Who gets the last word in?
- Thread starter nafnikufesin
- Start date
molochete
King Of Kings
It's so hard to compare sports like soccer and hockey. In hockey, a player like Ryan Smyth gets hit in the face with a puck, loses two teeth, and is back playing by the next shift, and manages to score a couple more goals on the way to a 6-4 victory. In soccer, a player like Ronaldo gets looked at funny by another player and he falls on the ground like he's been shot and has to be carried off on a stretcher, then jumps up as soon as the ref isn't looking, then comes on in time to play the magically determined two minutes of "injury time" that the ref added on (even though Ronaldo rolled around for 4 minutes without counting then 10 similar incidents), to ensure his team escapes with another nail-biting 0-0 draw.
molochete
King Of Kings
its not magic.
as soon as a whistle blows to stop a game, a new timer is turned on. then they mark it to the nearest minute
as soon as a whistle blows to stop a game, a new timer is turned on. then they mark it to the nearest minute
Yeah, whatever. Try keeping track for yourself some time when a primadonna player falls down in hysterics, plus all the time wasted after other fouls and balls being kicked out of play. The "time added on" will nowhere resemble how much time was wasted more times than not. I know it's an ancient sport, but why they can't at least move into 1900's technology and have a clock on the scoreboard that stops when the play stops and restarts when the play starts again, instead of a corrupt referee randomly picking a number between 1 and 4 depending on whether team he wants to win is winning or not.
Black Core
Sir MIMA & Leo Godfather
Don't forget the beer drinking records....
that are personal recors, not Belgian ones
They should include Beer Drinking in the Olympics. A lot of pride would go into saying that your country has the best beer drinkers
That's always the problem when American's try to watch football. There's only one break, and there isn't 800 goals a minute. You know, scoring actually takes some fucking effort, and you need to be able to sit still for a while and enjoy it.
I don't get the argument about pussies and time wasted, because American Football, Rugby and other sports stop and start all the bloody time and that's actually part of the game.
I don't get the argument about pussies and time wasted, because American Football, Rugby and other sports stop and start all the bloody time and that's actually part of the game.
Black Core
Sir MIMA & Leo Godfather
They should include Beer Drinking in the Olympics. A lot of pride would go into saying that your country has the best beer drinkers
there would be no competition for us
It would be awesome.
You'd just see a bunch of beardy swedish, norweigan and belgians chugging
First of all, you're assuming I'm American, and you're assuming that I like American football, neither of which are true.
Second of all, I have both played and watched soccer for years, and for the longest time, I tried to defend against all the arguments I've made, but the more I watch, the less I can defend it. The inane amount of play-acting is what gets on my nerves the most. But the brutal officiating that actually buys the play-acting is a close second, followed by the fact these same officials proceed to usually get 2 or 3 off-side calls per game wrong (calling off legitimate scoring chances, which god knows the game could use more of), and they follow it up with keeping the time secretive. At least a few European countries are addressing corrupt referees and sanctioning both the refs and the teams (though not nearly enough). But that said, watching the recent Women's World Cup, the problem of play-acting and bad officiating remians so malignant that it's spreading to the women's game as well, and FIFA takes no action to stop the spread, but sweeps it under the carpet instead.
Second of all, I have both played and watched soccer for years, and for the longest time, I tried to defend against all the arguments I've made, but the more I watch, the less I can defend it. The inane amount of play-acting is what gets on my nerves the most. But the brutal officiating that actually buys the play-acting is a close second, followed by the fact these same officials proceed to usually get 2 or 3 off-side calls per game wrong (calling off legitimate scoring chances, which god knows the game could use more of), and they follow it up with keeping the time secretive. At least a few European countries are addressing corrupt referees and sanctioning both the refs and the teams (though not nearly enough). But that said, watching the recent Women's World Cup, the problem of play-acting and bad officiating remians so malignant that it's spreading to the women's game as well, and FIFA takes no action to stop the spread, but sweeps it under the carpet instead.
I assumed you were american, but the football thing was a statement in general.
Tell you what then, you replace them because apparently it's insanely easy to look at both the man playing the ball, and the man on the shoulder of the last defender at exactly the same time, because that's what's required to call a correct offside decision. Hence why some get called wrongly.
And no. The game doesn't need more goals. The game has survived for over a hundred years without tons of goals (Admittedly score lines used to be higher but mainly for the fact that only 1 goal in 4 wasn't a header from a crossing situation)
Watching the recent Women's World Cup, the problem of women goalkeepers sucking also remains.
But I can't argue with you on that front. Play-acting is becoming the bane of football, and it annoys nearly the entirety of fandom ('Cept maybe Chelski or Manure fans who generally benefit from it regularly) that more post match action isn't being taken against divers. Problem is, at the speeds the match is played (Atleast in England), it's hard to see whether a man was taken cleanly, fouly (sp?
) or not at all.
Granted, human error will occur. But if the rule is called incorrectly that often and we're assuming that the referee is making an honest attempt to make the correct call, shouldn't something be done about the rule itself? They could change the rule to something that is easier to call correctly and consistently. They could abolish the rule entirley. They could embrace technology instead of resisting it and use instant replay technology that have allowed other sports an opportunity to minimize human error from difficult calls (and then while they're at it, add a clock to the scoreboard so everyone can see that the time is stopped when a prima donna stubs his toe and cries for 5 minutes, usually conveniantly when his team is ahead and there's 6 minutes left in the game).
Black Core
Sir MIMA & Leo Godfather
I'm not gonna get into the middle of this
btw, speaking of world record beer drinking: I just say beerfest
btw, speaking of world record beer drinking: I just say beerfest
molochete
King Of Kings
maiden1
50 QUID.I.A.S.A.FOR
I say bring in the third ref and for the players who dive they should get A yellow card for the first dive and sent OFF for the next.
I say stop f*cking around and get on with the game, This is why ENGLAND KEEPS ON F*CKING LOOSING,STOP DIVING AND TIME WAISTING...
I say stop f*cking around and get on with the game, This is why ENGLAND KEEPS ON F*CKING LOOSING,
STOP DIVING AND TIME WAISTING...
Except it does stop. It stops for throw ins. It stops for goal kicks. It stops for off-sides. It stops for fouls. It stops for whiny bitches that take dives and roll around like they've been shot if someone brushed up against their shirt. So don't delude yourself that they play for 45 minutes without stopping.
In fact, it's possible that if the clock stopped every time the play stopped, that the play-acting might not happen as much or for as long. For one, they'd know that rolling around on the ground for 3 minutes wouldn't really take time off the clock when you're trying to protect a lead. And second, maybe some of the prolonged play-acting is really because the player is trying to let he and his teammates catch their breath at the end of the game, which maybe they wouldn't need so much if there was real stoppages in play instead.
While I'm dreaming, why limit the game to 3 subs? I know it's supposed to be "tactical" to use key subs at key times, but wouldn't it be more exciting to have the freshest players playing at all times, instead of guys playing half-assed part of the time to pace themselves? And if someone goes down, they can be subbed off immediately without penalty if its a real injury, or vice versa it sort of penalizes the play-actor by making him have to some off the field.
molochete
King Of Kings
what I Mean, is that its not like other sports that you have to go to commercial every minute
