain player flops without getting touched and Portugal player is tossed.
1) Soccer needs to learn from hockey. The NHL aims for an average of 7 goals each game. This game will only work in the US if the field is smaller and there are fewer players on the field. Arena soccer (played on ice rink sized area) is to small though. Cut hte player count to 7 and use half the field. And do what it takes to make more scoring oportunities. And for heavens sake, ISNTANT REPLAY!
2) As a hockey fan, ya these guys are a bunch of whimps. Hockey players know how to protect themselves but these soccer idiots don't know how to. You know you are going to get slide tackle,d protect yourself you idiots.
3) Ya, I don't get the red card/yellow card thing. Make it more like hockey. Yellow = 2 minute penalty.
4) That can be fixed.
5) Horns, OK, you don't know much about the tradition behind them. If you did, you would know that this is nto a soccer thing but an Africa thing.
6) IMHO, I think it is stupid for a sport that has 1-0 games to have single game eliminations. 70% skill, 30% luck as far as I am concerned.
This game could work for US fans, not just in the traditional form. It would need to be modified to pick up pace and scoring opportunities.
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.
...two prime examples today.
First in the Jap/Par game goes to tie 0,0 and OT too 0,0 and decided by a PKs devastated japanese go home even though they outplayed majority of game.
Second a spain player flops without getting touched and Portugal player is tossed.
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.
2) How do you figure? Because you say it's true, it's true? I don't think so. Nor has the difficulty in a sport been quantified anywhere except in your mind. Averaging an opinion survey's results is not a measure of a sport's difficulty - it is a measure of a small sample of peoples' perception of some specific portions of a sport's difficulty. And you really think that how well a sport is marketed has to do with whether it is better than any other sport? Really? I think you're in well over your head with a comment like that.
3) Another irrelevant opinion spoken by someone who obviously has no expertise to render such judgment.
Baseball sucks nascar sucks golf sucks but this thread is about soccer sucking,
...two prime examples today.
First in the Jap/Par game goes to tie 0,0 and OT too 0,0 and decided by a PKs devastated japanese go home even though they outplayed majority of game.
Second a spain player flops without getting touched and Portugal player is tossed.
WTF?
Forward passing = fail
Stoppage every 10 seconds = fail
Not having to TOUCH DOWN a "touchdown" = fail x 100
Getting to kick from between the hashmarks for every conversion = fail
No inbounding set plays = fail
Helmets = fail
Pads = fail
Measly 11 players per team = fail
"Special" teams = fail
Obviously you lack quality discernment capabilities.
What did you do? Like you I wrestled in college until I got in a motorcycle accident but i played many of those one time or another and it seems legit. Although I don't see MMA listed which would certainly be top 5. Soccer does not care about power you're not trying to control a man. Soccer does is not a heavy endurance sport like many think with huge field and lulls/walking when ball is not in your vicinity. Speed positions in football WR's DB's are in better shape than any soccer player just look at them... or try going 60 yards full blast on 30 second intervals 100x. Soccer totally takes away the most useful appendages we own, the arms so how can that be considered complete athlete?
Dude--people were literally DIEING on a regular basis in professional football before implementing pads and helmets. That shit simply can't happen. Concussions are still preposterously frequent.
To think that rugby is somehow more hardcore than US football simply because they have no protection, while they still escape with less frequent serious injury, is just a bit stupid.
Forward passing is great. No reason it isn't great. the only thing rugby has over US football is those lineman with the tophats, whatever they're called.
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.
I played soccer in college. I played forward for Whitworth University, NCAA Div III. Have you ever played a full 90? I bet you haven't. I respect the athletic ability of all our major sports, but in regard to your take on the endurance component of the game you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I'm completely fine with you saying soccer sucks. It's not for everyone, and I'm not here to convince you why it's good or bad. But when you pull something out of your ass like it's not a heavy endurance sport I have to disagree because that's a matter of fact.
That gridiron players were too dumb, unskilled, weak or some combination thereof to play without helmets and pads does not mean that requiring helmets and pads is not a fail. Obviously playing without helmets and pads in a full-contact sport is possible for adequately trained athletes.Dude--people were literally DIEING on a regular basis in professional football before implementing pads and helmets. That shit simply can't happen. Concussions are still preposterously frequent.
There are a plethora of reasons why rugby is more hardcore than gridiron, and I listed many of them. How you got the idea that my belief was limited to "simply because they have no protection," especially while staring down the laundry list I supplied of reasons beside the fact that they don't use ridiculous protective gear, is something I am unable to fathom.To think that rugby is somehow more hardcore than US football simply because they have no protection, while they still escape with less frequent serious injury, is just a bit stupid.
It's not so much the forward passing, per se, but the fact that its done in the most pussy way possible in gridiron. Rugby players can "pass" forward, too, but they have to use their feet instead of their hands, and the receiver must begin behind the "passer" when the ball is "passed" instead of getting a 20 yard head start on it. Sometimes rugby players even "pass" the ball forward and receive it themselves! When was the last time that happened in gridiron?Forward passing is great. No reason it isn't great.
This description confuses me. Are you talking about officials?the only thing rugby has over US football is those lineman with the tophats, whatever they're called.
It's obvious you've never seen a rugby game, let alone played one.This. Rugby players ease the fuck up when they hit or they would die like they did in football. It's mainly mauling. Certainly no head to head like football. And no 100% full speed hitting all the time.
It's obvious you've never seen a rugby game, let alone played one.
It has endurance but not like you soccer fans say about being most endurance like some marathon runner or something. Wrestling for 15 min will take a lot more out of you than 90 minutes on a soccer feild. You're going 100% anaerobic against resistance vs sometimes running sometimes walking. We used to drill/run for 3 hours in 105F heat for practice all for a few min on the mat in meets... I wonder why?
So much fail in so few words... it's like you've achieved a new level of fail density.LOL Arm tackles, hitting low so you don't get hurt...
Like I said, it's obvious you've never seen a rugby game, let alone played one. Mauling actually occurs very infrequently in rugby union -- primarily in line outs, but rarely and usually only briefly in open play. Maybe you should take some time to learn about the game. You'd appear to be less the fool for decrying something about which you are so ignorant.I've seen these pussies regularly on ESPN 3 and no competition to football. Not the speed. Not the hits. Mainly mauling.
Shootouts prevent injuries? Now I'd heard it all.
Ever seen a 5 OT game in the NHL playoffs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime_(ice_hockey)#Longest_NHL_overtime_games
#3 is a game I'll never ever forget. It ended around 3am and I stayed up to watch it all.
I cannot recall a single World Cup game that was decided by a shootout that I thought "man that was epic". It's a pussy way to end a game and I wish they took it out of regular season hockey as well.
That gridiron players were too dumb, unskilled, weak or some combination thereof to play without helmets and pads does not mean that requiring helmets and pads is not a fail. Obviously playing without helmets and pads in a full-contact sport is possible for adequately trained athletes.
There are a plethora of reasons why rugby is more hardcore than gridiron, and I listed many of them. How you got the idea that my belief was limited to "simply because they have no protection," especially while staring down the laundry list I supplied of reasons beside the fact that they don't use ridiculous protective gear, is something I am unable to fathom.
It's not so much the forward passing, per se, but the fact that its done in the most pussy way possible in gridiron. Rugby players can "pass" forward, too, but they have to use their feet instead of their hands, and the receiver must begin behind the "passer" when the ball is "passed" instead of getting a 20 yard head start on it. Sometimes rugby players even "pass" the ball forward and receive it themselves! When was the last time that happened in gridiron?
This description confuses me. Are you talking about officials?
This description confuses me. Are you talking about officials?
Well, ok. I gave what I would call "reasons" but I would not call them "arguments," to be sure. I was mirroring the style of the post to which I was responding. I could expound on each of those claims, but I didn't really feel like typing that much -- especially since I'd likely have to explain too much of the game of rugby itself in order to be understood.you give no reasons. your list of what is wrong with football amounts to this:
forward passing = fail
pads = fail
etc...
really? You're better than that. You gave no reason. not a single one. not a single damn argument. I find it amusing that you spend the effort and express the knowledge in your participation in the endless number of Evo vs crazies threads, but why doesn't such rationality translate to your argument here?
At least I told you why protection is necessary.
In rugby, all players have to play offense AND defense at the drop of a hat. None of that constant lineup changing every time possession changes.One thing I will give you, is that rugby players till know how to tackle (wrap the legs). Football has gone the way of idiots wanting that "Big Hit." "Ring his Bell, Brah!" It's ridiculous, and terrible for the game, really. More big plays are given up simply b/c some idiot defender never learned how to tackle and was encouraged throughout his career to clobber someone. that stuff pisses me off, as it does plenty of football fans. Honestly, protection wouldn't be such a necessity if pros would start playing proper defense again. :\