Ignoring the low level debate, let's look forward to some mouthwatering ties in the next couple of days.

France v Germany - two strong sides who have a lot of history (1982's semi-final was a brutal affair), France appear to have the greater skill and Germany have slipped from the heights of demolishing Portugal in game 1.

Brazil v Colombia - the hosts are appearing to worry somewhat after a close call against Chile. Colombia are on fire at the moment.

Argentina v Belgium - Argentina will be favourites, but the Belgians have proven that they are a very skilful side

Netherlands v Costa Rica - this could be tasty, Holland are not imploding, and not quite as dirty as 4 years ago, while the Central Americans are having an amazing tournament.

I will make a guess that we see France v Brazil, Argentina v Netherlands semi-finals, but I'd like to see Colombia, Costa Rica or Belgium go through.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:I suppose that by low level debate, you're referring to your outlook posted above. Absolutely wrong on almost all counts. Shocking. Truly shocking.

I called three games out of the four.

What I call low level debate is the constant bickering between you and ricky over the EPL and fripperies. Your need to make everything into an excuse to call people names really doesn't help. You are making ricky look cogent and reasonable (no mean feat!)

The statement that France have better talent than Germany belies even your levels of latent bigotry and stupidity.

I stand by it. They did not apply it in that game, but have been up to that point.

Germany have yet to face a really tough game - despite the quality of their opponents on paper, none seem to bring their top game. Brazil were hopeless yesterday. Their hardest game was against the USA, really. But Argentina struggled today, and will have less rest. So I think it will be a close match on Sunday.

danivon wrote:Germany have yet to face a really tough game - despite the quality of their opponents on paper, none seem to bring their top game. Brazil were hopeless yesterday. Their hardest game was against the USA, really. But Argentina struggled today, and will have less rest. So I think it will be a close match on Sunday.

Yes it was!

I was so glad to see that goal by Goetze. Firstly, it was brilliantly done--fine pass, better ball control, and a wonderfully precise shot. Secondly, it saved us from having the Cup decided by penalty shots.

My only "complaint" with the whole thing is a schedule that has one team play on less rest in the final. That seems a bit unfair when they do as much running as they do. If it was basketball, American football, etc., one day would be no big deal--because there are unlimited substitutions. I just don't think, no matter what history suggests, that it's fair.

I am glad Germany won because we did give them all they could handle. It tells me that the American side played hard. I think we're lacking the depth or maybe just the one special player (Messi) to get to the elite level, but it was a fair showing, I think.

Back to the final: Argentina had their chances. Messi played well, but he would have had to have been an alien to have pushed them over the top.

We did give them a tough game. But I think it should be noted that actually Ghana probably gave Germany their toughest test, earning a draw and actually for a few moments there it seemed like Ghana might win.

fate

My only "complaint" with the whole thing is a schedule that has one team play on less rest in the final. That seems a bit unfair when they do as much running as they do. If it was basketball, American football, etc., one day would be no big deal--because there are unlimited substitutions. I just don't think, no matter what history suggests, that it's fair.

FIFA needs to do a rethink on the substitutions rule. Several times in this Cup we saw obviously concussed players struggling to continue because they were injured early in the game. (The young german who Scheurler replaced in the final for instance). In order to protect players, they should have the ability to substitute for injuries without affecting tactical changes...

rickyp wrote:fate

My only "complaint" with the whole thing is a schedule that has one team play on less rest in the final. That seems a bit unfair when they do as much running as they do. If it was basketball, American football, etc., one day would be no big deal--because there are unlimited substitutions. I just don't think, no matter what history suggests, that it's fair.

FIFA needs to do a rethink on the substitutions rule. Several times in this Cup we saw obviously concussed players struggling to continue because they were injured early in the game. (The young german who Scheurler replaced in the final for instance). In order to protect players, they should have the ability to substitute for injuries without affecting tactical changes...

Even on TV one could see he had a concussion. I can't imagine an injury like that after one team has used its subs--they just play short?

Just subbed to four-four-two.

I don't agree at all about having free subs for injuries. Timing of substitutions is one of the arts of football management, and one of the factors you always have to be mindful of is that if you play all your cards too early then an injury might come along and leave you short on the pitch. It's always been that way and there's no reason to change it.

I have had this discussion with someone I work with from England. I also think freely substituting players would help the game and he is against it, he states the same as Sass does. I do "get" that position but I think too many people fall into the "purist" category and do not like change. Sass says so in his post "It's always been that way and there's no reason to change it"

But is he right?
We pointed out how players health is adversely affected,
players playing through injury is of course "manly" and maybe even "inspirational" but do you think it's a good idea to have someone suffer permanent damage in doing so? The way the rules are designed, players are forced to suck it up and play through injury.

That answers the "no reason to change"

But what about his other argument, that this adds an "art" to game management?
Yes, I agree we have such a feature, but think about it, step out of your purist box and think with an open mind. Would having free substitutions maybe add yet a new "art" to game management? The game could be far more interesting being able to keep fresh legs continually running into the game, the pace would pick up and you could do FAR more situational specialization plays.

I am a bit of an outsider looking in. I have no set "change is bad" mentality and I see a game that could be improved. Think about it,
The game is pretty much exactly as it always has been. The players are now larger, faster, more athletic, etc. Would it not make sense to make the goal just a bit taller/wider? I understand the reasons to stay the same, I understand the supposed "excitement" of 0-0 games. But wouldn't a 3-3 game be MORE exciting? Fans go CRAZY over goals, they want to see players score, nil-nil frankly SUCKS.

Another thing that would help
Add a freaking clock!
This mystery added time is stupid, what would be so wrong with adding a clock like we have in basketball or American football? Actually KNOW when the game will end!

FYI, we have many similar purists here in America where it comes to baseball. Yet every time a change is added, the fans end up loving those changes. Try doing away with the designated hitter, try going back to the old playoff platform, You would have mutiny!
...change is good, embrace things that might help the game!

sass

It's always been that way and there's no reason to change it.

Its only been a few years now that referees always stop the game for head injuries. That was a welcome addition frankly. Previously the ball had to be kicked out of bounds to get a stoppage.
The reason this rule change was brought in was to protect the health of players.

here's an illustration of what happens right now:

Shortly after the blow, Kramer came to me asking, ‘Ref, is this the final?' I thought he was joking and made him repeat the question and then he said, ‘I need to know if this is really the final.' When I said, ‘Yes,' he concluded, ‘Thanks, it was important to know that.'”If you're Rizzoli, what are you supposed to say at that moment?

http://www.cbssports.com/world-cup/eye- ... -the-final

The logical extension of stopping the game for head injuries is to treat head injuries with the respect they are due. You don't want to see someone faking a concussion to gain advantage of course. But if someone is substituted for a head injury, and it doesn't affect the 3 subs made for other injuries or for tactical reasons, then the player coming out should be inelib=gible for his next 2 games.... That should be enough to ensure that the rule isn't used to gain advantage...

rickyp wrote:The logical extension of stopping the game for head injuries is to treat head injuries with the respect they are due. You don't want to see someone faking a concussion to gain advantage of course. But if someone is substituted for a head injury, and it doesn't affect the 3 subs made for other injuries or for tactical reasons, then the player coming out should be inelib=gible for his next 2 games.... That should be enough to ensure that the rule isn't used to gain advantage...

And, in the Final, it was not hard to see that the German had received a massive blow to his head. Further, even a passionate Brazilian would have taken one look at the man's gaze and realized he'd suffered a concussion.

Should the rules be changed? Look, I'm still sorting out the strategy. What I will say is that any game should not advantage a team for injuring the other team. If a team has to play short because of a concussion, "strategy" or not, that's not right.

Could a man fake a concussion? Surely, but that's not what we saw. There ought to be a modicum of sense in this. When an obvious and violent (even if inadvertent) blow to the head occurs, all caution and care should be taken. Further, if the determination is made that the player must come out, some compensation should be due his team--maybe the other team must remove a man?

GMTom wrote:The game is pretty much exactly as it always has been. The players are now larger, faster, more athletic, etc. Would it not make sense to make the goal just a bit taller/wider? I understand the reasons to stay the same, I understand the supposed "excitement" of 0-0 games. But wouldn't a 3-3 game be MORE exciting? Fans go CRAZY over goals, they want to see players score, nil-nil frankly SUCKS.

I used to feel this way. I now see the "glory" in 0-0. It's not only a defensive match, but . . . in league play it represents a victory (of sorts) for the visiting team. Getting one point on the road is the goal; three points is gravy. Keeping the home team from getting three is ideal.

Another thing that would help
Add a freaking clock!
This mystery added time is stupid, what would be so wrong with adding a clock like we have in basketball or American football? Actually KNOW when the game will end!

I could be wrong here, but it appears to be a bit subjective. The referee calls the game "about" when he thinks there is no immediate play AND it's more or less about how much time he thinks was lost due to injury or delay.

One thing I really like about soccer is the unwritten rule where an injury occurs and the opposing team will kick the ball out of bounds to stop the game. Then the other team will purposely throw the inbounds away. I like that gentleman aspect, I actually like it a LOT.

I do appreciate a 0-0 tie
But I would appreciate a 3-3 tie far more
and just look at all the talk during this world cup about how much more scoring we had. A few goals more and the world was abuzz! The fans loved the increase in scoring but God forbid we should do something to improve what the fans obviously enjoy!
Think outside the (penalty) box!!!!

I also think (even more-so) that Hockey should have a larger goal for the same reasons. And on both sport goals, I'm not talking about doubling the size or anything crazy,
Maybe an extra foot around in soccer, and extra 3 inches around in hockey?

FYI, we have many similar purists here in America where it comes to baseball. Yet every time a change is added, the fans end up loving those changes. Try doing away with the designated hitter, try going back to the old playoff platform, You would have mutiny!
...change is good, embrace things that might help the game!

The rules change all the time in football, some for the better and others not. It's not change itself that I'm opposed to, it's the fact that you're proposing a change that I don't agree with. Free subs for injuries is not a good idea, and in any case it could have unforeseen consequences. For starters, I think it quite easily could result in fewer goals being scored. An awful lot of goals are scored in the last 10-15 minutes when players are tiring and start to make more mistakes. If injuries resulted in free subs then managers would all start using their subs earlier and so there would be more fresh legs on the pitch.

Increasing the size of the goals is another bad idea. Where is the purpose other than to artificially boost the number that are scored ? The size of the goal is the same for everybody, and over the years it's not like scoring rates have noticeably changed all that much from era to era despite the huge improvements in athletic performance, better pitches and much lighter balls. All actual football fans who love the sport would be appalled at the idea of making the goals bigger. It would seriously invalidate the performances if it suddenly became that much easier to score than it ever has been before.

I do appreciate a 0-0 tie
But I would appreciate a 3-3 tie far more

We get 3-3 draws, it's not like you never see high scoring games of football. But the reason we enjoy them so much is because of their comparative rarity. If goals were easier to come by then they'd become a lot more humdrum and the magic would start to wear off. You never cheer as loudly for 5th or 6th goal in a thrashing as you do for the 1st and 2nd. If more goals = more excitement then how come basketball is so tedious ?

Some of us like the sport more or less as it is thanks. In fact there are billions of us.

Sassenach wrote:Some of us like the sport more or less as it is thanks. In fact there are billions of us.

My issue is solely with head injuries. I think the current rules encourage/demand that seriously injured players stay on the pitch (e.g. The World Cup final) and play even with a concussion. Letting the German continue was one thing, but almost mandating it by rule and tradition is dangerous. It seems to me a "probable concussion" exception would not endanger much. If one side wanted to protest, the referee could examine video. It took minutes to examine him, etc.And then? He returned to the game so his team would not be short-handed or forced into substituting! He played 10 minutes with what looked to be an obvious concussion.