Why most Americans don't like soccer.
- Thread starter dabears32
- Start date
Then explain it for rest of the class, please. For those of us that have watched the world cup, offsides seems to be a dubious call at best.
I've watched enough of the games where I can pick it out when it happens, but even then only when it's blatantly obvious.
Point of order: There needs to be two defenders between the attacker and the goal. One of them is almost always the goalie, but it doesn't have to be.
How so........it's real simple......in hockey, there is a set line you can't cross until the puck crosses it........in soccer there is no set line because the line is the defender, who can move, hence, NOT a set line!!
There are two things that make it very difficult to understand, notice, officiate, etc.
One, by the nature of the rule, you have to be looking in two places at once. The 'last' defender relative to the attacker, and the ball as the attacker has to be on side at the moment the ball is played to them but can make their break behind the defense as soon as the ball is played.
Two, there can be some tricky judgement as to whether an attacker is part of the play or not. A particular attacker can be standing all day long in the goal area and not be off sides as long as the ball is not played to them and they don't become involved in the play.
You think a static line is preferable to one that is dynamic based on the conditions of the game at the time?
Just to complicate the off sides rule a bit further, you can't be ruled off sides on a throw in or corner kick or on your own side of the field.
That's a big part of it. It's the same reason I don't watch Chess or Bass Fishing on TV, because it's not exciting. Thank you for pointing it out and also insulting every non fan. Really that's another big reason - soccer snobs.
I think this is the hardest thing for people to understand. Just because you stand behind the defense does not mean you are offsides. You are not offsides until you are involved in the play. Ie draw a defender or the ball is played. You can stand by the keeper the entire time, just don't have the ball played to you. I get it the hockey offides is easy to understand. Puck blue line (to be fair similarly in soccer you can not be offsides on the defense half of the field). But just because a rule is hard to understand for someone who doesn't know soccer does not make it a 'dumb' rule.
To me? Yes. It creates a lot less room for corruption and/or controversy. You are either offsides or not with a set line. When two or three objects are in motion, it's more of a judgement call, which in turn, creates disputes most of the time (a big story so far in this World Cup right?). I like things to be black and white with little to no gray area.
This is true, soccer is definitely not a game of black and white. Even the things that should be in soccer sometimes are not (see England's non goal). I wish FIFA would get their head out of their *** and change some of the rules to make things more fair, and ensure the correct call. But look at baseball there having a lot of the same problems right now, and while they are fixing some, a lot of people are against it. You need to remember with soccer you are talking about a LOT of politics. I mean there have been wars fought over the game. So the game needs some changes, but if you start to understand the tactics and play enough to realize the skill it takes to go around a world class athlete with just your feet, you start to see some of the drama, and beauty.
Last edited:
BTW, I know exactly what I'm talking about or else I wouldn't even be in this thread. Just because my opinion of soccer is different than yours, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. :wink:
I am not questioning the skill and athleticism it takes to play this game at all.........I don't like several rules that make the games easier to manipulate an outcome favorable to the one that certain people or governments may want. If that makes sense.
I guess I didn't ask the question I intended to, but you have helped illustrate the conundrum. Easy to officiate and arbitrary (hockey and the static blue line) versus difficult to officiate and meaningful to the current state of play (soccer and the dynamic offsides line). Pros and cons on both sides to be sure.
Hardly insulting people. Some people and fans just need to be entertained more, and want scoring after scoring. It's not my problem that soccer bashers have the urge to bash people who enjoy the sport because they don't like it as well. Some people wonder why some posters are defending soccer a lot more then most is because the soccer bashers are constantly trying to bring the sport down just because they dont enjoy it. Thats rather insulting.
You'd have a point if you could convince anyone that the same (or worse) corruption couldn't be seen in any other sport. Take for example:
Any sport involving judging (gymnastics, ice skating, etc.)
Various college or pro football rules (see pass interference call OSU vs Miami for the national championship a few years ago)
Any level of basketball refereeing (blarge vs MSU, any NBA playoff game)
Any MLB strike zone
and I understand that. Like I said the game is not perfect. But in every game people try to take advantage of the rules (and there a lot more gray areas in basketball, baseball, and football then people want to admit). You can not like the game because of how its played or how it is officiated. I personally despise NBA basketball for these very things. But I don't go around knocking NBA basketball every chance I get (which has happened to soccer a lot on this board recently). I guess I just love the game a lot and hate to have it maligned just because people don't understand it. The worst thing to me is the people who say its boring, because the more you learn about the game the more exciting it gets. So its not boring people just don't understand it, there is a big difference. And I get that not everyone wants to learn about it. But if people don't like the game no one is telling you have to watch it or be involved in a discussion about it (all of this is a generalization not aim particularly at you).
I think soccer just has more politics to it than I prefer my sports to have. :skeptical: Sports are just that, sports........leave the politics to the criminals that run for office and want to corrupt everything. For god's sake, there's even a movie about soccer now that is totally more about politics than the sport itself.
Just checking - but if you are referring to Invictus - that'd be RUGBY - totally different sport. If not, then apology up front, but not knowing the difference is not good.
