World Cup 2018

[Florestan]

I have to comment.
Overall, the game is screaming to be brought into the 21st century.

Care to elaborate? What features would a "21st century football game" display?

[Marc]

Care to elaborate? What features would a "21st century football game" display?

I can make an educated guess, but I think that the VAR is one of them.

Some of my other wishes are (not sure if eljr meant this, too):
- yellow cards for schwalbes and pretending, and for berating the ref
- 30 or 35 minutes of 'pure' playtime for each half; clock stopped during breaks and whatever
- (even) more decisions after checking VAR

(And I've got plenty more.)

I watched a high level rugby match a few years ago, and a huge fellow was mocking the ref's decision. The ref, a small guy, said loud and clear: "you play rugby, I do the refereeing. You do your job, I do mine. One more sound from you and you'll be send off." And the huge fellow was immediately silent and joined the scrum.

I like football, but all those cry and scream babies make me puke sometimes, I have to admit. (As do some of their coaches.)

[eljr]

Care to elaborate? What features would a "21st century football game" display?

Not really or I would have.

But I will now that you asked.

As I enjoy many sports futbol pops out to me every time I watch it for it's inexactness. It would be so easy to simply stop the clock in this day and age when there is a stoppage for example.

Then we have the problem with the refs, missing so much and interpreting so individually. Camera use has helped but not nearly as much as it has in other sports. It has taken way too long to implement and not being maximized yet. 

And now it seems football tackling is the norm and we have no rules that would end this.

Was it the Belgium striker who was taken down by the defender, from behind, after beating the last defender and goalie! And not even a red card?
Rules for such blatant violations need to be created. In a case like that, the goal should be awarded and the player tossed, at the least.

Offside continues to be a guessing game, we need new rules on what is off sides. Little kids can't even understand the stupid rule until they are around 12 or 13 years old.

It rally lessens my enjoyment of the game to see all these things in every match.

FIFA is old and it shows.

[Florestan]

Not really or I would have.

But I will now that you asked.

As I enjoy many sports futbol pops out to me every time I watch it for it's inexactness. It would be so easy to simply stop the clock in this day and age when there is a stoppage for example.

Then we have the problem with the refs, missing so much and interpreting so individually. Camera use has helped but not nearly as much as it has in other sports. It has taken way too long to implement and not being maximized yet. 

And now it seems football tackling is the norm and we have no rules that would end this.

Was it the Belgium striker who was taken down by the defender, from behind, after beating the last defender and goalie! And not even a red card?
Rules for such blatant violations need to be created. In a case like that, the goal should be awarded and the player tossed, at the least.

Offside continues to be a guessing game, we need new rules on what is off sides. Little kids can't even understand the stupid rule until they are around 12 or 13 years old.

It rally lessens my enjoyment of the game to see all these things in every match.

FIFA is old and it shows.

I see. You'd like to see football turned into an exact science. 

I disagree. Save for blatant errors, which are few and far between on average, the rules are sufficiently clear and enforceable, and offside is one of the clearest.

I do agree there is a problem, but it has far less to do with rules and their enforcement as it has with playing the game in itself. Poster Marc has made some great points in this respect.

[Florestan]

I watched a high level rugby match a few years ago, and a huge fellow was mocking the ref's decision. The ref, a small guy, said loud and clear: "you play rugby, I do the refereeing. You do your job, I do mine. One more sound from you and you'll be send off." And the huge fellow was immediately silent and joined the scrum.

Hear, hear!

[eljr]

I see. You'd like to see football turned into an exact science. 

I disagree. Save for blatant errors, which are few and far between on average, the rules are sufficiently clear and enforceable, and offside is one of the clearest.

I do agree there is a problem, but it has far less to do with rules and their enforcement as it has with playing the game in itself. Poster Marc has made some great points in this respect.

The rules should be an exact science, yes. The athletes themselves should provide the outcome.

I respect that you disagree and prefer arbitrariness and chance not earthed in the athlete's performance. 

And if you think you disagree with me on this, you should be glad you are not here in the states where my views on how the USA Soccer Federation is destroying the game here is assaulted by all with a vested interest!

[Florestan]

The rules should be an exact science, yes.

The rules are exact. But, as with every other rule in every other field, the big question is: who and how enforces them?

The referee is a human being, and as such, even the most scrupulous of them is prone to error. The best one can do is to have the most controversial moments double-checked ---  and this is exactlty what the VAR is for. I'd say that on average it did its job and should be continued, even extended. But short of stopping the game every three minutes to minutiously check the video, the complete and incontrovertible exclusion / correction of errors is well-nigh impossible.

The athletes themselves should provide the outcome.

That sounds very good on paper but in real life it's oftenly the athlete themselves who create the problems and the ambiguity, as Marc correctly pointed out. The task of asking the possible correction of an error (or for that matter every other interaction with the referee) should be assigned solely and exclusively to the captain in the field (as is the case in rugby) or to the coach on the bench. Each protestation or simulation should result in the other team being given a free kick 10 meters towards the goal. (In this I agree that some rules should be changed. )

I respect that you disagree and prefer arbitrariness and chance not earthed in the athlete's performance.

I emphatically do not. Either I have expressed myself obscurely, or you completely misunderstood me. I hope the above might clarify things a bit.

[Florestan]

Switzerland - Sweden, the dullest, most uninteresting match so far (France-Denmark and England-Belgium excluded). 

[eljr]

Switzerland - Sweden, the dullest, most uninteresting match so far (France-Denmark and England-Belgium excluded). 

Finally we agree!

Go Sweden!

[Florestan]

Finally we agree!

I'm quite sure we would agree on many things were it not for this darned politics!   

[Marc]

Sweden: sly assassin.

Lucky 'goal' by Forsberg, who btw is the only creative footballer of this squad.
But for the entire team (spirit), the farewell of Ibrahimovic seems to work fine.

[eljr]

The rules are exact. But, as with every other rule in every other field, the big question is: who and how enforces them?

The referee is a human being, and as such, even the most scrupulous of them is prone to error. The best one can do is to have the most controversial moments double-checked ---  and this is exactlty what the VAR is for. I'd say that on average it did its job and should be continued, even extended. But short of stopping the game every three minutes to minutiously check the video, the complete and incontrovertible exclusion / correction of errors is well-nigh impossible.

Not at all. Simply give both coaches two challenges per match. If the coach is correct and ref wrong they retain the challenge. Plus, honest, there is so much time in soccer where nothing is really happening but the clock runs that stopping the game is simply not valid, objectively. I do understand and respect those that have played and watched the game for decades and do not care about anything but tradition.

AVR in soccer is terrible right now, they really could learn from America sport and should.

That sounds very good on paper but in real life it's oftenly the athlete themselves who create the problems and the ambiguity, as Marc correctly pointed out. The task of asking the possible correction of an error (or for that matter every other interaction with the referee) should be assigned solely and exclusively to the captain in the field (as is the case in rugby) or to the coach on the bench. Each protestation or simulation should result in the other team being given a free kick 10 meters towards the goal. (In this I agree that some rules should be changed. )

We could come to an agreement if we continued the talk.
Players are overwhelming wrong and should never be allowed to challenge.  We see this daily in American sports.

People/players always believe what benefits them or what they perceive will benefit them. Hence the rise of Trump in the states.

I emphatically do not. Either I have expressed myself obscurely, or you completely misunderstood me. I hope the above might clarify things a bit.

Your definition of exact and mine are different. I am much less willing to settle so from my perspective my statement is true about you.

-----------------------

Good example of soccer needing change, the Swed just taken down. Called correctly but I do not like that rule as the player is highly likely to score if not taken down. A free kick from there is much less likely to result in a goal. So a red card and free kick is preferable to not breaking the rule by fouling. The penalty should be greater than the infraction if you want to stop the infractions. 

[eljr]

I'm quite sure we would agree on many things were it not for this darned politics!   

Agree or not I am but a student of classical music even at my advanced years.  In that arena I would only learn from you.

[Florestan]

We could come to an agreement if we continued the talk.

I have no doubt about it. Add some beer and it's a sealed deal! 

The penalty should be greater than the infraction if you want to stop the infractions.

I agree wholeheartedly, but --- how about the infraction of illegally crossing the US border? Does it qualify? 

[Florestan]

Agree or not I am but a student of classical music even at my advanced users and in that arena I would not often do anything but learn from you.

Too many negatives in this sentence for my non-native English speaker self. Is it meant as a compliment? 

[eljr]

Too many negatives in this sentence for my non-native English speaker self. Is it meant as a compliment? 

I was saying I am really stupid when it comes you classical music and I would be wise to simply learn from you and other posters here.

So if you think you knowledge of classical a positive, it was indeed a compliment.

[eljr]

I agree wholeheartedly, but --- how about the infraction of illegally crossing the US border? Does it qualify? 

As with sport and crime, motive becomes the differentiator.

[Florestan]

I was saying I am really stupid when it comes you classical music and I would be wise to simply learn from you and other posters here.

Oh, come on, don't sell yourself cheap! You're not at all stupid when it comes to classical music. We all like what we like, period. 

So if you think you knowledge of classical a positive, it was indeed a compliment.

I don't think my knowledge of classical music is that positive, but thank you anyway! 

[Florestan]

As with sport and crime, motive becomes the differentiator.

And who judges the motive, if not a human (and as such prone to error) referee?  Give me the best and minutest legislation in the world, the question still remains: who, and where, are the best and minutest judges in the world?

[mc ukrneal]

WoW! England win....on penalties! The world really is coming to an end!