I'm a former ref and longtime player. I understand the flow of the game very well. Americans don't want to slow the game down in the slightest. What they want is more justice, post-mortem oversight, and less preventable human error.
Anyone faking an injury on my pitch used to get a red card for conduct detrimental to the game. So I consider 5 minutes to be very generous. I'm aware that it's quite a long time. That's the point. Provide a disincentive.
You cite the example of quickly throwing the ball back in. Yet average high school matches get a replacement ball to the thrower quicker than at the World Cup. Worse, everyone seems to be OK with having the thrower creep down the field for 10 yards until throwing it with all kinds of crazy side spin on it.
To most of us, you seem like the abused who now sympathizes with the abuser. You want egregious human error unjustly changing match outcomes? You want to continue to foster an ethic of diving and unsportsmanship?
To reduce this aspect of the game, you've got to provide disincentives. The key is to pick disincentives that do not change the fundamental "flow" of the sport. It's really very simple. I expect that at some point in the next 50 years, there will be some leagues that tinker with the rules, become immensely popular, and people will forget the current dark ages of corruption, incompetence, and unsportsmanlike, disgraceful on-pitch behavior.
To most of us, you seem like the abused who now sympathizes with the abuser. You want egregious human error unjustly changing match outcomes? You want to continue to foster an ethic of diving and unsportsmanship?
No; and in fairness this is the only legitimate criticism I can accept about the game.
It's a new thing as well and entirely to do with the players and their ethos rather than the rules of the game. It's a catch 22 - sacrifice the spirit of the game to enforce fair play or keep the spirit and try to mitigate the diving etc.
Honestly; I don't think it is so bad as to warrant changes. Perhaps at the highest level of the game (though the world cup hasn't been too bad) but below that (club level outside of the premiership) it is pretty ok.
throwing it with all kinds of crazy side spin on it.
What's wrong with that? (I dislike the creep... agreed).
Yet average high school matches get a replacement ball to the thrower quicker than at the World Cup.
Citation? But also this proves the point somewhat - even the World Cup I disapprove of this whole "chuck em a new ball" philosophy. That is taking away from the game (where you should be running to grab the ball and get it back on the pitch ASAP). Modern football is having the urgency sapped by new ideas and rules like this. :P
I'm not saying the game is perfect; just that, well, Football is a game designed for Europeans to enjoy and some of that is stuff Americans don't seem to enjoy. Whilst I appreciate the suggestions we still enjoy the game very much - and would prefer for it not be changed to suit the American market (develop a break off game, certainly!). In the same way people would get pretty annoyed if I started making suggestions about how much Baseball could be improved :P
The spin thing was changed in 2008 with a rules tweak. It used to be that excessive spin on a ball signified that the player did not "use both hands" by virtue of favoring one hand over the other (to create spin).
Now it's "holds the ball with both hands", which allows for spin, but it's still seen as bad form in some circles.
> Anyone faking an injury on my pitch used to get a red card for conduct detrimental to the game.
Sorry, this is flat-out dangerous.
You are not 100% certain who is really injured and who is not faking, and you are incentivising players who may not be sure whether or not they are injured to play on.
You are correct. I was incentivising players who may not be sure whether or not they are injured to play on. Serious injuries (i.e. more than a sprain) at the amateur level are vanishingly rare.
If you want to overcome the "sport for pussies" stigma that American Football players love to attach to soccer, there's got to be some tough love, at least in the USA.
Re "sport for pussies", my impression of watching American sports is "sport for lawyers". The rules and play of the game reflect the litigiousness of American society in general, with the rules (I'm thinking football here) being really complicated, having all kinds of weird exceptions, and then challenges that are like little "trials" where you have to review evidence etc. It makes it totally unenjoyable for me.
Anyone faking an injury on my pitch used to get a red card for conduct detrimental to the game. So I consider 5 minutes to be very generous. I'm aware that it's quite a long time. That's the point. Provide a disincentive.
You cite the example of quickly throwing the ball back in. Yet average high school matches get a replacement ball to the thrower quicker than at the World Cup. Worse, everyone seems to be OK with having the thrower creep down the field for 10 yards until throwing it with all kinds of crazy side spin on it.
To most of us, you seem like the abused who now sympathizes with the abuser. You want egregious human error unjustly changing match outcomes? You want to continue to foster an ethic of diving and unsportsmanship?
To reduce this aspect of the game, you've got to provide disincentives. The key is to pick disincentives that do not change the fundamental "flow" of the sport. It's really very simple. I expect that at some point in the next 50 years, there will be some leagues that tinker with the rules, become immensely popular, and people will forget the current dark ages of corruption, incompetence, and unsportsmanlike, disgraceful on-pitch behavior.