The refs are working hard to screw the World Cup up, proving the wisdom of the old adage: "players win games, coaches lose games, and refs ruin games." The patently absurd penalty called against the US in its game against Ghana was not the worst of it. My two candidates for the worst of it:
In the France-Korea game, Zinedine Zidane -- by common consent the greatest and most elegant player of his generation -- got the stupidest yellow card of them all; he bumped into and knocked down a Korean defender a second or two after the keeper had made a save ... a truly trivial offense, and clearly accidental. But because it was his second yellow card (he got one in the first game), he has to sit out today's match agaoinst Togo. The truly awful part of it is that (a) he announced several months ago (front page news, literally, in Italy, though I'm sure it wasn't even mentioned here in the US) his retirement from soccer after this World Cup, AND (b) France's next match might be their last in the tournament (if they don't win). So it adds up to this: because some jerk of a ref wanted to teach him some stupid lesson, we might never see Zidane play soccer again. It's truly appalling and depresses me no end (not least because now I really HAVE to root for the French to win their next game).
This morning, in Tunisia-Ukraine, the score is tied 0-0; if the Tunisians win, they go through to the second round. Tunisia has a free kick, and one of the Ukrainian defenders sticks his arm up in the air and deflects the ball. As clear a penalty as you could ask for, but the ref does nothing. Five minutes later, the Ukrainian striker Andrey Schevchenko has the ball in front of the keeper, and trips over his own feet (probably intentionally, to draw a penalty) -- and he gets the call! 1-0 Ukraine -- a two-goal swing.
Here's what interesting, though. I think that this is, paradoxically (and possibly perversely), part of what people who are obsessed with soccer (all 1.5 billion or so of us)find compelling about the game. It has, like life, an irreducible element of capriciousness and luck. American football deals with this by sending out about 15 referees and, since that does not seem to be enough to guarantee that calls are made correctly, using instant replay in addition. It is equally absurd, though in a different, and I think peculiarly American, sort of way. Tunisia got screwed; it is too bad. But that,sometimes, is the way it goes . . .
Related Posts (on one page):
- Nation-Building:
- Soccer Coaches:
- Americans and Soccer, continued
- Americans, Soccer, and Scoring con't:
- Truth, Justice, the American Way, and Soccer Referees:
- Scoring:
- What's Up with South Asia?
- Another Reason to Love the World Cup, Continued
- World Cup
At least Simunic can take consolation in having set a new World Cup record for cards in a game...
And I disagree that Shevchenko tripped "intentionally". He rode TWO challenges before he tripped at the last moment. Not a penalty, but not an intentional dive either.
[NO WAY . . . I'VE LOOKED AT THE REPLAY 10 TIMES. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A FOUL. DAVIDP]
But even the flop rarely alters the outcome of a basketball game; in soccer, it routinely does, and is one of the reasons teams like Italy fall all over the field. The British actually hold similar views of diving, which is why the continental teams hate the Brits almost as much as us, and the Brits hate them right back (just watch a Spain or Italy game with British commentary). I just feel Americans can't take the fact that in soccer, cheating can very easily overcome hard work if done appropriately.
The thing with the call against the U.S. is that without the penalty kick, chances are the game ends in a draw and the U.S. still doesn't advance. However, that's just speculation at this point. [RIGHT -- WE REALLY CAN'T SAY 'WE WUZ ROBBED,' BECAUSE EVEN WITHOUT THE PENALTY, WE HAD TO SCORE ANOTHER GOAL, AND WE WERE INCAPABLE OF DOING THAT.
I'M NOT WHINING ABOUT THE REFS, AS SOME OTHER COMMENTERS SUGGESTED; WE FULLY DESERVED ELIMINATION. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE REFS WHEN THEY STINK - AND THEY HAVE REALLY STUNK. DAVIDP]
Another one of the refereeing low points for me was back in the France-Korea game where the French essentially had one of their goals taken from them. The ball clearly crossed into the goal before the goaltender blocked it out. If that goal had counted, Zidane and the French would have a much better chance of advancing.
Blaming the refs for a loss is crap and every real sports fan understands it. Tickytack penalties, bad calls, and missed calls are part of the game, even in American football. The outcome of a game is still determined by the teams, not the refs.
[Someone who plays and watches ONLY FOOTBALL should be a little more circumspect when speaking about "all sports." You are, simply, wrong. That's the point about soccer -- it is, in fact, different. Check it out sometime -- DavidP]
Very nice.
I've never been able to reconcile that question in my mind. English fans are arguably the most rabid in the world: I truly am scared what would happen to London should they ever win the whole thing. The one possiblity I can come up with is that they won the cup 50 years ago, got into the sport as a nation, but since then have seen the Cup won repeatedly by teams like Italy and Argentina. Maybe the more they see it, the more they want to see their team knock those teams out? I don't know.
I notice a lot of batters diving out of the way of pitches that are not particularly inside -- partly because a lot of them tend to lean over the plate to take away the inside pitch. On the other side, catchers move their gloves back into the strike zone after catching a pitch in order to convine the ump it was a strike.
Football, basketball and hockey all have their own versions of players bending the rules or making it appear that they have been fouled. It's not as blatant as the diving in soccer -- and it usually has less potential to impact the game -- but it does happen.
I can't believe we're watching the same sporting events. Players routinely dive in an attempt to draw a penalty in virtually every major sport.
True hockey fans, mind you, regard diving as an utterly craven way to play the game, and they think less of players who do it. But I don't know that it's different in soccer. Do people really venerate soccer players for their ability to pretend like they've been fouled?
I'm not sure I agree. Trying to influence referees and umpires seems like a part of American sports. Basketball coaches routinely try to "work the refs," for example, and catchers often try to catch marginal pitches in a position that makes them look more like strikes.
I'm not a soccer fan at all, but reading about officiating complaints suggests to me that perhaps the problem is that the penalties for some offenses are disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, or its effect on the game. Just an uninformed thought.
Yes, the Brits already love the game despite flopping, but in the US the game has to gain respect and flopping is a huge impediment. Most US fans have played football (the kind where full collisions happen every play) and baseball (where you get hit with hard balls). Some play hockey, a brutally physical sport. Taking pain stoically is highly valued. True, some degree of flopping is part of basketball, but you don't writhe on the ground in phony pain.
I'm making a distinction between falling around all over the place and trying to bend the rules in other ways that don't seem as... "weak". For instance, baseball players trying to act like they caught a ball or made a tag when they didn't, or O-linemen blatantly holding a blitzing linebacker, or the Karl Malone 4-step baseline move without a dribble. Possibly I'm wrong, but I think their is something in the general American mind that splits diving off from the rest of sports "cheating" and marks it off limits.
The acceptance of the power of the referee and his often terrible calls by the rest of the world says volumes about their relations with authority and ours. U.S. sports fans simply would not accept the degree and effect of interference in the game by referees that the rest of the world tolerates.
(2) Re Dennis Rodman -- The Worm was many things, and not all of them positive, but I don't think he had a reputation as a flopper. He tended to dish out contact more than (pretend to) receive it).
(3) Medis is right about the U.S. and the World Cup. If we were winning, we would be hearing a lot more about what a Great Game, Great Event, and Great ... etc. this all is. Oh well, wait 'til next time.
One interesting difference: in American baseball, basketball or football, a defensive player hurt during a play means that the other team has a one-man advantage until a stoppage of play; that outfielder hurt running into the wall means the batter takes an extra base or two; that basketball player grabbing his knee means a 5-on-4 play. In soccer, a team with the ball will intentionally kick it out of bounds so that the opposing player can be helped, and then that second team will kick the ball out of bounds back. The Italian coach criticized the US for failing to adhere to that norm. Of course, individual scores are much much more important in soccer than in American sports, but, still, there's no sense of poor sportsmanship if a cornerback's injury means a wide open touchdown pass.
While every American sport has practices that bend the rule, there's no real analogy to the sort of flopping and faking injury that one sees in soccer--except by the occasional European player in basketball. In American football, teams are penalized with a timeout for a real injury in the last two minutes, precisely to prevent the sort of tactics Ghana used at the end of their match with the US, where several minutes were ticked off the clock by players "needing" to be stretchered off.
I will say that the World Cup play has been mesmerizing, and shows how awful TV timeouts are in American sports. Baseball is essentially unwatchable now, as there's an extra half hour of delay in each game that there wasn't in my childhood, and it's hard to sit through an entire basketball or football game without some boredom.
In soccer (that gaytarded sport as mentioned here previously) 1-0 is a blow out, and 2-0 is about time to bring on the mercy rule. There is no such thing as a regular winning cushion as there is in actual sports, and so whining about the ref is more excusable. Of course the mere fact that you were in a soccer game tends to void any sympathy and justness for your point, but still.
Speaking as a player in all of the other sports, basketball feels closest to soccer in terms of the frequency and utility of diving. That's somewhat thanks to my positions (linebacker, hockey defenceman, rugby scrum half) being very heavy on contact.
Diving in football hardly ever happens, especially compared to frequency of holding/pushing off (which is nearly 100%). Thanks to the nature of the game (so many places where things can happen) and the attitudes of coaches (stop being a nancy boy, go out and kill someone) diving is highly discouraged, and the players will also enact revenge (opposition, and your own team bitching about having to ignore you on offense or losing help on defence). In hockey, diving essentially only happens if your name ends in "sson" and you have long, blond locks. In all cases, you'll be excorciated by both sides and are liable to have a splenectomy or nephrectomy conducted by the butt of someone's hockey stick several plays later. Rugby... diving tends to be useless (scrum to opposing side, a kick for a few yards' advantage, very rarely an opportunity for a kick to goal for points) as well as highly dangerous (you never get to come off the field unless you're bleeding, and you will find yourself on the ground with the entire opposing team running over you at some later point. you depend on their goodwill for your continued existence and ability to reproduce).
In all cases, the penalties are essentially meaningless as compared to the overall outcome (even in basketball, which sometimes needs more severe penalties to discourage "Hack a Shaq" style play). What is more, they are good, Anglo-Saxon games in that they have very high levels of self policing (rugby has players take lineouts further back than they are entitled to so as to get into play faster, though that's an advantage of its own).
Soccer is an effiminate, statist sport controlled by the ref, with little result, and effort and talent having virtually no effect on the outcome. It is, in a word, French. Its origins in England and reliance on the support of the British Upper Class for its foundation is no bar to this, as it quite resembles France itself in these respects (CDG, the wine business, country real estate, couture...).
In basketball their is acting no doubt. But at most it can give someone an extra point or two or 1/50th of their total final score.
In hockey diving is a penalty to the diver. Maybe soccer should try that. Yellow card for wussiness. Red card if you grab you head and cry after no one even touches you.
I think one of you hit the nail on the head by pointing to the 'weak' or effeminate nature of the soccer flopping. It's silly that grown men fling themselves to the ground after touching shoulders. And it's a big impediment to pro soccer's gaining legitimacy in the US. It doesn't help that most men over 30 probably view soccer primarily as something their kids play.
As one poster mentioned, in theory players can be given yellow cards for diving in the world cup.
A big problem, I think, is that a single referee + two assistants who stay on the side lines. Has to make all of these determinations in real time while minimizing stoppages. Given the angles at which the refs often must view contact, there will always be dives they can't catch. Of course soccer fans would never stand for instant replay.
One solution would be for FIFA to implement a regime whereby the various fouls are reviewed after the fact, and some penalty, say green cards, issued to each player determined to have dived. Some threshold of cards would result in a match suspension, and a fine be issued with each card.
Of course, some might not like this as it admits the fallibility of the ref, and it could cause a row if a match outcome hinged on a foul later ruled a dive. But, the review panel could mitigate these concerns by assign these warning cards without commenting on the specific plays that warranted them.
That's true, and it points to what galls me more than anything else about soccer divers. It's one thing to fall down after minimal contact. People do that in lots of sports (Shane Battier in basketball, for example). But usually there at least is some precipitating event that could arguably be a foul.
What soccer has that, to my knowledge, is totally unmatched in American sports is the faking of an injury along with the flop. It's not enough to fall down and draw a bogus free kick, you also have to writhe and moan in pretend pain on the ground? I can't think of any fake foul in American sports that's even close to Rivaldo cynically drawing a card by grabbing his face after being hit with a ball in the leg. And almost never do you see medical personnel used to further the illusion min baseball, or basketball, or American rules football.
There seems to be a divide over the question of whether controlled violence is "part of the game," as the English-speaking announcers have always insisted, or whether such violence is simply a brutish tactic employed by less-talented teams in an effort to disrupt the play of their faster, more graceful opponents (as the rest of the world suspects).
I prefer fast-paced soccer, where the talent is allowed to shine, so I grudgingly tolerate the flop. It was somewhat effective, for example, in preventing the Australians from turning their match against Brazil into a Hockey game, and it has been conspicuously absent when, as in the Brazil-Japan game, both sides have let each other run.
Agog: while there is a penalty for diving in hockey, it isn't called all that frequently. The major thing is that it just isn't rewarded very often either, and flailing like an Italian soccer player is more likely to hurt your own team, penalty or no, than it is to help. Canada's Don Cherry (the most popular commentator in hockey, equivalent to every legendary baseball broadcaster rolled into one) is especially negative on diving (and on Swedes and Europeans in general) and gets paid millions of dollars to preach this orthodoxy every Saturday night during the season and every day during the 2 months of the playoffs. Not only does he highlight miscreants and actors, but he then demonstrates good ways of dealing with said infractions (usually involving some sort of pummeling, grinding a face into the ice, or an especially neat check into the opposing bench, all of which usually leave the victim/previous offender woozy at best).
The best clip I've seen of the World Cup had 2 men barely touch shoulders, with the attacker then collapsing on the ground, screaming and grasping the shin of his outside leg that was 3 feet away from the defender and any possible contact or injury. More French than words. Real sports everyone plays hurt, if not injured, while soccer has heros based purely on the ability to fake a paper cut.
First, the diving is just as much the gamesmanship as Phil Jackson or Mark Cuban working the refs in b-ball is, or Patrick Ewing's famous 8 step dunks, or offensive lineman holding every single play. Every sport has its problems.
Soccer is not as popular in America for a number of reasons. Soccer has been forced down people's throats and they resent it. The US does not have a world class team, and anything we are not good at must suck. We have limited attention spans, and watching an uninterrupted game for 45 min stretches is too hard on some. We can only embrace so many sports, and with b-ball, football, and baseball, we don't have room. Trying to convince someone that soccer is a great game and fun to watch is impossible.
Not only does bad officiating detract from the sport directly, but it encourages the constant flopping and feigning of injuries which are shameful to the sport. Worse, these behaviors are far more prevalent at the highest levels of the game, so younger players still have a lot to "learn" about how the game "should" be played.
If making serious efforts to have athletic events decided by the skill of the players is somehow uniquely American, count me in as usual.
There seems to be a divide over the question of whether controlled violence is "part of the game," as the English-speaking announcers have always insisted, or whether such violence is simply a brutish tactic employed by less-talented teams in an effort to disrupt the play of their faster, more graceful opponents (as the rest of the world suspects).
I prefer fast-paced soccer, where the talent is allowed to shine, so I grudgingly tolerate the flop. It was somewhat effective, for example, in preventing the Australians from turning their match against Brazil into a Hockey game, and it has been conspicuously absent when, as in the Brazil-Japan game, both sides have let each other run.
A sport where obvious, annoying cheating is *necessary* for the good of the game is a sport that needs some rule changes.
For one thing, why not have more refs for big international tournaments? Pro baseball generally has 4 umps at all regular season games, but for the postseason, they have six. Why? Because the games are more important and it is better to have more eyes out there.
Also, if finesse/fast soccer is so much better than physical soccer, the rules should be changed to promote that, rather than allowing all kinds of ridiculous flopping to effect that.
Real men don't flop. One does need to control holding and the like, and to punish it severely (see this year's NHL), but that is completely separate from a flop (or what a flop solves) and creates overly hesitant defence. Fast paced soccer is great, but is useless if one can't defend well. There is just as much of a place for sliding tackles and incidental contact in taking out the ball (as in the baseball duel between catcher and runner). Soccer depends too much on not even looking at the opposition meanly so as not to get a yellow card.
The rules have been changed. That is why yellow cards are flowing like cheap liebfraumilch.
You cannot seriously argue that there is no difference whatsoever betweeen telling a referee "Hey, they are clutching Kobe on screens" (or whatever Phil Jackson might say) and pretending that one suffered some horrible injury that is entirely made up.
And I love soccer, don't get me wrong. But just as soccer haters seem to invent supposed flaws with it, soccer fans pretend that any legitimate problem with the game are somehow always equalled by a flaw in an American sport. Why is it OK to complain about the (undeniably true) lack of flow and continuity in basketball, but somehow abhorrent to suggest that just maybe soccer has its own unique flaw?
(My solution for fake injuries, incidentally, would be to instruct referees to not allow players carried off on a stretcher to return to play for some predetermined amount of time, and to add larger amounts of stoppage time. Both of these have the advantage of requiring only referee instructions and not changes in the rules themselves.)
Another drawback of soccer, is that the team that plays "better" doesn't win enough. I know that's a subjective statement, and I know that in the long run, the teams that play better win the most. Much like Texas-Hold-Em (where 3-1 is a "dominating" advantage), it seems to lack a certain justice to it.
The best Rugby injury I've witnessed was when a teammate had had his forehead stepped on and there was a nice round cleat-shaped dent in his forehead (yes, he had a skull fracture and deformation). It was just one of those things, and while he came off, there was no real fuss over it (ok outside of the need for immediate and serious medical attention). Another one was a straight arm (delivered by a man with a broken arm no less) that not only laid out the defender unconcious but also broke his jaw. You could hear the crack from the othter side of the field. Again a case of that just being the game.
The only gamesmanship that you typically see happen in rugby is a quick penalty (penalised team needs to retreat 10 yards, and there's another penalty 10 yards down field if they don't), but that also can be self policing (any contact will draw a penalty, and sometimes the opposition decides to take you out rather than simply just brush you, and I've been crushed and winded by 300 pound forwards a few times doing it).
As to why we will continue to denigrate soccer: everyone is having the thing forced down our throats, and it galls to see such a globally celebrated bunch of whiners. Further, people who like baseball won't deny that slow play and questionable athelticism is a problem (nor will people who are cricket fanatics acknowledge the difficulty of day long and multi-day matches). Soccer fans not only do not accept criticism, but try to bully us right seeing folks by claiming that 1.5B can't be wrong. Incorrect, they frequently are, ChiComs, Soviets, Marxism, and 70s hair, Disco, and fashions are but a few examples!
HAH!
Only John Stockton and Jeff Hornecek, both of whom may actaully have had inner ear imbalances, fell to the ground more often than Rodman.
As for the rest of American Sports, yes, they try to get calls. How many times do recievers turn to the officals and yell about interference?
But flopping in collision sports like Football and Hockey just isn't a good idea. There is a lot of risk with at best a little reward.
I have another change: Make the goals inside the 6 yard box worth one point, goals outside the 6, but inside the 18 are two, and goals outside are worth three, goals from set pieces are one if direct. That would certainly increase the scoring.
My point was that the gamesmanship and rule bending is a problem in all sports and should be addressed. But to say it ONLY applies in soccer is just incorrect.
First off, the reason soccer players hold their lower extremities and roll around when injured is because, unlike all the other sports mentioned, the means of advancing and scoring is the means of balance. That is, controlling the ball with a foot means the other foot has to handle all of the balance and bear all the weight of the player. Hence, when truly fouled, a player goes down. Hence, when faking, a player goes down to adequately simulate the false foul.
Second of all, you all call yourself libertarians? The problem isn't the referee, the problem is that FIFA acts as the state and provides the referees. This allows FIFA to control the referee's instructions, as well as all the incentives of the referee, to promote it's own ends instead of the teams' or players' advantage.
The true problem is that there is not a market for referees where teams and players bid on the services of a referee. Since the referees are controlled collectively, the invisible hand of a free market is impeded. And, everyone knows that imbeding another player is a foul in soccer.
Mawado
PS Also note that, if armed, players could protect themselves without the services of a referee.
Nobody plays the umpires - the old slopgan was Kill the Umpire if they thought - or wanted to think - the umpire was doing something wrong.
Yeah, fascinating.
At least for goals and penalties, soccer could easily do the same, and then diving in the box would simply cease tomorrow, as would a few of the other complaints in this thread (handballs, disallowed goals, etc).
Each team gets roughly three decent chances to score a goal in two hours. In between, we get nothing but the deranged and insane opinions of refs who are probably on the take. Oh, one more thing -- the chance to watch grown men fake injuries.
But then, it's "The World's Game" isn't it? Until you realize that it's just Europe, and its former South American colonies, that are the only ones who take it seriously.
God in heaven, end the World Cup, and its pomposity, ASAP.
Which leaves, er, , well, only two countries that I can see on my map: America and Canada.
It is fine if you don't like soccer, and indeed understandable. It is regrettable, and sad, that you resent other people not sharing your own views.
1) As discussed, the diving for penalties. I've seen clear cases where two players jump up for a ball, simply bump shoulders (and the contact clearly can't be blamed on one player more than the other), and the one that remains standing gets the penalty called on him.
2) The feeling I get all around that in order to get a penalty, the player must be hurt. American sports may have penalities and even diving, but the likelyhood of a penalty call is only dependant on the contact made and not of the result. Cornerbacks get called for interference all the time when the opposing player falls down and gets up. It's clear that in soccer, the refs are more likely to call a penalty when an injury (real or fake) occurs, which is silly. If I punch a player in the face but he can't even feel it, I should get a red card. But if the contact is incidental and he breaks both legs, there should be no penalty.
3) Too much randomness. Scoring just seems too "lucky." On this I suspect that I'm clearly wrong and that watching more soccer will make this obvious, but in some games the teams get a couple shots on goal. So much has to go right just to make a shot go in. Come on, America was able to tie Italy because an Italian kicked it in his own goal. You could say this about football or baseball or whatever, but in those sports, there are plenty of chances to score. I guess what I'm saying it's about sample size - if I get 3 clear shots on goal and score 1, am I really better than the team that gets 4 shots but doesn't score any? Yes, I know, the teams which are better create more scoring opportunities for themselves, but this just isn't exciting. Sorry.
4) The infrequency of scoring. Not because "us Americans need action", and "action = scoring". But because, like someone above said, 1-0 is a blowout, and 2-0 is the beating of a lifetime. Basically if I'm losing by 2 with 10 minutes, I have such a small chance of winning that it's not even worth playing. There's no suspense. Game's over. In baseball, we see great comebacks all the time. Not _that_ frequently, mind you - that's what keeps them interesting. But frequently enough (maybe a team down one run in the 9th will tie it up about 15-20% of the time?) to keep me interested - and consider it a great game when we tie it. Once in awhile we see comebacks of 4, 6, 8 runs - this is just impossible in soccer.
Ok, that's way too much for now...but I'm interested in hearing your opinions. I have a lot of foreign friends and they are all obsessed, naturally, with the World Cup. I agree it's interesting, but for the reasons listed above, I find it hard to believe that I'll ever become a big fan.
Italy and the ref should be ashamed.
There seems to be a divide over the question of whether controlled violence is "part of the game," as the English-speaking announcers have always insisted, or whether such violence is simply a brutish tactic employed by less-talented teams in an effort to disrupt the play of their faster, more graceful opponents (as the rest of the world suspects).
I prefer fast-paced soccer, where the talent is allowed to shine, so I grudgingly tolerate the flop. It was somewhat effective, for example, in preventing the Australians from turning their match against Brazil into a Hockey game, and it has been conspicuously absent when, as in the Brazil-Japan game, both sides have let each other run.[/quote]
Australia came into the World Cup with an unfair reputation of being overly agressive. It seemed that the referees were obviously going out of their way to make calls against them, and to protect the Brazilians. Who is to say the Brazilians are more skilled if the ref has to watch out for them.
FIFA is all about fair play, so where is the fairness in staging for a free kick.It's amazing how the commentators just casually accept the ineptitude of the referees. "Ah yes that ball was clearly a metre out of bounds, but referee Helmut Schnitelgruber has allowed the game to continue..". "Ah did Fonz Feltchweiner just trip over the Australian player Klaus Frotburgen then? Ah yes, clearly no contact, but it's a penalty kick anyway. Good decision!"
If my national sport consisted of games like that, I can half understand why they have to surround the ground with 3m security fences, and why the fans torch towns afterwards.