I still play soccer in a mens league but I think the North American style is much better than the europen style (even if we don't beat them regularly). We rarely see dives and people are strong on the ball. It is similar in hockey as well. At least in the past, europeans were notorious for diving. Just different styles I guess.
Ah... The stigma attached to soccer...
I still play indoor, and everybody plays hard in our league, but I have played with a few fusbol fairies in my time. The toughest league I was in was a Mexican league during my off season at college. My roommates (and teammates) were both Mexican, and I was one of only a few white guys in this league. There were stands clearing brawls, police escorts, and all sorts of crazy stuff at those games. Haha, there was Mexican tuba music blaring in the background at all the games too. Fun times...
their leagues and national team play what i would consider one of the roughest brands of the sport.
I played Sunday League in London for some years and that was completely team/situation dependent. The pickup games i get here in SF these days have lots of Mexicans and they are tough both on and off the ball, the South Americans are a bit more restrained.
I think they should allow more substitutions. Tired players are more inclined to dive and spend an extra minute rolling around on the ground playing up their injury while they catch their breath
I just think there should be more Rooney's and less Ronaldo's. In most cases, the hooligans are tougher than the players...
Not to mention that you'd probably see more goals scored late in games if more substitutes were allowed. I've never really understood the rationale for allowing only three subs when teams carry 23-man rosters. At the least, they should allow an extra sub or two when games go into extra time.
It's just boring to watch
I think American Football is more exciting to watch even though there is more "down time." Every snap can create a scoring play whereas a lot of time in soccer is just spent passing the ball around trying to build a play up.
My friends and I for years have joked about how guys tumble down "like they were shot by an elephant gun."
The sniper visual is priceless!
the greatest soccer gif ever. And I like the Italian team. Well done.
In basketball if a guy flops it's the lead story on SportsCenter and the other coach goes on a rant bitching about the guy who flopped and how "butch league" such a move is. The players and coaches essentially ridicule and call out such a "puss" move, which in turn, keeps such "cheating" to a bare minimum.
In soccer.... "it's part of the game".
You're thinking of the WNBA
Ha! Nice catch
But even "Bush League" could be considered WNBA...
Is that for manly acting people?
When Shaq once tried to flop, huge deal, mainly cuz Shaq fought it his whole career.
Euro guys like Vlade, Ginobli, Varejao (I know he's from south america) do it all the damn time... and often get the calls
I think it's crap in either sport. The worst for me is in BBall when a 170lb guard "knocks down" a 270lb center... that's what's ridiculous to me
...is from South America too. Argentina.
I think that most of the world plays euro rules (not NBA) ball, just like in the olympics, South american countries included. I think they play the same style, and I'll group them all
I see almost as ,any dives in basketball or embelishment in general I guess. A lot of athletes could have been great actors. May have made for better movies.
Some guys get more calls than others
What about Euro guys like Bill Laimbeer?
Are Fisher, Paul Pierce, Raja Bell, Wade, Artest and the whole Duke team from Europe? Because they flop almost as much as the guys you mentioned...
You probably don't watch a lot of basketball...
As you mentioned, players flop in basketball to draw fouls. Wideout's over emphasize being interfered with to draw flags. Hockey players are occasionally known to exagerate. It happens significantly more in soccer but soccer is a little bit different of an animal than the NBA, NFL, and NHL. Soccer is so wide spread that the best players in the world are not condensed to one league. Same thing for the referees. If there was one world premier league that attracted the top players and officials, and if this league received the media attention of our other major leagues, I think the dives would get nipped.
that in other sports, a little dive is generally just to see if you can draw a foul. In soccer, the players tend to flail around like they've just been stabbed.
Just as a casual observer during this world cup, it seems like the refs regularly make calls very late (and poorly for that matter), but I wonder if they flop around for so long because these awful officials sometimes give in and say, "OK, I guess it was a foul."
In reference to the ref's, I haven't found that there are many late calls. In soccer the referee has the ability to allow a team to play "the advantage" and if the foul doesn't result in the team who committed the foul to gain an advantage he can allow them to play on. Sometimes this will take a few seconds and if the team subsequently gains an advantage only after a few seconds the referee can call the foul at that time.
I haven't seen many instances where the ref simply takes too long for no reason to make a call. I have, however, seen many instances where the ref is tricked into making a call because of a dive. On a field that size with one referee it is bound to happen though.
As I said, I am not really a soccer fan, so I did not know about the whole 'advantage' thing. Thanks for the info. Now and can be slightly less aggrevated when I watch a 2 hour match just to see it end in a tie.
The calls come so late because in soccer there is something called advantage. I think its one of the greatest rules in sport. If a foul is commited, but the team that was fouled has the advantage, the call is not made and the game continues. For instance, on a breakaway, if the defender fouls the forward, but the forward continues on with the ball and has a chance to score, the ref doesn't call anything. Because of the advantage call, a lot of times the ref is waiting a few moments to see who has the advantage after a foul before calling anything.
The flopping and acting are ridiculous, but flopping happens in all sports. The acting tends to be a lot worse and more over the top in soccer at times. As was said above, different leagues and cultures have a different amount of diving.
I think one of the reasons you see more diving and acting in soccer is becuase of the ease at which a person can be ejected. By making it seem like a foul was more egregious, a player can cause another to get a yellow or red card. If it works, it is understandble that a player would try it. The refs just have to be quicker to give out yellows for diving and acting. It happened several times in that youtube video posted by the OP.
any different than a delayed penalty in hockey?
Sounds like the exact same thing.
In hockey the call will come eventually whereas in soccer, if the team that was fouled retains possession for more than about 10 seconds the "advantage" runs out and the play will go uncalled.
If it was a cardable offense the player will still get the card when the play stops but the team that was fouled will not get a free kick.
Football also has delayed penalties. Just about every sport I know of has delayed penalties. The main difference is that in almost all other sports the ref has to signal the advantage where as in soccer they tend to play a lot more fast and loose with things. It also makes evaluating the calls by the refs much more difficult. Soccer also tends to be one of the few sports where a ref doesn't have to signal or remark on the actual foul committed and who committed it.
FIFA really needs to clamp down on the refs. As you said a lot of the flopping happens because players are trying to sell things into yellow or red cards, but the reality is that granting of cards and color of cards is by rule independent of the result of the foul if in fact a foul actually occured. Cards are by rule supposed to be issued based on action, not result.
The other problem is that fouls in the box result in penalty kicks. There is tremendous incentive for a player to flop and try to draw a call there. But then there is the problem of refs being so gunshy about calling penalties that far more contact goes on in the box than anywhere else. Some kind of a lesser penalty option needs to be out there, to discourage minor contact without practically gifting a goal to one team.
The Laws already account for this with the indirect free kick. The limitations on awarding of an indirect free kick are pretty much none existent. So far I don't think I've seen or heard of an indirect being issues in the WC though I haven't been able to see/hear every game.
The refs propensity for giving a penalty everytime someone goes down in the box without entertaining the thought of an indirect free kick is a bit odd. It isn't just in the WC either. I rarely see it in any professional league.
I honestly think that if one only watched professional league/international play that it would be quite possible to be totally ignorant that there was such things as the indirect free kick. I really don't understand why they don't give more of them. One of the reason they are in the game is to handle a lot of the grab assing that occurs with things like set plays etc and just general dangerous play.
It is hard to be clear how many they give from 35 yards or greater away from goal because they never signal anything anyway. But the lack of them given within shooting range is a bit mind boggling.
I forgot about the indirect free kick. Referees need to call it more often, though. It seems like the vast majority of the time, contact results in a penalty kick or nothing.
There are very specific things that you may reward an indirect free kick for, just as there are very specific things you may reward a direct kick for.
- Dangerous play (non-contact - if there's contact, it's direct)
- Goalkeeper restrictions (can't pass back to goalie's hands, etc)
- Spitting, kicking, striking, tripping, jumping
Fouls always fall into one of these bullets. Referees cannot give an indirect kick because they think the contact was not serious enough for a direct kick. If there was contact, other than obstruction, it's a direct kick in nature to something listed above.
Furthermore, these fouls must then be quantified as "careless," "reckless," or "serious foul play." Careless fouls simply result in FKs. Reckless fouls result in yellow cards. Fouls considered serious foul play result in red cards.
Indirect kicks in the box are still relatively easy to score. One guy taps it and the second blasts it top shelf just over the wall. I'd guess they're 50-50.
Also, there isn't much discretion in the Laws as to whether to award direct or indirect. An indirect kick is only to be given for "obstruction" (which does not rise to the level of kicking, tripping, holding, pushing, or striking an opponent, as those are direct-kick offenses), dangerous play which is not otherwise a foul, interfering with the goalie when he has the ball in his hands, offsides, violation of the back-pass rule, or when play is stopped solely to hand out a card. Almost any physical-contact foul is a direct kick, and therefore a PK if in the area.
I'd say baseball must be the only real sport then, but yeah, faking hit by pitches. I've seen some great ones before.
As more parks get HD replay boards. After all, a guy doesn't want to be shamed when the replay shows it quite obvious that he was never touched.
Perhaps my sarcasm detector isn't working, but I've been playing, watching, and umpiring baseball most of my life and I think I could probably count on my right hand the number of times I've seen someone fake being hit by a pitch at any level of the sport.
Occasionally you get guys who pretend that they got hit in the foot, but it never involves flailing around.
I also found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigaJ2_MH5Q
You'll notice his teammates aren't even speaking to him as he gets ejected because, frankly, nobody wants a guy who does that on their team.
Hockey players are occasionally known to exagerate.
And every single one that does is looked down upon by the player's peers
misunderstood what I was getting at. No where in my post was I suggesting that I condone flopping in any sport.
The point I was trying to make is that flopping isn't isolated to soccer players. However, in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB, foul play and dirty players are going to get called out. The media will see to it and, as you point out, so will a player's peers. Soccer isn't scrutinized at the same level as our 4 major sports and so it is understandable that flopping is more rampant in soccer.
The problem is this (and they just mentioned it in the RSA - FRA game):
You're not going to get the real calls if you're not willing to sell it. If you get tripped and impeded but don't go down, the ref just isn't going to make the call.
Because of forward progress and letting the players "play on" with the advantage. Which is why there's a lot of acting in soccer. (This is not condoning bush league bs like the flop by the CIV guy who got Kaka double yellow'd)
It should be the same as hockey and the team gets a penalty whenever they gain possession of the ball, regardless if it takes ten minutes to do that.
Also, as you said about refs letting calls go if the player stays on his feet and retains possession or even worse, gets hammered and falls down but his team retains possession. A penalty should be a penalty no matter what (or foul in soccer circumstances).
Some people get reputations too. When Wayne Rooney goes down almomst every ref in the world will blow the whistle immediately. C. Ronaldo on the other hand often really gets mugged but most refs are skeptical (and rightfully so) when he goes to ground.
I'm not completely against trying to sell penalties. Referees have a tendency to be on the stupider side of life, and exagerating an incident where a call should be made either way (Like running into the kicker, where its suppose to be a penalty regardless, but kickers tend to sell it so the ref doesn't miss it).
The problem with soccer is not only do these guys exaggerate contact, that fall to the ground and roll around. If you've ever seen anybody get a REAL injury, they don't squirm around very often, and when they do, it isn't for very long. Rolling around on an "injured leg" doesn't help it. I'd be totally cool with a soccer player playing something up that was a blatant foul in the first place just to make sure its noticed, but for the sake of their dignity, they need to learn to simply fall to the ground or work with the foul. Most punters just make sure they appear unbalanced after a hit and fall down. Hockey players get right back up again and keep going, because if they exaggerate too much, they get called to. If you're going to sell a tripping call (Hopefully a legitimate one), you just trip, get your butt up, and keep playing whether you got the call or not.
I suppose my point here is "Sell, don't flop".
Why not play the game right and go after the ball at all costs? If you get tripped and fall, the whistle will blow regardless of whether you clutch your ankle for 3 minutes or not. If the whistle doesn't blow, it's not going to blow 15 seconds later because you are feigning injury and outrage. In either event, laying on the ground takes you out of the play. People should be scrambling to get up after every fall as fast as possible to take a pass, get a rebound opportunity, etc.
I think these guys forget that there are cameras. If you get elbowed in the chest and clutch your face, the entire world will be making fun of you. If you catch an inadvertent foot/elbow, why fall down at all? Accept that you are playing a sport that involves some contact and play unless you are physically unable to or you believe someone intentionally tried to injure you--in which case you go yell at the ref if they didnt see it. Don't fall down and bring shame upon your sport.
I also saw a guy get carried off in a stretcher after being kicked in the shin, with pads on. lol, just lol. It's sad too, because I like watching soccer...but whenever I watch I can't help but make fun of everything.
If you get tripped and fall, the whistle will blow regardless of whether you clutch your ankle for 3 minutes or not. If the whistle doesn't blow, it's not going to blow 15 seconds later because you are feigning injury and outrage.
Except a lot of times, that's exactly how it works.
especially for the world cup, because every game is under such a microscope:
FIFA reviews each game. If you get caught diving or embellishing, especially in the box, you're out for the next game. Retroactive red card. Simulation is really hard to police live, especially with only one referee within 35 yards of the play most of the time. The NBA has enough trouble with 3 refs within 30 feet of the play. So make it easier to enforce, and make it a stiffer penalty.
Either that, or someone just breaks Ronaldo's leg the next time he dives. I think a lot of people would get behind that.
As a soccer ref, I can attest to how difficult it can be to determine live if something really is a dive or not.
As both a ref and fan, I am 100% for the use of video review after the game to retroactively issue cards to obvious divers. Get it done, FIFA.
Probably need some new leadership at FIFA before this happens...
Which is why when back in the day I did some reffing for soccer, I never called anything I didn't see. Doesn't matter if someone gets hurt and is on the ground, if I didn't see it, I cannot legally make a call in accordance with Law 12.
but you are talking about soccer as if it is somehow intertwined with the criminal justuce system. They are considered rules, not laws. Also, as a ref you have the ability to consult with your line judges in regard to plays that you may have missed. That is within the scope of the rules.,
No, they are Laws. http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html. If you don't like it, complain to FIFA.
Thanks for enllightening me. I guess it is just me that considers something that governs a game to be different than something that governs society. I stand corrected good sir. I won't complain to FIFA however. I don't think they make it a practice of listening to people.
I would also do this in standard pro soccer games, not just the Cup. They should also probably add another official behind the goal at each end. These could be older retired referees because they would not have to run so much. These new guys and the linesmen should be able to call fouls, just as the lesser officials in football can.
Despite getting no complaints (and, I think, a fair amount of praise of the system), they decided not to do it in the World Cup. Why I can only imagine, although if the refs they have now are the best of the best I can't imagine how bad the guys they'd have to add to fill the ranks are. (It's the CCHA conundrum: are four bad refs on the ice at one time better than three?)
Not only do they get a retroactive red card, their team goes one down to start the next match.
Kaka deserved to be sent off - he lowered his shoulder into a player who didn't see Kaka. Whether or not the guy who went down (forgot his name) embellished it (and he did) is irrelevent - there's no reason to lower your shoulder into someone, especially when you're away from the play and double especially when the dude doesn't see it coming.
Plus Kaka dives like no ones business; I was happy to see him sent off.
but I don't agree that he deserved to be sent off. If he lowered his shoulder, it was by a miniscule amount. The guy just ran inot him. Period. Another incident that should have been dealt with differently. The ref had obviously lost control of the game and saw an opportunity to send a message to the players by sending a star off the pitch. I don't think any of the officials even saw the bump and simply gave the yellow based on some tool rolling around on the ground.
A guy doing what Kaka doesn't deserve to be sent off if he has played a clean game up to that point but Kaka was on a yellow already. You have to play smarter than that when you are a star player. After watching the replay several times on my DVR I agree with the above poster, it should have been carded, and since he was on a yellow, tough shit for him.
A big part of the problem is the lack of officials on the field. The ref can be 30 yards away in a soccer game, which makes flopping both necessary (if you were actually fouled) and profitable (if you really weren't). Hockey has two officials that call penalties in a much smaller space. If FIFA would wise up and add more manpower to the games, flopping would decrease dramatically.
They could also help this by allowing the line judges to have more authority or train them to exercise it more often. For instance, if the ref calls something from 30 yards away that the line judge clearly sees to be incorect, they should be able to consult with the ref to ensure that the correct call is made. They may have this power already, but it is rarely utilized.
this should especially come into play when the ref is giving out a card. Too me, that is one of the biggest problems wiht the game - too many cards. Calling a lot of fouls (incorrectly) is one thing, but when you give the offender a card on top of it, it starts getting ridiculous. I played soccer all the way through high school and can count on one hand the number of yellow cards I recieved through my whole career. It is ridiculous that my high schoolmatches were more physical than any match at the elite levels.
No offense but I find it hard to believe that your HS matches were more physical than the proffessional leagues of europe. The EPL particularly plays a physical brand of football, one where slide tackles occur at an amazing rate. Soccer (at least English soccer) is very physical.
The thing about cards in soccer is they are usually reserved for a serious infraction or a player who committs many minor infractions. The fact that it is subjective stinks, but most times the refs do a decent job of things. My point is it isn't always one play that gets the player a card. Often times it is the fact that he has committed a number of minor fouls and the ref is tired of it.
I agree with you on the line judges though, they should be taken more seriously. Most refs don't pay a lot of attention to them and overrule any call they try to make (other than offsides or out of bounds).
minor stuff happens all the time and is just part of paying competitively. There is no reason to hand out a yellow card for it. As it is most refs are generally violating the letter of rule 12 in many of the direct kicks they give.
That's incorrect. One of the main reasons cautions (yellow cards) should be given is "persistant infringement of the laws."
You can accidently trip someone while attacking in the most innocent manner possible. But if it's your sixth foul of the game you should be given a yellow card if you haven't already.
No you shouldn't be given a yellow just because it is your 6th foul. If it is obvious that you are committing fouls to get advantage or out of carelessness, fine, but there are lots of fairly reasonable circumstances where a player will get called for a lot of minor fouls simply due to circumstance.
It was said above but I guess you missed it. The rule book states that persistent violation of the rules is grounds for a card. That is plain and simple/black and white. Some fouls are bad enough to warrant cards the first time they are committed, but it is within the rules of the game for an official to give a card based on a players performance and violations of the rules throughout the game.
If a player commits 10 fouls over the course of a 90 minute game with 50-60 possible incidents of violation, then that is not persistent but occasional. That's simply just part of the game and random chance. Esp if the match is moving at a fast pace with lots of challeges for control of the ball you would expect more fouls in general. The persisent option is there in the same way that football has the unfair advantage clauses, etc. Incidental fouls, even if large in number do not rise to the occation of the yellow card.
I am no longer going to debate this with you. I will simply close by saying this is used consistently in every professional soccer league. No ref would let a player get away with 10 fouls in a game (no matter how minor in nature) without giving them a card.
I have said before that soccer is quite subjective in reference to the officiating but you may be the only official I have ever heard interpret the rules that way. Watch more of the world cup and tell me if I am wrong in my opinion. Numerous fouls (6 or more) will get a player carded everytime. That is the way professional refs interpret the rules.
I'm aware how some of the so called professional refs do it. In general they are fairly bad and let things get so out of hand they have no other resort than to start issuing yellow cards. If they did their jobs appropriately and handed out more minor fouls they wouldn't have the issues they have.
But the wording is the wording and the word Persistent has a pretty clear definition.
From the NFHS rule book:
Rule (Law) 12-8.8.1 ... A player, coach, or bench personnel shall be cautioned (yellow card) for:
b. persistent infringement of any of the rules of the game
I guess you can argue about what exactly "persistent" means, but every officials I've talked to, worked with, have trained, have been trained by, etc would agree that in only the rarest of occasions can 4ish fouls not be considered persistent. For me, it's three. I'll give you two careless plays. Maybe I'll give you a third if one really was innocent. But if you can't stop fouling after getting caught 2 or 3 times, you can go sit (taking a HS look here).
And, yes, this assumes some type of time limits. 3 over 80 minutes isn't terrible. However, I'm unlikely to remember a specific player doing that. 3 in one half is pushing it big time. 3 in 20 minutes and you're easily sitting. 3 in 35 minutes, you're probably cautioned. As the players get better, the more strict this gets.
Considering that 20 fouls for a team in a full 90 minutes is usually a pretty physical game (France and South Africa combined for 22), 10 fouls in 90 minutes by a single player is well beyond persistent.