US SOCCER

[Seahawks08]

Curling has 10 ends in it. Don't even go there and say curling isn't a real sport - we'll have words then.

I'm OK with women's curling.

[93henfan]

Lost in all of these discussions is how sick Jermaine Jones' goal was yesterday. if you go to about 20 seconds in you can see the amount of curve he puts on the ball to get it on net

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBreKJ24o8[/youtube]

You really expect the trolls ITT to appreciate that?

I can hook a golf ball like that without even trying to do it.

[andy7171]

Final Standings for Group B:
Netherlands - winners to play 2nd place of Group B (Brazil/Mexico/Croatia)
Chile - 2nd place to play Winners of Group B (Brazil/Mexico/Croatia)
Spain - won 3-0 today to get 3rd place
Australia - goes home with 0 pts and last place in the World Cup along with others who get o points.

HAH HAH! SUCK IT AUSTRALIA!!!!

Wait. I don't hate Australia. There's nothing to hate. Good looking women, great weather, beautiful beaches, cute koala bears and kangaroos and shit.

Really, is there anything to hate about Australia at all? Fuck them! Bastards. I hate them.

The Aboriginies and their stupid fucking diggery-doos.

[93henfan]

HAH HAH! SUCK IT AUSTRALIA!!!!

Wait. I don't hate Australia. There's nothing to hate. Good looking women, great weather, beautiful beaches, cute koala bears and kangaroos and shit.

Really, is there anything to hate about Australia at all? Fuck them! Bastards. I hate them.

The Aboriginies and their stupid fucking diggery-doos.

No matter where you go, there's always going to be some black folks. Well, except Asia. They cracked down on that shit a long time ago.

[CAA Flagship]

I know none of this will change and a lot of people won't give a rats ass what I think, but if I were to change soccer to make it more attractive for the casual observer:

1. Stop the clock on injuries and substitutions, no stoppage time. The halves end at 45:00 and 90:00, not when there is a lull in play and it's just past the stoppage time. Just about every other sport has tinkered with their clock management, why is soccer so stubborn?

2. Change the offsides rule (this has actually been done many times). I'm tempted to say simply do away with offsides, but that's too extreme and even less likely to ever happen. I think my answer would be to make it only offsides if you are in the penalty area. Not a big change, but maybe enough to make a difference. One footnote to this, isn't it technically possible to be offsides on a corner? If so, that's stupid and I'd change that. You should never be "offsides" if the ball is ahead of you.

3. More yellow cards for diving and delay. This is not a rule change, but certainly a change in application. The NHL embellishment rule was a fantastic one and when they started calling it, it did cut down on swan dives. Heck, they even call it in the playoffs including the SC finals.

If you've read this thread, you see the same complaints coming up over and over from us casual observers. Take it FWIW, or don't.

Only dealing with 2 because I agree with you on 3 (and you are correct that it is an application not a new rule and it is done better at the club level). Agree to disagree on 1.

For 2 - You are correct that you cannot be offsides on a corner kick so no worries there. Randomly and as part of the same rule, you also cannot be offsides on a throw in no matter where it is taken or on a goal kick - See Fifa Rule 11.

As I noted before, I think you will reduce scoring if you move the offsides line back. More defensemen will sit way back and that will take away a lot of rushes like we saw for Portugal's 2nd goal yesterday. It will stop breaks which is one of the 2 main ways that goals are scored (the other being set pieces). The 2nd way the US scored yesterday and Portugal's 1st goal were rarer ways to score. If there were no offsides, it would be even worse.

I brought up my dislike for the offsides rule earlier. It's not that I hate the rule as much as I think it is too difficult to correctly call as a referee. And with such a limited number of shots on goal, it is a tragedy when the referee calls offsides when it isn't. Was Dempsey offsides on his goal yesterday? I'm sure Portuguese fans are saying he was. It was so close and could have been called either way when looking at it live.

I suggested earlier that a hockey line would be more appropriate but it was suggested that the placement of the line would be too difficult as it would restrict breakaways. After watching some games, I agree, and am now back to my original thinking from decades ago that the offsides rule should be completely wiped out. In order to do this, there is definitely one thing that has to happen. An area immediately in front of the goal would have to be designated as a "no enter" zone, unless you have the ball, to give the goalie some room to operate. I think that if you take the rule away, you would remove the group of 4-5 defenders that typically sit in the middle of the field about 15 yards in front of the goal. I think this would open up the middle more giving the opportunity to get more shots on goal. In basketball, the baseline area outside the key on each side of the basket is called the "dock". A defender can't closely guard a player in the "dock" and be in position to help defend in the middle also. When compared to basketball, what soccer lacks in controlling the ball on offense (feet vs. hands), it has a tremendous advantage with space because of the size of the field. By allowing the offense to set up in the "docks", the defense will have to position themselves to guard them and, because of the size of the field, it would remove them from a help defense position. This is how I see the middle opening up more.

[CAA Flagship]

Lost in all of these discussions is how sick Jermaine Jones' goal was yesterday. if you go to about 20 seconds in you can see the amount of curve he puts on the ball to get it on net

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBreKJ24o8[/youtube]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

[93henfan]

Lost in all of these discussions is how sick Jermaine Jones' goal was yesterday. if you go to about 20 seconds in you can see the amount of curve he puts on the ball to get it on net

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBreKJ24o8[/youtube]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

Pine tar.

[CAA Flagship]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

Pine tar.

Speaking of which, I used pine tar on my bat the other day for a change of pace. I even spiced it up by spreading it beyond the legal 17 inches. That shit is sticky. It made me freak out like George Brett.

[89Hen]

the offsides rule should be completely wiped out.

I believe that would completely alter the game. Ice hockey got rid of the two line offsides to open up the game, but removing the blue lines would completely alter the game and it would not be good. I'd have to think the same applies to soccer.

[89Hen]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

+1

I thought the same thing when I saw that replay. It don't make no sense.

[clenz]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

+1

I thought the same thing when I saw that replay. It don't make no sense.

The ball isn't smooth, like you'd expect, it's textured which allows for the air to really play havoc on the ball - think of a knuckle ball in baseball, no spin but a ton of movement.

[Grizalltheway]

Lost in all of these discussions is how sick Jermaine Jones' goal was yesterday. if you go to about 20 seconds in you can see the amount of curve he puts on the ball to get it on net

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBreKJ24o8[/youtube]

Actually, the thing I find amazing is the fact that it curved that much with nothing more than 2 or 3 revolutions of the ball. Logic would dictate that more spin is necessary to make it curve that much.

Check this one out.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ECoR__tJNQ[/youtube]

[89Hen]

The ball isn't smooth, like you'd expect, it's textured which allows for the air to really play havoc on the ball - think of a knuckle ball in baseball, no spin but a ton of movement.

Believe it or not, I did play and even coach soccer. I could (and still can) bend a ball in any direction fairly well. It still makes no sense that it can curve that much with such slow rotation. The brilliance of a knuckle ball is that it doesn't go in one designed direction.

[MSUDuo]

Right now, as Brazil is tied with Cameroon, Holland is the only team that scares me. Even if we played like yesterday, I don't think we could beat them.

[tribe_pride]

I brought up my dislike for the offsides rule earlier. It's not that I hate the rule as much as I think it is too difficult to correctly call as a referee. And with such a limited number of shots on goal, it is a tragedy when the referee calls offsides when it isn't. Was Dempsey offsides on his goal yesterday? I'm sure Portuguese fans are saying he was. It was so close and could have been called either way when looking at it live.

I suggested earlier that a hockey line would be more appropriate but it was suggested that the placement of the line would be too difficult as it would restrict breakaways. After watching some games, I agree, and am now back to my original thinking from decades ago that the offsides rule should be completely wiped out. In order to do this, there is definitely one thing that has to happen. An area immediately in front of the goal would have to be designated as a "no enter" zone, unless you have the ball, to give the goalie some room to operate. I think that if you take the rule away, you would remove the group of 4-5 defenders that typically sit in the middle of the field about 15 yards in front of the goal. I think this would open up the middle more giving the opportunity to get more shots on goal. In basketball, the baseline area outside the key on each side of the basket is called the "dock". A defender can't closely guard a player in the "dock" and be in position to help defend in the middle also. When compared to basketball, what soccer lacks in controlling the ball on offense (feet vs. hands), it has a tremendous advantage with space because of the size of the field. By allowing the offense to set up in the "docks", the defense will have to position themselves to guard them and, because of the size of the field, it would remove them from a help defense position. This is how I see the middle opening up more.

Now that is worse than to move the offsides line up. With no offsides, defense will stay back and there will be no breakaways. Your no-enter zone completely and materially changes the sport. As I said before, there are 2 ways goals are scored. Set pieces and breakaways. Set pieces normally have people in front of the goal who can get their head or feet on it to put it in. Breakaways come in 2 fashions. 1 is down the middle which is not effected by your rule. The other is bringing down the side and passed to the middle then put in. You would not be able to score that way. In fact, none of the 4 goals from the US game yesterday would have been allowed by your rule and only the Dempsey goal in the first game would work.

How far does your zone extend? Not sure how far your no-enter zone would be but your way would make the sport more individualized rather than team oriented and will leave goaltenders helpless. Teams would isolate players on one side of the zone and have them work one on one. These guys can place shots well enough when going one on one that the keeper would almost be useless out there.

By the way, correct call on no offsides. If you freeze the attached at the 23 second mark, you can see Dempsey is clearly on side. The sideline official, like normal, was in perfect position on the far side. You can see him moving into position in the 5-10 seconds before up top. If you wanted to do a replay for offsides, I'd be in favor of that.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v19JZ0H-7mo[/youtube]

This one is at the 3:11 mark

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXu1Rswsy0g[/youtube]

[clenz]

The number of improper offside calls is like that of missed out/safe at first base % wise

[tribe_pride]

Right now, as Brazil is tied with Cameroon, Holland is the only team that scares me. Even if we played like yesterday, I don't think we could beat them.

No chance to face them until the Semifinals if we finish 2nd in our group or finals if we finish first in our group.

Looks like at halftime, Mexico and Croatia tied and Brazil up by 1 over Cameroon

If finished this way, Brazil and Mexico would be 1-2 and advance. Croatia needs to win to advance and can win the group if Brazil also loses. Mexico likely needs to win by 2 more than Brazil wins (or have Brazil tie or lose) to win the group.

[89Hen]

The number of improper offside calls is like that of missed out/safe at first base % wise

1. Any real stats to back that up?
2. Even if true, not really tit for tat. Many times an offside in soccer could directly result in a chance for a goal in a sport where 2-1 is often the result. A runner at first... not so much.
3. They use replay in MLB.

[clenz]

I'm actually suprised by the number of Brits on the Tottenham forum that think the US is in a better spot than the UK. There are a couple that think the US has no business playing and really want the WC to be only those with "historical" names - Brazil, Netherlands, Spain, etc... but when it was pointed out that up until recently Spain wasn't on that list, the US has more appearances than Portugal, a longer current streak of appearances, only 1 less semi appearances, and despite a 46 year hiatus only 4 less appearances. His tone then quickly turned too "Well, I'd rather watch big name stars than players like Dempsy...which caught him all sorts of shit.

It's pretty entertaining.

There are a number of posts that read

The US has played better football than England have so far during this WC and, looking at the future, I can see them progressing at a faster rate too. It's been almost 50 years since we won the WC, and we have one semi-final appearance between then and now (24 years ago) and I'm not sure if we're heading forwards or backwards at this point. The US national team will overtake us shortly, possibly by the time of the 2018 WC on current trends. Just because they don't have the amount of money in their domestic league to attract the top players doesn't mean that there aren't some very good players playing over here. The English team has failed to deliver anything at all since '96 has been consistently over-rated during the period. If the US were to play England today, I'd probably have take a sneaky bet on the US to win.

and

it's only a matter of time before USA win the WC

Those have that guy spinning worse than spanos on a 9/11 thread

[bandl]

The number of improper offside calls is like that of missed out/safe at first base % wise

Except missed out/safe calls at first base can be reviewed, even if only once and at a manager's discretion (I honestly don't know the challenge reviews in MLB)

[tribe_pride]

Wouldn't be surprised if the replay comes soon. They finally are doing the goalline technology for goals this World Cup and it's been used twice that I know of (1 to get a save by Mexico against Brazil and 1 for a goal that replays had trouble confirming)

[Skjellyfetti]

goddamn. Mexico robbed of a PK on a clear handball. Intentional handball even.

[tribe_pride]

Mexico just got their goal so as long as they don't give up 2 in the final 20 minutes, they are moving on.

[Grizalltheway]

2-0.
So what's the soonest we could potentially play them? They look pretty tough right now...

[Skjellyfetti]

They'll probably be toast against Netherlands next round. But, who knows? Haven't conceded yet... could be a great matchup.

And, we wouldn't face them until the semifinals at the earliest.



edit: now 3-0 for Mexico. If they can get another goal they'll win the group over Brazil.