World Cup Soccer

stoppage of play should also stop the clock.

Then you avoid someone arbitrarily making up the amount of extra time that is to be played.

I'm sorry but some of the changes Ages and Deank propose would kill the game. I'm all for adding an extra official and or a goal judge or goal line sensor of some sort, but going to a stop clock and/or removing injured players from the field would kill the pace of the game (which many N.American's already consider too slow).

The referees are not "arbitrarily" making up stoppage time. They are tasked with keeping track of injury time on a seperate stop watch and adding it to the regular time played. This keeps the flow of the game going. Adding a stop clock would introduce a whole new set of nightmares with teams looking for tactical ways to stop the clock when it benefits them. This would ruin flow and momentum.

The "5 minutes off for injury", how would you rule what injury is worthy of a mandatory 5 minutes out? Have you ever played soccer? Some knocks are incredibly painfull when they occur, but yet you can shake them off in 1 minute or 2. Others require a trainer to intervene. That's why there's a ref who decides that if you can't get up under your own power in a reasonable amount of time that you MUST be strechtered off the field untill your trainer clears you to return. During this time your team is short a man so there's not a lot of incentive to fake a serious injury as it is. No different than your mandatory 5 minute time out.

I don't think removing more authority from the ref's is the way to improve the game, and neither does FIFA. As a traditionalist I'm all for minor tweaks, adding a 2nd ref could make sense as it is very difficult for one official to see everything from every angle over such a large playing surface. I'd also be interested in the possibility of a goal line ref/judge whose sole job would be making the call on goal lines and possibly having veto authority for plays inside the 16 yard box.

However any changes must NOT change the flow of the game in a negative manner. The last thing soccer needs is stoppage, video review challenges, time outs etc.

The same could be said for any sport. "dont allow stoppages in play" it hurts the game. What is this crazy ass half time and 20 minutes off in between periods? That KILLS the game!!!!

oh wait, no, no it doesn't

Change is always difficult to accept.

In Canada we are accustomed to stop time and I don't see it affecting the flow of a game (except basketball, which as we all know is only slightly more boring to watch than golf and tennis).

There have been rules put in place to penalize folks wasting time and forcing stoppages. Usually the stoppages are momentary and play get's underway.

I'm no soccer fan, so I'm a little biased, but from my perspective the majority of "hits" and other "contact" in soccer are minor and the players so over-the-top melodramatic it takes away from the game.

If someone wants to writh around on the field like a little girl let him and keep playing. Eventually the Nancy's will get up and return to play. If not, stop the play (and the clock), cart the player off, MINIMUM of five minutes, and put a substitute on. Seems like a practical solution.

Better yet if the ref thinks Nancy is faking it, red card the twit and let the team play short handed. Most of the nonsense will disappear in short order.

Ugh, no offence GOM and Deank but your comments read like people who definitely are not fans of the game. Most fans who follow football (soccer) are very traditionalist in their following of the game and don't want to see wholesale changes made to appease people who don't really follow the game to begin with.

Just because "in Canada we are accustomed to stop time", doesn't mean it's the best solution for the world game. Just because you feel like the majority of "hits and contact are minor" doesn't mean that it's true. Try playing the game at a competitive level and just have your ankle clipped while your running at full sprint, guaranteed you will need a minute or 2 to get your wind back. That doesn't mean your injured, or need to be out of the game for 5 minutes, it's just means you got the wind knocked out of you (at least) and you need to walk it off. Something the current rules do a very good job of accomodating without hampering the flow of the game.

As for your faking Nancy comments...well in case you didn't know, the rules already allow for the ref to red card a player for faking a foul. Do players still try to get away with it to gain an advantage, yep. Is this any different than any other sport (hockey, basketball etc.), nope. Is it more common in football where 1 goal can make a huge difference between winning and losing, yep. Can you blame proffesionals who have huge stakes put on them for doing everything they can to gain a tactical advantage over their opponents? Not really.

Don't take this to think I'm in favour of diving etc. I'm not and feel it's terrible sportsmanship, but the only way to reduce it is not to make huge changes but to look at things like better/more officials on the field/sidelines making calls. It is an incredibly difficult sport to ref and mistakes do occur. But again how is this different than bad calls in any other sport?

I'm not a serious hockey fan and there are tons of rules (ie. 5 min penalty for fighting) that make no sense to me, does that mean that hockey should change it's game to cater more to Eastern European football fans?

Just a hint.

Its not only Canada or the USA that was totally pissed about the reffing.

Uhm... So when are the finals??? Best of seven???

Are there 3-point shots?
Can you get a point if you kill someone with the ball behind the goal line?
The Spaynes stole the cup, the Old Dutch got their chips barbecued...
From a deflection-corner-kick not allowed, to the game winning goal... What a shame. Not to say the Dutch deserved to win, neither team played well. The Germany-Uruguay was more of a final.

"... the Old Dutch got their chips barbecued..."

obviously grumpyrom...you're a fan...and thus makes it easier to explain things to.

As for me? I played for 20 years (ankles are too shot to play competitively anymore) at various levels.
I've coached, run my own team (manager/player), run clinics, and played with and against some EXTREMELY good players.

I'm not a "fan" in the sense of knowing who players are, and memorizing stats...I'd rather be ON the field than watching from the sidelines.

But I watched about 20 of the 63 games this year. In general...most the referees did a decent job. I've never seen a World Cup tournament that didn't have controversial reffing and/or playing.

So...here goes my opinion on the matter.
Some type of electronic device to determine if a ball is in the goal or out of bounds would not affect the game too much. The RARE time when a player is dribbling down a line and the ball rolls over and back in and the line judge can't see cause feet are in the way...that is when it will come into play. Or those REALLY rare goals like when England scored...but the goalie grabbed the ball so fast...the line judge didn't get down the field fast enough to be sure the ball was in or not. (though it seemed obvious to all the armchair referees watching the camera)

But...no...there should NOT be stoppage, replay, challenge calls, etc. to slow the game down.

MY proposal of removing an player whose injury stops play will not slow the game down either...in fact, it SHOULD speed it up. Here's why:
Currently: a player goes down (for any reason), play is stopped (stoppage clock starts), evaluation is done of the injured player...could take several minutes...usually takes only a few seconds...player usually "recovers", but any momentum from that play is now lost entirely...free kick is taken...play continues...stoppage time added to the end of the half.

Proposal: a player goes down (for any reason), play is stopped (stoppage clock stars), evaluation is done of injured player...as soon as it's safe to move the player the player is removed from the playing field...if a card is issued for the penalty, that player is removed as well (to
keep both teams "even")....play resumes....could all be done in a short time, so momentum could be maintained...when the 5 minutes is up and a trainer/doctor has cleared the player for play...they (and a player penalized from the other team) may simply return to the field.

The REAL idea, is to keep the players from going down in the first place and whining like babies. Yeah..you get a bit of a bump or turn...so you get up immediately and walk it off...you don't lie there writhing about like someone chopped your foot off and stop the play from continuing.

IF, players weren't using the acting as a tactic in the game to begin with, the "Simulation" rule would never have been made. In interviews with some players AND coaches...it was actually being taught to players and encouraged by coaches that if the other team had an advantage, or perhaps on a break-away, to go down and stop play to break that momentum.

After watching the finals this year...that ref handing out yellow-cards like they were candy on Halloween just made it all ridiculous. And cards are SUPPOSED to control the game...but when you have a ref whose doing that...it lets the players control the game...cause they know if they go down the cards will be in play and stop the momentum of the game.

I would estimate that over 1/2 of the cards issued should never have been given...or...they should have been given for Simulation against the opposite team.

Ages,
I have to agree with most of what you have said. I am disappointed in the English ref from the final as for the most part when he is reffing in the Premier League he is outstanding in keeping the game under control without the yellow cards being played. What I would like to say though is this:
Unless the injury is either a head injury or a broken bone, if the team who's player is down has ball advantage, play continues until either the other team gains possesion, the ball leaves the field of play,or a goal is scored. It is up to the referee to stop play for injury and if s/he determines the injury does not warrant a stoppage in play, you play to the whistle. If the injured player interferes with the play then the play must be whistled dead.
I don't agree with the 5 minute concept because it doesn't penalize either team. Usually if a player is injured and requires treatment, the treatment is administered on the field of play until the player can be moved (either by walking off on his/her own, helped by medical staff or carried off by stretcher). The injured player is then allowed back onto the field of play by the referee away from the ongoing play. If the injured player is not that severly injured, s/he will let the ref know that treatment is not required and will get up to "walk it off". If you want to bring in the hockey style penalty concept, then a 2 minute penalty for a yellow card and then sending off for the red card is sufficient. Referees are encouraged to card for "simulation" and there has been quite a few players who have been carded for diving in the past year.
As for more referees and/or video replay, it has already been used successfully and will be used in the upcoming Champions League tournament 2011. Europa League championships used a goal line official to judge goals as well as to assist in questionable offside calls and this is what FIFA is instating in the Champions League as well as leaving it in Europa League. They are also in the process of having it used for Euro 2012 qualifiers as well as international friendlies. I also believe that the English FA is looking at it for Premier League at least and possibly a coupleof the other higher divisions. But what everyone needs to remember, the refs are only human and we all know mistakes are made.

fine the babies 1 Million dollars for every minute they fake. Fine to be imposed after the game is over using video replay.

Deank wrote:fine the babies 1 Million dollars for every minute they fake. Fine to be imposed after the game is over using video replay.

The Italian team would go bankrupt...

I waz talkn' to da boyz...day say it waz fix'd...da refs got paid off. Coulda' happened.

ppht.. no such thing as fixing a soccer game

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/german-prosecutors-about-270-matches-now-under-suspicion-in-corruption-scandal-98406014.html

Dean. You should know I don't just pull stuff out of my ass.

Ok...so 2010 is done, and plans are underway for 2014.

Apparently bids are out for 2018 & 2022.

A new player in 2022 though is interesting...and here's the information about it:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-wcup-qatarbid

The only REAL problem I have with it is this.
This is a Muslim country. I don't mean it has Muslims, I mean the government and most of its laws and policy is BASED upon Muslim beliefs and standards.

Yet...it would seem...they are willing to "ignore" their religion, their faith, their beliefs, in order to host a World Cup event?

According to the article, they already suspend some of them by allowing the hotels to have alcohol.

Which makes me ask the question as to what their motive is?

Now...I can understand if they had rules which only applied to Muslims...but if you or I were to go there on vacation...we'd have to follow them, or face the penalties.

So it's ok to suspend "beliefs" as long as it brings publicity and money?

"Now...I can understand if they had rules which only applied to
Muslims...but if you or I were to go there on vacation...we'd have to
follow them, or face the penalties."

Monaco? I think its Monaco.. cant remember,, anyway.. has Muslim only rules.

Deank wrote:"Now...I can understand if they had rules which only applied to Muslims...but if you or I were to go there on vacation...we'd have to follow them, or face the penalties."

Monaco? I think its Monaco.. cant remember,, anyway.. has Muslim only rules.

not sure how that applies...from the article i read, it's a city/nationwide law applied to all those who are there...not just muslims.

there is one "muslim" country.. cant remember for sure which one, but basically the "mulsimish" laws only apply to muslims. They dont care about non muslims.

Mayor Deank wants the next World Cup Supper, to be held in Winnipeg.

While it would be AWESOME to have that. The reality is we would not sell anywhere close to enough tickets.

Well...that, and technically...the World Cup is hosted by a COUNTRY not a CITY.

heh.. Winnipeg is so damn far away from anywhere else it is like its own country

You missed the fine print... World Cup Supper

Deank wrote:there is one "muslim" country.. cant remember for sure which one, but basically the "mulsimish" laws only apply to muslims. They dont care about non muslims.

I doubt they have two or more sets of laws for different people. You visit the country, you live by its law. Islamic states follow the Sharia law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_World.svg