Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 10:42 am

danivon wrote:In the 90s, there were ideas to make soccer more popular in the US, with larger goals, and scoring zones that gave different points. it didn't work - the MLS plays with the proper rules instead.

I can see your point of view, Tom, but I disagree with some of your ideas. We have changed rules such as offside and pass-back so as to give advantage to the attacking team.


I have to say the offside rule is still not entirely clear to me, BUT it is far less draconian than I thought it was. There seems to be a bit of discretion in the rule too--it seems the refs ignore it if it is not really the issue (rare, but it seems to me I've seen it).

On injuries, Rugby Union does allow 'blood injury' substitutions above the normal replacements. And you know what happened? A team figured out how to get a free substitution by faking a blood injury, and that was a scandal in the game.


I'm sure. Teams always figure a way to cheat. Always. That said, if I could tell the guy had a concussion, how did it go unnoticed by the doctor and coach? It was obvious.

The real issue was that the number of fouls leading up to that incident, particularly on Schweinsteiger, should have led to more cards, and perhaps a second yellow for at least one Argentinian. Which would have meant a German player coming off injured would make less of a difference.


I'll agree with this while still wishing there could be something for concussions--maybe a previously removed player could return?

Anyway, I am not sure artificially hiking scoring is the key to making the game popular in the US. I think more exposure to higher levels of football, like La Liga and BPL (I get several games a week) will help.

I think it would also be huge if the US could take the next step as a nation. To me, that means finding a Messi, a Bale, etc. If we had that kind of superstar this year, I think we might have made the semis.

I'm open to reading a book on soccer strategy. In fact, I went shopping for one, but there were so many competing reviews, etc. I want to understand the differing theories, reasons for formations, etc.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 1:22 pm

I am absolutely no wealth of soccer knowledge!
That being said, I did my part as a good Dad and helped out the local league by volunteering to coach, I even sat on the board of directors for a few years.
A few things that relate to this a little bit...

DF wants to know theory, I can't give him that but a funny story
I coached 10 year old girls in a recreation league
Most of the girls preferred to play offense, the "norm" is of course 3 on offense, 3 midfielders and 4 on defense. I said what the hell and reversed it. Not that this is unheard of but it certainly is unorthodox. I figured a good offense makes for a good defense and went with 4 forwards....we lost one game all year and after playing each team one time, they all switched to the same format! After coaching for 5 more years, I kept that format and did well each and every year.

and the other,
Our league had joined with several other leagues for a rec-league "Intertown" league. Some towns had small programs and all the towns lost players as the ages went up (kids get jobs, start to notice the other sex, etc). This allowed us to play many other teams and not be forced to play the same team game after game, the kids got to travel but it was only to neighboring towns and it worked well for all and I was very proud to be a part of it. Since we now had to work between leagues, our group not only scheduled the games and referees, we also needed to make sure rules were uniform between us all. This injury talk reminded me of one thing I was VERY proud of spearheading. The standard game does not stop play for injuries, when the ball goes out THEN you stop play. I was furious about this stupid rule. One of my girls foes down seriously hurt, I'm running on the field whether the game is playing or not! This is rec-league remember, not high school, not premier, it's entry level recreation league fun and learning are the priorities! I had that rule changed so that in the case of any suspected injury, the ref would kill play immediately, didn't matter where the ball was, play was STOPPED. We instituted this rule across all leagues involved and adopted it even for tournaments. A kid is hurt, we stop the game!
...it seemed archaic that the game would play on as some small child lays on the ground writhing in pain or possibly in need of medical attention!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 1:39 pm

An American speaking with concern over the health of soccer players reminded me of this article from a few years back on what's going on with American football players.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

Omalu has only once failed to find C.T.E. in a professional football player, and that was a twenty-four-year-old running back who had played in the N.F.L. for only two years.

“There is something wrong with this group as a cohort,” Omalu says. “They forget things. They have slurred speech. I have had an N.F.L. player come up to me at a funeral and tell me he can’t find his way home. I have wives who call me and say, ‘My husband was a very good man. Now he drinks all the time. I don’t know why his behavior changed.’ I have wives call me and say, ‘My husband was a nice guy. Now he’s getting abusive.’


It's a beautifully written article by Malcolm Gladwell that rather stunningly interweaves the Michael Vick dogfighting business with the health of American football players. I actually agree with Tom on everything he's written. That said, Americans should be cleaning their own house instead of noticing that others have a little mess.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 1:47 pm

geojanes wrote:An American speaking with concern over the health of soccer players reminded me of this article from a few years back on what's going on with American football players.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

Omalu has only once failed to find C.T.E. in a professional football player, and that was a twenty-four-year-old running back who had played in the N.F.L. for only two years.

“There is something wrong with this group as a cohort,” Omalu says. “They forget things. They have slurred speech. I have had an N.F.L. player come up to me at a funeral and tell me he can’t find his way home. I have wives who call me and say, ‘My husband was a very good man. Now he drinks all the time. I don’t know why his behavior changed.’ I have wives call me and say, ‘My husband was a nice guy. Now he’s getting abusive.’


It's a beautifully written article by Malcolm Gladwell that rather stunningly interweaves the Michael Vick dogfighting business with the health of American football players. I actually agree with Tom on everything he's written. That said, Americans should be cleaning their own house instead of noticing that others have a little mess.


I agree with your premise, Geo. The issue in non-American football is different--no protection and no substitution.

You'll not read me defending the NFL. I wonder how much longer the game will be permitted--unless the protective gear gets significantly better.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:21 pm

fate

You'll not read me defending the NFL. I wonder how much longer the game will be permitted--unless the protective gear gets significantly better

As long as the money is so big, and until liability issues catch up with the NFL and make the sport financially risky versus the cash cow it currrently is ...the NFL is king.

The NFl is a power unto itself, fueled by television money and influenced only by the networks and the sponsors...
Professional Football (soccer) has many different centres of influence and power. Yes there is an incredible amount of money in the game, but unlike NFL teams, most profressional teams in Europe lose money, despite this. Players and agents get a much larger share of revenue in European Football then do the players in most North American leagues. FIFA and the various football confederations make money too of course even thought the professional teams are money losers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:37 pm

rickyp wrote:fate

You'll not read me defending the NFL. I wonder how much longer the game will be permitted--unless the protective gear gets significantly better

As long as the money is so big, and until liability issues catch up with the NFL and make the sport financially risky versus the cash cow it currrently is ...the NFL is king.

The NFl is a power unto itself, fueled by television money and influenced only by the networks and the sponsors...
Professional Football (soccer) has many different centres of influence and power. Yes there is an incredible amount of money in the game, but unlike NFL teams, most profressional teams in Europe lose money, despite this. Players and agents get a much larger share of revenue in European Football then do the players in most North American leagues. FIFA and the various football confederations make money too of course even thought the professional teams are money losers.


Too cynical, even for me.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:39 pm

rickyp wrote:As long as the money is so big, and until liability issues catch up with the NFL and make the sport financially risky versus the cash cow it currently is ...the NFL is king.


The thing about football is that they are finding brain damage not only in former NFLers but in kids who just played in college, even some teenagers, and the damage just gets worse over time even after they've stopped playing. The NFL may continue, but I could see major changes happening at the in little leagues and colleges, and if that happens, I wonder if those changes would take the NFL down by the roots.

I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:47 pm

geojanes wrote:I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!


The military?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:48 pm

geojanes wrote:
rickyp wrote:As long as the money is so big, and until liability issues catch up with the NFL and make the sport financially risky versus the cash cow it currently is ...the NFL is king.


The thing about football is that they are finding brain damage not only in former NFLers but in kids who just played in college, even some teenagers, and the damage just gets worse over time even after they've stopped playing. The NFL may continue, but I could see major changes happening at the in little leagues and colleges, and if that happens, I wonder if those changes would take the NFL down by the roots.

I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!


And, the stories are so sad. I think we are either going to see big improvements in equipment safety (I've seen bits on experimental helmets) or at least a fig leaf of medical intervention (more exams of players, etc.). You could be right: football could die by virtue of parents not permitting their kids to play any longer.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:49 pm

theshrizzz wrote:
geojanes wrote:I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!


The military?


I don't believe the NFL is mandatory for national security. :eek:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 3:14 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
theshrizzz wrote:
geojanes wrote:I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!


The military?


I don't believe the NFL is mandatory for national security. :eek:



Of course, I wasn't being totally serious.

And I agree in part with your above post: the point that parents not allowing their kids to play tackle football will decrease the pool of players in the next generation. Though I think there are parts of this country (the South, Texas, etc.) where football is still huge and hasn't decreased much at all.

A lot of the stories are quite sad. But isn't it a question of whether we should save people from themselves or not? If people want to play football, or if they want to ride a motorcycle or be a mountaineer, well these things are dangerous. Of course playing football is a job so it's a bit different.

Some of the stories of CTE remind me of stories of soldiers returning from war. The NFL is not necessary for national security, but I would argue a significant percentage of the wars we've been in lately aren't, either.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 3:16 pm

You could be right: football could die by virtue of parents not permitting their kids to play any longer.


This is the danger. Liability issues can be negotiated, but if parents increasingly come to the view that it's too dangerous to allow their kids to play then the sport will slowly die off. It would be a great shame because it's a terrific spectacle to watch, but I must say that if I had a son I'm not sure how I'd feel about him playing the sport after what I've read recently. Surely there must be millions of American parents thinking the same thing right now.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 3:29 pm

theshrizzz wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
theshrizzz wrote:
geojanes wrote:I dunno what the right solution is, but its doubtful that any other occupation with such a high disability rate would survive long in this country, and for good reason!


The military?


I don't believe the NFL is mandatory for national security. :eek:



Of course, I wasn't being totally serious.

And I agree in part with your above post: the point that parents not allowing their kids to play tackle football will decrease the pool of players in the next generation. Though I think there are parts of this country (the South, Texas, etc.) where football is still huge and hasn't decreased much at all.

A lot of the stories are quite sad. But isn't it a question of whether we should save people from themselves or not? If people want to play football, or if they want to ride a motorcycle or be a mountaineer, well these things are dangerous. Of course playing football is a job so it's a bit different.

Some of the stories of CTE remind me of stories of soldiers returning from war. The NFL is not necessary for national security, but I would argue a significant percentage of the wars we've been in lately aren't, either.


I feel a hijack coming on!

Of course, I'm not calling for government to outlaw football. I think either technology will catch up, or the game will have to find other guinea pigs--eventually.

I really could give a fig about the NFL. I haven't been a fan for 30 years.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 3:43 pm

Banning it would be wrong. If they do that then they'd also have to ban boxing, which is a sport that I love, and who knows what else. So long as the risks are fully understood and freely entered into then it isn't an issue for me.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 4:01 pm

I've also heard the interesting point made that going backwards in helmet protection technology might actually work. It's somewhat counterintuitive, but the idea is that the stronger helmets are, the more likely defensive players (particularly DBs) are to orient themselves like missiles and launch themselves at people headfirst. If they went back to leather helmets, maybe people would learn how to not tackle with their heads. It's obviously a pretty extreme idea, but maybe something worth thinking about?

Rugby is a pretty brutal contact sport, there are just as many tackles, if not more, as football. I don't watch a lot of rugby but I'm pretty sure those guys wear no pads of any kind, and I don't think they have nearly the level of concussion issues that football or even hockey does. Can any rugby fans here corroborate or correct me on that one?