So a lot of visitors have been coming to CV to read Mark’s post on the Physics of Beckham. What’s more, the rest of the blogosphere is thick with commentary on the World Cup — 3 Quarks Daily has Alex Cooley reporting and Jonathan Kramnick grumbling, the Volokh Conspiracy has David Post enthusing and Todd Zywicki critiquing, and Crooked Timber has been hosting rollicking open threads. Who would have thought that people were interested in soccer? It’ll never be as popular as string theory, but there’s definitely some interest there.
Actually, philistine American though I may be, I love the World Cup. And I myself was doing Beckham blogging long before it had become fashionable. The World Cup is everything the Olympics should be, but isn’t. It’s a spectacle of true international importance, featuring a sport that people care about even in the off years, full of compelling personalities and a rich history, in which a country can’t dominate simply on the basis of a superior entertainment-industrial complex. And I have no desire to change the rules of the game to suit my uneducated predelictions. Even though basketball is my sport of choice, I have no problem with the paucity of scoring; just as I can appreciate the ebb and flow of the scoreboard and the drama of big runs and quick turnarounds in hoops, I can also savor the exquisite rarity of goals in soccer, with the attendant ebb and flow of anticipation as scoring chances are mounted and frustrated. I have no problem with the offside rule, nor would I want to see the goal size increased. Nor am I one of those postmodernists who would turn the whole thing into hockey. I don’t even have any problem with the idea that the world’s best team has a star named Kaka, or that the French think they can compete by fielding exactly the same players that won the Cup eight years ago.
That is to say, I am not a hater. So let’s nevertheless admit that there are a couple of things that everyone, from the most clueless newbie to the most knowledgeable expert, can admit are dramatically wrong with the game. And, perhaps, easily fixable.
The first is the refereeing. Not something Americans can feel culturally superior about, as the refereeing in the NBA or NFL is just horrible. But still, the quality in the Cup thus far has been atrocious, and not just because the USA was jobbed against both Italy and Ghana. (Against the Czechs they got what they deserved.) For one obvious thing, there is only one guy out there, expected to police every hidden elbow and maliciously-aimed foot? The notion is absurd on the face of it, and it’s hardly surprising that the difference between an innocent tackle and a game-altering penalty kick is basically a coin toss. (Has anyone before me noticed that the home-field advantage is really quite considerable in these games? They have? Okay, good.) And then you give to these subjective judgments an absolutely tournament-altering power — red cards not only send off a player, but keep him out for the next game, and force the team to play shorthanded for the rest of the match? The situation ensures that the amateur-thespian histrionics after a touch foul for which the Italians are infamous will always be amply rewarded. It’s not an admission of weakness to try to improve this mess somehow; surely nobody wants NFL-style reviews of the calls, but there must be ways (more referees, more latitude with the severity of sanctions) to make the games more fair.
But the real travesty, which I am absolutely convinced must be roundly despised by everyone in their right minds, is the shootout. I mean, come on. Some of the world’s best athletes run themselves ragged for over an hour and a half, with half the planet hanging breathlessly on the result, and it’s decided by a few free kicks from the penalty mark? That’s just insanity. The first World Cup final that I watched live (on TV) was Brazil-Italy in 1994, featuring a scoreless tie after regulation and extra time, the excitement of which was thoroughly destroyed by the shootout decision. This is embarassing, and has to stop. Especially because there is a completely obvious solution: let them keep playing! Sudden-death overtime. Some folks might worry that such an overtime period would just drag on forever. So, fine, let it! It won’t really go forever, because the players will get tired (and their number will be declining due to red cards!), and the ensuing sloppiness will make goals increasingly likely. And the excitement level would be amazing, adding to the drama of the world’s greatest sporting tournament rather than completely undermining it.
So come on, FIFA, do the right thing. Adjust a few knobs here and there on this World Cup thing, you may actually have something.
Oops, “replay” and “the head” at the end.
Nice post, Alfredo! I think a provocative post is good sometimes.
Sean, you have to understand that the rest of the world is more than just fond of soccer, we love it. And so we are somewhat sensitive to comments like yours and obviously react emotionally. So a reaction like Alfredo’s post had to come…
If I was to propose to change the colors of the American flag to pink and green for whatever (maybe) sensible reasons, you can think about what I would hear…
For us, soccer is tradition, soccer is passion, soccer is part of our culture and our lives.
And your comments, well, that’s your opinion. But I like the shootouts and I really like the human component of the referee. It makes the game more interesting! And hating a referee for bad decissions or feeling lucky (as the Italinas should!) and maybe a bit embarrassed for a gift from a referee, that’s all part of the emotions of soccer.
For my part, I expected a nicer and more positive post from you about the world cup. You know, in this soccer tournament, the word “world” is really deserved since the whole world is able to qualify and participate… Not like the “world series” etc. So I think there are a lot of interesting international aspects to report about in the world cup. Unfurtunately, they are not shown on the American TV broadcasting neither (at least the one in English on ESPN/ABC! Univision in Spanish shows things about the fans, about Germany, etc.), so maybe you are not aware of some interesting issues.
Anyways, I am glad you guys are writing something about the world cup!!!
I have tried to watch soccer. It is about as interesting to me as watching water boil. No way it even compares with (for example) the NCAA basketball tournament for excitement. And if you want a “real” workout try water polo. 10 minutes and you won’t even be able to breathe or stand up.
When it comes to American foreign policy and imperialism I am thoroughly and genuinely embarrassed. When it comes to spectator sports “bring em on”.
Elliot
I gotta say, reply #18 by Alfredo has to be the silliest non-Quantoken post I’ve ever seen here, specifically the understanding soccer = understanding guerilla warfare bit.
Assuming for the moment that the premise isn’t silly enough to be dismissed out of hand, I think the Italy game alone is enough to give lie to it. Italy scored on a set piece. The US historically hasn’t been all that great at set pieces. On the other hand, they are a decent counterattacking side, as they demonstrated against Italy, you know, while they were shorthanded. Sort of like guerillas. 😛
The US style has been this way for a while now, too. I haven’t seen it rub off on the military so far.
The Lexington column of the Economist June 10 issue: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7037590 might shed some light on parts of Alfredo’s perspective.
jb said:
“For the record, in Australia, Canada, America, Ireland, South Africa, and New Zealand, association football is called soccer, and football means something else, which depends on the country and sometimes the region. Britain is a notable exception.”
On the contrary, football is called football in Ireland, not soccer. The term lives quite harmoniously with the “other” type of football played there. What’s more, using the word “soccer” in either Ireland or the UK is quite likely to result in people viewing you as an effeminate, foppish American, but I digress.
So we’ve got a sport with a rule (offside) which penalizes the players for being able to run faster than their opponents.
What a great idea.
Elliot
“So we’ve got a sport with a rule (offside) which penalizes the players for being able to run faster than their opponents.
What a great idea.”
The point of the offside rule is twofold: to enforce fairness by ensuring that the fastest person (attacker or defender) reaches the ball first, and to prevent “goalhanging.” Regardless of whether or not you understand it (you obviously don’t), the offside rule is definitely something that works well.
Elliot got it precisely backwards. With the offside rule strikers are forced to run fast overpassing the defenders to reach a long pass. Without it they could just stand close to the goal waiting for the ball to reach them.
damtp_dweller said:
“What’s more, using the word “soccer” in either Ireland or the UK is quite likely to result in people viewing you as an effeminate, foppish American, but I digress.”
Well, it is true that the Irish person who told me “soccer” is the word was a woman…
Gee guys, thanks for setting me straight. I’m going to send a letter to David Stern right now telling him to make the fastbreak illegal in the NBA because it would be such a better, more interesting game. And maybe the NFL should require wide receivers to wear ankle weights to make it more fair.
I tend to agree with international criticism of America and its aggressive imperialistic policies, but when it comes to sports I guess I’m just a little too parochial. Maybe it is one of those things that is culturally imprinted as a child. So I plead guilty.
Anyway. Somebody wake me up when the world cup is over.
Hockey has both an “offside” rule and an “icing” rule (to deter pointless rink-spanning movements of the puck).
I agree that, without an offside rule, goal-hanging would make both sports kinda silly.
But Jacques, there is a profound difference between the offsides rule in soccer and in hockey. In hockey, the attacker cannot receive the puck if past the opponent’s blue line. In soccer, the attacker cannot receive the puck if past ALL DEFENDERS. It is up to the attackers to make sure that the defenders are in position. I find this ludicrous on principle. It also leads to frequent stoppage of wonderfully developing plays, and to a ridiculous (though sadly effective) defense, the offsides trap.
I have no problem with the offsides rule in hockey and wish soccer would adopt something similar, with (say) the box serving as the blue line.
On the contrary, the offside rule has spread the game out into the entire field.
You can use a blue line, but then the space between the two blue lines will basically be empty, since footballers will just stand on the blue line, and wait for long passes to come.
Umh, no. A pass which crosses either blue line and the center line (a “two-line pass”) is also an offside in hockey.
I take Mark’s point about making the offside rule depend on the locations of the opposing players.
I was defending the idea of an offside rule in general — which I think is necessary in a sport like soccer/hockey/…
Umh, no. A pass which crosses either blue line and the center line (a “two-line pass”) is also an offside in hockey.
That was the old NHL. This is the new NHL.
I think the ‘golden goal’ was dropped because it made the teams more defensive in extra time. That is the logical response to a sudden-death situation: defend at all costs.
With a full 30 min extra time, you can still equalise and even win.
Penalties make perfect sense as an ultra-condensed form of what should also happen during normal play: in both, you win if your players can keep their heads and shoot straight into the net.
I’m not going to defend the refereeing!!
Perhaps I’ve missed the comment in the above threads but what I find troubling about offsides is that the linesman is expected to determine whether the offensive player is behind the last defender when the ball is struck, effectively meaning that he should be able to see two ‘events’ separated by maybe 20m at the same time. I can barely tell on the slow motion replay most of the time. Why not make the rule contingent on the offensive player being at the same position as the last defender when the ball is breaking the plane of the last defender? Wouldn’t this lead to less ‘mistakes’?
Wait, you are missing a point on the off-side rule!
Its whole purpose is to enable the most experienced watchers to stay still in front of the TV screen when it is enforced. I mean: you are in a crowded room full of over-excited fans. Suddenly an attacker of your team dashes forward and is heading alone towards the goal. All the room jumps up and shouts! …But you know he was in an off-side position, so you know the referee is going to stop the game soon. So you sit still, and say with confidence “Mm, what a pity, it is an off-side…”. Then the referee actually stops the game and you gain enormous respect from the rest of the crowd, especially girls (countless jokes about explaining girls the off-side rule). I must add that this works in any case, because if the action is not stopped nobody will notice your imperturbability, and you can immediately join the excitement saying “I knew they were good!”…
Seriously, though, do factor in some small human details that make the game more uncertain, and therefore debatable.
Stephens suggestion in comment 43 would not work as the defenders could step forward after the ball was kicked while it’s in the air forcing an offside and there would be no way for the offensive team to avoid it (except for the receiving player moving backwards).
Given that watching out for a potentially receiving player being in an offside position is the main task of one of the assistan referees (the one that is supposed to stand at the line of the last defender) it should not be too complicated to realise if that condition still holds when the ball is kicked. But I agree, offside is the hardest rule to decide in real time.
So, the rule is good because it is arcane? Marco, I think you and American football would soon become good friends.
I think the offsides rule is good because it allows defenders to come up on offense more often. If you changed it, even to something like the NHL-style rules, I wonder if the more conservative play of the defenders might more than cancel out any breakaway-type plays by the strikers.
That doesn’t happen in lacrosse, where each team is required to keep at least three (of 9) players on each side of the midfield line (plus a goalie on the defensive side). The defensemen generally stay up close to the midline so as to challenge any attack as soon as possible.
It would be fun if FIFA would try staging some exhibition games with alternate rules to see how things go. Not that I expect this to happen.
Meanwhile I look forward to tomorrow’s thrilling 0-0 tie between Germany and Argentina …
Why do you expect this to happen as both coaches said they told their teams to go for offence rather than bringing the game to stand-still by falling back to defensive play?
Robert, I’ll certainly be happy if (a) the coaches are telling the truth and (b) their teams listen to them.
Here’s hoping for a score of, say, 4-2 (which was quite common in World Cup gaimes before 1970 …).
Completely and utterly wrong. A player is offside if he is closer to the goal line than both the ball and TWO DEFENDERS at the moment of the pass. See, it is not even arcane.
And offside trap is an effective tactic? Please. There’s a reason why it is called the “dumb line” in Brazil. Refereeing mistakes always happen with it, both for and against, and using it against a team with players who are intelligent, fast, and/or skilled is suicidal. I had to pick my jaw off the floor when I saw Ghana playing with a very high trap against Brazil, a team that has players with all three characteristics.
And before you mention Adriano’s goal in response: watch the tape and you’ll see the first wrong call was against an unmarked, just-the-keeper-to-beat Ronaldo, when the score was 0-0 and he was onside by a light-year.
Yes, I do remember that, it’s one of my first footballing memories and the second most traumatic. The other is the surreal 1998 final, and those are the reasons I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s match.
And I don’t agree with criticism of the shootouts. It is the ultimate test of fitness and emotional stability, it’s exciting, and not a bad idea if your team has Taffarel or Dida in the goal.