Ah... The stigma attached to soccer...
I played soccerthrough college, and most the games I played were gritty and hard fought. Unfortunately this is why most Americans think soccer is a girly-girl sport. Maybe perception is closer to reality than I'd like to believe. We already saw the dive to send Kaka off and numerous other embellishments in the WC.
FIFA needs to do something about the diva mentality of some of these guys. I thought it was the bodybuilders who lost their stones, not the soccer players...
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.