NationStates Jolt Archive

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

8. Soccer needs tackling!

Ever watched soccer in a pub? No, didn't think so. The atmospehere is what's exciting about soccer, and the lack of breaks every 5 minuites so the players can re-apply their makeup.

Liasia']lack of breaks every 5 minuites

I don't think so.

I don't think so.
So you're saying there are breaks every 5 minuites? Soccer runs for an uninterrupted 45 minuites with one break in the middle of the two 45 minuite stretches. Unlike certain other sports i could mention...

Liasia']Ever watched soccer in a pub? No, didn't think so. The atmospehere is what's exciting about soccer, and the lack of breaks every 5 minuites so the players can re-apply their makeup.
no just breaks when a player clutches his ankle for a minute then hops back up
so what sport re applys make up?
im 14 so i cant go in a pub/bar
if atmosphere is the only good thing about soccer...

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.
1) Very, depends on the game
2) it's part of the game
3) ......
4) uhm, yes, please make a coherent sentence
5) just too stupid for words
6) no, that's part of the game
7)um, yes, but you can only use 3 substitutes in a game

the only thing i hate about football is that the players are pansies, crying every time someone knocks them over and I know most of the time it's just to get someone from the other team in trouble but that's worse cause it's ungentlemanly

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

1. watch a game. you'll see
2. unfair advantage is why that rule exists.
3. same size as a football field.
4. stoppage? every watch american girdiron? far more stoppage. if you think soccer has a lot of stoppage you arequite mistaken. Every American sport has far more stoppage than a soccer game.
5. no.
6. That can and does happen.
7 dumb rule.

no just breaks when a player clutches his ankle for a minute then hops back up
so what sport re applys make up?
im 14 so i cant go in a pub/bar
if atmosphere is the only good thing about soccer...
By breaks i was reffering to advert breaks
by that i was meaning american football, where the players are complete pussies
i was in pubs when i was 14
...then it has one more thing going for it than most sports

2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?

I'll give you that one. It seems a bit silly to me. Especially given how it's only ever up to the whim of the referee anyway, by my understanding.

6. That can and does happen.
7 dumb rule.
What? That doesn't happen and that rule does exist.

1. watch a game. you'll see
2. unfair advantage is why that rule exists.
3. same size as a football field.
4. stoppage? every watch american girdiron? far more stoppage. if you think soccer has a lot of stoppage you arequite mistaken. Every American sport has far more stoppage than a soccer game.
5. no.
6. That can and does happen.
7 dumb rule.
Yes i watch "American Gridiron" alot. Yes it has alot of "stoppage" however it also has violence, and lots of contact and oh my goodness SCORING

Good drainage is becoming a problem. More and more, fields are being designed to hold up well in rainy conditions and to remain relatively firm and mud free. This must be reversed. Fields should be designed to become as muddy as possible as often as possible. It's part of the game, and an important part of it. It's also an entertaining part of the game. Face it; everybody likes to watch games played in knee-deep goo. :)

American football is shit, look at all that protection they have to where, they are such pussies.

Now football, that has passion. It's the only sport where men cry.

Liasia']By breaks i was reffering to advert breaks
by that i was meaning american football, where the players are complete pussies
i was in pubs when i was 14
...then it has one more thing going for it than most sports
American football players are pussies???? Wow thats ridiculous you have no idea how hard they hit each other.

Yes i watch "American Gridiron" alot. Yes it has alot of "stoppage" however it also has violence, and lots of contact and oh my goodness SCORING
So when something has violence it's good?

Yes i watch "American Gridiron" alot. Yes it has alot of "stoppage" however it also has violence, and lots of contact and oh my goodness SCORING
I think someone needs to score[/QUOTE]

I'll give you that one. It seems a bit silly to me. Especially given how it's only ever up to the whim of the referee anyway, by my understanding.
Goal!!!!

So when something has violence it's good?
That's the American way. :p

Most of those rules make little sense and show no understanding of the uniqueness of soccer/futbol. However, I would like to see a crackdown on diving. It demeans the game and turns atheletes into actors whining for a call from the officials.

American football players are pussies???? Wow thats ridiculous you have no idea how hard they hit each other.
Yes, but it's a bit less impressive when you consider the amount of armour they put on before a game. Rugby= how that game should ber played.

That's the American way. :p
Already thought so.:p

So when something has violence it's good?
depends what kind football has good violence, the tacking and blocking

American football is shit, look at all that protection they have to where, they are such pussies.

Now football, that has passion. It's the only sport where men cry.
ok, i love football (english) but you can't call american footballers pussies and not english footballers!

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

1) depends how many chances there are (games can end 6-0+)
2) stops somebody just standing infront of the goal all the time
3) no, just no
4) adds the excitment at the end of a close game
5) invent your own sport cos that aint never gunna happen
6) nah
7) yeah they can, if the manager hasnt wasted his 3 subs already

What? That doesn't happen and that rule does exist.
Its still a dumb rule.

At least when I played you could get subbed out then come back in with as many subs per game as the coach wanted.

Liasia']Yes, but it's a bit less impressive when you consider the amount of armour they put on before a game. Rugby= how that game should ber played.
rugby is great and i admit they are tougher than most american football players but admit american football players are tougher that soccer players

depends what kind football has good violence, the tacking and blocking
but the field is still too big...

American football is shit, look at all that protection they have to where, they are such pussies.

Now football, that has passion. It's the only sport where men cry.
*snickers

Liasia']Yes, but it's a bit less impressive when you consider the amount of armour they put on before a game. Rugby= how that game should ber played.

Considering all the injuries that still occur even with all that armor, we'd never have a game if those players had no protection for their bodies. The entire team would end up on the DL.

I'll give you that one. It seems a bit silly to me.
No, it's not, because otherwise you could, for example, just post one of your players in the other team's goal and ocassionally send a ball his way. Not working so well as a whole.

Especially given how it's only ever up to the whim of the referee anyway, by my understanding.
Um, no, not at all (go over to the US-Italy thread, though - they'll love you there :p). There's a very clear rule, the only problem is that it can be very hard to call at times when players are on the same line (eh, my English sucks, someone else will say it better)...

but the field is still too big...
ever watch 8-man football? then you would really say field to big...the scores are 64-50 something just lie arena football.

So when something has violence it's good?

Not necessarily, but everything that is good is better with violence. :)

Its still a dumb rule.

At least when I played you could get subbed out then come back in with as many subs per game as the coach wanted.
Depends on the league I guess. But anyway, it wouldn't be fun if you could constantly change your team (and you can stall time with it, too)

Considering all the injuries that still occur even with all that armor, we'd never have a game if those players had no protection for their bodies. The entire team would end up on the DL.
*applaudes

ever watch 8-man football? then you would really say field to big...the scores are 64-50 something just lie arena football.
Good boy, I only used your argument;)

rugby is great and i admit they are tougher than most american football players but admit american football players are tougher that soccer players
Depends on the individual.

Not necessarily, but everything that is good is better with violence. :)
And in your case, mud:)

Good drainage is becoming a problem. More and more, fields are being designed to hold up well in rainy conditions and to remain relatively firm and mud free. This must be reversed. Fields should be designed to become as muddy as possible as often as possible. It's part of the game, and an important part of it. It's also an entertaining part of the game. Face it; everybody likes to watch games played in knee-deep goo. :)
Wouldn't that give the Germans an unfair advantage, though? (Seeing how some football fields I've played on look like, I'd say so!)

Considering all the injuries that still occur even with all that armor, we'd never have a game if those players had no protection for their bodies. The entire team would end up on the DL.

Not necessarily. I suspect that a good part of the reason why they need so much armor is because they're getting hit by people in armor.

I play american football all the time without padding and quite agressively and I've seen very few serious injuries.

And in your case, mud:)

Mud and violence. :)

Wouldn't that give the Germans an unfair advantage, though? (Seeing how some football fields I've played on look like, I'd say so!)

Practice makes perfect. If the germans get more practice in, then they deserve to win.

But I think every World Cup should have a certain percentage of games played on muddy fields. *nod*

Mud and violence. :)
Second divison English Football when it has rained and it's a derby:p

Not necessarily. I suspect that a good part of the reason why they need so much armor is because they're getting hit by people in armor.

I play american football all the time without padding and quite agressively and I've seen very few serious injuries.
Not to mention that stopping and starting all the time and swapping defensive and offensive teams or whatever the do means the players aren't going to be as loose and limber and so are going to injure more easily.

Good drainage is becoming a problem. More and more, fields are being designed to hold up well in rainy conditions and to remain relatively firm and mud free. This must be reversed. Fields should be designed to become as muddy as possible as often as possible. It's part of the game, and an important part of it. It's also an entertaining part of the game. Face it; everybody likes to watch games played in knee-deep goo. :)
Hose down pitches before a game.

Not to mention that stopping and starting all the time and swapping defensive and offensive teams or whatever the do means the players aren't going to be as loose and limber and so are going to injure more easily.

Good point.

Hose down pitches before a game.

I was thinking that an underground saturation system could be installed when a new field is built so you can control the presence and consistency of field mud.

American football is shit, look at all that protection they have to where, they are such pussies.

Now football, that has passion. It's the only sport where men cry.

Somebody's never watched a baseball game...

I was thinking that an underground saturation system could be installed when a new field is built so you can control the presence and consistency of field mud.
That would be good for proper stadiums. But most local clubs would have to be content with hoping for a monsoon or getting a really long hose.

That would be good for proper stadiums. But most local clubs would have to be content with hoping for a monsoon or getting a really long hose.
Talking about long hoses, where's PBE?:D

At least when I played you could get subbed out then come back in with as many subs per game as the coach wanted.

Most youth leagues/rec leagues in the US (no idea about other places) play with unlimited subs. Generally you see sub limits in highschool leagues and that level of competition.

I've not bothered reading the whole thread, so some of these have probably been pointed out already...(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
Very. Watch a game and you might find out.

2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
Having a player offside is an unfair advantage. The original football rules were laid down as a gentleman's game, and the rules reflect this.

3. Too many players/too large of a field
Football: 11 players per side, pitch is approximately 100-110 metres long by 50-60 metres wide. American football: 11 players per side, pitch is 110 metres long by 50 metres wide.

4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
Football: Two halves of 45 minutes each, with a 15 minute break between halves. The final whistle is almost always blown less than two hours after the match starts.
American football: Four periods of fifteen minutes, with breaks between periods. Games can often take up to and sometimes in excess of three hours.

5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
Why? How does 10 v 10 make goals any more likely than 11 v 11?

6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
Could work...but there's not really much point. Substitutions are made for either tactical reasons or because of injury. In the former, tactics are then not usually changed sufficiently to need that player to return, and in the case of the latter, the player would be unable to return.

7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't this kinda contradict point #6?

Football: 11 players per side, pitch is approximately 100-110 metres long by 50-60 metres wide. American football: 11 players per side, pitch is 110 metres long by 50 metres wide.
Owned! (www.zychibastan.justgotowned.com)

You the man Stalin!

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.


1. Very, its about the quality of the match, a tie between evenly matched teams can be VERY exiting

2. Its to stop utter gits doing nothing but lurking about by the goals

3. ????

4. Stoppage time is there so that the game lasts for ninety minutes and people dont just arse about when they are winning by stopping play and whatnot. The ref cannot add more than 5 mins stoppage time

5. dont be so score oreintated, enjoy the match, not the numbers in the top right of the screen.

6. Why sub out then?

7. So it comes down to who can injure the most players? Football (Real footbal not American Football) is a game of skill not brute force.

Owned! (www.zychibastan.justgotowned.com)

You the man Stalin!
I thank you. *takes a bow* :D

That link is one of the funniest things I have ever seen!

Owned! (www.zychibastan.justgotowned.com)

You the man Stalin!
OMG LOL:D

I would like to see instant replay for the offsides and PKs.

Somebody's never watched a baseball game...
or basketball or any other sport for that matter

mistake
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you cant sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

Monsieur Zychibastan, here's what you have to do. Get a tape, or a dvd, or just download, whatever a copy of Argentina vs. Serbia and Monetenegro from yesterday (two days ago depending on time difference). Sit down, Watch the match. And marvel at the sheer skill and passion with which the game was played.

Why do Americans whine about football? Ive seen of alot of them lately coming into world cup threads and whining about how they hate "soccer" and then claim that American "football" is somehow better. How is an hour and a half of non-stop passion and energy less exicting than a game thats an hour long and has breaks literally every 30 sec. It blows the mind does it not?

The biggest problem with soccer is its just plain boring. They should make something exciting happen more than once every 30 minutes.

I have watched 340 mins now of the world cup off, an on, not constantly, and I've never seen a single goal scored. And the players can be as big of babies as seen in other sports. I saw a guy get carried away on a stretcher and then come back and play the second half.

Why do Americans whine about football?
Meh, they're entitled to their opinion. I just don't know why they think we should care.

Personally, I find American Football boring. The same goes for Rugby League and AFL. Cricket is good, Baseball...it sorta lacks the epic scope of a good test match.
But that doesn't mean I barge into their threads and start complaining that other people are watching something I don't find interesting.

I like Ice Hockey quite a lot though, it's a pity they don't show that here in Oz.

Meh, they're entitled to their opinion. I just don't know why they think we should care.

Personally, I find American Football boring. The same goes for Rugby League and AFL. Cricket is good, Baseball...it sorta lacks the epic scope of a good test match.
But that doesn't mean I barge into their threads and start complaining that other people are watching something I don't find interesting.

I like Ice Hockey quite a lot though, it's a pity they don't show that here in Oz.
Don't you have Foxtel ot Telsra?
ESPN used to cover it but the last two years 1 because of the lock out and this year because they are cheap it hasn't been on.
I have seen 1 period (3rd) and 5 minutes of Game 2 of the Stanley Cup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Football and Ice Hockey are kind of similiar in scores and players per meter of field both have an offside rule.

Don't you have Foxtel ot Telsra?
Poor people don't have that sort of thing.

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

1. Yes it can. You don't need scoring to be exciting.
2. Agreed - stupid rule
3. No, it's good. Reduces the "mugging" aspect of the game
4. Stoppage? It flows a lot better then US footfall.
5. Scoring it not everything
6. What is wrong with that rule?
7. That's what subs are for!

Poor people don't have that sort of thing.
Touche, a lot of people have that problem don't they.:(
How much is a Telstra Subscription, any ideas?

Touche, a lot of people have that problem don't they.:(
How much is a Telstra Subscription, any ideas?

Check the web sites! Pricing is different per country.

No, it's not, because otherwise you could, for example, just post one of your players in the other team's goal and ocassionally send a ball his way. Not working so well as a whole.

Um, no, not at all (go over to the US-Italy thread, though - they'll love you there :p). There's a very clear rule, the only problem is that it can be very hard to call at times when players are on the same line (eh, my English sucks, someone else will say it better)...

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct? I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?

And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?

Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A? Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?

What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?

For those of you who moan about the offside rule, don't. It is entirely necerssary. Else you just get kiddie football, which consits of the keeper/defender blasting the ball up to the other penalty area, where Either a goal is scored, or the defender/keeper gets it and blasts it back up the other end. Repeat for 90 minutes. It would increase scorings, but the games would be far more boring.

And to solve cofusion, the official offside rule is:

"There must be two players from the defending team [including the goalkeeper] between the goal line and the attacker when the ball is played"

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct? I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?

And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?

Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A? Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?

What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?

The off-side rule bugs me. Too hard to implement without problems. Maybe make the rule more flexible?

Monsieur Zychibastan, here's what you have to do. Get a tape, or a dvd, or just download, whatever a copy of Argentina vs. Serbia and Monetenegro from yesterday (two days ago depending on time difference). Sit down, Watch the match. And marvel at the sheer skill and passion with which the game was played.
The second goal was the best team goal I have ever seen. Whether you like football or not, you've got to admit it took a lot of skill and everyone being on exactly the same wavelength.

Too many stoppages, huh?

Three words

Two Minute Warning

Oh no, not two minutes left! What the heck is the deal with that? Annoys the hell outta me when I'm on Madden. That's right, Madden.

Hang bloody on!

You (as in Zychibastan) sign up for the 29th NS World Cup and then you go moaning about what's wrong with "soccer"?!?

You-make-no-sense-sir!

What is the point of arguing on the respective attributes of different sports? They are different games.

Millions of people around the world watch/play and love football as it is, offside rule and all.

Millions of people around the world (but mostly in N.America) watch/play and love US football as it is.

Everyone has their own favorite and will fight to the death to defend their game as the best but it's completely pointless, I like Rugby League but I also enjoy football, the occasional hockey game (field and ice), cricket, and golf.

All these sports offer different things to me why should I care which is the so called best.

That said, baseball is just a jumped up game of Rounders ;)

Hang bloody on!

You (as in Zychibastan) sign up for the 29th NS World Cup and then you go moaning about what's wrong with "soccer"?!?

You-make-no-sense-sir!
What's done 'In 'Character' stays I'n Character'

What's done 'In 'Character' stays I'n Character'

Fair enough.

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct? I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?

And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?

Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A? Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?

What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?
When the pass is made Player A must be behined Player B

For a free kick there may be a defender on a post so that and the goalie would be two players in front meaning it would be ok.
However asuming that isn't the case for a free kick the rule still aplies i believe.

1 Defender and 1 Goalie must be in front of the Attacking player, though it could be 2 Defenders if the Goalie is way way way out of position.

From when the pass is made Player A must be onside a good example of what you are asking happened many times in one of the early games i can't remember who was playing but it was a Saturday or Sunday game last week, the defenders stopped up making the Attacker offside just before the pass.
It wasn't Germany v Costa Rica or Ecuador vs Poland maybe it was the 2nd game of the night and it wasn't England vs Paraguay on Sunday.

the only thing i hate about football is that the players are pansies, crying every time someone knocks them over and I know most of the time it's just to get someone from the other team in trouble but that's worse cause it's ungentlemanly

BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

Tell that to Vinnie Jones....

Fair enough.
They'll learn.
Check the web sites! Pricing is different per country.
My folks got Sattelite. ^_^

Not necessarily. I suspect that a good part of the reason why they need so much armor is because they're getting hit by people in armor.

I play american football all the time without padding and quite agressively and I've seen very few serious injuries.

Well, I doubt you're playing at the level of agression and roughness that caused Teddy Roosevelt to tell college football to do something about the high rates of serious injuries and fatalities or the game would be banned by federal law.

In 1905, 18 collegiate players died due to injuries sustained on the playing field, up 6 from the year before. Of course other rule reforms (particularly banning the flying wedge, locked arm mass advances, and opening the feild by allowing the forward pass) also helped.

The "armor" has reduced the fatalities due to injury, but not eliminated them. In 2002 5 out of a total 15 football related deaths were due to head and neck injuries).


http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30968
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Has_anyone_ever_been_killed_playing_football
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-201027

:::Waits for those calling American Football wimpy to now change their catcalls to brutality, as per usual when the inanity of their arguments are pointed out.*:::

*LG, I know you won't be one of those. :D

um, yeah,

try futsal Mr. OP.

I have watched 340 mins now of the world cup off, an on, not constantly, and I've never seen a single goal scored. And the players can be as big of babies as seen in other sports. I saw a guy get carried away on a stretcher and then come back and play the second half.
340 minutes out of 2340. With a goal on every 38 minutes on average, you're just unlucky.

The offside rule: http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws11_01.htm

Why do Americans whine about football? Ive seen of alot of them lately coming into world cup threads and whining about how they hate "soccer" and then claim that American "football" is somehow better. How is an hour and a half of non-stop passion and energy less exicting than a game thats an hour long and has breaks literally every 30 sec. It blows the mind does it not?

I'll make you a deal: if you don't tar us all with tainted brush of a few idiots, I won't go around saying all Europeans are whiners who are too wimpy to play Gridiron, and insult the players for wearing "armor" that prevents exssessive fatalities. ;)

Thinking about it, tackling has got weaker in the last few years. Bring back the Stuart Pearce slide tackle (Take the ball and cripple the player)

Che Bunce of New Zealand got clipped by the Goalies elbow and got a cut around the ear and temple he could have walked off to get patched up but the sissy swiss took him off in a strecher.
You Europeans are weak!

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct? I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?

And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?

Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A? Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?

What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?
A is indeed offside if he receives the ball. The same is true whether he's 'lurking near the goal' or trying to position himself. It actually takes a considerable degree of skill to time a run to make sure you're not offside, yet still maintain a distance advantage over your opponents.

If it had been a free kick, A would still be offside. A player can't be offside if he receives the ball direct from a throw-in, a corner, or a goal kick, or if he's in his own half of the field when the ball is played.

There must be two opposing players in front of A for him not to be offside. This does not have to include the goalkeeper.

An offside decision is made on the basis of when the ball is played. If A receives the ball after the pass is made with the position as it is, he'll be called offside, even if when he receives the ball, there are two or more opponent players between himself and the goal line.

Just found this: http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,3,00.html

Scroll down until you find a link saying 'Click here for interactive guide to Offside Law 11'.

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

A closed mouth gathers no feet, particularly if you have no freaking idea what you're on about. Go and learn something about the game before talking trash about it. You'll embarass yourself less (Same goes for anyone trash talking Gridiron.)

(And just for the fun of seeing everyone scream - American Gridiron football evolved from Association Football. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-201027)

What enrages me is that there is no TMO, or referee at a tv watching replays so that the ref doesn't make a #@#! up of his decision. Everyone who watched tv saw that the goal Japan scored against Australia wasn't a goal, but the ref gave it anyway.

Why can every other sport eg rugby, cricket have ref's at tv's and not soccer?

Because football deosn't like having breaks every five minutes for TV replays.

just watch rugby

rugby > football/american football

just watch rugby

rugby > football/american football

They're still two very different sports. Rugby is all-out action, whereas American Football is much more similar to a game of chess.

Apples to oranges.

just watch rugby

rugby > football/american football
League or union?

I'm quite partial to a bit of Aussie Rules myself. I don't fully understand the rules, but it's still great fun.

The real problems are:

1. It is used to avoid having to speak of more important things on the media (just look at the news in France, where the same day the national team played and the gov announced 8500 job suppression in education... the TV news spoke 20 minutes of soccer, and 2 minutes of the massive cut in education).

2. It is used to keep the people quiet ("bread and games", the old roman method).

3. It strengthens nationalism, instead of teaching people the value of universalism, of international solidarity.

4. It costs a lot of money, paid by every citizen (through advertising and taxes), while so many critical sectors (education, healthcare, ...) are lacking money.

5. It is pushed massively on people who don't care about it.

They're still two very different sports. Rugby is all-out action, whereas American Football is much more similar to a game of chess.

Apples to oranges.
i think there's an element of understanding missing here. rugby is also a game of strategy, but all done on-the-fly with pre-devised gameplans and tactics etc - probably giving it the appearance of 'all-out action' (which is appealing in itself i must admit :D)
american football, to me, seemed little more than rugby with breaks every few seconds (and loads of padding). this is probably because i didn't actually understand or have an awareness of the strategic element in the game though

maybe just different kinds of apple :P



this is probably a reason i don't appreciate football tbh

League or union?

I'm quite partial to a bit of Aussie Rules myself. I don't fully understand the rules, but it's still great fun.
oh union all the way *nods*

i'm not big on the game but i do love watching the 6 nations when its on, and used to play in school :)

They're still two very different sports. Rugby is all-out action, whereas American Football is much more similar to a game of chess.

Apples to oranges.
Rugby is the best sport played with an oval ball.

Liasia']Yes, but it's a bit less impressive when you consider the amount of armour they put on before a game. Rugby= how that game should ber played.


Definitely.

1. It is used to avoid having to speak of more important things on the media (just look at the news in France, where the same day the national team played and the gov announced 8500 job suppression in education... the TV news spoke 20 minutes of soccer, and 2 minutes of the massive cut in education).


Yeah, that's really annoying.

Thinking about it, tackling has got weaker in the last few years. Bring back the Stuart Pearce slide tackle (Take the ball and cripple the player)
AMEN TO THAt. Phycho, greatest left-back of all time, a shot that could kill someone and some of the greatest tackles I'd never seen. He's never survive in todays game tho.

Harlesburg, your right mate. Saw the Moari beat Ireland in the CC final, how did the 1sts do.

Che Bunce of New Zealand got clipped by the Goalies elbow and got a cut around the ear and temple he could have walked off to get patched up but the sissy swiss took him off in a strecher.
You Europeans are weak!
Except possibly for the German goalkeeper who continued playing in an FA cup final after breaking his neck: here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1341390,00.html)

8. Soccer needs tackling!
It already does.

Except possibly for the German goalkeeper who continued playing in an FA cup final after breaking his neck: here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1341390,00.html)
Or David Seaman, who played part of the 1995 Cup Winners' Cup semi-final with a broken rib.

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?

Some matches have lots of scoring. just cuz you once saw a 0-0 draw doesent mean all football games are like that.

They're still two very different sports. Rugby is all-out action, whereas American Football is much more similar to a game of chess.

Apples to oranges.
apples and oranges are actually quite similar.

The biggest problem with soccer is that it isn't hockey.

What enrages me is that there is no TMO, or referee at a tv watching replays so that the ref doesn't make a #@#! up of his decision. Everyone who watched tv saw that the goal Japan scored against Australia wasn't a goal, but the ref gave it anyway.

Why can every other sport eg rugby, cricket have ref's at tv's and not soccer?
It's part of the fun mate!

I'll make you a deal: if you don't tar us all with tainted brush of a few idiots, I won't go around saying all Europeans are whiners who are too wimpy to play Gridiron, and insult the players for wearing "armor" that prevents exssessive fatalities. ;)
To wimpy to play on the gridiron? Have you heard of Rugby, you know American football WITHOUT pads. But to be fair, not ALL Americans whine about football. happy now;)

i think there's an element of understanding missing here. rugby is also a game of strategy, but all done on-the-fly with pre-devised gameplans and tactics etc - probably giving it the appearance of 'all-out action' (which is appealing in itself i must admit :D)
american football, to me, seemed little more than rugby with breaks every few seconds (and loads of padding). this is probably because i didn't actually understand or have an awareness of the strategic element in the game though

maybe just different kinds of apple :P

There are breaks so the players can get some rest (the padding and uniforms make for a hell of a stamina drain). However, they're mainly to devise intricate strategies to kill the defense, and vice versa.

To wimpy to play on the gridiron? Have you heard of Rugby, you know American football WITHOUT pads. But to be fair, not ALL Americans whine about football. happy now;)

Don't start that shit. Most NFL players are the size of the largest Rugby players (usually far over 6', Offensive Linemen being 6'4", or 194cm, on average), and the tackling in NFL rules Football is serious stuff. There are still loads of injuries in Football, even with the protection and tackling rules.

Don't start that shit. Most NFL players are the size of the largest Rugby players (usually far over 6', Offensive Linemen being 6'4", or 194cm, on average), and the tackling in NFL rules Football is serious stuff. There are still loads of injuries in Football, even with the protection and tackling rules.
There is injuries because of the 300lbs fat men sitting on people breaking bones and the like. Its not because American football is that aggressive. Rugby players are all fast, strong and hit harder than those in the NFL. Seriously all the NFL is is fat men rubbing up against each other for three hours while two or three fast guys run around them.

To wimpy to play on the gridiron? Have you heard of Rugby, you know American football WITHOUT pads. But to be fair, not ALL Americans whine about football. happy now;)

There is injuries because of the 300lbs fat men sitting on people breaking bones and the like. Its not because American football is that aggressive. Rugby players are all fast, strong and hit harder than those in the NFL. Seriously all the NFL is is fat men rubbing up against each other for three hours while two or three fast guys run around them.

Nope.
As I said to the OP, a closed mouth gathers no feet, particularly if you haven't an idea what you're on about. Kindly go and learn something about the game before talking trash about it. You'll embarass yourself less.

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?

Depends on the game. A game where the goalkeepers have to both be excellent means although there is no goals, its still exciting


2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?

The offside rule is there because if it wasnt, all the teams would be doing is kicking it really far past the defenders. There would be no skill involved of passing them. Just boot it as far as you can.


3. Too many players/too large of a field

The number of players is reletive to the size of the pitch. And thus you need lots of stamina for it.


4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)

He can't end it whenever he wants. Stopage time is calculated based on aproximately the ammount of time the game has been stopped by injuries and fouls and the like. It is to ensure the full 45 minutes (or as near to 45 minutes as possible) is played


5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.

Rediculous. Then the size of pitch which you complained about before would be an even bigger problem.


6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.

Reasonable, but pointless given the limited number of substitutions you can make.


7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

Absolutely unreasonable. What happens then if a player from one team commits only a yellow cardable offence against another player, but they still have to take him off due to injury. It is then the team who did nothing wrong who suffer.

There is injuries because of the 300lbs fat men sitting on people breaking bones and the like. Its not because American football is that aggressive. Rugby players are all fast, strong and hit harder than those in the NFL. Seriously all the NFL is is fat men rubbing up against each other for three hours while two or three fast guys run around them.

Last time I checked any stats, most NFL players were faster than most Rugby players (of course, I could be wrong, as I haven't checked any player pages/stats in a year). And Rugby players don't hit harder than NFL players. That's impossible, since the pads increase the impact.

What you say is pretty funny, since a Rugby player who's considered to be "tall" is around 6'2", while "tall" NFL players are around 6'6" - 6'8" (the average being around 6'2" - 6'3"). And since these guys run very fast, weigh a lot (it's muscle, not fat), and wear pads, you do the math. The hits are harder.

Last time I checked any stats, most NFL players were faster than most Rugby players (of course, I could be wrong, as I haven't checked any player pages/stats in a year). And Rugby players don't hit harder than NFL players. That's impossible, since the pads increase the impact.

What you say is pretty funny, since a Rugby player who's considered to be "tall" is around 6'2", while "tall" NFL players are around 6'6" - 6'8" (the average being around 6'2" - 6'3"). And since these guys run very fast, weigh a lot (it's muscle, not fat), and wear pads, you do the math. The hits are harder.

Thanks Pot.
All I can add to that is to compare the fatalities and serious injuries for rugby and gridiron. As I said before (and notably my post has been the only one here with references), there is good reason for the padding. Without it, just the NFL alone would be looking at an unacceptable number of fatalities.

Thanks Pot.
All I can add to that is to compare the fatalities and serious injuries for rugby and gridiron. As I said before (and notably my post has been the only one here with references), there is good reason for the padding. Without it, just the NFL alone would be looking at an unacceptable number of fatalities.

Don't forget the 1920's, where the fatalities from Football actually reached the hundreds in a single year. That's when tackling rules were enacted, along with the development of better player protection.

Last time I checked any stats, most NFL players were faster than most Rugby players (of course, I could be wrong, as I haven't checked any player pages/stats in a year).

To be fair, that's like saying that 100m runners are faster than marathon runners. Because they don't have to keep up the continued pace then of course they're going to emphasise sprinting speed. And to an inexperienced eye there do seem to be conspicuously overweight American Football players that wouldn't stand a chance in other sports.

To be fair, that's like saying that 100m runners are faster than marathon runners. Because they don't have to keep up the continued pace then of course they're going to emphasise sprinting speed. And to an inexperienced eye there do seem to be conspicuously overweight American Football players that wouldn't stand a chance in other sports.

The field is virtually the same size. Both sports are sprinting sports. NFL players are indeed faster (many being world-class 100m sprinters) on average. And they can run at full speed for most of the length of the 100-yard field. Stamina is huge in Football. Of course, people of your ilk seem to totally disregard that.

I think that most people who don't know much about Football would be impressed by the athletic ability of the players. Most of them were multi-sport stars in college and high school (Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, etc.). They're just massive and well-built. Okay, a few players are fat (Offensive Lineman Orlando Pace is an example), but that's a very small percentage.

Like I've said before: Look before you leap.

The only thing wrong with soccer is how every single player reinacts the death scene from Othello whenever they're breathed on too strongly.

Last time I checked any stats, most NFL players were faster than most Rugby players (of course, I could be wrong, as I haven't checked any player pages/stats in a year). And Rugby players don't hit harder than NFL players. That's impossible, since the pads increase the impact.

What you say is pretty funny, since a Rugby player who's considered to be "tall" is around 6'2", while "tall" NFL players are around 6'6" - 6'8" (the average being around 6'2" - 6'3"). And since these guys run very fast, weigh a lot (it's muscle, not fat), and wear pads, you do the math. The hits are harder.

Pot. I have played both sports, and at 6' 4" I was one of the tallest on the American football field but always smaller than four or five other players on the Rugby pitch. However this is irrelevant. The fastest players in both sports are more or less equivalent (olympic sprinter speeds, sub 10.5 for 100m) The speed of the slowest players though is significantly higher in rugby. The slowest player in rugby will normally be one of the props, and they will, in a professional team, run a 100 meters in sub 13 seconds. I challenge any professional defensive tackle (not end, tackle) to do this.

The guys who hit hard in AF are generally the linebackers and safeties - yes. These are not normally 6'6", they are normally around 6'2" and weigh about 240lbs - This is equivalent to a no. 8 in rugby, both in size and power.

Having defended rugby from your ignorancve and assumptions, I will now defend american football for its use of padding. The way that the game is played, and the type of impacts that occur in AF resulted, in the past, in a lot of head and neck injuries. Many more than in rugby. The nature of the game leads to more direct head on impacts than rugby. This does not make it a tougher game, just one with different strategies. However these head injuries led to players using hardened leather helmets, which then acted as weapons resulting in the need to protect collarbones and such like from the protection. The padding in AF is a direct result of the head protection that is needed due to the number of head to head impacts. (Caused themselves by the frequent need to gain one or two yards of ground - something rugby does not have.) It is not being wimpy or soft, it is a necessary consequence of the strategies involved. It does not mean that the hits are harder in AF - they are not - it just means that they are more frequently head on.

Chalk and Cheese.

Soccer - Association football is a completely different paradigm - but a great game to play and watch anyway. As well as simple to learn and it needs nothing more than a ball and some space.

Last time I checked any stats, most NFL players were faster than most Rugby players (of course, I could be wrong, as I haven't checked any player pages/stats in a year). And Rugby players don't hit harder than NFL players. That's impossible, since the pads increase the impact.

What you say is pretty funny, since a Rugby player who's considered to be "tall" is around 6'2", while "tall" NFL players are around 6'6" - 6'8" (the average being around 6'2" - 6'3"). And since these guys run very fast, weigh a lot (it's muscle, not fat), and wear pads, you do the math. The hits are harder.

If the pads increase the force of the impact, why do they wear them?

Ohhh, the moment I saw the name of this thread, I knew there was gunna be trouble... :p

Regardless, though, I really don't know why some people are complaining about the way football (not 'de Americanos') is played. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. It's one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. I mean, if there's a random article of clothing someone's wearing that I decide not to like, I don't run up to them and start debating what's wrong with it! People are different: we gotta accept that, at least. Some people will hate football, others (such as myself) will love it. Doesn't mean that there can't be American Football fans that enjoy their sport just as much.

It's...just...ugh... :headbang:

There's no POINT in arguing about it! I've heard the apples/oranges thing plenty of times! Someone listen to the posters speaking about the fruit!

They are both very, very different games. Like the ones ya like, and don't start arguments about the ones ya don't. You will - in the end - change NO ONE'S mind about things...particularily online. :rolleyes:

If the pads increase the force of the impact, why do they wear them?

Because padding helps prevent injuries. The force of impact is increased, yes, but the injuries are decreased in the process.

-snip-

Eh, I know I got a bit out there. I'm just tired of the majority of this forum slagging on the sport when they know nothing about it.

If the pads increase the force of the impact, why do they wear them?
Beacuse they'd probably die without them. Just beacuse the pads add weight and make the hits harder doesn't mean they don't protect too.

Because padding helps prevent injuries. The force of impact is increased, yes, but the injuries are decreased in the process.

What? Hitting somebody harder means they have a lower chance of being injured, how on earth do you figure that?

What? Hitting somebody harder means they have a lower chance of being injured, how on earth do you figure that?

Go read my post above. It explains why pads are used.

What? Hitting somebody harder means they have a lower chance of being injured, how on earth do you figure that?
because of the pads

Eh, I know I got a bit out there. I'm just tired of the majority of this forum slagging on the sport when they know nothing about it.
yeah, well Im tried of people going into the world cup threads whining about football when they know nothing about it or have never seen a match.

Problem Primary with Soccer:

The ball has no flavor, whatsoever. It tastes like...cardboard.

Eh, I know I got a bit out there. I'm just tired of the majority of this forum slagging on the sport when they know nothing about it.

The majority of this forum would quite happily ignore American Football if one or two Americans didn't come along and start slagging Association football in almost every thread about it (of which - with the WC at the moment - there are quite a number). Then the footy fans start defending their sport in the same tone as it was attacked. They are wrong, but they are justified in their actions.

Additionally there are enough antipodeans here to pull Rugby into the mix, just to mess the whole thing up further. (Yes, Aust - I know you are English, but the majority of rugby fans are from down under.)

Go read my post above. It explains why pads are used.

ah, that explains it. If someone had said that to start off with instead of this 'the padding makes this hits harder' rubbish, that would have been good.

You all need to take a holiday, come visit Australia and experience Australian rules football.

No padding, no pretend injuries, full contact - a brutal display of masculine athleticism.

It's a real man's game.

You all need to take a holiday, come visit Australia and experience Australian rules football.

No padding, no pretend injuries, full contact - a brutal display of masculine athleticism.

It's a real man's game.

I watched a game of Australian rules once when I was in Perth. I didnt have a clue what was going on most of the time.

I watched a game of Australian rules once when I was in Perth. I didnt have a clue what was going on most of the time.

You hadn't consumed enough tinnies then mate. :p

You hadn't consumed enough tinnies then mate. :p
:D I'll have to remember that if I ever go back.

I watched a game of Australian rules once when I was in Perth. I didnt have a clue what was going on most of the time.

I have the same problem with sports I've never watched before also.

But I assure you, once you get it, you gotta love it. These guys are tough nuts.

The field is virtually the same size. Both sports are sprinting sports. NFL players are indeed faster (many being world-class 100m sprinters) on average. And they can run at full speed for most of the length of the 100-yard field. Stamina is huge in Football. Of course, people of your ilk seem to totally disregard that.

I think that most people who don't know much about Football would be impressed by the athletic ability of the players. Most of them were multi-sport stars in college and high school (Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, etc.). They're just massive and well-built. Okay, a few players are fat (Offensive Lineman Orlando Pace is an example), but that's a very small percentage.

Like I've said before: Look before you leap.
I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. Are you saying that American Footballers are both faster sprinters and have more stamina that rugby players? Because all I said was that there were different skills involved in running for an entire game without stops, forwards and backs, which is why you're never going to see similarly fat rugby players. Because as fast and powerful as someone like Orlando Pace is, I don't think they're built to cope with a rugby game's constant pace.

8. Soccer needs tackling!
Go play rugby.

You all need to take a holiday, come visit Australia and experience Australian rules football.

No padding, no pretend injuries, full contact - a brutal display of masculine athleticism.

It's a real man's game.
Which makes me wonder if it's perhaps time for an Australian football vs Gaelic football thread .......

The biggest problem with soccer is its just plain boring. They should make something exciting happen more than once every 30 minutes.
When you watch a match you can get 90+ minutes of excitement. When your concept of excitement only consists of upping the score - don't blame the game.

I have watched 340 mins now of the world cup off, an on, not constantly, and I've never seen a single goal scored. And the players can be as big of babies as seen in other sports. I saw a guy get carried away on a stretcher and then come back and play the second half.
And yet most games don't end 0:0 - maybe your timing has simply been unfortunate?
The last part is a requirement according to the rules. Prevents the medics being in the way while the player is being treated outside the field and it most definitely will stop players from letting the time run out while "acting injured".
Don't see anything wrong with that.

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct?
Yes, that's correct.
I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?
The moment the ball is passed Red A must not be in front of Blue B.
And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?
The moment the ball is passed to Red A must not be in front of Blue B.
Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A?
Yes. Totally okay.
Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?
Nope, one player is enough (especially bad when you're playing with the so-called "offsite-trap" and one player's "asleep"!).
What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?
Offsite trap, will be called.

Hope that helps (no matter how many have answered before ;))

My major problems with soccer:

1. They should put in at least twice as many referees.
2. Offside rule needs to be enforced differently.
3. Penalties are unfair.
4. Red Cards are unfair.

My major problems with soccer:

1. They should put in at least twice as many referees.
2. Offside rule needs to be enforced differently.
3. Penalties are unfair.
4. Red Cards are unfair.
1)But what if they disagree?
2)How?
3)Why?
4)Yeah, it's much better to kick all your opponents till there are no more standing, at least you can win easily then....

Yeah, but..um. Hard to say what I mean in words. You'll have to forgive my confusion about the rule here, but...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6012/field2dz.jpg

Suppose red player B has the ball and passes it to red player A.

If the pass is successful and red player A intercepts it at that position, he is offside, correct? I can understand if he is lurking near the goal, but what if he is running up the pitch and trying to position himself?

And what about if, say, red B had a free kick and passed it to red A?

Is it all OK if blue B is slightly in front of red A? Or do there need to be two opposing players in front?

What if blue B was originally in front and then moved behind red A as a defensive tactic?

Saw this just now, and other have explained it already. Just a couple of points then:

- Don't be confused by some saying two opposing players have to be in front and others saying only one has to be. The latter is just what usually applies, because usually there's always the keeper in his goal, so you need indeed only one field player to be in front, the goalie is always kind of implied here.

- About your initial question why the rule is needed anyway and that you can understand it in the case of lurking around the goal - well, there's not really an alternative, is there? I dare say it would be impossible to make up satisfactory rules (let alone apply them in-game) as to what constitutes "lurking close to the other team's goal".

I think the offside rule is a good one - which is a kind of redundant thing to say, considering that without it, it would be an entirely different game.

It's just that it can be hard to apply, because the refs kind of have to look at two things at once - at the player starting the pass and at the intended recipient of the pass, at the very same moment. And those can be pretty far apart, plus it often happens (esp. in this World Cup, it seems) that the opposing players are really pretty much level (again, my English is lacking here), so it's almost impossible to tell who was in front.


If it had been a free kick, A would still be offside. A player can't be offside if he receives the ball direct from a throw-in, a corner, or a goal kick, or if he's in his own half of the field when the ball is played. Oh boy, I really have no clue. I had no idea about the three bolded ones.

The part you bolded are not true actually.

The part you bolded are not true actually.
Really? Why, that would make feel much less ignorant. But I V Stalin sounded very convincing. Hmmm. He also had a link to the rules in his post back on page 6 or so, but I'm actually too lazy to go look it up. I'm sure the other experts here will come and have their say. :p

ETA: Oh, is the fourth one true then? (about being in your own half...)

Really? Why, that would make feel much less ignorant. But I V Stalin sounded very convincing. Hmmm. He also had a link to the rules in his post back on page 6 or so, but I'm actually too lazy to go look it up. I'm sure the other experts here will come and have their say. :p

ETA: Oh, is the fourth one true then? (about being in your own half...)
Yep, the fourth is defiantely true.

The part you bolded are not true actually.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/sm_shake.gif You're wrong about that. They are.

Read the official FIFA rulings on that (posted by I V Stalin on page 6)

http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws11_01.htm
http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws11_02.htm
http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws11_03.htm

All four of those rules are explained there.

The goalkeeper, usually being treated as "the last player" is not really a field player (hence the phrasing with "second last opponent").

Really? Why, that would make feel much less ignorant. But I V Stalin sounded very convincing. Hmmm. He also had a link to the rules in his post back on page 6 or so, but I'm actually too lazy to go look it up. I'm sure the other experts here will come and have their say. :p

ETA: Oh, is the fourth one true then? (about being in your own half...)

Agh, see, that's the main part that irritates me about it; it's just so damned confusing.

And then there's ways it can be exploited, too, I guess. What if team B decided to let their guys hold back near the centre of the field? No player from Team A is going to be able to get far enough upfield to take an effective shot at goal...

..am I right there, or am I missing something? I guess team A could lob the ball upfield, but then under the rule, a player from team B would be the only one able to intercept it first, and they could just lob it back.

What stops that from happening?

It might be necessary, it just seems weird to me where our football is based a lot more around trying to position yourself for those easy shots at goal away from defence. (and so the defenders play to compensate, keeping defence near their own goals at all times)

I guess like you say, that's what makes the game different. Apart from the offside rule, i've got nothing else I hold against the game...well. As far as kicking around a peace of leather goes, anyway... :p

If it had been a free kick, A would still be offside. A player can't be offside if he receives the ball direct from a throw-in, a corner, or a goal kick, or if he's in his own half of the field when the ball is played.

Oh boy, I really have no clue. I had no idea about the three bolded ones.

The part you bolded are not true actually.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/sm_shake.gif You're wrong about that. They are.

My head hurts.

Agh, see, that's the main part that irritates me about it; it's just so damned confusing.
At times, it can be. But once the offsite rule settles in, you're fine.
And then there's ways it can be exploited, too, I guess. What if team B decided to let their guys hold back near the centre of the field? No player from Team A is going to be able to get far enough upfield to take an effective shot at goal...
But that is a valid tactical manouver. Problem is, when a kick and rush happens, the defending team is in trouble. Nobody can keep a fast player from taking off with the ball.
..am I right there, or am I missing something? I guess team A could lob the ball upfield, but then under the rule, a player from team B would be the only one able to intercept it first, and they could just lob it back.
What stops that from happening?
Team A could always lob the ball towards the goal in which they want to put it, but that isn't necessarily offsite - just ineffective. Now, if a player from team A is the only one between goalie and goal, that would be offsite again ;)
It might be necessary, it just seems weird to me where our football is based a lot more around trying to position yourself for those easy shots at goal away from defence. (and so the defenders play to compensate, keeping defence near their own goals at all times)
Ah, but that is what makes football so interesting - lots of tactic and constant moving. (Which makes stamina so important! Don't know how many games Germany has won simply because they could still run while their opponents were left standing dead. And then think about overtime :eek:, hehehe)
I guess like you say, that's what makes the game different. Apart from the offside rule, i've got nothing else I hold against the game...well. As far as kicking around a peace of leather goes, anyway... :p

My head hurts.
Disregard the woman (no offense, a'ight?) and Thriceaddict and you're fine!

My head hurts.
Yeah, mine too now.

And you're not really helping matters:
And then there's ways it can be exploited, too, I guess. What if team B decided to let their guys hold back near the centre of the field? No player from Team A is going to be able to get far enough upfield to take an effective shot at goal...

..am I right there, or am I missing something? I guess team A could lob the ball upfield, but then under the rule, a player from team B would be the only one able to intercept it first, and they could just lob it back.

What stops that from happening?
Um, I can safely say I never thought about that before. :p But it's totally a question I would ask, so I can't really hold it against you, can I? :p

Um, I guess team A will either
1) have one of their players make a run for it with the ball and score the goal himself (at which time the defenders of the other team better get their moves on and run back home to defend their goal)
or 2) not make one long pass (since no one is there to receive it), which I assume is what you mean by "lob", but just kick the ball upfield one by one (at which time, again, the defenders will have to return to their goal).

I mean, come on, what stupid kind of scenario is that anyway? :mad: :p

Disregard the woman (no offense, a'ight?) and Thriceaddict and your fine!

Whoa, whoa, buddy, the woman has yet to say something that's wrong, alright? I didn't say I V Stalin was wrong, I expressed my dismay that I didn't know about those rules.

*severe pouting going on over here*

Whoa, whoa, buddy, the woman has yet to say something that's wrong, alright? I didn't say I V Stalin was wrong, I expressed my dismay that I didn't know about those rules.

*severe pouting going on over here*
I'm sorry, I truely am. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Hail.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/blumen2.gif

Truth be known, I was too lazy to write your complete screen-name and substituted.

Don't be mad at me, please? Please? With sugar on top? :fluffle:

I'm sorry, I truely am. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Hail.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/blumen2.gif

Truth be known, I was too lazy to write your complete screen-name and substituted.

Don't be mad at me, please? Please? With sugar on top? :fluffle:
Hah, I actually thought you'd get out that ratty sofa again to hide behind. Instead what do I get? A transparent attempt at a bribe by including my favorite smiley and the proof that you didn't even get my point. I was objecting to you telling him to disregard what I said - the "the woman" was just adding insult to injury.

Pffffffft. Men. :rolleyes: :p

Hah, I actually thought you'd get out that ratty sofa again to hide behind. Instead what do I get? A transparent attempt at a bribe by including my favorite smiley and the proof that you didn't even get my point. I was objecting to you telling him to disregard what I said - the "the woman" was just adding insult to injury.

Pffffffft. Men. :rolleyes: :p
Uh oh. Yes, you're absolutely right. You didn't say anything wrong - on the contrary: The questions you've asked are those that lead to understanding the impact and significance of the offsite rule.

If anyone's looking for me, I'll now go hide behind that mentioned sofa: http://forums.massivehq.com/images/smilies/misc/hidesbehindsofa.gif

(In no particular order)
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

Ummm...
4. And Baseball is any better?
7. Technically they can if you sub...

It's 11 pages, so I'm sure all points have been made, just as a matter of reinforcement:
1. Baseball and hockey are low scoring. American football only has the illusion of being high scoring because you give out points up to 8 at a time.
2. Hockey's offsides rule is more confusing to me. Doesn't make it a bad rule.
3. American Football's field is 100 yards and the teams have twice the number of players and the same number on the field.

The rest of the proposed rules would suck. Imagine two players on the field playing soccer...like watching people jog...no thanks.

Everything is wrong with soccer (and just sport in general...).

And you know what I do?

I've managed to acquire the impressive skill of... not watching it.

Everything is wrong with soccer (and just sport in general...).

And you know what I do?

I've managed to acquire the impressive skill of... not watching it.
But...but... if everyone followed your subversive example, who would post the threads about what is wrong with it? They can't let that happen! :eek:

But...but... if everyone followed your subversive example, who would post the threads about what is wrong with it? They can't let that happen! :eek:
:eek: We can't let that happen! We can't have people not moaning about pointless things, and we definitly can't have people acting in any rational way!

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

1. Very
2. I know some people don't like rules that introduce complication and skill but it is an integral part of the game. Imagine baseball without 3 strikes
3. Do you have trouble counting to 11. There are 11 players in a hockey team and a cricket team and 15 in a rugby team.
4. diddums - did the excitement get too much for you?
5. do you have attention deficit disorder. Lots of goals does not equal a good game.
6. . . .and the problem with that is?
7. You are allowed 3 subs

:eek: We can't let that happen! We can't have people not moaning about pointless things, and we definitly can't have people acting in any rational way!
Good thing chances of it happening are nonexistent then.

Phew. :p

:eek: We can't let that happen! We can't have people not moaning about pointless things, and we definitly can't have people acting in any rational way!
But... but... it's fun to root for your team, gives you a good reason to drink beer, and the celebrations after a won match are awesome. (Just three reasons besides watching a good game.)
:(:(:( I'm sad now.

But... but... it's fun to root for your team, gives you a good reason to drink beer, and the celebrations after a won match are awesome. (Just three reasons besides watching a good game.)
:(:(:( I'm sad now.
Why did you quote that bit?
When I mentioned being "rational" I was talking about not watching something if you don't like it....

Either way, :fluffle: If you enjoy it, that's great! Enjoy it :) I just... don't find any fun in it myself...

But... but... it's fun to root for your team, gives you a good reason to drink beer, and the celebrations after a won match are awesome. (Just three reasons besides watching a good game.)
:(:(:( I'm sad now.
GN! What is it with you today? Has all that beer melted your brain?
We're talking people who make threads explicitly to say what pisses them off about soccer instead of just simply not watch soccer.

Seriously now, get with it. Husch husch...!

Why did you quote that bit?
When I mentioned being "rational" I was talking about not watching something if you don't like it....
Either way, :fluffle: If you enjoy it, that's great! Enjoy it :) I just... don't find any fun in it myself...
I do :p
GN! What is it with you today? Has all that beer melted your brain?
We're talking people who make threads explicitly to say what pisses them off about soccer instead of just simply not watch soccer.
Seriously now, get with it. Husch husch...!
Aah, maybe I'm just lacking sleep. (My parents came to visit me yesterday and I cleaned my room the whole night before and woke up at 8 this morning, too).

Or it's the lack of beer. Didn't have any since the last German win.

Or I just felt lonely and had the chance to talk to two nice women at the same time?

Don't make anything out of it. *sighs* Maybe not my day today? Oh well... http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/cry2.gif

Additionally there are enough antipodeans here to pull Rugby into the mix, just to mess the whole thing up further. (Yes, Aust - I know you are English, but the majority of rugby fans are from down under.)

That's definitely not true.

Anyway, about the offside rule. I've never got why people found it confusing :confused:


It's pretty much that you're in an offside position when there is no opposing player between you and the other side's goalkeeper when you don't have the ball.

You then commit an offence if you're deemed to be interfering with play (ie, if the ball is passed to you, you're interfering with an opponent, or you're gaining a clear advantage) while in an offside position.

And it doesn't apply from throw-ins, corners, or goal-kicks.

That's it, as far as I know, except for one or two technicalities. Hardly confusing.

Or I just felt lonely and had the chance to talk to two nice women at the same time? While getting pointers on how to get laid in Santa Cruz one thread over? Awww, poor German Nightmare. :p

Anyway, about the offside rule. I've never got why people found it confusing :confused:


It's pretty much that you're in an offside position when there is no opposing player between you and the other side's goalkeeper.

You then commit an offence if you're deemed to be interfering with play (ie, if the ball is passed to you, you're interfering with an opponent, or you're gaining a clear advantage) while in an offside position.

And it doesn't apply from throw-ins, corners, or goal-kicks.

That's it, as far as I know, except for one or two technicalities. Hardly confusing.

*bows*

Best & most concise explanation yet.

While getting pointers on how to get laid in Santa Cruz one thread over? Awww, poor German Nightmare. :p
Which is on the other side of this planet and with my monetary situation could be on Mars or Pluto.
And yes, being told how good my chances would be there (which reminds me how low my chances have been here in the last years), yes: awww.

I do :p
Obviously :p

Aah, maybe I'm just lacking sleep. (My parents came to visit me yesterday and I cleaned my room the whole night before and woke up at 8 this morning, too).

Or it's the lack of beer. Didn't have any since the last German win.

Or I just felt lonely and had the chance to talk to two nice women at the same time?

Don't make anything out of it. *sighs* Maybe not my day today? Oh well... http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/cry2.gif
Awww.... that face looks so sad! *hugs* I do hope you sleep well tonight and have a better day tomorrow :fluffle:

Awww.... that face looks so sad! *hugs* I do hope you sleep well tonight and have a better day tomorrow :fluffle:
It's the saddest (sp?) I have and matches my current mood. Thanks for the kind words, I need that sometimes.
I will go to bed now, I'm dog-tired. And yes, that's the spirit: Tomorrow will be a better day! http://itc.ua/forum/images/smiley_icons/icon_nod.gif

Good night, y'all :p

1. They should put in at least twice as many referees.
2. Offside rule needs to be enforced differently.
3. Penalties are unfair.
4. Red Cards are unfair.
1)But what if they disagree?
2)How?
3)Why?
4)Yeah, it's much better to kick all your opponents till there are no more standing, at least you can win easily then....
1. They don't have to. Give them sovereignty over their half of the field.
Get this... 6 referees. One linesmen in each corner of the field and One referee in each half. Linesmen judge their own side.
2. Name one game where there hasn't been a blown offside call. An offside that should've been called or an offside that should not have been called. There needs to be greater clarity and more tolerance given to attacking teams. Instead of in line give 50cm ahead of the last defender.
3. I feel that the only justification for awarding a penalty for a foul committed inside the penalty area should be if the foul prevented an imminent goal. Otherwise it should be an indirect or direct free kick from within the penalty area.
4. A red card practically guarantees one teams success or the other teams failure. A referee should not have this power. For a yellow they should send the guy off for 5 or 10 minutes. For a red card, instead of sending one player off for the remainder of the game, they should send off two or three players for 10-20 minutes.

1. They don't have to. Give them sovereignty over their half of the field.
Get this... 6 referees. One linesmen in each corner of the field and One referee in each half. Linesmen judge their own side.

But what if the foul is on the halfway line? What if one referee is more lenient than the other?

2. Name one game where there hasn't been a blown offside call. An offside that should've been called or an offside that should not have been called. There needs to be greater clarity and more tolerance given to attacking teams. Instead of in line give 50cm ahead of the last defender.

There's always going to be a grey area though, where the linesman has to make the call right or wrong; your way they lose the optical aid of lining up the players meaning more miscalls.

4. A red card practically guarantees one teams success or the other teams failure. A referee should not have this power. For a yellow they should send the guy off for 5 or 10 minutes. For a red card, instead of sending one player off for the remainder of the game, they should send off two or three players for 10-20 minutes.
There are lots of things that can influence success or failure. Injured star players, letting lots of goals in etc. Committing a foul bad enough to earn a red card is a fair reason for failure. And I don't really agree with sending off non responsible players - they'll have suffered enough particularly if the game is vital and they lose because of the card.

I think its totally ridiculous that there are more people judging a game of tennis than football. No wonder people complain of the officiating every single time...

I think its totally ridiculous that there are more people judging a game of tennis than football. No wonder people complain of the officiating every single time...

Complaining about the officiating is part of the tradition in being a football supporter. The ref always robbed your team blind - that way you don't have to accept that your team sucked. If you remove this possibility, then you are going to drive away a large number of supporters from the game.

The one ref and two assistants, in practice make fewer mistakes and miscalls per game than the seven zebras in an American football match. adding more people does not eliminate human error, it just gives it more opportunity.

Offside is like holding or pass interference - a judgement call, and will always be disputed. Though if you look at the replays, you will see that the call made is right over 95% of the time.

I can't believe there are only seven things wrong with soccer. The fact that I have to suffer through ads for the English Premier league pay TV programs is certainly number eight. Pele doesn't play anymore. Number nine. I have to drive on the same roads as moms with little soccer ball stickers on the back of their mini-vans. Ten. Now that's a nice round number.

And we can avoid the discussion about how soccer is such an natural communistic activity. I read a Dave Barry column about that and it was hilarious. Wish I could find it on the net.

Complaining about the officiating is part of the tradition in being a football supporter. The ref always robbed your team blind - that way you don't have to accept that your team sucked. If you remove this possibility, then you are going to drive away a large number of supporters from the game.
this is why i like ice hockey. if the ref sucks, you just beat the shit out of him with your stick :p

A closed mouth gathers no feet, particularly if you have no freaking idea what you're on about. Go and learn something about the game before talking trash about it. You'll embarass yourself less (Same goes for anyone trash talking Gridiron.)

(And just for the fun of seeing everyone scream - American Gridiron football evolved from Association Football. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-201027)
I thought Evolution was progress.:p *enjoys Gridiron*

AMEN TO THAt. Phycho, greatest left-back of all time, a shot that could kill someone and some of the greatest tackles I'd never seen. He's never survive in todays game tho.

Harlesburg, your right mate. Saw the Moari beat Ireland in the CC final, how did the 1sts do.
Aust
The All Blacks got a dodgy arse try after Chris Jack Knocked on, Ireland would have been leading at the break and for most of the 2nd and wouldn't have had to have chase the game.
http://www.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=displayNews&newsArticle=4037

no just breaks when a player clutches his ankle for a minute then hops back up
so what sport re applys make up?
im 14 so i cant go in a pub/bar
if atmosphere is the only good thing about soccer...

Explaining football to an American (or "soccer" if you prefer) is like trying to explain the colour red to a blind man, or the concept of "honesty" to a politician.

Nearly every country in the world plays football; thats a lot of people who enjoy the game.

Um, I guess team A will either
1) have one of their players make a run for it with the ball and score the goal himself (at which time the defenders of the other team better get their moves on and run back home to defend their goal)

Er.

But he won't be able to get past the players of team B, which is kind-of necessary to score, yeah?

or 2) not make one long pass (since no one is there to receive it), which I assume is what you mean by "lob", but just kick the ball upfield one by one (at which time, again, the defenders will have to return to their goal).



Yeah, well, that's pretty much what I meant anyway.

Everything is wrong with soccer (and just sport in general...).

And you know what I do?

I've managed to acquire the impressive skill of... not watching it.

:D

It seems not everyone has that talent.

this is why i like ice hockey. if the ref sucks, you just beat the shit out of him with your stick :p

LMAO :D

this is why i like ice hockey. if the ref sucks, you just beat the shit out of him with your stick :p
Never seen it but suppose you like Spousal abuse too.

Er.

But he won't be able to get past the players of team B, which is kind-of necessary to score, yeah?

.
He can 'play the offside trap' Standing on the line between the defenders and running through. Or he cna beat them with skill or have a crack from ditance.

Soiunds like you got lucky again Harleburg.

He can 'play the offside trap' Standing on the line between the defenders and running through. Or he cna beat them with skill or have a crack from ditance.

Soiunds like you got lucky again Harleburg.
Aust not i!I was cheering for Ireland
28 matches over 105 years is just greedy.:p

Aust not i!I was cheering for Ireland
28 matches over 105 years is just greedy.:p
Lol, you do seem to get reffreeing decisions in NZ though.

That said England got thrashed, only because of this new defensive system, go back to the drift defense I say! We tried to blitz the ozzies and it didn't work.

Lol, you do seem to get reffreeing decisions in NZ though.

That said England got thrashed, only because of this new defensive system, go back to the drift defense I say! We tried to blitz the ozzies and it didn't work.
The South Africans have become experts at a rushing defence to the point that they don't seem to get pinged for offside.
I can't understand why the short chip isn't used to counter it more/occasionally.

I find contact sports to be more exciting; that's just my personal opinion. Sport is in my opinion a replacement for gladiatorical matches. Skill is one thing, but skill at combat is another. The closer we get to simulating actual combat without creating permanent injuries the better.


I like American Football, Australian Football (hard to get in the US), Rugby (also hard to get in the US), Lacrosse (Hard to get just about any where I imagine), and both Ice and Field Hockey.

Soccer is just too placid for me. Its better than golf, but just about everything is better than watching golf... Baseball, Cricket, Ping Pong, Tennis, etc. But that doesn't change the fact I would like to see a little more speed to the game and maybe a little more rough housing. If you shrunk the field down and made shoulder checking legal, then I think it would be a very different call for me.


And i really do have to defend American Football and how its conducted. American Football is basically just one "Scrum" (I think that's how its spelled right) after another. It would play a lot faster if people still played Iron-Man football, and I would personally have more respect for the guy if they played that way. But the simple fact is that Iron-Man teams (where players play both offense and defense) get beat by teams that don't.

And as far as the "armor" goes, way back when they didn't have much if any "armor." But this changed over the years because the game got more competitive and the players got more dastardly. People ended up with permanent head and neck injuries due to improper tackling and stray elbows. They wear the "armor" not because of the tackling, but because of what happens outside of the tackling. You guys don't see it but these guys throw elbows, bite, poke, gouge, joint lock whatever the hell they think they can get away with. This is so that when somebody drives your face into astro-turf you don't break your neck.

When I was a kid I used to play American Football with my friends and we would hit each other just about as hard as we could, but that ain't nothing compared to a 250+ pound man running at you full speed with you running full speed in the other direction and him slamming his shoulder into your chin.

You'll notice that people who play hockey wear quite a bid of padding too (especially the goalies), but we don't complain about them "wearing too much armor" do we? Checking in hockey occurs "in real time" but they are roughly the same speeds as football can be (obviously except for the goalie, which is why his padding makes him look like a tank).

American Football players are not pussies. They are some of the meanest, cheap shotting, nasty buggers on the planet.

NT

Why compare soccer to NFL-football?

It's the wrong paradigma.
You need to look at NFL-soccer vz Rugby.

And NFL-footy is the WIMP-version of Rugby.

Pads off, no platooning, and let's go and do some serious mutiliation!

Er.

But he won't be able to get past the players of team B, which is kind-of necessary to score, yeah?
¡Ay dolor!
No, offside doesn't mean you can *never* be the lone man in front of all the guys from the opposing team! That would be stupid and impossible, wouldn't it now?
You just can't have your buddy pass the ball your way when you are. You can, however, totally take the ball and run. If you do a really good job with that and manage to make it across the whole field and score a goal - why, then you better ask for a raise. :p

I find contact sports to be more exciting; that's just my personal opinion. Sport is in my opinion a replacement for gladiatorical matches. Skill is one thing, but skill at combat is another. The closer we get to simulating actual combat without creating permanent injuries the better.


I like American Football, Australian Football (hard to get in the US), Rugby (also hard to get in the US), Lacrosse (Hard to get just about any where I imagine), and both Ice and Field Hockey.

Soccer is just too placid for me. Its better than golf, but just about everything is better than watching golf... Baseball, Cricket, Ping Pong, Tennis, etc. But that doesn't change the fact I would like to see a little more speed to the game and maybe a little more rough housing. If you shrunk the field down and made shoulder checking legal, then I think it would be a very different call for me.


And i really do have to defend American Football and how its conducted. American Football is basically just one "Scrum" (I think that's how its spelled right) after another. It would play a lot faster if people still played Iron-Man football, and I would personally have more respect for the guy if they played that way. But the simple fact is that Iron-Man teams (where players play both offense and defense) get beat by teams that don't.

And as far as the "armor" goes, way back when they didn't have much if any "armor." But this changed over the years because the game got more competitive and the players got more dastardly. People ended up with permanent head and neck injuries due to improper tackling and stray elbows. They wear the "armor" not because of the tackling, but because of what happens outside of the tackling. You guys don't see it but these guys throw elbows, bite, poke, gouge, joint lock whatever the hell they think they can get away with. This is so that when somebody drives your face into astro-turf you don't break your neck.

When I was a kid I used to play American Football with my friends and we would hit each other just about as hard as we could, but that ain't nothing compared to a 250+ pound man running at you full speed with you running full speed in the other direction and him slamming his shoulder into your chin.

You'll notice that people who play hockey wear quite a bid of padding too (especially the goalies), but we don't complain about them "wearing too much armor" do we? Checking in hockey occurs "in real time" but they are roughly the same speeds as football can be (obviously except for the goalie, which is why his padding makes him look like a tank).

American Football players are not pussies. They are some of the meanest, cheap shotting, nasty buggers on the planet.

NT
I udnerstand why American footballers wear pads, your sport is pritty brutal. In rugby there thinking about changing the scrum rules because people are dieing and being paralised. Certain tackles are already outlawed (Spear Tackles) thats lifting the man and dropping them on there head.

I'm always suprised people survive rugby without more injurys. When you consdier people walk away from atckles like this:

http://www.brown.edu/Students/Brown_Men_Rugby/images/tackle.jpg

and this, I'm suprised the guy didn't break his neck:

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/empics/20040320/16/2730091504.jpg

And an example of a spear tackle. In a second that guys going to be roated 90 and dropped on hsi ehad, with the body weight of 2 men landing on him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39438000/jpg/_39438628_tackle_gi300x245.jpg

and another one:

http://images.supersport.co.za/ HabanaTacklesSANZ105.jpg

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.


Yeah but the you get to hear the annoucer yell "GOOOOAAAAAALLLLL!" so it all evens out.

Yeah but the you get to hear the annoucer yell "GOOOOAAAAAALLLLL!" so it all evens out.
The argument to end all arguments. *nod*

¡Ay dolor!
No, offside doesn't mean you can *never* be the lone man in front of all the guys from the opposing team! That would be stupid and impossible, wouldn't it now?
You just can't have your buddy pass the ball your way when you are. You can, however, totally take the ball and run. If you do a really good job with that and manage to make it across the whole field and score a goal - why, then you better ask for a raise. :p

OH.

OK, it's not so bad after all then. Yes, it would be stupid and impossible, and now you understand my confusion.

Mmkay. I'll go hide somewhere now to stop looking like an idiot. >.>

It's called football!:headbang:

American football is based on Rugby (full name Rugby football). This was invented in a place in England called Rugby when a posh bloke picked up the ball and ran with it. Why do you think it's called football when most of the time the ball is carried?

The word soccer (or sawker) comes from the full English name for the game (asSOCiation football). You will still finds clubs with the word "association" in their names (eg Sunderland AFC or Leeds United AFC).

So what the US called soccer should be called football, and what the US calls football should be called American football.

You complain about football being dull? My experience of American football runs along the lines of:


Man kicks the ball. Play stops for a commercial.
Man runs with the ball. Play stop for a commercial.
One man throws the ball to another between his legs. The rest of the players run into each other.
Play stops for a commercial break.


What is wrong with American sports? Do you have no attention spans?

OH.

OK, it's not so bad after all then. Yes, it would be stupid and impossible, and now you understand my confusion.

Mmkay. I'll go hide somewhere now to stop looking like an idiot. >.>
Aw, nah, no need to.

Those are actually totally the kind of questions I would ask about other sports' rules. Hence my rather basic "how would I explain this to a third-grader?" answers. :p

It's called football!:headbang:

American football is based on Rugby (full name Rugby football). This was invented in a place in England called Rugby when a posh bloke picked up the ball and ran with it. Why do you think it's called football when most of the time the ball is carried?

The word soccer (or sawker) comes from the full English name for the game (asSOCiation football). You will still finds clubs with the word "association" in their names (eg Sunderland AFC or Leeds United AFC).

I'll take the word of the Encyclopedia Britannica over your's... http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-234263

Football in the United States > The game emerges > Roots in soccer and rugby

Gridiron football was the creation of elite American universities, a fact that has shaped its distinctive role in American culture and life. After several decades of informal, student-organized games that were tolerated by faculty as an alternative to more destructive rowdiness, the first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, between in-state rivals Princeton and Rutgers according to rules adapted from those of the London Football Association. This soccer-style game became the dominant form as Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and a few other colleges in the Northeast took up the sport in the early 1870s, and in 1873 representatives from Princeton, Yale, and Rutgers met in New York City to found the Intercollegiate Football Association and to adopt a common code. Conspicuously missing was Harvard, the country's premier university, whose team insisted on playing the so-called “Boston Game,” a cross between soccer and rugby. In May 1874, in the second of two matches with McGill University of Montreal (the first was played by the rules of the Boston Game), Harvard's players were introduced to the rugby game and immediately preferred it to their own. The following year, for Harvard's first football contest with Yale, representatives of the two schools agreed on “concessionary rules” that were chiefly Harvard's. When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.

(And this ought to shut the yapping traps of the other side as well.)

What is wrong with American sports? Do you have no attention spans?

What is wrong with you? Are you really so stuck on your snobbiness that you can't enjoy any other sports?

And this ought to shut the yapping traps of the other side as well.
Considering that's the US site for Britannica, it's obvious they'd use the term "soccer", so your whole point is moot.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois(...)
Enough said.

Considering that's the US site for Britannica, it's obvious they'd use the term "soccer", so your whole point is moot.


Enough said.

LOL.

When you come up with a reliable site that contracdicts the information I have posted both in the post immediately above and the one a few pages back, then I'll stop laughing at you, silly person.

(In no particular order)
1. Not enough scoring. How exciting can a 0-0 tie be?
2. The offsides rule. Hey if you want to risk having a guy so far back and the other team stealing the pass and getting a break why not?
3. Too many players/too large of a field
4. Stopage i hate it its gay no one knows when the game will end except for the ref who cant end it whenever he wants. (I think the WC rule is different though)
5. **The greatest rule ever*** For more scoring heres my proposal: Every 15 minutes without scoring, 1 player from each team goes off the field.
6. Once you get subbed out you can sub back in.
7. If you get hurt and come off the field no one can replace you.

You sir, are a moron. Do I suggest "improvements" to your sports despite not having been educated in them?

Football is not designed to placate simplistic, avaricious and moronic sports fans who seek instant gratification. The allure of the game is both the skill it requires, and the emotions it incites.

I know, if you want excitement, why not watch something for the less prescribing?

American football sucks, so does baseball. Commercials every five seconds, constant stop/start.

And in american football a bunch of guys on steroids hitting each other, while in baseball a bunch of guys on steroid hits a ball with a stick and grab their shrunken packages and spit constantly. BOOOORING.

Now Football (Soccer) is a sport played by real men. They don't need to go around hitting each other constantly, there are few breaks or stoppages, and its constant action. Not always scoring, but action never the less. I'd like to see an American footballer try and play that, they'd pass out after ten minutes.

Oh, and Ice Hockey, that's another good sport. A few too many stoppages, but I do enjoy that game as well.

LOL.

When you come up with a reliable site that contracdicts the information I have posted both in the post immediately above and the one a few pages back, then I'll stop laughing at you, silly person.
Except he is right....

Football, as we know it today, can trace its "roots" back thousands of years to ancient Greece. From there, the game spread to nearly every corner of the earth, to nearly every known civilization.

The games usually took a form more akin to soccer than to American football. But all that changed one November day in 1823 at England's tradition-steeped Rugby School. A plaque tells the story:

This stone commemorates the exploit of William Webb Ellis who with a fine disregard of the rules of football, as played at the time, first took the ball and ran with it.

Running with the football was not covered in the rules. But the English preppies, rather liking what Master Ellis did, continued to allow the practice, and a game - named after the school at which it was founded - was born.

The Rugby game eventually emigrated to North America and evolved into football as played today in the United States.

Source (http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=runningspecies)

Now Diastallia 2104 - care to eat your words.

A specialist research association is a more reliable source than a general (and often innacurate) encyclopedia.

Now Diastallia 2104 - care to eat your words.

A specialist research association is a more reliable source than a general (and often innacurate) encyclopedia.

Thank you for that. An extensive article from that site, describeing "the Boston Game", should make clear that Soccer does have a historical influance on Gridiron:

http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=c-to1870
The Boston Game

But football wasn't really dead; it had just gone away. It now became the property of New England schoolboys who took care of it much better than their older college brothers. The kids had been playing versions of football for years, of course. Unlike the college students, they usually followed some simple rules, although these might vary considerably from town to town. Primarily, they played variations of soccer, and boys could be seen on autumn days diligently practicing dribbling or "puddling" balls across fields by tapping them with their feet while school books were forgotten back by the fences. Occasionally, a locally popular game allowed carrying, making it a rugby derivative. Then the books could be tucked under arms as football-substitutes and the boys would be away dodging down lanes, eluding imaginary tacklers.

On Saturdays, groups of as many as forty or fifty boys might gather at a chosen lot or meadow, divide into teams, and spend several hours happily agitating a ball across the grass. Usually, the ball was handmade by someone's father, but, if the boys were lucky, they might have one of the store-bought rubber balls that had been introduced in 1855. These allowed for more accurate kicking, and as the use of them spread, they encouraged soccer-like games over rugby styles. These schoolboy gatherings were quite informal, but "buddies" tended to hang together and set teams sometimes were developed.

One such group of prep school boys in Boston formed the Oneida Football Club in 1862. The original Oneidas had been a tribe of Iroquois Indians long gone from the Boston environs, but the boys liked the heroic aura of the name. The mainspring of the bunch was teenager Gerrit Smith Miller, named for his maternal grandfather, the ardent abolitionist Gerrit Smith. Young Miller was a natural leader and exceptional athlete who soon had his gang practicing soccer and rugby on the Boston Common. After awhile, the boys tired of both games, perhaps because they could find no one to play. Rather than disband, they occupied their time by inventing a new game, one that combined their favorite features of both soccer and rugby. They liked goal kicking from the former and running with the ball from the latter, and both became features of their hybrid, "The Boston Game".

On November 7, 1863, the boys finally found someone to play. They lured a pick-up team of non-members to the Common and explained the rules to them. Not surprisingly, Miller's well- drilled crew zapped the neophytes. Reportedly, the score was 12-0, but just what scored how many points in the Boston Game is open to dispute.

At any rate, the Boston newspapers found the Oneidas' victory sufficiently amusing to honor it the next day with a one- paragraph write-up. Over the next three years, Gerrit Miller's gang took on anyone they could sucker into a game. They remained undefeated, never once allowing a point. The Oneidas credited their success to diligent practice; some suggested it was more due to their having invented their own game.

Some historians have gone so far as to call the Oneidas' victories the first games of American football, maintaining the hybrid Boston Game was neither soccer nor rugby and, therefore, was what Americans recognize as their favorite autumn sport. To call the Oneidas the inventors of American football is surely giving the little devils more than their due. Their game allowed running under certain circumstances, but it was still essentially soccer. Perhaps it should be called football's missing link.

Although the Boston Game can't be placed any higher on football's evolutionary ladder, it seems fair to say that the Oneidas themselves exerted an important influence on the eventual course of American football, particularly because several of the boys grew up and took their game with them to Harvard. And, it was the Crimson's preference for the Boston Game that proved the key in turning America away from soccer.

-snip pictures of tackles-
See, now why would I want to watch that? And why the hell would anyone want to participate in that??

Crazy crazy people....

American football sucks, so does baseball. Commercials every five seconds, constant stop/start.

And in american football a bunch of guys on steroids hitting each other, while in baseball a bunch of guys on steroid hits a ball with a stick and grab their shrunken packages and spit constantly. BOOOORING.

Now Football (Soccer) is a sport played by real men. They don't need to go around hitting each other constantly, there are few breaks or stoppages, and its constant action. Not always scoring, but action never the less. I'd like to see an American footballer try and play that, they'd pass out after ten minutes.

Oh, and Ice Hockey, that's another good sport. A few too many stoppages, but I do enjoy that game as well.

While I vehemently disagree withy your mischracterizations of everyothet sport you mention, I must say I do prefer ice hockey.

Thank you for that. An extensive article from that site, describeing "the Boston Game", should make clear that Soccer does have a historical influance on Gridiron:

http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=c-to1870

Football, not soccer, has an influence on American Football, yes. The term soccer is derived from the word Association, as has been pointed out. Now the FA - or Football Association was only founded in 1863 in England. Therefore any game that influenced "The Boston Game" cannot have been called soccer, and it certainly did not have the rules and structure of Association Football, which took a couple of decades to settle down.

The anachronism of saying that soccer is an influence on American football is the problem here. Certainly all games that include the term football share some common ancestry, but to say this is soccer is like claiming we are descended from Chimpanzees - factually wrong.

Football, not soccer, has an influence on American Football, yes. The term soccer is derived from the word Association, as has been pointed out. Now the FA - or Football Association was only founded in 1863 in England. Therefore any game that influenced "The Boston Game" cannot have been called soccer, and it certainly did not have the rules and structure of Association Football, which took a couple of decades to settle down.

The anachronism of saying that soccer is an influence on American football is the problem here. Certainly all games that include the term football share some common ancestry, but to say this is soccer is like claiming we are descended from Chimpanzees - factually wrong.

Please re-read the article from the site -YOU- posted.

Thank you for that. An extensive article from that site, describeing "the Boston Game", should make clear that Soccer does have a historical influance on Gridiron:

http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=c-to1870
From what I've read though, and I could be wrong, the Boston Game, although preceding American Football and setting the trend for a Rugby rather than almost solely 'soccer' game as played in the other Universities, was dropped by Havard for a Rugby hybrid,and then dropped in favour of full rugby rules. And it's from that you get American football. From the much vaunted Britannica:
In 1875 Harvard and Yale met under rules taken partly from the Rugby Union and partly from the American game. These proved unsatisfactory, and the next year Harvard and Yale adopted the Rugby Union rules in their entirety. This was the foundation of the present American game.
http://www.britannica.com/original/print?content_id=1366

Please re-read the article from the site -YOU- posted.

The article is anachronistic - check the facts for yourself.
1. Where does the term 'soccer' come from?
2. When was the Football Association Founded?
3. When was "The Boston Game" as described?

The answers to these three questions show that the use of the term soccer in that article is incorrect. That is all I am saying. Now why do I have to re read it?

¡Ay dolor!
No, offside doesn't mean you can *never* be the lone man in front of all the guys from the opposing team! That would be stupid and impossible, wouldn't it now?
You just can't have your buddy pass the ball your way when you are. You can, however, totally take the ball and run. If you do a really good job with that and manage to make it across the whole field and score a goal - why, then you better ask for a raise. :p
Unless you are playing 'Golden Oldies':p

See, now why would I want to watch that? And why the hell would anyone want to participate in that??

Crazy crazy people....
Some times I wonder myself. Just to tell you the guy in the second picture (in the green, one of the worlds best players) broke his neck and dislocated his shoulder in a spear tackle in the next test-match he played as a result of a spear tackle. That said it's bloody good fun to watch! Especally when it's a good game not a kick fest. If youw atgch somthing like the Barbarians (The odlest touring invatational club side in the world) vs the All blacks game from 1979, widly thought as the rgeatest game ever played you'll understand more.

Yes another one.
Soccer isn't enough like Rugby.:p