Fiddling with the World Cup

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.

59 Comments

59 thoughts on “Fiddling with the World Cup”

  1. The change I’d make is retroactive punishment for dives that went unnoticed by the referee during play; the television footage is good enough now to catch quite a lot of them. Give the player a three game ban for something that he thinks that he got away with at the time and they might think a bit more carefully. It won’t solve the problem (particularly in the Final itself, when worrying about the games to come isn’t such a big deal, as they’ll be in qualifying games towards getting into the next World Cup), but it might help to change the culture a bit.

  2. Hi Sean and others,

    I haven’t read all the comments yet on this post, I’m only on number 9, but already I think it’s awsome how a physics blog on soccer can inflame virtual comments almost as much as plays on the green turfs of Germany.

    Sean, I wanted to tell you, thanks for posting this. I manage to watch a few select games downloaded in low-res to make it through the low south-pole satellite bandwidth and there are a few soccer fans down here. We get a kick thinking that South Pole is still represented at the World Cup (I’m french and the QUAD winter over is german) and we laugh like idiots imagining and historical France-Germany final.
    In any case, cheers to all soccer afficionados.

    Denis

  3. See, it was not 0:0. I haven’t seen such a thrilling match for years although it was not very aesthetic. And obviously, you don’t want me to doubt the fairness and the well deservedness of a win in penalty shootout!

  4. Mark Srednicki

    You’re right. I was only able to watch the first half, alas, but I agree that it was exciting. Portugal-England and France-Brazil were also exciting, even though we had a grand total of one goal in those games.

  5. Guys who do not like football ( The real one….the one actually played by using two feet kicking the ball….a ball that is round as a ball should be)You cannot start comparing two different sports and start combining good parts of each game and totally basterdizing the game. When you do that, you end up with American football. That game is the most boring I have ever watched. Some of you want 2 referees, and forcing the games into unlimited overtimes instead of Penalty Kicks. I do not agree we need 2 referees, but we absolutely need video replays. As per eliminating the Penalty kicks, and having multiple overtimes instead, youve got to be kidding! Let me remind you that unlike Ice Hockey, Football is only allowed a few substitutes. You will only understand what it takes to keep playing on, if you have played the sport yourself at a professional level.

  6. That Italy-Germany game took my breath away. I am happy to see my neighbors over-the-top excited, but I honestly don’t care who won. The skill and flair I saw in that game was thrilling. Both teams should feel proud.

  7. I haven’t checked in a while, so I haven’t followed the comments and didn’t read them all just now, but I’d just like to say that the poor officiating is all part of the appeal of soccer. It’s like the real world–there is limited law enforcement, and you get away with what you can (within limits that reasonable people set for themselves). In life, you might speed if there are no cops around, but you wouldn’t steal someone’s car. In soccer, you might pull a shirt if ref isn’t looking, but you never, for example, fail to be sportsmanlike and kick the ball out of bounds if an opposing player is injured. I like how soccer reflects life in this way; it feels more realistic and less game-like. Winning the game involves not only outsmarting the other team but also outsmarting the referee (and believe me, how referees make calls is heavily dependent on how the players act and interact with the referee, so this ads a nice additional psychological dimension to the game).

    I agree about pk’s, but I don’t think the solution is permanent sudden death. Maybe something like what was used in the MLS for the first few years of its existence–a hockey style dribbling penalty kick that requires more diverse skills that just a shot from the kicker.

  8. Albert Beerstein

    SIMPLE SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE THE GAME of SOCCER

    Add a 2nd tier goal 6 feet higher and the same width etc on top of the 1st tier goal (present goal no changes to it). Change points to 3 points for the 1st tier goal and 1 point for the 2nd tier goal. The top goal height is now 14 feet. The goalie will still be able to block a lot of 2nd tier goals up to about 10-12 feet. The new 2nd tier goal will allow long range scoring shots. This is like a field goal in American football. If a game ends in a tie, then have an overtime period and: allow a sudden death victory score like American football or allow the winner to be determined by a final score at the end of the overtime period like American basketball. Allow free substitution like American basketball since a fresh body plays at a higher skill level. No other rules changes needs to be made. This should be tried first in a semi-pro league funded by the professional association.

  9. Pingback: Lessons from Monopoly | Cosmic Variance

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top