| The argument outlined in the article is absurd. Soccer is and has been by far the most popular sport participation wise in the USA for decades. I played and refereed it competitively for close to two decades until I started having problems with my knees. Most Americans are very well versed in soccer and have either played it themselves or have at least watched their kids play it. Most Americans have no problems with soccer as a recreational sport. However, from our perspective, there are major problems with it as it currently exists as a spectator sport. All American spectator sports are extremely fine tuned affairs. Every American sport's officiating body does a complete post-mortem of every single call in every single game and annotates them extensively. This information is used to educate individual referees and to supply information to rules committees for possible future fine tuning of the rules. At the minimum, the rules committees issue an objective and annotated series of"points of emphasis" each year for officials so they can call the game in a fairer manner. In every American sport, unsportsmanlike conduct is dealt with in the harshest manner possible. It is not uncommon for an unsportsmanlike foul to be undetected during the game but later caught by the reviewing body during the post-mortem analysis. You will often see $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000 fines to the players and even suspensions if the infraction is deemed worthy enough. As I see it, there are several particularly glaring problems with international soccer: 1. There is no post-mortem review process that has teeth. If the Ivory coast player that was involved in that incredibly unsportsmanlike dive was retroactively red-carded (i.e. suspended) and the team's country fined, then it would provide a disincentive for this kind of behavior. 2. Officiating standards are laughable. There is an unacceptably large amount of variation between referees regarding what is and is not legal play. This makes it very difficult for teams to plan matchups and it condemns every game to a lengthy "feeling-out process" where, by trial and error, the sides determine the refereeing standards. This is not to say that there is no room for subjectivity; what I'm saying is that you have effective anarchy right now and it's a turnoff for American viewers. 3. Post-mortem review should also revert suspect yellows and reds. What good does it do for the game to have Kaka out for the Brazil / Portugal match? Nothing. In fact, it actively harms the game. 4. Offsides should always be "tie goes to the offense". There is no compelling reason to blow extremely close plays dead because the offensive player just might have been offsides by 6 inches. FIFA should issue a "point of emphasis" stating that "ties go to the offense". 5. There needs to be more than one referee. The article makes bogus points about "scaling down". You already have linesmen and a 4th ref that does nothing but hold up a substitution sign and do paperwork. There should be at least one and preferably two more referees so that the on-field officials have multiple views. One referee should be a head referee (as is already done), and the others subject to overrule. 6. Referees should train as groups and speak a common language. This is even more important for an international world championship event. This is just common sense. 7. Referees should be required to make distinguishing hand signals for each call. This would greatly aid the players, the fans, and the commentators in determining exactly what the ruling was. 8. For minor fouls in the box on set pieces, there should be discretionary power to the referee to retake or reverse the direction of the kick instead of either calling a game altering PK or doing nothing (and thus providing an incentive for questionable behavior in the box). There's simply insufficient granularity there. Minor defensive holding should generate a warning and another kick from the same spot for another scoring chance (but at a much lower scoring percentage than PK). 10. If a player leaves the field of play for an injury, or is down for more than 1 minute, the player should not be able to return for 5 minutes. This would provide a disincentive for players to fake injury. |
(though for the record post-mortems, referee training etc. are good ideas)
Referees should be required to make distinguishing hand signals for each call. This would greatly aid the players, the fans, and the commentators in determining exactly what the ruling was.
This is the case - hand signals are pretty conclusive in Football (and relatively simple).
Offsides should always be "tie goes to the offense".
Ouch, no. You'd see far too many goals scored like this; in fact from my observation the way it comes out if "tie could go both ways" - which makes it all the more fun/difficult to play. And more importantly keeps it relatively fair. I dislike sports that are "binary" - i.e. if it's A it's A. In football sometimes it is A but the ref calls B.
For minor fouls in the box on set pieces, there should be discretionary power to the referee to retake or reverse the direction of the kick instead of either calling a game altering PK or doing nothing (and thus providing an incentive for questionable behavior in the box). There's simply insufficient granularity there. Minor defensive holding should generate a warning and another kick from the same spot for another scoring chance (but at a much lower scoring percentage than PK).
See this is what frustrates me about US sports... it starts to get complicated. There is no need to introduce this complexity because the game is already well defined and correctly played in this area.
If a player leaves the field of play for an injury, or is down for more than 1 minute, the player should not be able to return for 5 minutes.
This just demonstrates, IMO, a misunderstanding of the game. 5 minutes may be no time in, say, American Football. In Football the game could be entirely changed in 5 minutes.
I think the biggest problem is that compared to many US sports Football is an extremely fast moving game that relies on being able to run smoothly and cohesively. For example if the ball goes out of bounds it could easily be thrown back in within just a few seconds and the momentum of the game continues (for me this is what I enjoy most).
There is, obviously, a culture difference. I think that is why I find US sports quite boring and unwatchable and some Americans want to change/slow/formalise football. I think... each to our own thank you :)
In my mind football is a perfect spectator sport because of the "flaws" introduced by human error. They make a game less predictable, more excruciating, provide human emotion etc.
(although I do think the current crop of players are a bunch of spoiled brats and need to be reminded of the real game)