Only four teams are still alive in the quest for the World Cup, and it has been a captivating tournament so far.
We’ve seen so many classic moments that will live forever – or, more likely in our ever-changing kaleidoscope of what’s popular, moments that will live for the next two weeks, tops – and there are certainly more timeless moments yet to come.
But the 2010 World Cup has also had its share of downside. Controversy, disappointment and the never-ending drone of a thousand plastic horns have all combined to leave a scar on the otherwise beautiful face of the tournament.
Or have they? I’ve heard a lot of different opinions about the following aspects of the latest installment of the World Cup, and I have no doubt that there are just as many different opinions about it here in Valley Center.
So here’s what we’ll do: I’m going to share with you some of the things about the World Cup that I really dislike, and (hopefully), you, the readers, will write in to share with all of us what you think. We had some great thoughts from a reader last week, and if you’re at all interested in getting in on the discussion, read on and get ready to send your thoughts to us at sports@valleycenter.com.
With that, I give you the top five things I dislike about the 2010 World Cup.
1. The vuvuzelas
Early on in the tournament, it looked to be extremely likely that this World Cup would be known for one thing: those plastic horns that everyone in South Africa seems to be able to blow incessantly for more than four hours at a time.
Before the tournament even started, we all heard about how annoying they are. Stories came out about injuries resulting from the horns, from blown-out eardrums to a report of a ruptured throat. More stories came out about how annoying they are. Then players started talking about how annoying they are, especially when you can’t hear your teammates on the field. Then comedy shows on TV started seeing just how annoying they could really make them. Turns out that they could get a lot more annoying.
To me, they’re not all that annoying because I’m watching in on TV, thousands of miles away from the source, and I can turn down the volume if I don’t want my apartment to sound like it’s the barber shop at an Army recruitment station.
The reason they’re annoying is because they’re taking something away from the game. We discussed a few weeks ago that one of the reasons I enjoy soccer so much is because of the amazing commentary served up to us by English commentators. For example, I’d much rather hear Martin Tyler explain (about a Spanish player who had to replace his torn jersey with a new one) that, “He now has the sartorial elegance necessary to continue,” as opposed to hearing Tony Siragusa explain that a defensive tackle is effective at stuffing the run because he’s been stuffing his face with pizza.
On a quick side note, my other favorite comment from Martin Tyler was about a Spanish defender getting in the way of another defender attempting to clear the ball from the zone: “That’s a case of too many cooks spoiling the gazpacho for Spain.” How is that not exponentially better than listening to John Madden ramble on about turducken?
Anyway, back to the point – the constant buzz takes away from the game. I agree with the thought that it would be nice to hear the other African cultural celebrations, like singing or chanting or anything else. I remember watching one game in the group stage (I can’t remember exactly which one, but I’m pretty sure it was a game between two European teams) where the African turnout must not have been as prevalent. The vuvuzelas were still buzzing, but it wasn’t constant and on occasion, the singing or chanting of the European fans was able to be clearly heard. It was an odd sensation after the constant droning; I think I actually got goose bumps.
Now, I have heard another side to this argument, from Bill Simmons on ESPN.com. He recently wrote that he doesn’t mind the vuvuzelas because, at this point, his brain automatically connects that sound to the excitement of watching great soccer, like a Pavlovian response. I see where he’s coming from, because it kind of does that for me too. But honestly, I’d be just as excited about the matches without the horns. This has been an excellent tournament in so many ways that it would be nice to have it remembered for something other than an annoying buzz.
2. The anti-patriotism
I listed patriotism as one of the things I love about the World Cup, and I still hold this opinion.
What I’m getting at is that, while most players are honored to play for their country, there are some slightly off-putting examples of players who try to play for a nation that isn’t really their home country.
As far as the rules of eligibility go, a player is eligible to play for a particular country if he was born there, his parents or grandparents were born there, or if he becomes a naturalized citizen of the country. Once a player chooses his international allegiance and plays in a competitive match for a country, he can not switch to another country later on.
This can lead to some kind of shady dealings with the treatment of potential star players, something exemplified by France and their importing of talented African players throughout the years.
One example from this World Cup is Ivory Coast forward Salomon Kalou, who was born in Ivory Coast but tried to obtain Dutch citizenship to play for the Netherlands in the 2006 World Cup. When he failed to make the Dutch team, he opted to play for Ivory Coast leading up to the 2010 World Cup.
There isn’t a lot of wiggle room for these things, but it’s always just a little disappointing to hear that a player was born somewhere but chose to play internationally for a different country.
Unless that player is really talented and chooses to play for the United States. Then it would be patriotic.
3. Disappointing stars
The World Cup is the biggest stage for soccer, and the game’s biggest stars shine brightest in the world’s spotlight.
Except that all the recognizable names over-egged the pudding (to borrow another of my favorite English phrases from the tournament) and been a big, fat disappointment so far.
Brazil’s Kaka, England’s Wayne Rooney, Argentina’s Lionel Messi, France’s Franck Ribery, and Spain’s Fernando Torres have all been shut out so far in the tournament, and all but Torres have been sent home with the goose egg on their record.
And even the big names who scored still didn’t help their teams, from Cristiano Ronaldo for Portugal to Didier Drogba of Ivory Coast, to Jozy Altidore for the United States. It’s been one big stinkfest for what were supposed to be some of the game’s premier players.
On the positive side, we’ve gotten to see some unsung heroes step into the spotlight, from Diego Forlan of Uruguay (my current favorite player in the tournament, by the way) to Mesut Oezil of Germany to Wesley Sneijder of the Netherlands. Even some players who are out of the tournament, such as Robert Vittek of Slovakia, Keisuke Honda of Japan and Gonzalo Higuain of Argentina, earned distinction as players who will be dangerous on the field for their respective club teams.
Still though, when the world is watching, one would hope that the best players in the world would perform as such. So far, we have yet to see it this time around.
4. Cover-your-eyes awful officiating
If you live in American and don’t know who Koman Coulibaly is, you’re in the vast minority.
Just in case you are, Coulibaly is the referee who called a phantom penalty on the United States that nullified a very last-minute goal by Maurice Edu in a near comeback against Slovenia on June 18.
Having watched that game, even the English commentators (who you wouldn’t really expect to be overly sympathetic to the Americans, especially given that England was in the same group and needed some help getting into the next round) were appalled at how poorly the game was officiated. I’m not a soccer expert, but there was a discernable groan from the crowd whenever a call was made, because the overwhelming majority of the calls were not only incorrect, but usually obvious.
More calls were blown in subsequent games, most notably in the England-Germany match and the Argentina-Mexico match in the round of 16.
England’s Frank Lampard took a shot that ricocheted off the crossbar and clearly bounced beyond the goal line for what should have been the equalizer, but the game continued because the referees missed the call.
On the same day, Argentina striker Carlos Tevez scored a goal after a bouncing ball was played in to him in front of the net. Replays showed that he was offside by at least two yards when his teammate passed him the ball, but no call was made, and the game went on.
The thing is, we do expect some degree of human error in sports, as FIFA continually drops as its trump card for its ongoing inaction. The governing body of international soccer has been traditionally resistant to using technology to help officials, and this tournament is showing the world why it might be time to reconsider.
But what really gets me is that, even if technology isn’t going to be a part of the game, at least there should be more officials to watch what’s happening to make sure that terrible decisions aren’t made because of a lack of information.
Bad calls will always be a part of sports, and we as fans will always be able to discuss what should have happened. But when it comes to a tournament at this level, at least pay the fans the courtesy of making it look like you actually care about enforcing the rules of the sport.
5. The flopping
This is related to the topic of officiating, because the root cause of all the players sprawling to the ground at the slightest whisper of contact is that, a good percentage of the time, this action will bring about a desired result.
In defense of the referees, there have been a few yellow cards shown to players for embellishing a foul, or diving.
But it isn’t called nearly often enough, and that just leads to grown men throwing themselves to the ground in a show of emotion worthy of its own reality show on E!, the Entertainment Network (which, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, is the home of such gems as Keeping Up With The Kardashians and Leave It To Lamas).
This is another aspect of the game that actually diminishes the quality of the final product presented to the fans. It’s exciting to see a series of great passes set up a player on the run to take a shot on goal. It is not exciting to see a series of passes set up a player on the run to get brushed by a defender and sashay his way to the ground with an expression of horror and dismay that even Hamlet would find a bit dramatic.
I get that it’s a strategy that works, and that it is a part of the game. And you can’t blame the players for trying it; as I said, it works more often than not.
But the referees who don’t put up with all that nonsense are helping the game by instilling a policy of playing hard and earning your chances. And the players who are known for flopping (*cough* Cristiano Ronaldo *cough*) would do well to pay attention to their reputation, because the referees seem less inclined to actually make a call when they know the player is a flop artist.
All it would take is a stricter policy on diving, and more yellow cards doled out before players would get the hint and just keep playing.
Now perhaps you, the reader, will take the hint and join the discussion by sending your thoughts in to our e-mail at sports@valleycenter.com.
There are still four teams alive in the World Cup, and no doubt a thrilling finish coming in the final on Sunday, so let us know your thoughts before the tournament is over and we all move on to something new, like Comic-Con. Just as a heads-up, Comic-Con is coming up in a few weeks, so be prepared to hear all about that. Thanks.
And while we’re at it, feel free to take advantage of the summer months here in Valley Center by sending in any info you have about anything happening in and around the community, especially as it relates to sports. The only way we’re going to be able to tell everyone about it is if you share what’s going on, and we’re always excited to hear what you have to say.
Write in anytime, and enjoy these final matches in the World Cup!
Showing posts with label referees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referees. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Reader Response: Thoughts On The World Cup
Hey Dan - enjoyed your article in the Roadrunner regarding the World Cup. As I was reading it some thoughts came to mind:
1. Since there are so many diverse nations represented at the WC, what language are the players speaking when their talking to (a) the ref (b) the opponent? For instance, Japan is playing against, say, Mexico, and the ref is from England. Ok, so as the Japanese player is complaining/shouting to the ref about the Mexican player and vice versa, what the heck language are they speaking to each other? Same when I see the ref talking to players...warning them to stop pushing or something...or even at the start during the coin toss...does the German ref say "heads or tails"...does the Spanish player respond "heads"/"tails"...must be quite a funny scenario.
2. Will the vuvuzelas (loud, obnoxious horns) infect American sports? The closest thing I know of is in Minnesota and the Viking fans. I think they have a loud vuvuzela type of horn they blow there. Hope it doesn't spread to other sports/cities here in the USA. Maybe vuvuzelas can be banned at the customs...no one allowed to bring it in to the country. Did you know that the vuvuzela is banned from Yankee Stadium?
3. Here's something I've always wondered. In the USA we call the sport "soccer", while the rest of the world calls it "futbol". And, as we know, "soccer" is a relatively new sport in the USA...ok with that said, who's the wise-guy that came up with the name "soccer"? And where did the word come from? And why that name? And what does it mean? Seems like our own football is misnamed. Our football is mostly carried in our hands/arms. On few occassions during a game is the foot used (kick-offs, punts, PAT's, field goals)...otherwise most of the time we use our hands...yet we call the sport football. Let's see if I have this right...baseball has bases...handball uses the hand...basketball we throw the ball into a basket...racketball we use rackets...track & field is held on a track and field...volleyball you volley a ball...and football you hardly ever use your foot...huh? Should it be renamed to something like "tackleball" since almost every play involves tackling? Seems like the word "football" aligns better with the sport of soccer/futbol since most of the time the ball is kicked by the foot!
4. Will instant replay (IR) be used in high level soccer (er, futbol) tournaments like the Euro-Cup, or WC, etc. Maybe have a 5th official "in the booth" that can help the center-ref get it right on certain circumstances...like an obvious handball in the penalty box...or an obvious "offsides". The IR would only be available for the refs...no red flag like the NFL. I've told my wife that I don't think this will happen because socc...er, futbol is like baseball...lots of tradition, and very much a subjective sport. Like umps...each one has a different idea where the strike-zone is. However, baseball does use IR for fair/foul balls, homeruns, etc...maybe s...er, futbol could have a very limited use of IR too, like baseball.
5. If soccer is such a popular sport here in the USA at the youth levels, and its growing more at the adult levels, why has it not really caught on at the professional level? I suspect the main reason is commercials! All other popular USA sports are packed w/TV commercials (aka money)...however, there's no commercial breaks in soccer except during half-time...if there are few opportunities for commercials, then there's not a lot of money dedicated in ad budgets, thus, soccer remains a "grass-root" kind of sport.
6. Some day, mark my word, goalkeeper gloves in soccer will become the craze in football. The moment some big NFL star receiver starts wearing them it will catch on with other NFL receivers, then every receiver will be wearing them...college, high school, Pop Warner...you just wait and see. The same thing happened in the NFL with kicking field goals and kick offs. It used to be that every kicker would kick the ball with his toe...then the sidewinder-soccer style kicker came on the seen...at first just a few, then more...now all kickers at all levels kick "soccer-style"...no one toe-pokes anymore.
7. Finally, someone once said that soccer is a gentlemen's sport played by gentlemen, American football is a "animal's" game played by gentlemen, and rugby is an "animal's" game played by "animals"...sure hope our USA "gentlemen" do well!
GO USA!
Cheers (that's how soccer players say goodbye)
Mario Cozzi
-- -- --
First of all, thanks for writing in; I love being able to dissect the many aspects of sports, and it’s so much fun to get a good discussion going. I have a few thoughts in response to your thoughts, so let’s get right to it.
1. I wondered about the language barrier as well, and I’ve heard it referenced a few times in the tournament thus far. I know that when Brazil played Portugal in the group stage, they had referees from Mexico, and the announcers made a comment about being able to communicate a little more easily since Portuguese and Spanish are similar languages.
I have to imagine that the common language for most matches is English, especially when you have teams from different parts of the world with officials from an altogether different area, like when Japan faced Cameroon with referees from Portugal. Sometimes, especially in matches with European teams, you could find a different common language, like French or German, but most of the time I would bet that the middle ground of language is English.
There was also the story going into the USA vs. England match at the beginning of group play, which focused on the referees (from Brazil) taking a crash course on English (or rather, British) slang so that they would know what words were considered profane.
Otherwise, I’ve noticed a lot of gesturing and other basic forms of body language, including the ever-popular “that’s enough” movement of hands from the referees. However they do it, they seem to get the point across. Unless the game involves Koman Coulibaly (more on that later).
2. Unfortunately, the vuvuzelas have already made an impact on American sports. The Florida Marlins had a vuvuzela night on June 19, and a quick online search for “Marlins vuvuzela” brings up links to at least a dozen pages featuring very negative responses to the giveaway. And they only handed out 15,000 of the plastic horns; imagine if the whole stadium of more than 23,000 had been honking throughout the game.
My initial reaction (and sincerest hope) is that the vuvuzela will quickly go the way of the Rally Monkey, the Thunder Stix, and the Snuggie.
3. Most people probably wonder why the sport is “soccer” to us in the USA and “football” (or the equivalent) to everyone else in the world.
I got together with Valley Center soccer guru Ron Norris in the summer of 2008 to discuss the European Cup tournament, and one of the things he mentioned was how the name of American football came about.
He said that football (soccer) was already a popular sport, but when the game started to morph into rugby, that sport became known as “rugby football.” When the game came to America and the rules were modified, the “rugby” part was dropped (because rugby was now its own established sport) and the football was left.
I dug a little deeper (ie, searched Google for “origins of soccer”) and discovered that soccer and rugby officially split in 1863, when a meeting was held in England to decide on the official rules of the game. Those who wanted to be able to carry the ball and play with full contact went with the rugby association, while those who favored the more traditional style stuck with the football association.
Interestingly enough, the term “soccer” also comes from England, as a nickname for football. When the sport began to form associations, the English would abbreviate it as “assoc.” and the nickname “soccer football” was applied to association football. The English are known for creating shortened versions of words for amusement, such as “ruggers” for rugby, “brekkers” for breakfast, and “ciggy” for cigarette.
When soccer started gaining popularity in America, we already had a sport called football, so our national soccer federation went by the name “United States Soccer Football Association” for about 30 years before they just dropped the “football” part and stuck with “soccer.”
So basically, we’re left with a nickname for association as the name for a sport in which you use your foot to kick a ball. And on the other side, we’re left with a sport that split twice, yet kept its original name after the second split, even though it was a completely different sport. And even though it would make so much sense to switch the names, there is far too much advertising invested in both sports to make it realistic.
4. The point you brought up about instant replay is the one that got me fired up the most, especially after the first few games in the round of 16.
For those of you who didn’t see either of the World Cup games on Sunday, there was a no-goal that should have counted and a goal that should have been disallowed, both clearly proven by instant replay, and both having a dramatic impact on their respective contests.
The goal that should have counted came off the foot of England midfielder Frank Lampard, who lobbed a volley over the head of German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer that hit the lower half of the crossbar, hit the ground at least a yard past the goal line, then bounced back outside the goal. Lampard and a few of the English players started to celebrate, but none of the officials stopped the action as Neuer sent the ball back down the field. Every angle of the replay showed the ball was clearly over the line, but the officials were all so far away from the goal that none of them saw what happened. England had just scored a goal a minute earlier to make the score 2-1 in favor of Germany, so if the goal had counted, as it should have, the game would have been tied. Germany went on to win 4-1, but the outcome might have been much different had the score been tied at two.
The goal that shouldn’t have counted came in the match between Argentina and Mexico. About midway through the first half, Argentina striker Lionel Messi sent a lovely pass through the Mexican defense to forward Carlos Tevez, who took a quick shot at keeper Oscar Perez. Perez made the save, and the ball ricocheted back to Messi, who sent the ball back toward the goal. Tevez tapped the ball into the net for the game’s first goal. However, replay showed that when Messi sent the ball back into Tevez after the save, Tevez was at least two yards behind the last Mexican defender, which should have been called offside. The goal was initially counted, but the head official went over to talk to the assistant on the sideline, presumably to ask if Tevez was offside. Both teams crowded around the officials and offered their opinions during this little chat, but it did not change the outcome. Argentina went on to win 3-1, but once again, the game might have played out differently had the early goal been properly disallowed.
FIFA is notorious for resisting technology, saying that any technological changes would not be universal throughout the various levels of the sport. Obviously this is not a problem for the other major sports in the world, and some have even pointed out that the FIFA officials all wear microphone headsets to be able to communicate with each other, and that this isn’t universal throughout the sport.
To me, it really wouldn’t be hard to institute instant replay for the big matches; international tournaments bring in enough money to make it easily viable, and it wouldn’t have to take much time at all. They have a fourth official on the sideline who can help the head referee make decisions. Have a replay monitor right there for the guy, give him 30 seconds to watch the replay and make a decision, and clean up the really egregious errors.
But if technology is really the issue, then at least put more officials on the field for the big games. Put a guy by each goal. Put one more guy on each sideline. Put a guy on each corner. Just put more officials out there. In the Major League Baseball regular season, a crew of umpires consists of four. When it comes time for the World Series, the size of the crew goes up to six, as they add one more umpire down each outfield line. How hard would it be to add two more officials for World Cup games, one by each goal? You have to think that both blown calls on Sunday would have been overruled by an official standing right by the goal. If you’re going to resist the answer that gives the most clear result, at least provide a compromise of more pairs of eyes to make the best call possible.
5. Going back to the topic of advertising, I think you’re right on with your supposition that it affects the popularity of the sport here in America.
But honestly, I think the biggest reason why soccer isn’t as popular here is because it is distinctly un-American. We didn’t invent it, we didn’t perfect it, we’re not really even that good at it. To make things worse, the English are the ones who made it into what it is today, and there will always be something about American culture that resists things that come from across the pond. I mean, they drink tea, so we drink coffee; they play cricket, so we play baseball; they have a parliament, so we have a congress. Of course we’re not going to go all ga-ga for soccer, we have our own version, and it’s much louder, nastier, and so very American.
We are starting to see the fruits of the American youth soccer explosion of the late 80s/early 90s, as the kids who were shuffled off to soccer practice every summer are now old enough to compete at the international level. Guys like Clint Dempsey, Jozy Altidore, Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu were all growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, and the talent level inherent in playing a sport all of your life is starting to show up more and more as those numbers from the soccer boom sort out into some really talented American players.
Still though, soccer will always have a distinctly foreign feel, just from the characteristics of the sport. The clock doesn’t count down to zeroes, it counts up to 90. The game doesn’t end with a loud buzzer, it just kind of peters out when the referee decides that enough time has been allowed for stoppages. The game just keeps going, even when a player goes down. The strategy is much more patient; there aren’t nearly as many opportunities for one player to “put his team on his back” and carry them to a win. You have to let the play develop; you can’t force the issue. None of these characteristics are very fan-friendly, especially to American fans who are used to the NFL, where you get time between plays, you get a definitive clock, and you get athletes who can carry the game.
Since soccer isn’t going to change its very fundamental being, there really doesn’t seem to be much hope of it catching on in America the way other sports have.
6. Speaking of catching on, I wonder if your prediction about goalie gloves will ever come true. American football players generally have a thing about looking cool when they’re playing, so it would take a high-profile receiver (Chad Ochocinco, anyone?) to make the attempt. I love the spongy feel of goalie gloves, and they probably would help receivers hang onto a football a little better. I remember back when quarterback Doug Flutie played for the Buffalo Bills, and as a way to keep a better grip on the ball during the cold winter months, he found a pair of glass-cutter’s gloves that he wore with apparent success. They were rather large and a bit unorthodox, but they seemed to work for him.
But, as I’ve seen exemplified in a national sportswriter’s column about the World Cup, the general consensus about keeper gloves seems to be that they make your hands look like giant Twinkies. If a wide receiver ever does give them a try, however, I’ll remember your prediction and I’m curious to see if it will become a trend.
7. I just want to point out that Mario wrote his response before the USA was eliminated from the World Cup, so hopefully we can all understand his optimistic patriotism. Either that, or he’s just really looking forward to 2014, when the World Cup rolls into Brazil. If that is the case, then go USA!
And if anyone else out there has anything to add, or wants to take us to task on anything we’ve discussed, please send us your thoughts to sports@valleycenter.com and we’ll get more people in on the discussion.
1. Since there are so many diverse nations represented at the WC, what language are the players speaking when their talking to (a) the ref (b) the opponent? For instance, Japan is playing against, say, Mexico, and the ref is from England. Ok, so as the Japanese player is complaining/shouting to the ref about the Mexican player and vice versa, what the heck language are they speaking to each other? Same when I see the ref talking to players...warning them to stop pushing or something...or even at the start during the coin toss...does the German ref say "heads or tails"...does the Spanish player respond "heads"/"tails"...must be quite a funny scenario.
2. Will the vuvuzelas (loud, obnoxious horns) infect American sports? The closest thing I know of is in Minnesota and the Viking fans. I think they have a loud vuvuzela type of horn they blow there. Hope it doesn't spread to other sports/cities here in the USA. Maybe vuvuzelas can be banned at the customs...no one allowed to bring it in to the country. Did you know that the vuvuzela is banned from Yankee Stadium?
3. Here's something I've always wondered. In the USA we call the sport "soccer", while the rest of the world calls it "futbol". And, as we know, "soccer" is a relatively new sport in the USA...ok with that said, who's the wise-guy that came up with the name "soccer"? And where did the word come from? And why that name? And what does it mean? Seems like our own football is misnamed. Our football is mostly carried in our hands/arms. On few occassions during a game is the foot used (kick-offs, punts, PAT's, field goals)...otherwise most of the time we use our hands...yet we call the sport football. Let's see if I have this right...baseball has bases...handball uses the hand...basketball we throw the ball into a basket...racketball we use rackets...track & field is held on a track and field...volleyball you volley a ball...and football you hardly ever use your foot...huh? Should it be renamed to something like "tackleball" since almost every play involves tackling? Seems like the word "football" aligns better with the sport of soccer/futbol since most of the time the ball is kicked by the foot!
4. Will instant replay (IR) be used in high level soccer (er, futbol) tournaments like the Euro-Cup, or WC, etc. Maybe have a 5th official "in the booth" that can help the center-ref get it right on certain circumstances...like an obvious handball in the penalty box...or an obvious "offsides". The IR would only be available for the refs...no red flag like the NFL. I've told my wife that I don't think this will happen because socc...er, futbol is like baseball...lots of tradition, and very much a subjective sport. Like umps...each one has a different idea where the strike-zone is. However, baseball does use IR for fair/foul balls, homeruns, etc...maybe s...er, futbol could have a very limited use of IR too, like baseball.
5. If soccer is such a popular sport here in the USA at the youth levels, and its growing more at the adult levels, why has it not really caught on at the professional level? I suspect the main reason is commercials! All other popular USA sports are packed w/TV commercials (aka money)...however, there's no commercial breaks in soccer except during half-time...if there are few opportunities for commercials, then there's not a lot of money dedicated in ad budgets, thus, soccer remains a "grass-root" kind of sport.
6. Some day, mark my word, goalkeeper gloves in soccer will become the craze in football. The moment some big NFL star receiver starts wearing them it will catch on with other NFL receivers, then every receiver will be wearing them...college, high school, Pop Warner...you just wait and see. The same thing happened in the NFL with kicking field goals and kick offs. It used to be that every kicker would kick the ball with his toe...then the sidewinder-soccer style kicker came on the seen...at first just a few, then more...now all kickers at all levels kick "soccer-style"...no one toe-pokes anymore.
7. Finally, someone once said that soccer is a gentlemen's sport played by gentlemen, American football is a "animal's" game played by gentlemen, and rugby is an "animal's" game played by "animals"...sure hope our USA "gentlemen" do well!
GO USA!
Cheers (that's how soccer players say goodbye)
Mario Cozzi
-- -- --
First of all, thanks for writing in; I love being able to dissect the many aspects of sports, and it’s so much fun to get a good discussion going. I have a few thoughts in response to your thoughts, so let’s get right to it.
1. I wondered about the language barrier as well, and I’ve heard it referenced a few times in the tournament thus far. I know that when Brazil played Portugal in the group stage, they had referees from Mexico, and the announcers made a comment about being able to communicate a little more easily since Portuguese and Spanish are similar languages.
I have to imagine that the common language for most matches is English, especially when you have teams from different parts of the world with officials from an altogether different area, like when Japan faced Cameroon with referees from Portugal. Sometimes, especially in matches with European teams, you could find a different common language, like French or German, but most of the time I would bet that the middle ground of language is English.
There was also the story going into the USA vs. England match at the beginning of group play, which focused on the referees (from Brazil) taking a crash course on English (or rather, British) slang so that they would know what words were considered profane.
Otherwise, I’ve noticed a lot of gesturing and other basic forms of body language, including the ever-popular “that’s enough” movement of hands from the referees. However they do it, they seem to get the point across. Unless the game involves Koman Coulibaly (more on that later).
2. Unfortunately, the vuvuzelas have already made an impact on American sports. The Florida Marlins had a vuvuzela night on June 19, and a quick online search for “Marlins vuvuzela” brings up links to at least a dozen pages featuring very negative responses to the giveaway. And they only handed out 15,000 of the plastic horns; imagine if the whole stadium of more than 23,000 had been honking throughout the game.
My initial reaction (and sincerest hope) is that the vuvuzela will quickly go the way of the Rally Monkey, the Thunder Stix, and the Snuggie.
3. Most people probably wonder why the sport is “soccer” to us in the USA and “football” (or the equivalent) to everyone else in the world.
I got together with Valley Center soccer guru Ron Norris in the summer of 2008 to discuss the European Cup tournament, and one of the things he mentioned was how the name of American football came about.
He said that football (soccer) was already a popular sport, but when the game started to morph into rugby, that sport became known as “rugby football.” When the game came to America and the rules were modified, the “rugby” part was dropped (because rugby was now its own established sport) and the football was left.
I dug a little deeper (ie, searched Google for “origins of soccer”) and discovered that soccer and rugby officially split in 1863, when a meeting was held in England to decide on the official rules of the game. Those who wanted to be able to carry the ball and play with full contact went with the rugby association, while those who favored the more traditional style stuck with the football association.
Interestingly enough, the term “soccer” also comes from England, as a nickname for football. When the sport began to form associations, the English would abbreviate it as “assoc.” and the nickname “soccer football” was applied to association football. The English are known for creating shortened versions of words for amusement, such as “ruggers” for rugby, “brekkers” for breakfast, and “ciggy” for cigarette.
When soccer started gaining popularity in America, we already had a sport called football, so our national soccer federation went by the name “United States Soccer Football Association” for about 30 years before they just dropped the “football” part and stuck with “soccer.”
So basically, we’re left with a nickname for association as the name for a sport in which you use your foot to kick a ball. And on the other side, we’re left with a sport that split twice, yet kept its original name after the second split, even though it was a completely different sport. And even though it would make so much sense to switch the names, there is far too much advertising invested in both sports to make it realistic.
4. The point you brought up about instant replay is the one that got me fired up the most, especially after the first few games in the round of 16.
For those of you who didn’t see either of the World Cup games on Sunday, there was a no-goal that should have counted and a goal that should have been disallowed, both clearly proven by instant replay, and both having a dramatic impact on their respective contests.
The goal that should have counted came off the foot of England midfielder Frank Lampard, who lobbed a volley over the head of German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer that hit the lower half of the crossbar, hit the ground at least a yard past the goal line, then bounced back outside the goal. Lampard and a few of the English players started to celebrate, but none of the officials stopped the action as Neuer sent the ball back down the field. Every angle of the replay showed the ball was clearly over the line, but the officials were all so far away from the goal that none of them saw what happened. England had just scored a goal a minute earlier to make the score 2-1 in favor of Germany, so if the goal had counted, as it should have, the game would have been tied. Germany went on to win 4-1, but the outcome might have been much different had the score been tied at two.
The goal that shouldn’t have counted came in the match between Argentina and Mexico. About midway through the first half, Argentina striker Lionel Messi sent a lovely pass through the Mexican defense to forward Carlos Tevez, who took a quick shot at keeper Oscar Perez. Perez made the save, and the ball ricocheted back to Messi, who sent the ball back toward the goal. Tevez tapped the ball into the net for the game’s first goal. However, replay showed that when Messi sent the ball back into Tevez after the save, Tevez was at least two yards behind the last Mexican defender, which should have been called offside. The goal was initially counted, but the head official went over to talk to the assistant on the sideline, presumably to ask if Tevez was offside. Both teams crowded around the officials and offered their opinions during this little chat, but it did not change the outcome. Argentina went on to win 3-1, but once again, the game might have played out differently had the early goal been properly disallowed.
FIFA is notorious for resisting technology, saying that any technological changes would not be universal throughout the various levels of the sport. Obviously this is not a problem for the other major sports in the world, and some have even pointed out that the FIFA officials all wear microphone headsets to be able to communicate with each other, and that this isn’t universal throughout the sport.
To me, it really wouldn’t be hard to institute instant replay for the big matches; international tournaments bring in enough money to make it easily viable, and it wouldn’t have to take much time at all. They have a fourth official on the sideline who can help the head referee make decisions. Have a replay monitor right there for the guy, give him 30 seconds to watch the replay and make a decision, and clean up the really egregious errors.
But if technology is really the issue, then at least put more officials on the field for the big games. Put a guy by each goal. Put one more guy on each sideline. Put a guy on each corner. Just put more officials out there. In the Major League Baseball regular season, a crew of umpires consists of four. When it comes time for the World Series, the size of the crew goes up to six, as they add one more umpire down each outfield line. How hard would it be to add two more officials for World Cup games, one by each goal? You have to think that both blown calls on Sunday would have been overruled by an official standing right by the goal. If you’re going to resist the answer that gives the most clear result, at least provide a compromise of more pairs of eyes to make the best call possible.
5. Going back to the topic of advertising, I think you’re right on with your supposition that it affects the popularity of the sport here in America.
But honestly, I think the biggest reason why soccer isn’t as popular here is because it is distinctly un-American. We didn’t invent it, we didn’t perfect it, we’re not really even that good at it. To make things worse, the English are the ones who made it into what it is today, and there will always be something about American culture that resists things that come from across the pond. I mean, they drink tea, so we drink coffee; they play cricket, so we play baseball; they have a parliament, so we have a congress. Of course we’re not going to go all ga-ga for soccer, we have our own version, and it’s much louder, nastier, and so very American.
We are starting to see the fruits of the American youth soccer explosion of the late 80s/early 90s, as the kids who were shuffled off to soccer practice every summer are now old enough to compete at the international level. Guys like Clint Dempsey, Jozy Altidore, Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu were all growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, and the talent level inherent in playing a sport all of your life is starting to show up more and more as those numbers from the soccer boom sort out into some really talented American players.
Still though, soccer will always have a distinctly foreign feel, just from the characteristics of the sport. The clock doesn’t count down to zeroes, it counts up to 90. The game doesn’t end with a loud buzzer, it just kind of peters out when the referee decides that enough time has been allowed for stoppages. The game just keeps going, even when a player goes down. The strategy is much more patient; there aren’t nearly as many opportunities for one player to “put his team on his back” and carry them to a win. You have to let the play develop; you can’t force the issue. None of these characteristics are very fan-friendly, especially to American fans who are used to the NFL, where you get time between plays, you get a definitive clock, and you get athletes who can carry the game.
Since soccer isn’t going to change its very fundamental being, there really doesn’t seem to be much hope of it catching on in America the way other sports have.
6. Speaking of catching on, I wonder if your prediction about goalie gloves will ever come true. American football players generally have a thing about looking cool when they’re playing, so it would take a high-profile receiver (Chad Ochocinco, anyone?) to make the attempt. I love the spongy feel of goalie gloves, and they probably would help receivers hang onto a football a little better. I remember back when quarterback Doug Flutie played for the Buffalo Bills, and as a way to keep a better grip on the ball during the cold winter months, he found a pair of glass-cutter’s gloves that he wore with apparent success. They were rather large and a bit unorthodox, but they seemed to work for him.
But, as I’ve seen exemplified in a national sportswriter’s column about the World Cup, the general consensus about keeper gloves seems to be that they make your hands look like giant Twinkies. If a wide receiver ever does give them a try, however, I’ll remember your prediction and I’m curious to see if it will become a trend.
7. I just want to point out that Mario wrote his response before the USA was eliminated from the World Cup, so hopefully we can all understand his optimistic patriotism. Either that, or he’s just really looking forward to 2014, when the World Cup rolls into Brazil. If that is the case, then go USA!
And if anyone else out there has anything to add, or wants to take us to task on anything we’ve discussed, please send us your thoughts to sports@valleycenter.com and we’ll get more people in on the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)