jaybo76 wrote:

So Becham (sp?) is here and people in LA think he will be the savior of soccer in America. Well, I would put my money on soccer still being a very low attended and enjoyed sport here in America for years to come. One person just won't do that much for the sport. On ESPN radio on Friday night who ever it was had some really good reasons. One of them I really agree with was that you can't really tell how much of an impact one person has on a game unless he is scoring like 2-3 goals a game and that is so rare. There were some other reasons but I can't remember them.

I played soccer for 15 years growing up. I played on traveling teams and on varsity HS teams. If I were to change one rule that I believe would help soccer it would be the offsides rule. Any soccer fan give me ONE good reason for that rule. It is a lame and useless rule. The only excuse one soccer fan gave me was it prevents cherry picking....:ohmy: ummmm ok so why doesnt the nba have and offsides rule. Lame reason. I always played forward and I hated that rule it took no skill and the opposing team and our team for that matter would just jump up once in a while to get the call. So dumb. But really someone give me a good reason. If they took that rule out here in America I bet we would see 2-3 more goals a game and that is one of the biggest reasons soccer is such an unpopular spectator sport. Just my two cents in the offseason of football.

Of course you hated the offsides rule, all you wanted to do was score. In reality I am a bit surprised even though you were a forward that anyone that had played soccer would want to get rid of the offsides rule. It would turn soccer into a boring game of kickball and the tactics and beautiful skills that soccer players have at moving the ball around would become irrelevant.

As for Beckham saving US soccer, MLS is so boring and slow compared to Serie A in Italy or other major leagues around the world that it would take a lot more that one player to get it exciting. However he might produce a spark in Americans and become a hero which could entice other international players on the downhill (but nevertheless better than what is currently here) to the US league as well. Although, in my opinion Beckham has never been one of the greatest players in the world he is one of the most followed and so if there is someone who can do it it might be him.

We call the players who take a dive either "Floppers" or "Posers". Technically, a flop or dive is a yellow card but you only see it in the most agregious circumstances of if a Ref is biased toward one of the teams.

I strongly dislike most of the refs because they are so bad.

B-Rex wrote:

We call the players who take a dive either "Floppers" or "Posers". Technically, a flop or dive is a yellow card but you only see it in the most agregious circumstances of if a Ref is biased toward one of the teams.

I strongly dislike most of the refs because they are so bad.

There's a diving penalty in hockey, but it's rarely used. Diving is less of a problem in hockey because the good players have learned this valuable adage: "it's a lot easier to score when you're on your feet." I remember an analyst criticizing a hockey players game, saying that he was too strong and had too good of balance such that he was taking hit that should have been penalties but were not being called because the player wouldn't go down.

cougfan1 wrote:

I also think more referees are needed. Maybe one for each half of the field and a lead referee that floats around. I would still maintain the offsides referees but I do agree that they can often make bad calls. I think this needs to be revisited to improve calls...especially when the offsides call can change the result of a game.

I'm not opposed to sideline referees, they're still needed for out-of-bounds, although I'd like to see another one on both sides of the field so a ref isn't relying on a guy 60+ yards away to tell if a ball went out.

My point on the offsides is that they're not necessarily in the best position to determine if a player was actually offsides when the ball was played. An official upstairs in the box would have both a better angle and be in a better position to tell when the ball was played. I think he would be much more accurate in his calling of offsides.

Mingjai wrote:

There's a diving penalty in hockey, but it's rarely used. Diving is less of a problem in hockey because the good players have learned this valuable adage: "it's a lot easier to score when you're on your feet." I remember an analyst criticizing a hockey players game, saying that he was too strong and had too good of balance such that he was taking hit that should have been penalties but were not being called because the player wouldn't go down.

I used to tel the kids "you can't play soccer on your but!" I still had too many who tried to slide-tackle and were totally taken out of the play.

The great ones stay on their feet.

One other thing I strongly dislike are players that try and make the Off-sides call. They stand around waving their hand in the air and the play goes on without them. Play the game, let the refs officiate.

Post edited by: B-Rex, at: 2007/07/16 14:56<br><br>Post edited by: B-Rex, at: 2007/07/16 14:56

jaybo76 wrote:

So Becham (sp?) is here and people in LA think he will be the savior of soccer in America. Well, I would put my money on soccer still being a very low attended and enjoyed sport here in America for years to come. One person just won't do that much for the sport. On ESPN radio on Friday night who ever it was had some really good reasons. One of them I really agree with was that you can't really tell how much of an impact one person has on a game unless he is scoring like 2-3 goals a game and that is so rare. There were some other reasons but I can't remember them.

I played soccer for 15 years growing up. I played on traveling teams and on varsity HS teams. If I were to change one rule that I believe would help soccer it would be the offsides rule. Any soccer fan give me ONE good reason for that rule. It is a lame and useless rule. The only excuse one soccer fan gave me was it prevents cherry picking....:ohmy: ummmm ok so why doesnt the nba have and offsides rule. Lame reason. I always played forward and I hated that rule it took no skill and the opposing team and our team for that matter would just jump up once in a while to get the call. So dumb. But really someone give me a good reason. If they took that rule out here in America I bet we would see 2-3 more goals a game and that is one of the biggest reasons soccer is such an unpopular spectator sport. Just my two cents in the offseason of football.

I played forward too but I'm not in favor of getting rid of the offsides rule. I think the comparison of soccer to NBA is apples and oranges. The main reason is this: In basketball, when you're on defense you can't afford to consistently leave a guy back on the offensive side to cherrypick because it's way to difficult to defend a good offensive team with 4 guys. So in the NBA &quot;onside&quot; play is enforced by the nature of the game. In soccer, it's easier to defend a man or two down, so the defensive team could usually afford to leave a couple players down by the opposing teams goal which would lead to a lot of cherrypicking.. zzzz boring. Personally, I love the strategy that the offsides rule brings to the game.

However, there are 2 things that make me turn off the tv on a soccer game:

1. Diving. As you guys have said, this needs to be penalized way more often. I can't stand it.

2. Bad calls in critical moments. Bad calls at critical times (like any call inside the box) need to be able to be overturned by a quick instant replay up in the box. Like when Oguchi Onyewu gave up a PK in last world cup on a total dive against the African team (forget which one). WAY TOO much is riding on a PK call for it not to be at least briefly reviewed... and that sort of call screw-up happens all the time.