Here are my suggestions to make soccer better:

1. Coaches should be able to challenge a call with instant replay review like American
Football.

Yesterday, Argentina was robbed of a goal. The ball clearly passed the line and an instant replay review would have corrected a bad call.

Ending a game in a 0 0 draw is ridiculous, especially in a World Cup.

2. EVERY GAME SHOULD HAVE A WINNER.

3. After 90 minutes of running around, they should NOT be given more time
to run around, they should go directly to penalty kicks.

4. If the goalie stops a plenty kick, the ball should not be able to be kicked again.

5. In American football and basketball, a coach can take a player out and make
a substitution and later put that player back in the game. Soccer coaches should
be able to do the same.

And I think the size and success of the World Cup proves that.

Next, folks will want commercial breaks. :puke:

Soccer is quite prosperous without having to pander to lazy Americans.

Instant Replay: part of the soccer experience is that the game does not stop. there are no timeouts, no breaks save the half. You go non-stop. The coaches are basically there for strategy and preparation, along with the three substitutions, beyond that, it comes down to the players. American Football and Basketball are increasingly games where the Xs and Os of the coaches are more important than the ingenuity of the players. Unlike the 11 men playing football, where they are orchastrated by the puppet-master on the sideline, great soccer teams are an organic collective, working together to exploit weaknesses instantly as they develop. When it works, it is gorgeous to watch. The last thing soccer needs are play stoppages.

Ties: Games can end nil-nil, and that can be important, since goal differential often decides who moves forward, and who doesn't. Penalties, while neccesary in the knockout stages, are basically a crap shoot. Why take a team that has played brilliant football for 135 minutes, including a sudden death period, and make them subject to something as capricious as penalty kicks, if you don't have to? Soccer is the ultimate team sport, and penalties, while an integral part of the game, are not organic, they disrupt play. Plus, penalties are almost an automatic goal at the feet of a good ball striker. Something like 85% are converted. It's why there are so few of them called. Remember, you can be a brilliant soccer player and never score a goal, it may not be your job to score, especially as a defender, or a defensive midfielder. Having defenders kicking PKs to decide a match is roughly like a football game being decided by having defensive linemen kick field goals until someone misses. Or settling a basketball game by shooting free throws until someone misses. That would be absurd.

Stoppage after PKs: no. not any more than a missed free throw should be a dead ball. it's that simple.

Substitutions: nope. again, the beauty of soccer is the flow of the game, and how players, and luck, decides things. If you aren't in good enough condition to go for 90 minutes, then you get subbed out, but why reward that by letting you come back in? The team plays, and if there is a weak link, you can replace them, once. it's part of the game. You have the same players going at each other for the entire game, for the most part, they learn each other's strengths and weaknesses to exploit.

but don't the coaches communicate with the Captain or through a wing/midfielder during the game?

A question-there ARE timeouts aren't there? I thought they had at least one. Coter D'Ivoire would have been smart to use one the other day if they do have them. I think they do.


ON EDIT- I looked it up-NO timeouts. My bad.

Football needs more drama. Football doesn’t have the drama of the last minute shot like in Basketball or the * PRESSURE * of an allotted time limit to do * SOMETHING * or give possession of the ball to the other team.

Penalty kicks would add drama to the game and even if 85% of penalty kicks are converted.

I think it was 8 years ago when a very famous Italian player missed a crucial
plenty kick and the team did not advance because of it. That’s DRAMA.

Sometimes a Basketball game is deiced by a free-throw and there is a tremendous
amount of tension and drama in that moment.

Unfortunately, Football doesn’t have that, but deciding tied games with penalty kicks
could remedy that.

in 1994, and it wasn't to advance, it was to win the Cup.
in fact, why bother with the game at all? just line up and kick penalties. First one to ten wins. And yes, Basketball can be decided on a free throw, but it's not usually. I think that at the end of 48 minutes, in a tie, every player on the court has two free throws (no subs in the last five minutes, except for foul outs) winner take all. That's drama.

relentless attack for over 40 minutes with only 10 men.

Anybody who can't appreciate that shouldn't be making suggestions to "improve" the game.

Watched a little bit of 2 games. What I saw was a disgrace. Guy gets tackled, goes down like he's shot...5 min's go by...he's rolling around like he's laying on a frying pan. Stretcher gets there...guy gets up and walks off!!! Sorry but I just cannot get over it. Clean tackles and they grab their shin like it's snapped in half or something. Makes them all look like a bunch of pansies, and worse, the sport just doesn't seem 'authentic' to me. How much else is fake?
I've seen enough.

I have seen several players treat themselves with the miraculous cold water.

I understand what you are saying but that is simply part of the game. I think most American fans would be amazed that there aren't 45 timeouts per team per half or resets where they start at midfield. Seriously, watching this weekend makes most sports I watch regularly seem silly in comparison.

I love that there are no "crusty veterans" or "wiley" guys who have "found a niche" there are no niches that is because there is one great bar that must be leaped-you have to be able to RUN for 45 minutes straight and sprint 80 yards or so at a moments notice there is no room for the "role player" and no talent is great enough for a team to basically give up a position on the field. It is a young man's game. You've got to pick'em up and put'em down.

The fitness level of the players is amazing and the snap decision making while "dribbling" a ball without actually touching it and flicking a pass 60 or so yards down/across field onto your teammates left NO right thigh makes all the other sports look like ......well like baseball. Hold it the manager is going to run out to the mound so they can TALK ABOUT what to do over the next 10 minutes... PUHLEASE.

I can live with the diving. Most modern American pro athletes would have to have an MRI done on the field and some sort of extended rehab after about 5 minutes of World Cup play.

Oh and I LOVE that they don't even bother with mechanized body pickup they actually use a litter.

Often, that's all that's needed to heal what seems to be a life-threatening injury.

Sid

the acting you speak of isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. However, if you watch basketball, players will flail their arms and yell in "pain" if they feel contact on a shot (read: acting). In football (American), I've seen many players dramatize holding calls (not to mention "roughing the kicker/passer"....:eyes:). I could go on.

Players go down oftentimes because they WERE fouled, but the refs can't make a clear call if the player attempts to stay on his/her feet. Therefore, going down allows a ref to acknowledge the foul and give the necessary penalty. If you've ever seen a player try to work through blatant fouls, they often just get the ball taken away. It's not really unfair. Also, the acting of injuries is sometimes done to counter dirty defensive play, which can easily end careers.

1. Coaches should be able to challenge a call with instant replay review like American
Football.

Yesterday, Argentina was robbed of a goal. The ball clearly passed the line and an instant replay review would have corrected a bad call.
+++ Perhaps a TV referee could make such challenges, but letting coaches do it... dear god, they'd never stop trying.

Ending a game in a 0 0 draw is ridiculous, especially in a World Cup.

2. EVERY GAME SHOULD HAVE A WINNER.

+++WHY?

3. After 90 minutes of running around, they should NOT be given more time
to run around, they should go directly to penalty kicks.

+++IMHO they shouldn't have penalty kicks at all. The game should be kept free-flowing.

4. If the goalie stops a plenty kick, the ball should not be able to be kicked again.

+++See above: the game would suffer from being so broken up.

5. In American football and basketball, a coach can take a player out and make
a substitution and later put that player back in the game. Soccer coaches should
be able to do the same.

+++That would not only break up the game, it would also allow people to catch their breath whenever they felt like it!

The ball is kicked out of bounds every 30 seconds, if not sooner.

The ball is rarely kept in play for more than One minute and 10 seconds. This constant stoppage of play really cuts the flow of the game, but that’s Football.

Get your stop watch out and see if I’m lying.

Plus, if you add up all the time the ball spends out of bounds as compared to when it’s ACTUALLY in play, you’ll find it’s equal or MORE than it was ever in play!!!

And, would it kill you guys to have some cheerleaders? I mean really. :-)

:wow:

Omigawd! Anyone whose seen the fans should know they're in the stands.

You will never be asked to coach soccer in Italy.

Just as well you do not watch International Test Cricket.

They quite often have games that go on for five days and end in a draw.

riveting. :popcorn:

Might as well settle games with a coin flip at that point

Put a 2 point line about 30 meters (100 feet) past the goal line to encourage long-distance shots.

Long-distance shots shouldn't be encouraged particularly. Skillful crossing and headers up close are just as good to watch.

Usually the ball is easily caught by the goalkeeper, deflected out by the defense, or goes way wide. If an attacking team can't penetrate a tight defence they'll often resort to long shots and it never works. Nor is it spectacular. It breaks up the rhythm of the game and results in an unforced loss of possession. Occasionally you'll see a beautiful long-range effort go in, but relying on it for strategy will ruin the game.

In Basketball, the ball must be passed or dribbled across the midcourt line in ten seconds
or possession of the ball is given to the other team.

In Football, when a team is * satisfied * with a draw or one goal advantage, it’s common for them to pass the ball backward across the midcourt line towards their own goal.

IMHO, they are not playing Football at that point. They are playing keep away and it makes for a very boring game to watch.

Seriously, I only watch Football at the World Cup because the level of play
is the best and the games COUNT!!!

It’s do or die and that's good.

to stop the other team from going after them. What's wrong with keepaway? if you can actually hold possession long enough to make a difference, against a team desperatly trying to stop you, that's actually pretty brilliant. Every scoring team sport has this sort of thing (think of an American Football team taking the entire play clock to run the ball up the middle) playing keep away against a world cup team is not an easy task.

a defence from wasting time passing the ball back to the goalie, the goalie is not allowed to handle (use hands on) a pass unless the pass is a header. Passing the ball around in your own zone may be quite dangerous as you are inviting the other team to attack, and losing the ball can be catastrophic because of the proximity of your own goal.

Claudio Reyna was diddling around the back and got schooled for it. without that, the US isn't waiting for 2010...

1) Instant Replay
No. American Football is all about discreet units of play with plenty of breaks for water, rest, commercials, and of course disputes. Soccer is about flow, as so many have said, and having instant replay in Soccer just makes no sense. They are working on technologies like the chip in the ball that would automatically indicate a score, but otherwise there should be no stoppages coming from the bench. Bad call? Tough. Quit being a baby about it and turn around and win the game. If you only get that one break then you didnt' deserve to win the game in the first place. While the final score in soccer determines the winner, the one who scores the most is the one who generally gets more real scoring attempts. That's what the game is about. Creating scoring attempts, and converting them. If you get one bad call, you should be able to overcome it.

2) No Ties
As someone asked above...why? There are ties in most other American sports, including Football, but they're rarer because of the nature of the how much scoring is in the game. How fair is overtime in American Football where something like 80% of the time the first possession wins the game because it's sudden death and they boot a field goal from 60 yards out. How is that drama? A cointoss is drama? Now if you did it the College Football way and gave each team the ball on the 30 and went back and forth and back and forth till someone came out on top, that'd be better and more fair I think. Still what's wrong with Ties? Especially in group play like this. We're not in the kill or be killed stage yet. We're seeing who deserves to be in the kill or be killed stage. There is nothing wrong with a tied game. It's unfair after a certain point to force a team to lose a game by some other method than how they played it all day. On top of that you can't have golden goal overtimes running forever because they have too many games to play and not enough time to rest.

3) Penalty Kicks
As noted above in other posts and within my own, this is just crap. First of all I don't think you understand the clock. The clock in Soccer is kept on the field by the referee. He records how much time he considers to have been wasted during the game, and then adds that on at the end. 'Extra Time' is there to fill up 90 minutes of play so people can't stall. It prevents active stalling which based on your other commments, I think you would loathe.

4) As someone else noted it's the same as if play stopped on a missed free throw. Why shouldn't it be kicked again? I mean...why? It's sort of a change that I don't understand what the problem is.

5) substitution is tough. You only get a few ones so you have to be carefull about who you put on the field to start the game, when you pull people off for playing bad, etc. I think it makes the game better that you don't have different players going on and off constantly, and it makes that 60th minute sub with fresh legs all the more meaningfull and interesting when he starts getting breaks.

... it's NOT like basketball or (American) football. People who like the rules of those games already have them. (It sure doesn't look like 5.5 billion people agree, though.) :evilgrin:

(Make that 5.5 billion +1 ... me.) :dunce:

you can't have commercials every five minutes so just leave the game alone.

:patriot:

there is no money in it for the players in America.
Thats why the best players play other sports to make the

NBA NFL MlB

I hate ties.

It sure as hell beats some artificial device to produce a winner (like penalty kicks, which of course are unavoidable in playoffs).

has to appreciate the draw. How can you not? a more talented team, with more men on the field, couldn't win the game in regulation. Italy had 43 minutes of a man advantage, and couldn't score. Why penalize the brilliant defense of the US in that situation by going to the crap shoot of penalty kicks? it makes no sense, having a tie rewards both teams for a fantastic, gripping game.

on edit: on the flip side, think of Les Bleus v. Swiss last week. neither team deserved to win, why reward one with extra points?

1. You can do it in football because the game stops all the time. In soccer (real football) the clock never stops aside from halftime. Furthermore, the same reasons that keep video review out of baseball are the reasons here. However, many are considering putting a microchip in the ball to be able to determine if it crosses the line.

By the way, I really don't think the ball crossed the line in the Argentina v. Ivory Coast match.

2. Of course not. Only important games need winners. When both teams are tied after 90 minutes, that should be reflected.

3. PK's are a last resort, and they should stay that way.

4. The ball is put in play after a PK, why should it not be?

5. This is impractical. Players are subbed to change up the formation completely, or replace tired players (or underperforming ones). If you allow too many subs, there would be too many changes and there would be no continuity for a team. It would ruin entire games.

That's just a ridiculous rule. It discourages the use of fast and shift strikers and doesn't penalize lazy defense. No rule should make it ok to be lazy on defense, in any sport.

If a guy can sneak behind the defense to allow a good pass to put the striker one on one with the goalie, then so be it. The defense will try harder next time.
The Professor

judiciously as it can (and often does) backfire. If an offsides trap is botched, you're handing the opposing team a breakaway opportunity. Also, refs often make mistakes. That's where an instant replay might do a lot of good, but also must be approached carefully (Who does the request for IR come from? How to prevent its overuse ruining the rhythm of the game?).

it rewards teams with fast strikers, and penalizes lazy players. If you are fast enough, you can outrun the defense and catch up to a long pass, eliminating the offsides rule would lead to simple cherry picking by lazy strikers, and the defense would never leave the penalty box to stay with them. Offsides actually lengthens the field and makes accurate passing and good midfield play more important.

.

"Americanizing" the game is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Sid

But obviously those are changes to appeal to the American crowd, and in my opinion very silly. Soccer is fine
just the way it is. The only change I would make to soccer is to add instant replay review. 1 per game. Use
it wisely.

any time someone has to leave the field on a stretcher they can be substituted by another player but the player that is carried off can't come back for at least 10 minutes.

I get tired of watching players carried off the field only to jump up ready to go in after play restarts. Either you're badly hurt or you're not.

I also think more substitutions should be allowed and even an occasional time out so players can get some water and teams can get their act together. I know most soccer fans would disagree because they hate the interruptions but from my observation when players get tired the intensity of the game falls off and players start to dog it. A little rest and refreshment would lead to more intense play between the breaks.

If the player is replaced, the player cannot resume play during that match, period. That's under current rules.

that under your proposed rules, Italy probably wouldn't have made it out of the quarters...

And much more liberal substitution rules as a necessary result.

Players now cover so much ground and don't tire as easily. The game is too cluttered. The rules and field dimensions were made when players were smaller, slower and less capable. It would be like taking the old European cities that pre-date the automobile and pretending you can run double or triple lane roads smack thru the middle of town. Look at how the pro golf courses have been altered due to changes in the modern equipment and players.

Soccer is a beautiful game but at this level the games will continue to feature less and less scoring and more clutter until rule changes are made. I prefer less players, but a larger goal mouth would also be an option.

How many goals were scored from touch in the World Cup, let's say beginning at the quarters? Other than penalities and set pieces, almost nothing especially if you don't count the consolation game. Make it 9 on 9 and you'll have much more space and wonderful goals as a result. Purists will scream you can't eliminate this position or that position but that's glorifed BS. The best games I've seen in the World Cup over the past 20 or more years have often come when both teams were playing a man down.