Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2.71828.....]

It is not letting me make my picks for the round of 16 yet.  Is anyone else having this problem?

edit: working now

[mpsprs]

It is not letting me make my picks for the round of 16 yet.  Is anyone else having this problem?

Yes.

[Titandrake]

[ipofanes]

Yes, in football it is so deeply ingrained that to score one point, you have to get the ball between those posts. No point gratification scheme for different achievements like in basketball or rugby. Therefore, the very idea that a point can be awarded for anything else, such as excessively unfair behaviour of opponent, sounds just disgusting.

One feeble attempt is to issue punishment that don't really have to do with the crime, such as issuing a red card to the field player who just cleared a ball with his hands from the goal line in the last minute of the game. This gives absolutely no edge for the violated team but for the teams that will play the next couple of games with the perpetrator excluded.

I wonder if football would be more entertaining with achievements...

For instance:
Scoring the most goals - 3 points
Most possession - 1 point
Most attempts - 1 point
Most attempts on goal - 1 point
Least fouls committed - 1 point

Etc...

This way you could win without scoring the most goals!

A common house rule in street football is to play without corners (as the street may be too narrow to kick a proper corner) but to award a penalty for every three corners.

This rule would have changed the course of the dreaded 2012 semifinal against Italy.

[ipofanes]

I just realized GokoDom has a better tournament structure than the World Cup.

Meh, I like he World Cup structure, it's exciting. Very few inconsequential matches. It's not supposed to actually reward the best team overall (well, kinda, but not really), it's supposed to be fun.

Also, congrats guys !

Isn't it a very standard tournament structure?  Teams broken up into groups, top finishers of the group move on to elimination rounds.  At least most volleyball tournaments work this way.

The Ice Hockey World Championship has groups of eight, out of which only four qualify to the quarter final. This should lead to more inconsequential matches, but the last two teams relegate and would not participate in the top tier next tournament. This makes almost every match count. Obviously this only makes sense when the tounament is carried out frequently (in this case, yearly).

[pst]

I think sports with fouls are kind of weird.  It's like "Hey, you're not allowed to do this.  But of course it's a good idea to do it sometimes, so go ahead and do it, we'll just penalize you after."  You get situations like Basketball and Soccer where fouling can be better than not fouling.

Sometimes there's a fine line between "you're not allowed to do A, but if you do, then B happens" and just "if you do A, then B happens". I've read a set of rules of the card game Canasta that I loved, in that after lots of rules were listed with the corresponding punishments for breaking them, there was a last rule that just said that you were not allowed to do any of those things on purpose. Of course no punishment was listed for breaking that last rule.

[Davio]

Fouls and punishments are part of every sport, not just football.

Fouling on purpose should carry such a punishment that you'd rather not do it on purpose.
However, I do think that in football, there is often a mismatch between the two.

[theory]

US wins 2-1
US loses 2-2
US wins 0-1

[Teproc]

Fouls and punishments are part of every sport, not just football.

Fouling on purpose should carry such a punishment that you'd rather not do it on purpose.
However, I do think that in football, there is often a mismatch between the two.

Yeah. Basically there are too many fouls. If you were to give a yellow card for every foul commited on purpose, matches would never go to completion.

There's also a problem with the fact that referees are not respected. Not by players, not by coahces, not by the public, not by the media... As a result, players just automatically lie. You see them, right after commiting an obvious foul, going "WHAT ? ME ? LOOK HOW INNOCENT I LOOK HOW COULD I DO THIS ?", which means their protestations lose all meaning. This has been happening with rugby in the last few years too and it's just awful (rugby is still miles better as far as that goes though).

[Davio]

Not even with fouls, if the ball goes over the line (into/out of touch??), they're all claiming it's their ball. It's just second nature for them.

I think I'm the only semi-honest football player still out there. If my foot touched the ball last before it went over the goal line, I'll admit it's a corner kick for my opponent. And I rarely, if ever, bring another player down on purpose. Sometimes I'm a tad too late with my sliding tackle, but I just admit guilt and help my opponent back on their feet.

[Teproc]

Related, a little video about the most hilarious World Cup match i've ever watched, good ol' Portugal/Netherlands in 2006 :

[Witherweaver]

Fouls and punishments are part of every sport, not just football.

Fouling on purpose should carry such a punishment that you'd rather not do it on purpose.
However, I do think that in football, there is often a mismatch between the two.

Well, they're more for contact sports, really.  Net games (volleyball, tennis, etc.) where you can't touch the other team don't have "fouls".  Doing something illegal results in the loss of a point, so you really want to avoid it.  I like noncontact sports better, because then it becomes a lot more about you and your team, and how you handle your part of the game.  This is of course true for any sport, but it seems to be augmented when there's a division.

Fouling is an issue in, for example, basketball as well, where it can actually be in a team's best interest to foul.  They can win a game using them where they otherwise would not have.  Not a popular opinion, but to me this is an indication of an inelegant sport.

[Witherweaver]

A lot of these soccer fouls look completely unintentional on the part of the fouler.. a lot of the times it looks like they're trying to play the ball and just miss it, get there late, don't see their opponent change, whatever, and accidentally kick or hit the other player.

[Davio]

Fouls and punishments are part of every sport, not just football.

Fouling on purpose should carry such a punishment that you'd rather not do it on purpose.
However, I do think that in football, there is often a mismatch between the two.

Well, they're more for contact sports, really.  Net games (volleyball, tennis, etc.) where you can't touch the other team don't have "fouls".  Doing something illegal results in the loss of a point, so you really want to avoid it.  I like noncontact sports better, because then it becomes a lot more about you and your team, and how you handle your part of the game.  This is of course true for any sport, but it seems to be augmented when there's a division.

Fouling is an issue in, for example, basketball as well, where it can actually be in a team's best interest to foul.  They can win a game using them where they otherwise would not have.  Not a popular opinion, but to me this is an indication of an inelegant sport.

Football definitely is an inelegant sport, but it's still a lot of fun!
You can use a lot more of your body than with a hand-based game like basketball, baseball or volleyball.
You can use almost anything, just not your arms.

I don't know whether I watch football differently as an amateur club player myself, but I certainly enjoy it in an active as well as a passive way. Instead of just the goals, I can get excited if a player controls the ball beautifully, loses a defender with a simple move, or best of all, delivers that brilliant pass to put the striker one on one with the goalie. I don't appreciate the foals, but sadly, they're part of the game. I would love it if the players would behave less like spoiled children and more like fair adults, but alas...

[Teproc]

It looks like you just don't like contact sports WW. Which is fine, but not really football's fault.

I'm not actually a big football fan, it's just so hugely prevalent here that I'm completely basked in it. I was 6 years old when we won the World Cup and I played it all the time as a kid in the school yard. It's definitely not the best sport out there, it has a lot of issues, but it's more fun than some people like to pretend.

I like rugby a lot, as far as sports with contact go, but it has the additional problem of fouls being very subjective (unlike in football when they are generally clear-cut on the replay). And although it has gotten worse, the players are generally better sports than in football. As the British say "Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans, rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen".

I'll stop derailing this thread now by complaining about the fact that there are no matches today. Rest is for losers, what is this nonsense ?

[2.71828.....]

I'll stop derailing this thread now by complaining about the fact that there are no matches today. Rest is for losers, what is this nonsense ?

I know, a game should be starting right now

[Witherweaver]

It looks like you just don't like contact sports WW. Which is fine, but not really football's fault.

I'm not actually a big football fan, it's just so hugely prevalent here that I'm completely basked in it. I was 6 years old when we won the World Cup and I played it all the time as a kid in the school yard. It's definitely not the best sport out there, it has a lot of issues, but it's more fun than some people like to pretend.

I like rugby a lot, as far as sports with contact go, but it has the additional problem of fouls being very subjective (unlike in football when they are generally clear-cut on the replay). And although it has gotten worse, the players are generally better sports than in football. As the British say "Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans, rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen".

I'll stop derailing this thread now by complaining about the fact that there are no matches today. Rest is for losers, what is this nonsense ?

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of contact sports.  But I have started watching this World Cup and am enjoying it.  I plan to follow the rest of it to at least some extent.

I really dislike American sports---basketball, (American) football, baseball, etc.  Hockey too. 

The other thing about contact sports is that I think they tend to lend themselves to superstar fandom.  Like one player on the team stands out and makes that team. Like, everyone knows who Michael Jordan is, and some people know who, say, Lebron whateverhisname is, but few can name anyone else that played with them.  Also, I know the name Ronaldo but almost zero other players.  And whatever the corresponding example is for American Football (....?).  Maybe true of Baseball too (the guy that took steroids?  okay that's all of them). 

There's a lot of recognition of individual players without really appreciating the framework that allows the player to perform so well.

[Davio]

I know Tiger Woods, but I don't know his caddy.
I know Federer and Nadal but no clue who their coaches are.

[Hugovj]

There's also a problem with the fact that referees are not respected. Not by players, not by coahces, not by the public, not by the media... As a result, players just automatically lie. You see them, right after commiting an obvious foul, going "WHAT ? ME ? LOOK HOW INNOCENT I LOOK HOW COULD I DO THIS ?", which means their protestations lose all meaning. This has been happening with rugby in the last few years too and it's just awful (rugby is still miles better as far as that goes though).

That is the reason why I support the video ref, like in field hockey. In field hockey, both teams have one opportunity to correct the referees with a video referee. If they get it wrong, they lose their right, if they're correct, they keep it. So when players protest, the referee simply says: 'Do you want to use you video or not?', and if they're sure enough, they'll challenge the decision. It makes for a lot less discussion on the pitch.

The main argument against a similar system is that it slows the game too much, but no one ever tests anything new in football. I think they play with the same rules since 1900 or something.. And also, field hockey is a way higher-paced sport, and doesn't really have any trouble with the video ref.

[DG]

no one ever tests anything new in football

Oh they've made lots of changes to the rules of football over the years. Unfortunately half the changes get reversed ten years later and the game never progresses.

[Witherweaver]

I know Tiger Woods, but I don't know his caddy.
I know Federer and Nadal but no clue who their coaches are.

Yes, but those are fairly individual sports.  I think there's a difference between knowing the name Tiger Woods but not his team of assistants and knowing <random superstar with all sorts of endorsement deals> but not the other people on his team that are playing the exact same sport with him.

[AndrewisFTTW]

I know Tiger Woods, but I don't know his caddy.
I know Federer and Nadal but no clue who their coaches are.

Yes, but those are fairly individual sports.  I think there's a difference between knowing the name Tiger Woods but not his team of assistants and knowing <random superstar with all sorts of endorsement deals> but not the other people on his team that are playing the exact same sport with him.

I should preface this by saying I'm a baseball fan first, a basketball fan second, and then a hockey fan, so I'm a little biased. I don't give a shit about American Football. Anyway, I think there's some merit to what WW is saying. I'll take it a step further by saying that in basketball and hockey, one or two people can often carry a team. This isn't necessarily the best option and is certainly not the only option, but Lebron James carried the Heat to four finals with help from Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. The other people on the team don't matter much. In hockey and soccer it's probably a little similar in the sense that you have your star goalscorer, and then you have the rest of team giving the puck/ball to said goalscorer. Baseball, in my opinion, is different. First of all you have a starting rotation of pitchers. So you can't just rely on one pitcher, you need a solid rotation of 5 or 6 guys that can take care of the first 6 or so innings of ever game, and that's not even going into the offensive aspect of it.

Alright I got a little off topic. What were we talking about again?

[Teproc]

I would say that's true of any team sport (the fact that there are individual stars who are way more important). Apparently Andrew is saying that this is not the case for baseball, which I can't comment on because... I mean I've seen one baseball match in my life and it was the Cubs, so I'm definitely not qualified (it was pretty fun though, not as boring as I thought it would be... also they actually won so the atmosphere was really good).

Football is one of the worst offenders though : look at Argentina and Brazil this year, they are basically carried by one exceptional player.

[DG]

Football is one of the worst offenders though : look at Argentina and Brazil this year, they are basically carried by one exceptional player.

Not really. Those are good teams that could be made into the best in the world by their star players. Without stars you're not going to be the best in the world (or in Europe unless you're Greek).

[Teproc]

Football is one of the worst offenders though : look at Argentina and Brazil this year, they are basically carried by one exceptional player.

Not really. Those are good teams that could be made into the best in the world by their star players. Without stars you're not going to be the best in the world (or in Europe unless you're Greek).

Have you watched them play ? Without Neymar, their offense is just really mediocre. Interestingly enough, their strongest point is the defense. The only reason they're still considered favorites is because the world cup is in Brazil and that helps a lot.

Argentina is a little better, but without Messi they draw against Iran and Nigeria... not exactly impresive (I know it's simplifying, but it really feels like those two teams in particular rely heavily on them).