6 reason soccer sucks.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Oh, this, haha. Maybe it's Aussie rules Football? which "isn't exactly" rugby, correct?

Yeah I don't really pay any attention to Aussie rules football. That's where the top hat dudes are, I'm pretty sure. There's also Rugby League, which is lame IMO compared to the pure sport of Rugby Union. I don't think the touch judges wear those hats in Rugby League.

The National Rugby League recently chartered a bunch of teams around the states, actually. They may start airing games as early as next year here in the US. Frankly I don't really give a shit because Rugby League sucks.

 

[GregGreen]

haters gonna ha- bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

bbbzzzzzzzz

 

[CycloWizard]

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?

I played soccer. I also quit due to injury: I got stress fractures due to overtraining for this sport which requires so little endurance that the average player puts in only 6.5 miles per game, most of which is sprinting. Apparently, running 13 miles per day as a high school distance runner for the track team didn't prepare my body for the lack of rigor I would experience playing soccer at a high level. I suppose all NFL wide receivers are bigger, faster, and tougher than Didier Drogba, who played the entire first round in a soft cast less than two weeks after having his arm broken and surgically repaired. Ignorance like this makes me wonder if you've ever even watched a World Cup match.

 

[CycloWizard]

in football, you can't challenge a "no-call." essentially, the ref would have to blow his whistle: call foul, yellow card, or team scores a goal, whatever. so, play would already be "stopped," and there would be no potential for a breakaway in situations that a challenge flag could be thrown.

Then we're arguing about nothing because England would not have been able to review the no-call which resulted in them losing the goal against Germany.

also (and just throwing this out there), has the larger soccer community realized yet that play stops plenty of times in a soccer game? It's just that the clock keeps running. The clock apparently has nothing to do with play. Is the clock in a soccer game "the opiate for the masses?" As long as the fans see it running, they are happy enough to believe that the game is continuous and uninterrupted?

The game is played at the pace the players play at. A player can restart after a foul or after the ball goes out of bounds as soon as he gets the ball if he so chooses. Usually, this is not as tactically advantageous as setting up a set play, but many good teams use this as a huge advantage (see the good English teams from the 90's who often scored on quick restarts).

hell, even stoppage time is non-sacred. There could be 3 minutes added, yet the ref may just blow the whistle and end things after 2 minutes, or 2.5 minutes, or maybe 3.7 minutes. According to what the announcers have said in the games that I've seen, it's really all at the center ref's whim when the game ends. ....WTH is that all about?

That's not how it actually works, nor is that how it's happened in any game. The fourth official indicates the minimum amount of stoppage time to be added. The center ref may add more for goals/injuries/substitutions which occur in added time, and he should not end the game/half when a team is on a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Again you're making a mountain out of a mole hill because you don't understand what's going on, whereas 5 billion people in the world could easily tell you within five seconds either way when the game/half will be ended by the ref.

 

[Jzero]

Then we're arguing about nothing because England would not have been able to review the no-call which resulted in them losing the goal against Germany.

That's where technology comes into play.

 

[SP33Demon]

Good to see this thread is still alive and well.

 

[zinfamous]

Then we're arguing about nothing because England would not have been able to review the no-call which resulted in them losing the goal against Germany.

Well, I'm not arguing for challenges as I don't think it would work in soccer. I'm simply explaining how challenges work in the NFL, and if those same rules were applied in soccer, how they wouldn't stop "action."

Whatever problems exist with officiating in soccer seem to be fixable with goal-line tech or an extra pair of eyes with equal power to the center ref.

That's not how it actually works, nor is that how it's happened in any game. The fourth official indicates the minimum amount of stoppage time to be added. The center ref may add more for goals/injuries/substitutions which occur in added time, and he should not end the game/half when a team is on a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Again you're making a mountain out of a mole hill because you don't understand what's going on, whereas 5 billion people in the world could easily tell you within five seconds either way when the game/half will be ended by the ref.

fair enough, but I mention this b/c the announcer (Ian Blacke I remember), is often going along during stoppage time with phrases like this: "Well, let's see if the ref is going to blow his whistle..." or "The Ghanans are calling for the ref to end the game, wondering why it's still going on..." etc.

I comment only on what I see and this is why I ask. If it seems that the announcers of the games (the type of people that have been watching soccer at least as long as anyone on ATOT) as well as, maybe, players on the field can't predict how many seconds are really left in the game...then how is it that 5 billion other people in the world know better than I do when the game is supposed to end?

 

[CycloWizard]

That's where technology comes into play.

The goal line technology will be implemented - I already said I support that. FIFA judged that it wasn't accurate enough to employ in the World Cup yet. I'm not sure why this is still a point of contention as even FIFA has said it will employ it when it's ready.

 

[sdifox]

The goal line technology will be implemented - I already said I support that. FIFA judged that it wasn't accurate enough to employ in the World Cup yet. I'm not sure why this is still a point of contention as even FIFA has said it will employ it when it's ready.

Video pwns goal line technology.

 

[CycloWizard]

Video pwns goal line technology.

Without the goal line technology, there can be no video - that's the point. With it, you can still go to video because if it triggers that the ball crossed the line, that can stop play and allow the ref to review it. Otherwise, the ref has no opportunity to review it.

 

[Jzero]

The goal line technology will be implemented - I already said I support that. FIFA judged that it wasn't accurate enough to employ in the World Cup yet. I'm not sure why this is still a point of contention as even FIFA has said it will employ it when it's ready.

Who said it was a point of contention? There were other officiating f-ups than the England/Germany game.

It's not just enough to be able to know whether the ball has crossed the goal line - it is also necessary to be able to challenge the referee if he mistakenly overturns a goal (e.g. offside).

 

[Marinski]

Less flopping, more scoring.

 

[sdifox]

Without the goal line technology, there can be no video - that's the point. With it, you can still go to video because if it triggers that the ball crossed the line, that can stop play and allow the ref to review it. Otherwise, the ref has no opportunity to review it.

OMG you mean all the video replays we have seen so far were all faked?

 

[CycloWizard]

Who said it was a point of contention? There were other officiating f-ups than the England/Germany game.

It's not just enough to be able to know whether the ball has crossed the goal line - it is also necessary to be able to challenge the referee if he mistakenly overturns a goal (e.g. offside).

Well, that's not going to happen. I already told you a dozen or more reasons why. If a ref calls offside mistakenly, then the play stops before a goal is scored, so you can't go back and give the goal: the play stops when the ball was played to the offside player.

 

[CycloWizard]

OMG you mean all the video replays we have seen so far were all faked?

What's it like being selectively illiterate?

 

[ichy]

Why not abolish the off-side rule?

 

[AMCRambler]

Meh. You could come up with reasons to hate any sport.

Football
- Commercial time outs where everyone is standing around waiting for network television to come back from commercial break

Baseball
- Blind umps that rob pitchers of no-hitters and baseball commission won't over turn the call

Hockey
- Takes forever for somebody to score

Basketball
- Same deal with getting fouled and then crying to the ref when he doesn't see it

 

[Jzero]

Well, that's not going to happen.

Come on, does anyone really think our opinion on ATOT has any impact? We're just spitballing here.

I already told you a dozen or more reasons why. If a ref calls offside mistakenly, then the play stops before a goal is scored, so you can't go back and give the goal: the play stops when the ball was played to the offside player.

All centered basically around "No one is willing to consider improving the quality of the sport." There is nothing that can't be legislated appropriately if participants are willing to approach it with an open mind and a sense of fair play (seems unlikely on both counts) - go look at a replay of the US - Slovenia incident: the ball goes to Edu, then into the goal. This is not a situation where the action was whistled dead and players continued playing for a second or two. It is unarguable that if Edu is offside, there is no goal and if Edu is not offside, there is a goal.

It should be imperative that such a call be made accurately. Don't officials, players and fans alike want all parties to get it right?

The challenge rule in the NFL is carefully constructed, and a challenge rule in FIFA would also have to be carefully constructed. For example, perhaps only calls occurring in the penalty box and directly involving a shot on goal should be reviewable. It can and should be something that needs to be used only rarely and it should be constructed with this end in mind.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I played soccer. I also quit due to injury: I got stress fractures due to overtraining for this sport which requires so little endurance that the average player puts in only 6.5 miles per game, most of which is sprinting. Apparently, running 13 miles per day as a high school distance runner for the track team didn't prepare my body for the lack of rigor I would experience playing soccer at a high level. I suppose all NFL wide receivers are bigger, faster, and tougher than Didier Drogba, who played the entire first round in a soft cast less than two weeks after having his arm broken and surgically repaired. Ignorance like this makes me wonder if you've ever even watched a World Cup match.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA lol, you're such a HE-MAN.

What I read:

I'm too tough for the sport, that's why I got injured and had to stop playing.

but it sounds more like:

I can't run for 90 minutes, so the sport is bad.

:awe:

 

[Gooberlx2]

Why not abolish the off-side rule?

Because it's a good rule and forces creative play.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Because it's a good rule and forces creative play.

This. You don't want the entire team hanging around the six yard box waiting for their keeper to punt in to them from every goal kick. That would be unwatchable.

 

[zinfamous]

The goal line technology will be implemented - I already said I support that. FIFA judged that it wasn't accurate enough to employ in the World Cup yet. I'm not sure why this is still a point of contention as even FIFA has said it will employ it when it's ready.

FIFA said they will "bring it up for discussion." at their next gathering. They never said it was going to happen.

Haven't they discussed this several times already, with the same result?

 

[skace]

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.

In case you can't figure it out yet, Zebo is blatantly trolling anything soccer related. His points don't need to be valid because his goal is simply to get a rise out of soccer fans.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Well, that's not going to happen. I already told you a dozen or more reasons why. If a ref calls offside mistakenly, then the play stops before a goal is scored, so you can't go back and give the goal: the play stops when the ball was played to the offside player.

You are right you can't give the goal because the whistle was blown and play was stopped.

But how about changing the offsides rule? Let play continue until a change of posession -- out of bounds, scored goal, blocked shot, etc. Then blow the whistle to stop play and review the call.

 

[Gooberlx2]

You are right you can't give the goal because the whistle was blown and play was stopped.

But how about changing the offsides rule? Let play continue until a change of posession -- out of bounds, scored goal, blocked shot, etc. Then blow the whistle to stop play and review the call.

Well, at least as far as simple change of possession goes, the ref doesn't want to take away advantage/momentum if the call was just going to go to the defense anyway. Though if the defense wants to waste a challenge, they certainly can.

I think it's totally valid for a challenge by the defense if play naturally stops against their favor (scored goal, corner kick, throw in...not in cases where they commit a penalty). Conversely, if a call is made erroneously, the offense could challenge it (since play has stopped anyway), and be awarded an indirect free kick if they win.

Either way, nothing should warrant an automatic review, and a challenge should have to be initiated by the team. They could only have until play restarts to issue the challenge (sucks for them if the other team restarts too fast).