What's wrong with:
WORLD CUP SOCCER
The summer of 2018 featured the men's World Cup soccer tournament. When all the time spent watching pieces of 15 games is combined, I watched 6-8 games; that's an estimated 14-16 hours, but given how horrible the soccer underworld is at tracking time (see below)- no one paying attention really cares about any of that. I can now be specific about elements of the game which only generally bugged me before. If someone were to take my lifetime soccer achievements into consideration and measure them against the legitimacy of my complaints below, I would come out as pretty under-qualified to write about soccer; David Hume would be supremely underwhelmed with designating me a "True Judge".
But since the issues which plague the sport are so undeniably repugnant, and anyone paying attention, and not stubbornly protective, should have wondered about the sport's improvements, with as much detail as I have, long before now, I'm going to launch a scathing attack anyway. Someone has got to do it. I'm a giver. Hume waited until after his death to have his friend publish his most scandalous thoughts about religion; I'm throwing caution to the wind, and risking my life, to bring the soccer mafia to justice.
Ask those weaned on the sport under consideration to identify something, anything, that they would change if provided the opportunity. If there isn't one rule change that person would make, one thing they would do to improve their sport, the conversation is over, because they're afraid of what happens if that conversation continues. I borrowed a George Will line there which he used in reference to campaign finance reform.
I've discussed the below considerations and complaints, and proposed improvements, with well-rounded sports fans who have been paying attention to sports their whole lives, some that even enjoy soccer, enjoy watching soccer, have played it competitively, and who don't think soccer should be banned in the contiguous U.S. Those conversations seemed to me a bit like the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and Elaine set up dating rules. Jerry tells George about them at the coffee shop, and George is impressed by the rules under which Jerry and Elaine are operating.
Yes, I'm comparing myself to Seinfeld. Deal with it! The sports fans were generally not opposed to the improvement ideas. We know that Jerry and Elaine's romantic relationship went completely to hell because they were both insecure, neurotic, narcissistic, colossal pains in the ass . . . those who know me would not think that comparison to Seinfeld is out of line. Sonsabitches.
Soccer has a 2,000 year history. In that time, perhaps those running the sport have, they feel, suitably refined it, and that is the justification for the lack of rules changes. That was the same intent I had in reviewing all the Star Wars movies- to refine many of the aspects of how those movies are written, directed and filmed. What that means for soccer is that I care about how much the sport could mean to more people more consistently. My daughter loves the sport, so I am really only wasting my time because of her. If I come out with a diatribe about "What's Wrong with the Family Feud," or "What's up with Slinkies lately", forget that part about me only doing investigations about things I care about enough to fix. The stewards of these pastimes (iconic, cinematic multi-generational space epics and itinerant, quadrennial, gravity-laden centuries-old athletic contests) are failing; I am supra-qualified enough to put them back on track.
Here is an example of an article, much like this one, where the writer is justifying rules changes, in this example strictly devoted to the NBA's 3-point line and how easy it is to hit that shot. It is too easy to make that shot in both college and the NBA: Too many 3s in the NBA. Note: the NCAA just moved the 3-point line back following the 2018-2019 season to make it more difficult to make, because it was ridiculously easy. The point again is that sports make changes that make sense and the governing bodies don't dig their heels in.
General Disagreement, Comparisons to other Sports,
Ratings and Big Picture
Some are going to say- "soccer is the most popular sport in the world; I think it's doing ok without your 'help' you cheeky bastard!" Apparently, I am envisioning an exclusively British challenge to my exposé. Sure, and back when the Iphone was the only hand-held computer in town, Apple kept churning out "enhancements" every year to siphon money from the world's consumers. Apple actually had less to improve than soccer has; since there are actually more fans of soccer in the world, than of the Iphone, soccer stands to gain more by evolving.
Football (American football) is the most popular game in the U.S. The NFL's version of an all-star game, or a soccer friendly, the Pro Bowl, gets better ratings than the average playoff basketball games, see Pro-Bowl ratings and NBA playoff ratings respectively. I've been hearing about how popular the sport of soccer is going to be in this country for two generations. With only so much time, and only so much money, in the average family's coffers to spend on entertainment, making a sport so far off from football, in the U.S.A., in terms of popularity, should be something soccer people care about. Soccer is a sport played in the fall in middle school, high school and college levels. Given that schedule, it is competing with football at every level. Soccer fans could question the logic- "why would I care about the overall popularity of a sport I love?" Well, assuming that fan cares to defend the sport they love against the logic of those who don't, they're going to have a rough time of it.
The natural brood chart of the periodical cicada requires it to make an appearance every 17 years. Similarly, the men's World Cup soccer event (every 4 years) also makes a periodic appearance. The species is lucky we don't see it more frequently, or its presence, would be considered an infestation . . . soccer, not the cicada. Fortunately, the relatively infrequent nuisances are relatively harmless, aimless fliers, don't bite or breed indoors . . . the cicada, not soccer. Although that description is just as applicable to soccer fandom within the United States. At worst, the pests leave their exoskeletons on trees, the males attempt to attract mates with a loud buzzing sound, or excessive diving into the grass, live for about a month . . . the cicada, . . . and world cup soccer.
Additional information about ratings- see Appendix at the end of this post. I don't want to destroy the "momentum" I've created with the first four paragraphs above. Soccer fans- momentum is something that exists in sports with ebbs and flows, where the anticipation is palpable, the scores are real, and the results are decisive. What's that, there are nine paragraphs which precede this one? Well, five of those were off-sides; all that expectation, mirth, targeted opportunity and joy would have been erased if this diatribe were a soccer game. Now, I bet the reader is exasperated and frustrated. They just wasted all of that time reading nine paragraphs, when only four counted. See #6 below. No one who loves soccer should be complaining about the length of this article. In fact, it is soccer fans I should have been courting, as potential readers, all along. You have the patience for nonsense, and an ability to appreciate that nothing much of interest happens over a long period of time to stick with me.
Despite the NFL's popularity, those in charge annually make rule changes which address time-management, injury and competition concerns to make the game better for its players and its fans. Those rule changes don't always work, hence why competition committees in those other sports keep changing the rules. I should point out however, that the other major sports (hockey, baseball, football, basketball) have not been around for 2000 years and are much more complicated games, by and large. For soccer's most substantial rule changes the last fifty years, see Soccer's recent rule changes:
a) vanishing spray on the pitch to keep players from encroaching on free-kicks,
b) using technology to determine whether the ball has crossed the goal-line,
c) soccer's version of instant replay,
d) yellow and red cards for managers/coaches who misbehave and
e) diving bans.
In chronological order, the significance of these improvements-
a) meh.
b) necessary, but like adding a parking spot for food order pickups so restaurants can compete with Chili's or Applebees, who have both had the pick up option for years.
c) hallelujah can you apply it to e)?
d) hallelujah can you apply it to e)?
e) hallelujah can you apply it to . . . huh, hmm, to itself?
back to b) for a second- can you apply it- technology to solve- e)?
The next guy will state- "getting the distinct governing bodies in soccer, across leagues, countries, genders, age-groups, etc. to agree on anything akin to the meaningful, progressive, and sensible amendments that, in your opinion, would improve the game, is highly inconceivable, and you sir, are a moron."
The rebuttal- start somewhere. Introduce the below improvements in pre-seasons, at the youth level, in high school and college. That approach is called a pilot. If you're telling me that improving the sport of soccer is more difficult than solving any of the problems in the Middle East . . . I don't believe you.
Soccer's Historical Rule Changes-
good for you soccer!Consider that I'm live-Tweeting these responses . . . Soccer's Historical rules changes
1886- the "International Football Association Board (IFAB) met for the first time . . . was originally made up of two representatives each from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. A three-quarters majority was required to pass a proposal." This is more than is required to override the president's veto (two-thirds) and as challenging as passing a constitutional amendment. Should passing a soccer rule change be as difficult as passing a constitutional amendment? We've had 27 amendments in 240 years and 12 rules changes in organized soccer in 2000 years. Only the popularity of the "Masked Singer" surprises me less.
1902- FIFA established in Paris (France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). And all hell broke loose. Note how the list of countries in IFAB are mutually exclusive from those in FIFA. I'd like to create my own acronym for the resulting agency, frustrated by wanting to improve any elements of the sport that never made, or still don't make, any sense- that acronym- A-FUK.
1912- "goalkeepers shouldn't be able to handle the ball wherever they like . . . goalies could only use their hands in the 18-yard box." Slightly less noteworthy event of that year- the Titanic sinks. Too bad all members of IFAB and FIFA weren't passengers so we could have cut the roots of soccer rule change impotence.
1913- FIFA and IFAB combined. My apologies for that Titanic comment. All is well.
1920- No more offside on throw-ins. How far can you throw that ball? If you can get it from one end of the field to the other end, congratulations, you've quintupled your chances at actually scoring a goal.
1925- players are still onside if there are two players between a player from the other team and the goal (goalie included) instead of three."
Apparently nothing of significance between 1938 and 1990 and then . . .
1990- "In an attempt to increase scoring, (it took them 65 years to figure this out) FIFA changed the offside rule to allow the offensive player to be onside if he was even with the second-to-last defender (goalie typically being the last defender . . . [and] denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity became a red-card offense." And FIFA, the soccer syndicate rulers were served with 78,000+ retroactive red cards for denying goal scoring opportunities dating back to the 1920s. What's that? Oh, the rule change was only applicable to players during game action. I see.
1992- "The last major change . . . prevent[s] goalies from using their hands on deliberately kicked passes from their teammates." The last major change was almost thirty years ago? At that point, Susan Lucci had only been nominated for 13 Emmys. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was still an enigmatic well-respected movie. Ok, that was never true. Thought I'd catch you sleeping with that one, like the goalies who think they can relax once the save-quota has been reached. The save quota = 4 combined saves by the two goalies in the same game.
Without more prelude, here are changes I would propose:
1- Kickbacks to the goalie
Starting off with an easy one. This isn't about giving the goalie money for showing up to play wearing a car dealership advertisement on his chest. Allowing players to kick the ball back to the goalie to waste time, or relieve pressure the offense is putting on the defense is a rule that should be modified.Basketball provides for illegal defense and delay of game warnings. When a member of the team who has just scored a basket catches the ball after it has passed through the net and keeps it from being possessed by the team that was just playing defense is one example of delaying the game. The idea is that the team that just scored wants to inhale and exhale a couple times to better prepare to play defense.
There is no reason for any member of the team that has just scored to handle the ball unless, in the eyes of an impartial official, that player is aiding in getting the ball to the team wishing to put it back into play more quickly. Basketball should change the rules, and instantly assess technical fouls to anyone preventing a ball from being put back in play. Sending an offending player to the bench for 2 minutes, like a hockey penalty, but allowing a substitution for that offending player, unlike hockey, would strongly discourage recidivism. To warn adults for something they should have been cautioned not to do since they were 2 is maddening. If a 3-year-old throws a handful of peas on the floor, there are no more warnings, no more peas, no desert, no more television, and plenty of time spent staring into a corner, or watching a men's world cup soccer game- pick your poison.
Rewarding failure and negligence, or ignoring noncompliance, for actions that are inherently unnecessary, with more chances and warnings is something that pouty 2nd-graders can expect (because of the coddling age we live in); we're talking about inter-continental and/or professional sports, "adults", world-class athletes, and often, galactic boobs. The idea that I would spend two paragraphs chastising a sport I like well more than soccer (basketball) is a warning that someone can be fair and open-minded. Soccer's faults are real, inescapable and fixable.
The rule change in soccer would be to either eliminate goalie kickbacks, or allow each team to kick the ball back to their own goalie once a half, or once a game. Any more than that, even if the team is determined to do it in a way that makes it look like they did it accidentally, should result in a player from the offending team being removed from the field for 2 minutes, or a time commensurate with the infraction from the standpoint of actually making the offending team suffer by allowing its opponent potentially additional scoring chances. This is just like hockey's 2 minute minor penalty, where we see the chances for scoring increase with fewer players on the playing surface. See the end of #3 below.
Allowing a team to kick the ball back to their own goalie is objectionable for three reasons:
1) it punishes the aggressor, the team making the game more exciting, the team with a potential advantage, else the defensive team wouldn't safely pass the ball back to their own goalie;
2) the team with the lead is wasting time, or
3) the team possessing the ball considers it a badge of honor to retain possession for as long as possible. This game within a game is akin to the technical awards at the Oscars. Since selecting an Oscar winner is entirely subjective rather than held to the standard of who prevailed by scoring at least one more goal than the other team in an allotted amount of time, there is no comparison. Deciding who was the best cinematographer, or the most valuable key grip, is an entirely different matter than who prevailed when the object of the game is to score goals, not see if they can possess the ball long enough to literally take the air out of the ball with a world of people, in theory, watching. Why even play the game if one team's goal is to just be able to keep it away from the other one the whole time. Who wants to watch that? If this is one of the pleasures of your life, hunting for buried cicadas is likely something on your list of things to do this year.
I'm not for any rule in any sport which penalizes the aggressor, within reason. Basketball just changed a rule to start the 2018-19 season by only resetting the shot clock to 14 seconds (not 24) in the event of an offensive rebound, to allow more possessions, to offer a more competitive experience for the players and fans. Fixing this waste of time can be done soccer- it can be done.
The NBA instituted the shot clock in 1954, college hoops in the mid-1980s. I would never advocate the institution of a shot clock in soccer, because reasonable people can concede points where their argument is weak. The reason one team plays keep away in soccer is probably because they are the weaker team offensively and all of soccer's other limitations, ones which I elaborate on below, predispose the outcome of the game to go the way of the stronger team. Prohibiting passing to the goalie is already something that soccer reasonably changed in 1992- https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/football-back-pass-rule.html. You see soccer- you did it! And this is why:
"Before football [soccer] had the back pass rule, a team who goes up by a goal could intentionally waste time by keeping the ball in their own half and repeatedly passing it to the goalkeeper."
"The goalie, in turn, would pick up the ball, hand-dribble it, before passing it back to the nearest defender or kicking it far into the opponent's field. This strategy might be effective for the leading team, but it is a game not worth viewing by spectators."
The rationale for not allowing any type of pass-backs to the goalies is exactly the same- the team "waste[s] time by keeping the ball in their own half and repeatedly passing it to the goalkeeper . . . and kicking it far into the opponent's field."
In basketball in the last 10-15 years, at both the college and pro levels, a wider arc has been drawn on the court, beneath the rim, to aid the referee in determining if the player with the ball "charged" or the defensive player "blocked". This improvement of the block v charge rule has made it a more objective call, and less worthy of debate, because you can see whether the defender was sliding into place, and whether the defender's feet were outside of this arc when the offensive player left his feet. I love that rule change, because the defender cannot just park themselves under the rim and wait for the offensive player to run into, or land on, them.
I call the parking of your body right under the rim waiting for an offensive player to land on you, "the Battier." Shane Battier, a former Duke Blue Devil (a Dukie) from the late 90-ishes to early 2000s, lauded for either his intelligent play, or his defensive indolence around the basket- is a matter of debate. Battier was a good player and a very good defensive player. However, I have no respect for a liberal approach to defense where you just wait for officials to punish a player responsibly attacking the rim. That enhanced wider arc rule improvement didn't fix everything, but it helped- A LOT. Basketball suffers from too little defense played and soccer from too much. Soccer would do well to change a rule or two. The latter sport's defensive effort could stay the same and its offensive output improve. Basketball has no such hope. Prohibiting how many pass-backs to the goalie per game are allowed is the easiest of the rules to change.
I went all that way talking about rule changes that take a player's proximity to a line on the field, for this- another option on this rule is to only allow pass backs to the goalies (who still can't pick the ball up with their hands) if the goalie is within the 6 yard goalie box (that is the smaller box in the image below) and can only play it with their feet while inside of that box. This makes the goalie and the teammate passing him the ball think twice about the risk of sending a ball closer to their own goal and cuts down on time-wasting. It also incentivizes the attacking team because if the team possessing the ball that deep in its own end wants to risk sending the ball that close to its own goal, it has already done so much of the work for the team on the attack. This in turn causes the attacking team to perhaps pinch even more, dedicating more players to join the attack and perhaps leaves the attacking team more vulnerable for a counter-offensive where the goalie, or a defender possessing the ball, unleashes a long kick the other way down the field to punish the team which had devoted so many players to the attack.
These are proposed rule changes that aren't devised by a 21st century inclination that suffers from a short attention span- I love reading Victorian novels. This is a patient reckoning where the rule changes I'm proposing for the sport of soccer should have been instituted decades ago. And aside from retaining the sport's sanctity, could relieve it of its sanctimony- admittedly, probably another line rented from George Will, which I had subconsciously appreciated and stored for the right topic.
2- Running, stoppage and extra time.
I like the idea of running time when the ball goes out of bounds, when one team is prepping for a corner kick, when the teams make substitutions, etc. In a world where 3 hr. and 15 minute baseball games with 28 seconds between pitches, 10 pitching changes a game and 12 minutes between balls put in play is acceptable, soccer's approach to tracking time, at any level, is a godsend. In theory, soccer games are 90-ish minute games. You could go to a soccer game that starts at 2, tell your mom you will be on time for your uncle's funeral that starts across town at 4:30, and have almost no chance of being late, unless . . .
. . . a game goes into extra time. Extra time games happen in the World Cup, only in the elimination rounds when there are 16 teams left. The world lost out on 9 games of extra time during the 2018 World Cup because those games, prior to elimination rounds, ended in ties. Teams play for ties (see below) to avoid a loss and sometimes those teams are playing for ties before the game even begins. I didn't know where to put this line given the ellipsis above, but I might rather attend a funeral than pay to watch a soccer game without the rule changes I'm proposing. Sometimes, funerals are more intriguing than soccer games.
While running time is great, stoppage time is a mess. Stoppage time is the "ish" in the 90-ish minute game. Running time is the combination of chocolate and peanut butter; stoppage time is like eating a raw tuber, or a canned beet- Bleck! If you like beets, you probably love World Cup Soccer. Running time is Blake Lively in "Savages"; stoppage time is Kathy Bates in the hot tub scene of "About Schmidt".
Someone, a ghost, a god, the head ref, or father time, is mysteriously keeping track of the wasted, er, extra time. Replays can waste a minute of game time; injuries (which I'll get into later) can bleed 1, 2, 5, 7 minutes, or more, of game action. Invisible arbiters of all things objective and fair, deciding that 4 minutes and 12 seconds of mystery should be added to the length of the first half, and that 5 minutes and 6 seconds should be added to the clock at the end of the game, is like Olympic judges giving the Swedish beauty a 9.5 and the Hungarian an 8.5 for the same vault. It isn't unusual for a soccer game to be called off/end at 95:42. What in the hell is that?
From a 2012-13 FIFA Laws of the Game document- stoppage time has these, I guess you would call them- guidelines:
"Many stoppages in play are entirely natural (e.g. throw-ins, goal kicks). An allowance is to be made only when these delays are excessive."
"The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee . . ."
"The announcement of the additional time does not indicate the exact amount of time left in the match. The time may be increased if the referee considers it appropriate but never reduced."
I wouldn't want the length of any game determined by the educated guesswork of an official, verbally told to players and coaches, the game lengthened because of perceived factors, and tossed onto the same device used to indicate substitutions, that cannot keep time in seconds.
From having watched the endings of a few world cup games, the amount of stoppage time added to the ends of periods was generally from 4-7 minutes (see 538's more refined tracking results below). Rarely is it less or more than that. If the amount of stoppage time is generally consistent, why not just add an additional 5 1/2 minutes to the end of each half and call it good? Why not add an extra 10 minutes of game time, five for each half, which is represented on the game clock, so that everyone knows exactly when the half or game can be expected to conclude?
A New York Times article from 2014, gives us the headline- "In Time Warp of Soccer, It Ain't Over Till, Who Knows . . . " Ellipses are great for song lyrics, or leaving the reader hanging during a fine piece of writing, but as the headline to a story about anyone knowing how long a soccer game might go on, after the scheduled conclusion, well, that is a problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/sports/worldcup/stoppage-time-in-the-world-cup-underscores-soccers-strange-rules.html
Here are some salient points from the article that advance this complaint. Notice the quotations, indicating other people are at odds with the concept; it isn't all about me:
"Games do not end when a clock expires, but only when the referee decides they are over."
In a 2014 game "the United States scored to take the lead in the 81st minute of a 90 minute match only to see the advantage slip away when Portugal scored . . . 14 minutes later." [Note: another appropriate use of an ellipsis- to skip information when quoting from a speech or article that contains important snippets of detail, but is otherwise surrounded by needless verbiage.] A fitting use of ellipsis equated to the action of a typical soccer game- Team A scored in the 21st minute . . . they mustered three total shots the entire game . . . Team B scored in the 74th minute on the only shot they took in ninety-eight minutes of a scheduled ninety minute game . . . 17 players faked shin injuries, . . . the game ended in a 1-1 tie . . . participation trophies were handed out to all involved.
Sorry, those quotes I promised:
". . . no player on the field, no fan in the stands and no announcer on television has any earthly idea as to when the last kick of the ball will come."
"In the game between the United States and Portugal, the referee added five minutes of extra time to the second half. But 'five minutes' could have been 5 minutes 1 second, or 5:59. Like a power-mad dictator, the referee can set the limits according to his whim."
". . . referees typically wait until a tame point in the action to declare the game over. Sometimes, though, as in the France-Switzerland match last week, the referee is more abrupt; in that match, the official ended the game just before France scored what would have been its sixth goal."
" . . . with a billion-plus people watching a sporting event, we should have a system whereby more than one person knows when the game will end."
ah, hell, just read the article
Strangely, among the first 10 of the 294 comments following the article, the respondents were evenly split on whether they thought not knowing how long the game would last was a problem that needed a solution. Most of the objections to the prospect of Americanizing the game of soccer revolved around comparing it to football or basketball, where endless reviews and commercials ruin the excitement near the end of games. Agreed, those games can be ruined by that. I concede that point.
However, this seems like a stubborn redirection of the problem. This is like a political candidate running an attack add that calls out his opponent's excessive campaign funds derived from pharmaceutical companies when that hypocritical candidate is taking just as much money from automobile manufacturers. I don't think advocates of knowing how much more time is left in the game reasonably consider turning the last five minutes of a soccer game into a beer advertisement-laden endeavor. The only thing that would change is that the world would acknowledge that regular time has ended and stoppage time has started. If the amount of stoppage time, which I'd propose would still, and always, be calculated by multiple official timekeepers and sanctioned by soccer's governing body, is deemed to have been excessive in the second half, additional, well-communicated (to the coaches, players, fans, and network broadcasting the game), in minutes and seconds should be added to the official scoreboard in the stadium and on the television screen.
Wouldn't any invested fan want to know how much time their team has to attempt to tie the game, if their team is behind, or how much time a team in the lead has left to hang onto it?
Unlike most other sports, where blowouts can happen and time can be a factor, with chronic 0-0, 1-0, 1-1 and 2-1 soccer games, time remaining in the game is always something not just the fans, but the players, would want to know. From the article above, the players and coaches don't know how long stoppage time is supposed to last. For a sport that is 2,000 years old and a device, the clock, that was invented in 1656, to be kept apart, is abominable. There is a solution to this problem.
In the 2018 World Cup round of 16, all 8 games were decided by a goal, 3 of those ended in a shootout. Knowing how much time remains, what kind of chances to take and when to play it safe, should be decisions that both teams have to make rather than allowing neither team to have to make those decisions, or both to decide on an approach based on incomplete information. We should have general instructions when we're choosing how much a pinch of salt is when we're cooking, not when an athletic event is going to end.
Baseball is largely exempt from time limitations and for that, it is possible, the popularity of the sport has waned. Football, hockey, and basketball all play to the clock, even after regulation time has expired with tie scores. The NFL and college football rules warlords have tinkered with overtime rules for ten years and still haven't gotten it right, so soccer is hardly alone on this topic. The soccer fan's biggest complaint on this issue should NOT be, how much god-damned time is left in this game! And it isn't, because apparently soccer fans don't care- probably not enough to disavow their refined sensibility and concede the stoppage time point. If a soccer fan's goal is to never concede anything is amiss with their sport, congratulations, for you will undoubtedly give up fewer goals than your mother country is likely to score in group play in the next World Cup.
How inaccurate is stoppage time? Click the link to this June 27, 2018 (about the 2018 World Cup) FiveThirtyEight story to find out:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/world-cup-stoppage-time-is-wildly-inaccurate/
"Actual stoppage time is a wildly inaccurate measure of how long the game was actually stopped. The average added time flashed on the board for these 32 [World Cup] games was 6:59, which includes both halves. By our calculations — which adhered to FIFA’s rules on the matter — the time that should have been added to each game was 13:10. This means stoppage time was roughly half of what it should have been for most games."
Per below, just half of those calculations, using FIFA's own rules for stoppage time. Note the DIFF. column on the far right. The referees always added less time to the games, never more.
Does the impact of the reduced stoppage time added to the ends of games matter? Read the last two paragraphs of FiveThirtyEight's article . . . the answer is yes . . .
3 - Ties
This isn't about the piece of cloth that wraps around a man's neck. For that many combatants to take a field, court, or arena to sweat, bleed, fight, scrap and strain so that the result is they are equals after 90 minutes, or more, is un-American. The sport is international, so we're probably screwed; fixing this will be more difficult than getting 60% of United Nations countries to agree on anything, other than that Trump is a moron.Ties are the Ewoks of sports. Yep, ties suck.
Neither team involved in a tie game should feel fulfilled, but somehow I would expect they feel as if they have accomplished a great deal by not winning or losing; and just like father's on christmas morning, no one watching a sport for the sheer passion and excitement, really wants a tie. The only people who like ties are parents and grandparents who either never were competitive, or who lost that edge prior to having grand kids. We shouldn't be conditioned to accept ties, not just when it is possible, but especially when it is probable, as in soccer. (Note: I was going to add an image of an Ewok but noticed a copyright infringement message, and I thought that nothing could be worse than being fined for using an image of one of those little bastards without the proper consent.)
Note: not capitalizing "proper" nouns is not a typo. Words which represent entities, personages or ideas for which I don't, appreciate, respect, or make concessions to the significance of, get a lower-case first letter. Henceforward "world cup soccer".
I'm not contending that two teams in search of a definitive outcome should play a game for 5-6 hours, until 2 a.m., like in baseball. A tennis match at Wimbledon's 2010 tournament went on for over 11 hours, stretched over 3 different days, where the 5th set went 70-68 to John Isner. I'm thinking that we explore other ways to end the game in a satisfactory manner, which means, one team should go home dissatisfied.
Hockey plays an overtime period with two fewer players on each side, which opens up the ice for speed, skill and endurance to take over. Why not remove 2 soccer players from each side in a game that is knotted after regulation? I realize the world cup knockout round doesn't allow ties because one team or the other needs to be eliminated. I'm suggesting that in world cup soccer there should only be a tie after 10 minutes of play where each side fields a team of 8 players and 1 goalie apiece. Of course, this won't prevent one team from putting the ball on a spike in its own end for all of extra time. But do we want soccer to turn into tetherball 2.0? Just as in hockey, overtimes would create more exciting play and wide open spaces where skilled players aren't hampered by well-positioned defenders who cut down advantageous angles. That sentence alone stopped 50% of the people from further reading- so, it stopped 1 person who had made it this far.
The removal of players from the field during the course of games that continue to be tied would be an improvement over penalty kicks, which could still be used as a last resort, if, after 10-15 minutes of game play with fewer players, the game is still tied. We don't decide tie baseball games with home run hitting contests after 9-10 innings, or turn a tie football game into a place kicker standoff, or a basketball overtime game into a free-throw shooting contest. Why reduce soccer to penalty kicks so quickly? Besides, soccer players are incredibly conditioned athletes, let's see that conditioning in effect so that after 90 minutes of a spirited game of "let's retain possession so we can all be tied at zero" when the game is over, we can watch the players break down and make a physical or mental mistake. If it takes so much skill to retain possession, let's see that skill in action for a longer period of time.
Let's have an outcome, where one team prevails and the other is defeated, by reducing the number of soccer games ending in ties. The last 20 minutes of a close game, where the underdog played over their heads for 70 minutes, shouldn't be a big game of keep away as one team drains whatever is left of the clock (see #1), and only god, and his soccer emissary, the referee, know how much of the clock there actually is to drain, (see #2); no team should drain the clock with such relish that they make the casual fan wish one of their relatives would die so they could leave to go to the funeral, rather than watch the "conclusion" of a soccer game that is bound to end up in a tie anyway.
Source: http://terrikon.com/soccer/worldcup-2018
In the 2018 world cup there were 9 ties, out of 48 games, in group play. That is actually fewer than I had expected. Three of those were in group B. Literally, half of the games in that group ended in ties. The two teams with two ties apiece (Spain and Portugal) were able to advance to the next round. Each of those teams won 1 game, tied 2 and didn't lose, and both cleared the first hurdle in the tournament- that of exerting less energy than a turtle crawling over a sheet of paper, in order to advance.
Congratulations.
Given the number of games determined by one goal, or laughably, by no goals (Denmark v France ended 0-0), and the amount of time wasted by normal soccer events (goal and corner kicks, throw-ins, penalty and free kicks, goal celebrations, substitutions and injury assessments), the number of minutes the referees don't add to the game for stoppage reasons, means that soccer purists, as the FiveThirtyEight article above concludes, are actually witnessing actual game action that is less in line with their expectations and comes nearer the amount of time the ball isn't in play in sports like football and baseball.
In 2014 306 NHL games (almost 25%) went to overtime, where the teams skated with four men a side for 5 minutes. 44% of those 2014 games were decided in overtime. In 2015, when the NHL went down to a 3-on-3 model, with 275 games (about 22%) going to OT, 61% were decided in OT (without going to a shootout).
The following year, the percentage of games that went to overtime were decided within the OT period 65% of the time. Even more, from 2005-2014, 22-24% of NHL games went to overtime. Of the games that went to OT in that ten year span, 39-50% were decided in overtime and avoided the shootout. Removing 1 more player (down to 3-on-3, instead of 4-on-4) clearly provided the game a more worthwhile outcome.
Source: https://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/how-often-is-overtime-needed-in-the-nhl.aspx
4 - Substitutions
This is a rule change I feel less strongly about, and about which I have the least perspective. With this complaint, the solution is less certain and perhaps, the problem is less real. But in games that might start extending into 2 hours and 2 1/2 hours because of stoppage time and overtime, for the betterment of the sport, not just individual games, allowing removed players to come back in if the game gets to stoppage time tied, and if after stoppage time the game needs to go to overtime, allowing rule changes in this area could be of benefit. This adds an extra couple layers of strategy, more discussion and disagreement, and likely, more investment by fans and the media.Three substitutions are allowed per game by each side? While NCAA collegiate basketball coaches get 17 timeouts apiece to micro-manage a game, soccer teams get 3 subs for the entire game, and those coaches can't manage much of anything. I'm probably missing the justification for not allowing a team to substitute 4-5 times in a game. Fine, allow a player removed to never come back in, just as in baseball. Should the result of the game be determined because all subs were used prior to a legitimate/serious injury (to be distinguished from the frequency of fake injuries [see below]) which forces one team to play short-handed? Hell, these guys fake so many injuries and writhe around in "pain" for so long, they might have actually had semi-legitimate maladies or contusions that healed, via aloe-laden fescue, Bermuda or bluegrass, allowing them to continue playing.
This might seem inconsistent to some. If someone is advocating for penalties which take players off the field, and for taking players off the field when the game is tied after regulation, why would you be against taking injured players from the field and not allowing teams to replace them if they've already utilized their three subs? Pretty different. An opposing player may have caused the injury, or the injured player's own exertion, or chance, or bad luck itself might be the cause. Why punish a team for its legitimate injuries and do nothing for its fake ones? Which brings me to . . .
6* - Fouls and fake injuries
The NBA installed new rules in the last eight years that address whiny responses to foul calls and flopping (when a player acts like they've been more severely impacted by physical contact with another player than they actually have been). Unfortunately, the NBA stops very short of penalizing players across that league for those infractions.
*- If you noticed that the numbering increased by 2 from 4 to 6, you caught me. I was making sure you were paying attention. See, a 6 is a number that follows 5, which is probably another number with which you soccer fans are unacquainted. 5 follows 4, yet another number with which you are relatively unfamiliar. These numbers may all be used to total up scoring chances, and heaven forbid, goals, that number more than 0, 1, or 2. I just didn't want you to stop reading because your mind was blown by all these strange symbols in conjunction with the overall topic.
Moving on. I watched a world cup game that featured Neymar, from Brazil, recognized as one of the best players in the world. While his skill and effort didn't disappoint, his antics certainly did. He would be excellent at charades if every word or phrase were synonymous with feigning a lower leg injury. He would be a better actor, than a soccer player, and that would be a travesty, because he's a damn fine player. He faked an injury a few times that game and one time he was down writhing in pain for eight minutes, longer than it takes some women to give birth to their first child.
Consider that every player, every game, takes a turn improvising their own death scene, whether they behave as if someone took an alligator to their shin, or had a 5 second circumcision performed on them unbeknownst to the fans who had yet to fall asleep.
I'm sure there are people who can't complain about the theatrics some of these players go through to convince a referee that an atrocity has been committed. There is no end to it in men's world cup competition. I know there is none of it in youth soccer, but I don't know about the other levels. All I can tell you is that it is revolting and horrific. I wonder what disabled veterans and those who have lost limbs and senses think about these theatrics. I'm reading Black Hawk Down- I can't imagine those who have had the butt-ends of rifles slammed into their faces and organs leak out of their stomachs would have much time for soccer of this type.
I'm not, never have been, and never will be, a world-class athlete. I was athletic during my time, and more than that, I was competitive, and still am. I've played basketball well, and from time to time played it better on a sprained ankle, when the will to push through, aided by adrenaline, outranked the pain. I've been on crutches, in casts, eye-patches, had an eye surgery. I gave up softball because I knew that given the same set of circumstances, I would have instinctively slid head first back into second base, leaving me vulnerable to the same injury. I've popped dislocated fingers back in to keep playing a flag football game. There are people out there who have played at much higher levels, and have a list of maladies ten times as long, and plenty more painful. Anyone who has actually been injured at any level of competition, would not, nor should they, respect a player that makes love to the field of play as if someone found that player's self-destruct button. I could have gone with another Kathy Bates reference, this one more amenable to good taste- when she hobbles James Caan, in Misery, with a piece of wood and a sledgehammer.
The problem is real and the solution is real easy. Fine and suspend the player for the next game, or fine the team/country in a way that hurts their pride AND their pocket book. On replay during the game, or after the game, review the game film, and assess whether someone was first- actually contacted, second- actually injured, third- actually suffered, and fourth- actually recovered. If they aren't limping four minutes after getting up and never had to get removed from the game, a fine and suspension for the next game is in order. Yes, players have played on broken legs and other leg injuries. I expect the number of times those exceptions come into play won't be worth not implementing a draconian approach to these shenanigans.
Note: Yes, Curt Schilling was accused of sporting a fake bloody sock, and Paul Pierce was carried off the court during an NBA Finals game, but these are exceptions. Hockey players take galvanized rubber pucks shot at them at 100 mph to knees, ankles and faces every game and appear to heal their wounds with stitches made from the beards of their teammates. Suck it up Neymar et al! Hockey players are like Wolverine from the X-Men; soccer players are like . . . I don't want to insult Squirrel-Girl and Arm Fall- off-Boy (actual super heroes).
Yellow cards can be issued if someone fakes an injury, but it is rarely called. And if the supposed injured player is later found to have been actually injured, he will miss games, so the fine would be expunged. We're not talking about head, neck and spine injuries here. We're talking about ankles, feet and knees for the most part. If the guy can't put weight on a leg, walk without a limp, or flat out can't walk, we know he's injured, and we know if the conditions for injury were ripe by reviewing the recorded game film.
Seriously guys, have some self-respect. That applies as much to the people in positions of authority who could positively impact this sport, (who haven't implemented any rules changes since 1992- ironically, the last time a Constitutional Amendment was passed) who haven't already looked to modernize and meaningfully improve this problem, than it does for the cadre of cry-babies keeping their tibias in place with a tourniquet of hands players must feel they should employ because it is illegal to use their hands to contact the ball in the field of play.
6* - Off-sides
This is the most infuriating issue and most necessary rule change, if we have any hope of improving the quality and enjoyment of watching and playing the game. I would change one of the off-sides rules slightly and one of them drastically. What are the rules? Largely, there are usually only three of them (according to one source- https://www.orlandocitysc.com/post/2016/01/01/soccer-101-explaining-offside-rule), here they are:
A player is NOT in an offside position if:
- He is in his own half of the field of play.
- No part of the attacking player (head, body, or feet) is closer to the opponents goal than the final defender (not including the goalkeeper) .
- He is receiving the ball from a throw-in.
According to the FIFA rulebook, a player is in an offside position if:
- He is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.
- A violation will occur when he is in an offside position (previous bullet point) at the same time the ball is being passed forward to him.
This site addresses some more nuanced examples of off-sides offences such as when the off-sides player is illegally screening the goalie from viewing the ball, which would be a manifest advantage if the ball is in the scoring zone I detail below, but shouldn't be allowed if the ball isn't in that zone. More off-sides fun.
The large change: Add a scoring zone line. Call it whatever you like, but draw a semi-circle across the field that would look like the image below.
Scoring zone- if the ball is within the scoring zone, any offensive players within that zone are not off-side even if they are whispering in the goalie's ear.
As long as a player isn't in violation of any of the other stated offside rules, what is the problem with asking a defensive player to engage his opponent in an athletic contest? Look, this is a proposal. It isn't perfect and some competition committee, probably made up of competitors from other sports, because those weaned on the liberal teat of soccer would object to every proposed improvement, would need to be the ones to force this change down the soccer player's throats. Those who would argue on behalf of the cerebral aspect of catching an opponent off-sides, and those who desire otherwise, aren't appreciative of the finer points of soccer, should stick to chess. Soccer, you've got a good sport here, let's make it great. Note: this should not be in any way misconstrued as a reference to Trump's mantra about making America great again. Soccer has never been great. This whole exercise is proof of that.
The lone exceptions to a rule change of this magnitude would be direct and in-direct kicks, and of course, penalty kicks. All players on offense would have to remain on side whether the ball was in or outside of the scoring zone for the free kicks, and could only be considered on-side if the ball remained in the scoring zone after the free kick.
The casualty of this change will be fewer games without major disagreements among fans, because an increase in assessments about whether something is a violation will undoubtedly increase the number of questionable calls, and so increase the likelihood of bad calls. And I'm not sure that is a detriment- more people passionately investing in the events of the game, having spirited discussions about outcomes and instances is generally not a negative. I'm not guaranteeing there will be games decided by the hosed up interpretation or application of this rule, but that likelihood significantly increases, and it increases only at a rate equivalent to the time it takes a 1 quart pot of water less time to boil than a 3 quart pot, so we can get to the sustenance of anticipation and excitement rather than remain in the cesspool of soccer reverence.
The biggest reason for this proposed change is because basically any player on the field, with their talent and honed skills, could score from within that zone. Now, the number of players within that zone will cut down the space, limit the angles and holes the ball could fit through, and increase the physical play. It may resemble a life-sized version of bumper pool. But the sport has got to infuse some excitement and anticipation that it lacks. And that's the key point- the anticipation.
Hockey is a much better sport to watch in an arena than on a couch because of the anticipation you can feel. A 1-0 hockey game is well more exciting than a 1-0 soccer match if only because of the anticipation and chances. By the time there are five minutes left in a hockey game, each goalie has probably had to make at least 20 saves apiece; by the time a soccer goalie has played four world cup games he might not have had to make 10. The ball bouncing off of posts, defenders, re-kicked quickly by forwards and deflected off of the goalie is the natural product of this rule change and it unquestionably improves the game.
This attention at one offensive end will inevitably increase the chance that a ball played out of that end to what are now more open areas of the field heading in the other direction could add open field scoring chances- 3 on 1s, 2 on 1s, and secondary breaks that were virtually non-existent before. These "break-aways" are the type of play that creates excitement and increases scoring in basketball and hockey.
So, instead of 1-0, and 1-1 games, perhaps the teams combine to score as many as, perish the thought, 4 or 5 goals, especially if you institute the tie rules I've already addressed. Maybe that opens the door to fantasy soccer . . . and the interest in the sport grows even more. It wouldn't be much fun to own a player of Neymar's or Messi's substantial abilities if they only scored 1 goal every 4 games.
There were 167 goals in 63 games during the 2018 world cup. That is four fewer than the record and is only 2.65 per game. People, please.
And I want to stress, the idea isn't to focus on getting more goals, but to provide these talented athletes more opportunities to score goals; here too it is the process and not the destination. Ask any really well-versed student of any sport if they require the game to produce excitement or numbers. It isn't the score that matters, it is the prospect of bearing witness to athletic excellence, which is a prospect currently denied to any participant who steps onto a soccer field at any level because of the limitations in the nature of the game.
Changing off-sides rules isn't unprecedented. This is a link to an off-sides rule change from 2016- http://nisoa.com/instruction/interscholastic-instruction/2016/04/29/offside-new-interpretation/
I was going to quote at length from the instruction link, but I'll summarize instead. A player in an offside position can now legally play the ball if the defending opponent has touched or deflected, but not controlled, the ball, or attempted to touch or deflect the ball, but failed.
7 - Historical perspective
One other ancillary point that all of the sports get wrong and about which I've been bringing up for 20 years- opportunity. These rules are probably never going to be implemented, but if they were, we would need to section off the stellar play of soccer heroes these last 140 years and offer some perspective. Even if Bonds weren't pumping himself with steroids, or McGwire before him, if any player had more games than another player to hit more home runs we've got to consistently mention that in conversation. Pele scored 1281 goals in his career and that is second all time. If, because of the rule changes identified above, some German, Argentinian, Brazilian or other worldly player were to amass 1400 or 2000 goals, the media, press, fans and announcers should continually impart and publicize the significant differences the sport has gone through.
Other sports make rules changes, add more games to schedules, change the height of pitching mounds or scientific advancement improves the tennis racket, or golf club, and we are in awe of the modern day players in all sports. Sure, when they are handed every advantage modern times has to offer, these players are going to look like super heroes. It seems obvious, but just because player A scored 300 more goals than player B, doesn't mean player A was more talented- perhaps he had several advantages it isn't always convenient to remember or mention.
Note: that link is from the National Intercollegiate Soccer something or other, and its applicability to professional or world cup soccer might be in question. To be honest, I'm as worn out from writing this as all of the people who haven't read it.
So, that's all I have. I fixed soccer. I spent more energy caring about the sport than I ever thought possible and that includes, trying to coach it for 6 years, and counting, at the youth level.
Appendix-Ratings
Important to note: the NBA comparison highlighted in the article about basketball ratings (14.8 million viewers), is game 7 of the 2018 Western-Conference finals, which featured no fewer than five future hall-of-fame players . . . the NFL Pro-Bowl highlights the contributions of players who threw for the 12th most yards and tied for 15th for the league lead in sacks, and that broadcast got 8.6 million viewers. For those stating the obvious- well, that is a game 7 vs. one game. But game sevens always get higher ratings than their 6 predecessors in a series and higher still than the playoff rounds which precede the conference finals. So, I'm choosing favorable comparisons for the NBA and they are not attracting even twice as many viewers as a game of players acting as substitutes for substitutes, that is televised one week before the Super Bowl, and after four months of Sundays which all offered 10+ hours of football.
The Pro-Bowl is a completely useless endeavor that spotlights players who are only participating because the first 15 players at their position recused themselves for having suffered pretend injuries, or because the pain the players feel is only painful retroactively. This is no different than the male world cup soccer players who embarrassingly attempt to convince us they have suffered real injuries on camera, rather than NFL players who 50% of the time have suffered real injuries, in games that mattered, and who are unwilling to play in an exhibition game, football's version of a friendly, given the pain and/or the inconvenience. Those soccer players, faking injuries, fail to convince us at a rate similar to the percentage of times Susan Lucci won daytime Emmy awards- approximately 5% of the time (she won once in 21 tries).
Phew. I know what you're thinking- what in the hell does comparing football and basketball ratings have to do with fixing soccer?
Someone will say, "so, let's talk soccer ratings. The men's 2018 world cup ratings were estimated to have hit 3.6 billion world-wide." It is important to note- the U.S. did not participate, and by some accounts, relatively speaking, the ratings in the U.S. weren't horrible. If the reader didn't click on the links I've already provided, foregoing the addition of another here isn't worth my time. My counter to the question which started this paragraph- that is every four years. If the world cup were held every year, those ratings would not be as high. (Note: and I'm not discounting the Women's World cup, coming in 2019; the 2015 final featured the U.S. and drew 25.4 million in the U.S., 750 million world-wide.) Another note: the continued capitalization of Women's World Cup, if for no other reason than because they don't fake injuries to nearly the degree as the men.
So, yes, soccer is doing just fine, two out of every four years. And that is world cup soccer, the arguable pinnacle of the sport, as judged by fans everywhere, and players too. Players stop playing for the club that pays them the bulk of their salary, any time the opportunity to play in the world cup presents itself. Imagine fixing a few things that are wrong with the sport and finding ratings that challenge the NFL in a decade?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/what-the-world-cup-ratings-revealed-about-american-soccer-fans
"The 2018 men's final between France and Croatia drew 11.3 million viewers on Fox and 4.7 million on Telemundo, according to data from Nielson." Imagine that number being 25 million in the U.S. alone WITHOUT the United States involved in the final.
No comments:
Post a Comment