T1B

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:54 pm**

Zero interest

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:01 pm**

I want to like soccer. I really do. My kid plays it and likes it (so far, much to my chagrin, he prefers soccer to football, but he's only 8, so I'm not pushing it) and has been after me for awhile to coach him. The area where I live is something of a soccer hotbed by U.S. standards, and we've been talked about for a MLS franchise despite a relatively small population base.

The problem for me thus far is soccer fan. I'm having a very tough time getting past soccer fan's arrogance, e.g., you can't like other sports and be a real soccer fan.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:03 pm**

I'll take vacation days in order to see the WC every 4 years, and will follow the European championships every 4 years. I've attended some Wizards games when I lived in Lawrence, but I haven't watched much MLS at all in the last several years, nor do I follow European club teams very closely because I don't have satellite.

If the WC comes back to the U.S., I'll make a roadie to Dallas or KC or St. Louis to see a game, ala '94.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:07 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:07 pm**

I picked multiple choice item C.
Pretty much sums up my feelings about "footie".

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:09 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The problem for me thus far is soccer fan. I'm having a very tough time getting past soccer fan's arrogance, e.g., you can't like other sports and be a real soccer fan.

I haven't seen any of that among this crowd, most of whom are avid fans of gridiron and/or basketball, in addition to Sakkah, myself included. That attitude is asinine for any sport. It's like saying, "Well you don't really like lobster because you also enjoy steak." It's dumber than CissyCrown posting a party pic.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:21 pm**

C - I watched some of the WC, really just to give the sport a chance.

I mentioned in another thread, I hate the offsides rule - just seems that it would be far more interesting to see 5-4 games than 1-0

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:44 pm**

KC Scott wrote:I mentioned in another thread, I hate the offsides rule - just seems that it would be far more interesting to see 5-4 games than 1-0

That's not how it would work. It would most likely reduce scoring. Without offsides, a striker could camp out deep, and a sweeper would stay back with him, pretty much reducing the amount of fast-break offense.

With offsides, it allows a team to pull its defenders forward, increasing their chances of keeping the ball nearer their oppnents goal, allowing for more time to set up, rather than "winging it." With "campers," a team couldn't use defenders to gaurd the midfield line, and keep the ball on offense.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:46 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
KC Scott wrote:I mentioned in another thread, I hate the offsides rule - just seems that it would be far more interesting to see 5-4 games than 1-0
That's not how it would work. It would most likely reduce scoring. Without offsides, a striker could camp out deep, and a sweeper would stay back with him, pretty much reducing the amount of fast-break offense.

With offsides, it allows a team to pull its defenders forward, increasing their chances of keeping the ball nearer their oppnents goal, allowing for more time to set up, rather than "winging it." With "campers," a team couldn't use defenders to gaurd the midfield line, and keep the ball on offense.

Then borrow a page from the NBA and institute some kind of 10 second rule.

Problem solved. Right?

Nah, probably not.

BTW: I'd say I'm in the second group. I watch occasionally, and I like the sport as it is. But I'll never be as die hard as your average Euro.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:21 pm**

I don't know enough about the damn sport to either agree or disagree with dins' statement. I think that it would be a little more wide open, but, passing would take a backseat to booming it deep. This would take away from the game, imo.

I think the solution to the problem is unlimited substitution. It would pick thing up quite a bit without really changing anything.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:26 pm**

smackaholic wrote:I don't know enough about the damn sport to either agree or disagree with dins' statement. I think that it would be a little more wide open, but, passing would take a backseat to booming it deep. This would take away from the game, imo.

I think the solution to the problem is unlimited substitution. It would pick thing up quite a bit without really changing anything.

The problem the rest of the world has is the assertion that there is a problem to solve. In another 100 years Latinos will be the majority in this country. In the meantime, there is no need to conform the rules of the most popular sport on the planet to suit the tastes of a population bases that will soon be demographically insignificant.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:36 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
KC Scott wrote:I mentioned in another thread, I hate the offsides rule - just seems that it would be far more interesting to see 5-4 games than 1-0
That's not how it would work. It would most likely reduce scoring. Without offsides, a striker could camp out deep, and a sweeper would stay back with him, pretty much reducing the amount of fast-break offense.

With offsides, it allows a team to pull its defenders forward, increasing their chances of keeping the ball nearer their oppnents goal, allowing for more time to set up, rather than "winging it." With "campers," a team couldn't use defenders to gaurd the midfield line, and keep the ball on offense.

Since it is like, the deadest day this side of Xmas - I looked up offsides:

In outdoor soccer, an offsides foul is called when an attacking player is passed the ball and there are not at least two opponents between him or her and the goal line. In other words, on the opponent's side of the field, a pass must always be made when the intended attacker is not closer to the goalkeeper than any other opposing player.

The determination of offsides has been around since the inception of soccer. The rule's intention is to give the opposing team a fair chance to defend by keeping two players near the goal at all times. Usually, these are the goalkeeper and one other defender, but not necessarily. The offsides rule still allows for the chance to score. It's based on the moment the ball is played forward to the shooter, so he or she can successfully receive the pass and still outrun the defenders to make a goal.

There are some exceptions to the rule of offsides. It cannot be called if the players are on their own side of the field, nor is it valid on a throw-in, goal kick, or corner kick. A referee calls offsides by waving his or her flags. Then the referee must determine the place on the field the attacking player was located when the violation was made. The opposing team gets an indirect free kick from that position when offsides is called in their favor.

Offsides has always been a controversial rule, particularly because a referee has some freedom of interpretation. He or she must determine if the circumstances were right to make an official offsides call, even if the player was technically occupying an offsides position. A referee has flexibility in ruling that the player seriously intended to receive the pass, was moving forward, and was significantly "interfering with play," as the rule book states. This means the attacker had a fair chance of scoring a goal in addition to being offsides.

What I saw a lot of was defenders purposely moving up on passes and catching the striker behind them resulting in offside calls.

It seems if you got rid of the call, even if a defender stayed back in man coverage, it would still open more scoring chances on passes behind the defense.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:40 pm**

BSmack wrote:Then borrow a page from the NBA and institute some kind of 10 second rule.

Not practical, given that possession changes back and forth constantly. The offsides rule does suck in the sense that it does result in fewer goals, but then again the entire game would change entirely if guys were allowed to simply stand in front of each other's goal.

My solution would be to add two additional lines on the field, say 15-25 yards on either side of the midfield line. Allow offensive players to post up there, if they so choose without being offsides. Something like that would certainly increase the chances for fast breaks and goal-scoring, without allowing guys to simply stand in front of the opponent's goal.

Part of the problem is way too many hardcore traditionalists who don't want to see any additional rule changes, even if it could result in more scoring chances.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:47 pm**

RadioFan wrote: My solution would be to add two additional lines on the field, say 15-25 yards on either side of the midfield line. Allow offensive players to post up there, if they so choose without being offsides. Something like that would certainly increase the chances for fast breaks and goal-scoring, without allowing guys to simply stand in front of the opponent's goal.

Part of the problem is way too many hardcore traditionalists who don't want to see any additional rule changes, even if it could result in more scoring chances.

In hockey, there was talk of eliminating the red line which would have gotten rid of the two line pass call - Would have been a great idea, not sure why they didn't adopt it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:48 pm**

My grandfathers were each immigrants from soccer-lovin' nations (maternal was from Manchester, England, paternal was from Abruzzo, Italy) but neither showed ANY interest in the sport when they were in the US. My English grandpa became a HUGE baseball fan (Yankees, naturally, since he lived in NYC), while my Italian grandpa dug American football. The latter one never really liked soccer, even in the old country, so it wasn't a case of him trying to "fit in" (hell the guy loved bocce and some bizarre finger-throwing game called 'La Morra').

I've tried to get into soccer, now that my oldest son does the summer soccer league stuff, and even sat through the World Cup last year...but I just find it incredibly fucking boring. It's right up there with WNBA, field hockey, curling, golf, fishing, as things that I would almost rather chew glass than ever watch.

I'll admit it's probably a cultural thing, but I gave soccer a shot and honestly....it bores the ever-loving shit out of me.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:50 pm**

In outdoor soccer, an offsides foul is called when an attacking player is passed the ball and there are not at least two opponents between him or her and the goal line.

They changed this rule a few years ago so that the attacking player can be even with the first defender at the time the ball is played (passed). 99 times out of 100 the second defender is the goalie, so this rule change was theoretically supposed to help scoring chances by allowing the attacker be even with the defensive player when the ball is passed.

When the two players are even, some refs will still call offsides, others won't. It's one of the major inconsistencies of officiating.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:51 pm**

KC Scott wrote:Since it is like, the deadest day this side of Xmas - I looked up offsides:

In outdoor soccer, an offsides foul is called when an attacking player is passed the ball and there are not at least two opponents between him or her and the goal line.

Good on you for looking it up and educating yourself. Unfortunately, that definition is wrong. It doesn't matter whther the ball is passed to an offsides player, or any other player, for that matter...if the ball is played forward at all, with a guy offsides, it's offsides...doesn't matter who it's passed to, or even if a teammate dribbles the ball forward. The ball cannot be advanced with a player offsides(which means having less than two opposing players between you and the end line).

RadioFan wrote: My solution would be to add two additional lines on the field, say 15-25 yards on either side of the midfield line.

Wow, an original idea, and would undoubtedly increase scoring.

Sin,
NASL

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:05 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
KC Scott wrote:Since it is like, the deadest day this side of Xmas - I looked up offsides:

In outdoor soccer, an offsides foul is called when an attacking player is passed the ball and there are not at least two opponents between him or her and the goal line.

Good on you for looking it up and educating yourself. Unfortunately, that definition is wrong. It doesn't matter whther the ball is passed to an offsides player, or any other player, for that matter...if the ball is played forward at all, with a guy offsides, it's offsides...doesn't matter who it's passed to, or even if a teammate dribbles the ball forward. The ball cannot be advanced with a player offsides(which means having less than two opposing players between you and the end line).

Which just kinda reinforces the point that it's a stupid rule that inhibits scoring

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:14 pm**

Again...having campers would inhibit scoring, and make for ZERO fast breaks, while causing one or two less players to advance on offense. Not sure what part of that is confusing?

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:27 pm**

Mace wrote:I posted this poll after reading another thread put up by Nish regarding some unknown (to me) soccer player, and was curious as to how many soccer guys we have in here.

I'd fall into the D category. No interest at all. I supported both of my kids when they were in the youth soccer program but was happy as hell when my son abandoned soccer in the 5th grade and chose to play on the 5th grade football team. My daughter played for 1-2 years and gave it up as "too boring" and became a football cheerleader instead. I didn't bitch about having to attend their soccer games at 8 a.m. on Saturday mornings, even after getting home at 2 a.m. from officiating high school football, but was not disappointed when they gave it up. I probably would have been more insistent that they stick with soccer if they didn't both play other sports, but it's not like they needed soccer to stay in shape.

Mace

One thing I have heard about soccer that is positive, certainly from a youth standpoint, is that it's a very good base sport. The skills you learn in soccer translate well into most other sports because of the footwork that is required. For that reason, I'm not complaining, at least not yet, about my kid playing. His younger sister has also developed an interest in it (as much interest as a 1-year-old can have, anyway).

But my kid is built for football, not soccer, so I'll probably be disappointed if he stays with soccer long-term.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:29 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Again...having campers would inhibit scoring, and make for ZERO fast breaks, while causing one or two less players to advance on offense.

Your wrong.

It defenses would put a man on that camper and you'd have the camper vs. the defender one on one which would lead to more passes deep and shots on goal.

It's so obvious it could almost be considered fact.

Admit it and back gracefully away.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:31 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
RadioFan wrote: My solution would be to add two additional lines on the field, say 15-25 yards on either side of the midfield line.

Wow, an original idea, and would undoubtedly increase scoring.

Sin,
NASL

Oops. Didn't know they tried that. I was never really into the NASL.

Actually, if refs would interpret the rule the way its written, and give the benefit of the doubt to attacking teams rather than teams that play a bullshit trap defense ('sup Italy?), it would at least help. Far too many refs who still reward piss-poor defense rather than creative attacking.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:32 pm**

KC Scott wrote:In hockey, there was talk of eliminating the red line which would have gotten rid of the two line pass call - Would have been a great idea, not sure why they didn't adopt it.

they did, the red line remains for icing.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:35 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
KC Scott wrote:In hockey, there was talk of eliminating the red line which would have gotten rid of the two line pass call - Would have been a great idea, not sure why they didn't adopt it.
they did, the red line remains for icing.

I'm glad they took my suggestion and I'm sure scoring is up beacuse of it.
Now if soccer would just listen to me they'd score more too.
I believe I can help increase scoring for anything......... except Jess

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:46 pm**

KC Scott wrote:I'm glad they took my suggestion and I'm sure scoring is up beacuse of it.

scoring is up partly because of eliminating the two-line pass. i think it's more because of the emphasis of eliminating clutching and grabbing and the crackdown on the size of goalie equipment.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:47 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
KC Scott wrote:In hockey, there was talk of eliminating the red line which would have gotten rid of the two line pass call - Would have been a great idea, not sure why they didn't adopt it.
they did, the red line remains for icing.
I'm glad they took my suggestion and I'm sure scoring is up beacuse of it.
Now if soccer would just listen to me they'd score more too.
I believe I can help increase scoring for anything......... except Jess

All you'd have to do is create something that would cause temporary blindness in women.

The concept is easy. Applying it might be a little more difficult, though.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:51 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:the crackdown on the size of goalie equipment.

Which reminds me - Know the difference between a Goalie and Blondiebabe?

a Goalie removes his pads after three periods.

Ba dum dum dum.

Try the Veal.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:53 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
BSmack wrote:Then borrow a page from the NBA and institute some kind of 10 second rule.
Not practical, given that possession changes back and forth constantly.

You don't need to base it on possession. Base the clock on the location of the ball relative to the midfield stripe, not which team possess the ball. When the ball crosses the midfield stripe, you have a predetermined time to clear the "camping zone".

But again, it is absolutely irrelevant what we as Americans have to say on the subject. The world at large could give a shit.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:07 pm**

I would fall between the rabid and casual fan. Came into the sport via the youth soccer route. During the past decade I've learned more and more about the sport through coaching and refereeing. Over the last few years I've coached both my son and daughter's fall teams, my daughter's all star teams, and my school's middle school boys team.

Prior to that I was just a youth league baseball coach with almost zero soccer experience. I played one year as a youth when AYSO was just putting down its orange slice-roots. But I dropped it for baseball, basketball, and football from junior high through high school Soccer wasn't on my radar until the World Cup in '82, watching live Spanish broadcasts to pass the summertime blues. A mild interest at best and only every four years. But when the kids came along my interest grew gradually to the point that I've actually attended more professional MLS games than MLB games in the past two years. And making the right field pavillion an all you can eat buffet will do nothing to change that.

Mace, I'm sure you'd hate my past weekend: coached four tournament games, reffed five, setting up goals in 30 degree weather with a wind moving along at 25 mph. (For this self-avowed weather pussy, twasn't pleasant.)

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:08 pm**

KC Scott wrote:Your[sic] wrong.

Admit it and back gracefully away.

You had to look up the offsides rule, and I had to correct the inaccurate desription you found, but now you're going tro argue with me about the finer points of the offsides rule?

Priceless.

Removing an extra player from essentially all offensive sets, then going 8-on-10..brilliant way to increase scoring...make sure there's more defenders than offensive players.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:19 pm**

Dins,

The offside law has changed since the days of the NY/NJ Cosmos

FIFA Offside Law 11 wrote:t is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. 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 player is not in an offside position if

* he is in his own half of the field of play or
* he is level with the second last opponent or
* he is level with the last two opponents.

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

* interfering with play or
* interfering with an opponent or
* gaining an advantage by being in that position.

Just sayin'.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:27 pm**

The offside rule, explained for T1B posters;

You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.

The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire.

Both of you have forgotten your purses.

It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.

The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.

Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.

She prepares to throw her purse to you.

If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.

At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, 'whilst it is in flight' you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.

Always remembering that until the purse had 'actually been thrown' it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.

And Terry in Crapchester, calling Sahkah fan arrogant is probably one of the dumbest things anyone not called Cicero, Frag, Fraudo or Derron has ever said on a Smack board.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:25 am**

Nishlord wrote:The offside rule, explained for T1B posters;

second in the queue for the till.

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:30 am**

You're not familiar with "queue" and "till"?

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:32 am**

yeah. Every time I go to the store, I always ask the people in line in front of me how long they've been in "queue" for the "till""

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:36 am**

Ever use filesharing?

Ever had anything to do with retail sales?

Don't bother...we know the answer.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:08 am**

BSmack wrote:You don't need to base it on possession. Base the clock on the location of the ball relative to the midfield stripe, not which team possess the ball. When the ball crosses the midfield stripe, you have a predetermined time to clear the "camping zone".

I see what you're saying, but that wouldn't work. As it is now, teams can and are called offsides 5 yards from the midfield line, when one team has been on the attack and both teams are on one side of the field and the team on defense suddenly gets the ball and attempts to send it up to a forward. The forward can't be called offsides in his own end of the field, but a foot beyond the midfield line ... yep. A play like that -- where offsides is called when the forward and defender are even 5-10 yards from the midfield line -- is an instant killjoy to the counterattack.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:32 am**

With soccer, I really only watch the World Cup...I have no interest in the MLS or any of the Euro leagues. Soccer is pretty much on par with the traditional Olympic sports...I only follow them once every four years. The rest of the time, it's non-existent on my sports radar.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:29 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Ever use filesharing?

Ever had anything to do with retail sales?

Don't bother...we know the answer.

Ever think of taking a giant drink from the "shut the fuck up" cup, Clavin?

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:17 pm**

Nishlord wrote:And Terry in Crapchester, calling Sahkah fan arrogant is probably one of the dumbest things anyone not called Cicero, Frag, Fraudo or Derron has ever said on a Smack board.

That's been my experience.

Not to mention that the whole discussion of the offsides rule, and more importantly, the fact that FIFA won't even consider changing it, only adds fuel to the fire. Other sports tinker with their rules quite frequently, and often, the rule changes turn out to be good for the game (e.g., shot clock and 3-point field goals in basketball). The fact that FIFA would never consider a change to the offsides rule speaks volumes.

T1B

How many soccer fans do we have here?