<p>My S2 (loves and plays soccer) has been brainstorming solutions to PKs. He suggests that for every over time period, another ball is introduced on the field! What fun!</p>
<p>Or, each team gets to remove a man from the opposing team (not the goalie!) every 15 mintues. </p>
<p>Or, ANY goal counts - either end of field. Scored for the team of the player that makes it. (No goalie goals, of course.)</p>
<p>Didn’t favor Italy or France, but did think France played a better game. However, I was glad to have Italy win after 'danes shenanigans. Rather disappointed to see him with the best player award - a way of saying all the other players should strive to be like him? If he really was the player of the series, then why did he let his team down when they needed him most?</p>
<p>And I think the yearly Oscars should have a special award for theatrical soccer players.</p>
<p>Well, perhaps the comparison to cross country was a bit of a stretch. I just can’t imagine anyone would equate the physical fitness component of soccer to any form of athleticism. Pretty much anyone can achieve a very high degree of fitness and stamina through hard work and determination, it doesn’t take what I would consider any form of talent. Extreme physical fitness is just pretty much just a baseline requirement to most of the major team sports (a notable exception being baseball/softball (non Pitchers)). </p>
<p>What makes most sports exciting and fun to watch (to me, at least) are the “real” talents required to succeed above and beyond the fitness component. Certainly the best soccer players do possess these talents with how they handle/pass/kick the ball and can see plays forming more quickly than others and that’s what makes them the best players. So there, I said it! But the lack of scoring (the ultimate “goal” of soccer), the subjective refereeing, and the way the biggest games are settled is just bogus to me.</p>
<p>eng_dude, it’s not only “how the biggest games are settled”. Those are FIFA rules and all championship games which follow FIFA rules, down to tournament championships of kids’ games, utilize PKs to settle ties.</p>
<p>All Americans want to do is score, score and score some more — that is why basketball is the biggest bore.</p>
<p>Funding - Who says scoccer wants the American market? It has done well without it. Does it now have to become Americanized so that…oh, dear me… we won’t be put off by the game’s subtlties. How insecure is this society that anything we do not “get” has to be changed to suit us? “Economics 101”?! – what a typically American reaction. It is NOT ALL about money.</p>
<p>If the American team is to transform into a global power over the next decade, as some believe it will, its 15- to 17-year-old players would have to be among the best in the world. Results at the youth level offer evidence to the contrary, and there is no reason to believe that the next crop of players will be significantly better.*</p>
<p>I think it’s silly that some people want to change the rules of soccer (ummm… sorry… football… so used to the American lingo) when the rest of the world is perfectly happy the way the game is played. I’m an American, and I’m happy with the current rules. I wouldn’t want to change the game to suit the needs of a hugely outnumbered minority (one country vs. how many?). We cannot (and should not) change everything just to suit American needs. For example, we’re the only country in the world (that I know of) that calls football “soccer.” It’s silly! To me, the FIFA World Cup was the most exciting thing on television this past month just the way it was.</p>
<p>Leanid, you are totally misreading my posts. No where do I say that we should “impose” our concepts of sports on anyone else. I specifically said that I am very content with not watching soccer because of it boredom factor from my perspective. </p>
<p>I did not say that soccer wants the American market. My only point was that IF FIFA wants to attract the American dollar, they should meet Americans expectations. FIFA is a business just like the NFL. If they want to expand their market to the US which represents 25% of the world’s GDP, they should consider changing the rules. If they don’t want the American market that is fine too - no skin off my nose. American sports constantly tweak the rules to make the sport more enjoyable to watch; I see nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>In case anybody cares, nobody over here is upset that we Americans call it soccer. Most people are familiar with the concept that things have different names in different countries. In Germany, it’s actually called “Fussball” - so they think it’s funny that our “table soccer” game is called Foosball. Europeans are all familiar with “American football” and know that it is different from soccer --although many seem bewildered why Americans prefer it. </p>
<p>I understood your point but I wonder if you understand how lame it sounds to have to change a game that has been around a very long time, so that it would “make the sport more enjoyable to watch” for all us poor Americans who cannot grasp the finer points of the game. It is not just about scoring. And, it is precisely because of attitudes like yours that American soccer will forever remain second rate on the world stage.</p>
<p>“And, it is precisely because of attitudes like yours that American soccer will forever remain second rate on the world stage.”</p>
<p>Attitudes like mine? What does that mean? Are you saying that I should adjust my preferences so that I conform with the rest of the world? That would be like an American beer maker saying that Europeans should adjust their attitudes about beer so they can conform with our tastes. Also, a very large portion of the world loves baseball - should Europe adjust its “attitude” so that they conform with the portion of the world that loves it? </p>
<p>Since when is soccer second rate on the world stage?</p>
<p>As FF has noted, the major American spectator sports are constantly modifying the rules in order to create a better, more competitive “product”. For instance, the NFL meets once every season to add/change/remove its rules. I guarantee you that lots of people in the soccer-crazed countries would also like to see rule changes implemented. Anyone who thinks that the currently employed FIFA solution to resolving an overtime tie should be a penalty kick shootout has probably never played a competitive team sport, period. No one would ever want to lose that way. There have been several simple and practical solutions suggested in this thread alone. Just because “that’s always the way they’ve played”, doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to improve the game itself.</p>
<p>I am a huge fan of soccer, but I am quickly losing interest in watching. I am a former player who understands that a low scoring (even no scoring game) is just as beautiful.</p>
<p>However, it is too difficult to score a goal. So today’s players have resorted to cheap tactics like diving and rolling around the ground like the opponent cut their leg off to get the PK or free kick. It’s become ugly and intolerable. The Italian player who was fouled by the Australian and got a PK out of it could have easily jumped over him.</p>
<p>FIFA changes rules all the time - maybe it’s time to revisit the offside rule. They’ve changed the rule before - it used to be players could not be even with the last line. Maybe they could borrow a rule from Hockey’s rule book.</p>
<p>Yes, you should and yes, Europe should adjust its attitude to baseball if need be.</p>
<p>Why?! Because soccer was invented/created/evolved in that part of the world and we should respect that, and baseball was invented in the US and THAT should be respected too. I, for one, believe that.</p>
<p>IF the Europeans want to make changes, fine, but let them not be made for our benefit alone. The same goes for us and baseball. To think otherwise seems arrogant.</p>
<p>Since when did Americans invent beer?</p>
<p>US soccer will always be second rate until the US wins the big one.</p>
<p>Not really. My only position is that (and I repeat) IF they want to attract the American audience they should consider rules changes. If not, let them do whatever they want. The arrogance comes to play when you want me to change my preferences to like a sport that I don’t enjoy watching just because they invented it. </p>
<p>I lose no more sleep for not being a world power in soccer than I do for not being a world power in badminton or table tennis.</p>
<p>The FIFA is continually revising and changing the “laws of the game” - there has been a golden rule and a silver rule and most people just don’t want to deal with a bronze rule. One of the major issues at stake overseas is the ugly violence that breaks out among soccer fanatics that sparks just too easily - from throwing broken bottles onto the field, running out into the field, not to mention the horrors of stampeding etc. as well as the afterhours rioting and reveling that goes on. There is a constant search for the happy medium and no dearth of spectators who think that the game is exciting as it is. The FIFA website link has an internal link to the 2006 regulations - now if someone could just explain offsides to me than everything would be fine and dandy.</p>
<p>BTW, my kids and their friends are having the best time replaying the games on their Playstation 2 with the FIFA Germany 2006 - this is one year when even I am inclined to think that virtual is better than being there.</p>