MLS/Soccer Thread

[Bobthe4th]

Because it is simple to understand and costs next to nothing to play.

 

That's one of the reasons that explains why it's so popular for people to play. And because so many people play the talent pool of professionals is enormous.

 

One of the major reasons it's by far the most popular spectator sport in the world is that if you watch a football game live, in the stadium, the difference between professionals and amateurs (i.e. you and your mates playing in the local pub team) is draw dropping. And because of the massive talent pool, it's not just limited to the top few teams.

[Bobthe4th]

MLS should be the CFL of soccer. Should have changed the rules up so it's quirky and fresh.

 

Stop time, video review of fouls, allow line changes to keep the pace at a maximum, bigger nets, smaller goalies, make the field 10 yards shorter and a bit thinner, 5 on 5 sudden death OT, put up boards instead of a chalk line, etc.

 

This wouldn't work as you'd never get any serious players playing in a league like that, it'd be a joke.

 

It can work for the CFL because there aren't many alternatives if you can't cut it in the NFL. But 70-90% of the world's countries have a professional football(soccer) league.

 

MLS is aiming for the "homegrown" and immigrant fans who love football but can only watch the big European and South American teams on tv. The more investment in the league, the better players that'll be attracted, the better the games will be.

[AdamGreenwood]

Definitely agree with the idea of making the shooters go further back. To reduce the goalie's skill to guessing whether the shooter is going to shoot left or right is stupid.

[burlingtonbandit]

MLS should be the CFL of soccer. Should have changed the rules up so it's quirky and fresh.

 

Stop time, video review of fouls, allow line changes to keep the pace at a maximum, bigger nets, smaller goalies, make the field 10 yards shorter and a bit thinner, 5 on 5 sudden death OT, put up boards instead of a chalk line, etc.

 

So pretty much Hockey on a soccer field? You can't ruin the entire sport like that lol, it would actually be worse since no good players would play in your league making the game even worse.

 

The actual game is fine but penalty kicks in the playoffs is ridiculous. MLS should just change that rule.

[burlingtonbandit]

The only time I ever really watch soccer is the World Cup and Euro so maybe thats why the game seemed so bad. You go from the best players in the world to scrubs making 100K/year.

[Boxcar]

So pretty much Hockey on a soccer field? You can't ruin the entire sport like that lol, it would actually be worse since no good players would play in your league making the game even worse.

 

The actual game is fine but penalty kicks in the playoffs is ridiculous. MLS should just change that rule.

 

Man, I dunno how NJH gets all you dummies with his sub-par troll attempts. I mean, putting up boards didn't set you off? Line changes? Seriously?

[dineke]

The only time I ever really watch soccer is the World Cup and Euro so maybe thats why the game seemed so bad. You go from the best players in the world to scrubs making 100K/year.

 

The world cup and euro are pretty meh actually because the players don't play with each other very often. Also you have some countries that have players worse than MLS level competing in those competitions.

[burlingtonbandit]

The world cup and euro are pretty meh actually because the players don't play with each other very often. Also you have some countries that have players worse than MLS level competing in those competitions.

 

Well I don't watch the games with the crap countries playing against each other lol.

[Boxcar]

f*** no this is a terrible idea. 45 minutes is the perfect length for a half, with a few minutes of injury time to account for stoppages. Not too long, not too short.

 

Yes, because nothing adds more to the sport than players from the team with the lead rolling around on the field during stoppage time. I really have no idea why stopping the clock is a bad idea. Ideally, it shouldn't shorten or lengthen the game since all stoppages are supposed to be accounted for at the end of the half. But instead of the referee making up an arbitrary number of minutes, it stays accurate. And there would be nothing to gain by the winning team faking injuries to waste time. Is accuracy a bad thing?

 

Agree but what do you suggest? It's very difficult to say someone has cheated unless it's blatant. A blatant dive is punished with a yellow card.

 

Very, very simple. You look at a replay after the game and suspend or fine all the little *******s who flop around. Even if you roll around on the ground like someone shot you in the dick, but you're up 1 minute later perfectly fine, give that guy a suspension for being an embellishing dickhead. Also, how about smarter referees? If a guy looks like he's about to die, pretty good chance he's faking it. Give him a yellow.

 

There is, what used to be called linesmen (the guys with the flags) are now assistant referees who will tell the referee if there is a foul. The reason there is one guy in charge is to keep the game flowing, his decision is final.

 

Linesmen can't see s***. They should be limited to offsides and signalling when the ball goes out of play. One referee per half seems like a good idea, and each one has full jurisdiction over their own area. This is the problem with football, people are so fiercely resistant to change that it's behind practically every other sport. I mean, in ways to improve the archaic way this game is played, no one has even brought up instant replay. That's how backwards it is.

 

What's your alternative suggestion? At least pens are exciting.

 

Replay the match, unlimited extra time, flipping a coin are all better solutions than penalities.

 

Nope, football isn't a sport where the only enjoyment comes from the goals. If that's what you're after watch futsal which is 5 a side. It's a bit like saying the only good thing about baseball is homeruns, ignoring all the other aspects of the sport.

 

I agree with this. I don't see any need to artificially inflate goals.

[Krylian]

What's your alternative suggestion? At least pens are exciting.

 

f*** penalty kicks. Can you imagine shootouts determining the Stanley Cup? Gross.

 

Play until someone scores. The game will go on too long? Too f***ing bad. Does MLB have home run hitting contests to determine the winner?

 

If you want to win, score...if you don't, then stay out there for all hours and suffer.

 

It's a team sport. Determining the winner on an individual skill is moronic and always has been.

[dineke]

I can tolerate a lot of problems with soccer because there are no commercials. You know those corporate f***s will start incorperating commericials into the broadcast if there were stoppages.

[Bobthe4th]

f*** penalty kicks. Can you imagine shootouts determining the Stanley Cup? Gross.

 

Play until someone scores. The game will go on too long? Too f***ing bad. Does MLB have home run hitting contests to determine the winner?

 

If you want to win, score...if you don't, then stay out there for all hours and suffer.

 

It's a team sport. Determining the winner on an individual skill is moronic and always has been.

 

One of the problems with playing longer than 90 mins plus 30 for extra time, is that all the players are tired effecting the chances of good play and you're risking injuries both in that game and any future ones.

 

You can argue a final shouldn't be decided on pens, but what's a realistic alternative? In major competitions a replay normally isn't realistic because of logistics. For example the FA Cup has replays until the semi finals, which are then played at neutral venues.

[jays_fever]

One of the problems with playing longer than 90 mins plus 30 for extra time, is that all the players are tired effecting the chances of good play and you're risking injuries both in that game and any future ones.

 

You can argue a final shouldn't be decided on pens, but what's a realistic alternative? In major competitions a replay normally isn't realistic because of logistics. For example the FA Cup has replays until the semi finals, which are then played at neutral venues.

 

It's the playoffs, I think these pro athletes can push themselves.

 

The shootout in soccer represents nothing that the actual game is about.

[Bobthe4th]

I really have no idea why stopping the clock is a bad idea. Ideally, it shouldn't shorten or lengthen the game since all stoppages are supposed to be accounted for at the end of the half. But instead of the referee making up an arbitrary number of minutes, it stays accurate. And there would be nothing to gain by the winning team faking injuries to waste time. Is accuracy a bad thing?

90 minutes is enough time (plus 30 minutes if required), it's that long to take account of stoppages. If you had the clock stop, it would delay the game and you'd see longer and longer breaks to allow adverts for the tv broadcasters, just like virtually all North American sports.

 

Very, very simple. You look at a replay after the game and suspend or fine all the little *******s who flop around. Even if you roll around on the ground like someone shot you in the dick, but you're up 1 minute later perfectly fine, give that guy a suspension for being an embellishing dickhead. Also, how about smarter referees? If a guy looks like he's about to die, pretty good chance he's faking it. Give him a yellow.

How is it simple to determine who's faking 100%, who's exaggerating, and who's genuine? Who decides? What if the ref gave a card to someone injured? What if someone is fouled and goes down, how much do they have to do before they get a yellow card?

 

They already try to book divers and crack down on it but it's very difficult because a foul is so subjective. If someone kicks you is that a foul? Or do you need to fall over? Do you not give it if you think he could have not fallen over?

 

Linesmen can't see s***. They should be limited to offsides and signalling when the ball goes out of play.

This doesn't make any sense if you're advocating for additional officials. Linesmen have a different angle and so will often see something the ref can't.

 

One referee per half seems like a good idea, and each one has full jurisdiction over their own area.

This was trialed by UEFA a few years ago and it didn't work very well. Lots of delays while the refs consulted with other after stoppages. Refs stay close to the play so the potential benefits of a second ref aren't that great.

 

This is the problem with football, people are so fiercely resistant to change that it's behind practically every other sport.

This is inaccurate. Changes to improve the game are made all the time. This season the 2 main ones are you no longer have to take a kick off by playing the ball forward (you might have seen kick offs where there is only one taker in the centre circle), and a last man foul that gives away a penalty is no longer a red card. There are rarely major changes, because there doesn't need to be - football is a pretty simple game with few complex rules.

 

I mean, in ways to improve the archaic way this game is played, no one has even brought up instant replay. That's how backwards it is

Instant replay is discussed constantly by pundits and fans. The main argument against it is that it would delay the game. One of the major plus points of football is the flow of the game, and lack of stoppages. Any changes should be looking to reduce delays not increase them.

 

 

Replay the match, unlimited extra time, flipping a coin are all better solutions than penalities.

Replays - difficult for most tournaments for logistical problems and unfair to other teams, it is an option that could be considered for the MLS final though.

 

Unlimited extra time - wouldn't work, increases injury risk, you have tired players, becomes a farce, what if no one scores?

 

Flipping a coin - assume you're trolling

[Bobthe4th]

It's the playoffs, I think these pro athletes can push themselves.

 

The shootout in soccer represents nothing that the actual game is about.

 

Not entirely accurate, as you can be awarded a penalty in normal time.

 

Most people agree that penalties are not an ideal way to end an important game. Unfortunately, after 40 years of looking for alternatives, a decent one hasn't yet been introduced.

 

They trialed a "golden goal" for extra time where the first goal wins. Most teams just sat back and didn't attack at all. You'd likely have this for a lot longer, as players would have to conserve energy after 90 minutes and presumably a tournament of football. Quite possibly you'd have people diving even more, trying to win a freekick/penalty to score from.

[John_Havok]

Not entirely accurate, as you can be awarded a penalty in normal time.

 

Most people agree that penalties are not an ideal way to end an important game. Unfortunately, after 40 years of looking for alternatives, a decent one hasn't yet been introduced.

 

They trialed a "golden goal" for extra time where the first goal wins. Most teams just sat back and didn't attack at all. You'd likely have this for a lot longer, as players would have to conserve energy after 90 minutes and presumably a tournament of football. Quite possibly you'd have people diving even more, trying to win a freekick/penalty to score from.

 

You just had a championship game where 1 team didn't even get a shot on net... and won. That's paint drying, grass growing and water freezing all in one cocktail of boring s***.

 

Soccer purists obviously love the game the way it is or it wouldn't be easily the most popular sport on earth, but let's not try to kid anyone that it's exciting.

[jays_fever]

You just had a championship game where 1 team didn't even get a shot on net... and won. That's paint drying, grass growing and water freezing all in one cocktail of boring s***.

 

Soccer purists obviously love the game the way it is or it wouldn't be easily the most popular sport on earth, but let's not try to kid anyone that it's exciting.

 

This is the part that gets me though. They love how difficult it is to score and the 90 minutes of back and forth without not even being able to score, but penalty kicks can decide important games? Penalty kicks are basically the complete opposite of what the game of soccer is.

 

I mean I dont really watch soccer so it doesn't bother me to much but a team winning without shooting the ball on net..that's easily the most bush way to win a game

[Bobthe4th]

You just had a championship game where 1 team didn't even get a shot on net... and won. That's paint drying, grass growing and water freezing all in one cocktail of boring s***.

 

Soccer purists obviously love the game the way it is or it wouldn't be easily the most popular sport on earth, but let's not try to kid anyone that it's exciting.

 

Are you trying to say you've never seen a boring baseball or hockey game?

 

Or are you trying to say you've never seen an exciting football game?

[John_Havok]

Are you trying to say you've never seen a boring baseball or hockey game?

 

Or are you trying to say you've never seen an exciting football game?

 

Neither.

 

I've actually seen 1 exciting soccer game. But it's a very small percentage of all the soccer games that I've seen.

 

Soccer is simple. It's a simple game with simple rules and requires very little equipment. it's simplicity is why it's so popular worldwide, but it's also the reason it's so 1 dimensional and unexciting.

 

It's the vanilla of the sporting world.

[Bobthe4th]

Neither.

 

I've actually seen 1 exciting soccer game. But it's a very small percentage of all the soccer games that I've seen.

 

Soccer is simple. It's a simple game with simple rules and requires very little equipment. it's simplicity is why it's so popular worldwide, but it's also the reason it's so 1 dimensional and unexciting.

 

It's the vanilla of the sporting world.

 

That's your opinion so that's fair.

 

I obviously disagree. I've watched live sport all over the world, from Aussie Rules to Sumo, and football is by far the most exciting sport overall for me. It's got that perfect blend of impressive skill, competition, variety (i.e. not a repetitive action over and over), history, accessibility, and atmosphere.

[Boxcar]

This is inaccurate. Changes to improve the game are made all the time. This season the 2 main ones are you no longer have to take a kick off by playing the ball forward (you might have seen kick offs where there is only one taker in the centre circle), and a last man foul that gives away a penalty is no longer a red card. There are rarely major changes, because there doesn't need to be - football is a pretty simple game with few complex rules.

 

Pretty clear you've your mind made up on everything and so I won't bother trying to get anything more through, but I just had to lol @ this. Is this the most insignificant change ever, in any sport? Good god.

 

And yes, major changes are needed. I am quite positive the governing bodies would love it if they could penetrate the American market but apparently people are fiercely opposed to anything to ruin the sanctity of the game or whatever. Are you aware that you sound like Joe Morgan/Buck Martinez/Tim McCarver on this issue?

[Krylian]

One of the problems with playing longer than 90 mins plus 30 for extra time, is that all the players are tired effecting the chances of good play and you're risking injuries both in that game and any future ones.

 

You can argue a final shouldn't be decided on pens, but what's a realistic alternative? In major competitions a replay normally isn't realistic because of logistics. For example the FA Cup has replays until the semi finals, which are then played at neutral venues.

 

Every other sport can do it. There's risk of injury in every sport. Man up and keep playing. That is completely a reasonable alternative.

 

Winning a championship at recording zero shots on goal. Only in futbol.

[Bobthe4th]

Pretty clear you've your mind made up on everything and so I won't bother trying to get anything more through, but I just had to lol @ this. Is this the most insignificant change ever, in any sport? Good god.

 

And yes, major changes are needed. I am quite positive the governing bodies would love it if they could penetrate the American market but apparently people are fiercely opposed to anything to ruin the sanctity of the game or whatever. Are you aware that you sound like Joe Morgan/Buck Martinez/Tim McCarver on this issue?

 

Haha, you mean you can't come up with any more arguments? I'm disappointed in you, you rarely stop debating until the other person quits in disgust!

 

Major changes are not needed, hence why most changes are relatively minor.

 

"Soccer" is the fastest growing sport in America (not sure about Canada). Most of the big teams also tour the US in the break and play in front of sell out crowds.

 

But even if it wasn't it's not like any of the American sports that are only popular in a few countries outside of North America. FIFA isn't going to placate the American market by giving them things they want if the rest of the world doesn't. But sure they'd love to increase the market in America, which was why we had USA 94 and the MLS established in the first place.

 

The MLS would need to be a genuine rival to the Premier League, La Liga, Seria A etc for the best players to have soccer on the level of the big 3 American sports in the US. It's very difficult to imagine this happening, in part because Europe has a 150 year head start on professional football teams.

[Bobthe4th]

Every other sport can do it. There's risk of injury in every sport. Man up and keep playing. That is completely a reasonable alternative.

 

Winning a championship at recording zero shots on goal. Only in futbol.

 

This isn't a valid comparision though as very few sports have comparable conditions.

 

The North American sports for example have either rolling subs like hockey and basketball, or players that aren't even on the field for a lot the game. Also they have lots of stoppages to rest and recuperate.

 

The closest sports to football, that have the majority of the players on the pitch at all times, normally have much higher chance of goals/points. E.g. rugby.

 

Even if you completely ignore the risk of injury, you still have the issue that a fully fit side can fail to score in normal conditions. When the players are tired, and you know next goal wins, the quality of the play is going to be lower, and the game could go on for a long time. Which no one wants, hence penalties.

 

It's not perfect, but next goal wins is not a realistic alternative (and again it's been trialed before and it didn't work, and was very unpopular).

[King]

You guys triggered the England man.

[Bobthe4th]

You guys triggered the England man.

 

Haha, I originally came to this forum for the baseball chat as literally no one I know in England can name a baseball player other that Derek Jeter, but the off topic forum has lots of good stuff too!

[TheHurl]

I've always hated the narrative that soccer is boring because there is no scoring as much as I hate people calling a pitching duel boring. Watching live is also so much better in my mind as you see all the runs that are happening away from the ball and actually see the strategy. Then again I love fringe sports like Ultimate and have watched ParaSport Athletics for 16 hours straight.

[43211234]

f*** no this is a terrible idea. 45 minutes is the perfect length for a half, with a few minutes of injury time to account for stoppages. Not too long, not too short.

The fact that the game is a subjective length is dumb. I'm fine with not stopping it when the balls goes out of bounds or for a free kick. But there should be an end to a half. The ref deciding when the blow the whistle is dumn. The clock should absolutely stop when players are rolling around on the ground pretending to be hurt. That culture needs to go from the game.

 

 

Agree but what do you suggest? It's very difficult to say someone has cheated unless it's blatant. A blatant dive is punished with a yellow card.

Put a ref on each and let the linesmen just call the lines. Plus there are a million other things they could do to get the diving culture out of the game, whether it be retroactive fines or suspensions for repeat offenders. One of the 4 north american sports leagues would've at least tried some new ideas to change things up.

 

 

 

 

There is, what used to be called linesmen (the guys with the flags) are now assistant referees who will tell the referee if there is a foul. The reason there is one guy in charge is to keep the game flowing, his decision is final.

Whatever. Give them a whistle then. That or two refs and the linesmen just calls the lines and offsides.

 

 

 

What's your alternative suggestion? At least pens are exciting.

It's a championship game, play until someone scores. Maybe look at changing the number of players or field size after the first 30 minutes of overtime.

 

 

 

Haha no, this isn't ice hockey

I don't understand how anyone could defend this lol. Do you honestly like that it's a guessing game? Move the penalty marker back.

 

 

 

Nope, football isn't a sport where the only enjoyment comes from the goals. If that's what you're after watch futsal which is 5 a side. It's a bit like saying the only good thing about baseball is homeruns, ignoring all the other aspects of the sport.

I didn't say the only excitement comes from goals but when a team wins a championship game without a shot on goal you have a problem. They should absolutely try to add more scoring chances into the game.

[Bobthe4th]

The fact that the game is a subjective length is dumb. I'm fine with not stopping it when the balls goes out of bounds or for a free kick. But there should be an end to a half. The ref deciding when the blow the whistle is dumn. The clock should absolutely stop when players are rolling around on the ground pretending to be hurt. That culture needs to go from the game.

That's how the referee adds time on, he stops his stopwatch - it's why you see the ref keep checking his watch, and it's why you get told the minutes to be added on by an assistant holding up the board. He stops it for time wasting, subs and goals - not for free kicks, the ball going out etc.

 

 

Put a ref on each and let the linesmen just call the lines.

They trialed this and it didn't work very well (see earlier post for details).

 

Plus there are a million other things they could do to get the diving culture out of the game, whether it be retroactive fines or suspensions for repeat offenders. One of the 4 north american sports leagues would've at least tried some new ideas to change things up.

It's difficult because of how subjective a foul is (see earlier post for details). But people normally do get bans for blatant dives (i.e. not even touched).

Re American leagues, I'd argue basketball has an issue with flopping, but obviously regulating effectively one league isn't the same as 100's. For example in South America and some of the latin countries like Spain, diving isn't considered as bad as hard tackles are. What you or me might call conning the referee can be seen as "winning" a freekick.

 

Whatever. Give them a whistle then. That or two refs and the linesmen just calls the lines and offsides.

They have radio contact with the ref, and a flag, not really sure a whistle would add anything.

 

It's a championship game, play until someone scores.

See earlier post for why this doesn't work, and it's been trialed before and wasn't successful.

 

Maybe look at changing the number of players or field size after the first 30 minutes of overtime.

It's an idea, not sure it's any more "valid" then pens, which are already in the game, but sure trial it.

 

I don't understand how anyone could defend this lol. Do you honestly like that it's a guessing game? Move the penalty marker back.

It's obviously not completely chance, just because the keeper dives the right way, doesn't mean he's guaranteed to save it. Roughly 1 in 3 pens are missed, including those the goalkeeper doesn't save. Why would moving the pen spot back improve it? It's still an artificial way to end a game.

 

I didn't say the only excitement comes from goals but when a team wins a championship game without a shot on goal you have a problem. They should absolutely try to add more scoring chances into the game.

It sounds like it wasn't a very good game, but even so it's very rare something like this could happen with no shots on target for the winning team, unless the team is playing all out defense - which can be interesting to see an attacking team try to break down a defensive team. The better the attacking team, the more chance they have to score.

[Bobthe4th]

There is a big misconception here that football doesn't change. FIFA is constantly reviewing the rules, and you fairly regularly see small changes that are aimed to improve the game.

 

And any good ideas that are more than very minor changes are not just introduced. They use one of the hundreds of professional leagues from around the world to trial the change, and if it's successful it gets introduced on a wider level.

 

But you rarely see major changes, because the sport is already very popular, and there isn't a "if only they did that, it'd improve the game" smoking gun.

 

Things like next goal wins, bigger goals, additional referees, sin bins have all had unsuccessful trials, and so weren't adopted. Things like goal line technology (a sensor tells the ref if the ball goes over the goaline), assistant refs behind the goals, tweaks to the offside, handball, and professional foul rules have all had successful trials and so were introduced.

 

The last change that made a big improvement was the introduction of the passback rule. Your goalkeeper used to be able to pick up the ball if his own player passed to him. So you'd see some teams wasting time by passing it back for him to pick it up. It was outlawed and it improved the game.