Women\'s World Cup

[Wolfman]

Had fun watching the Brazil game and today\'s final against Japan.  Very surprised that the US came so undone in the final shootout.  Ah well, overall this tournament a pleasant surprise.  I certainly didn\'t plan to watch any when the tournament started and ended up watching 2 very good games.

[Drew_Kingsley]

Having been on both sides of the equation over the last 10 days, I feel that the United States is uniquely qualified to note that PK shootouts are stupid.

I understand why they are necessary after 120 minutes of soccer, but it sucks that three (out of eight) teams in the "knockout rounds" saw their World Cup hopes crushed on what is essentially a coin-flip.

[Wolfman]

I understand why they are necessary after 120 minutes of soccer, but it sucks that three (out of eight) teams in the "knockout rounds" saw their World Cup hopes crushed on what is essentially a coin-flip.

I agree.  The best solution is simply to allow unlimited subbing throughout the game from a 20-man roster, just like high school soccer.  This way any tournament OT could be an untimed next-goal-wins scenario played with reasonably fresh players, just like playoff hockey OT.  And we all know there is nothing better than playoff hockey OT.  The 3 subs per game limit in soccer is the most fundamentally flawed rule in soccer.  In fact, IMO this rule is tied with fouling out in basketball for the most fundamentally flawed rule in any sport.

[zuke583]

The 3 subs per game limit in soccer is the most fundamentally flawed rule in soccer.  In fact, IMO this rule is tied with fouling out in basketball for the most fundamentally flawed rule in any sport.

any idea what the thought is behind the rule in soccer? and why do you think fouling out in basketball is fundamentally flawed?

[Wolfman]

The 3 subs per game limit in soccer is the most fundamentally flawed rule in soccer.  In fact, IMO this rule is tied with fouling out in basketball for the most fundamentally flawed rule in any sport.

any idea what the thought is behind the rule in soccer? and why do you think fouling out in basketball is fundamentally flawed?

There\'s no real thought behind either rule.  Whoever invented the original rules just got a little too carried away.  These rules were likely made during drunken discussions:    

Basketball original rule maker #1: "OK, so we\'ve got the fouls.  If a player commits a foul, the other team gets the ball."    
Basketball original rule maker #2: "Right.  And if a player commits a foul on an opponent while the opponent is shooting, then we have the foul shots!"
#1: "Yes! And if it\'s a really bad foul, then we do the foul shots AND the other team gets the ball!"
#2 (way too drunk and excited): "Perfect!  And how about if the same guy makes a foul five times in a game, he\'s ejected from the game?!"
#1 (also getting carried away): "Oooh I like that one!  Yeah yeah!"

Fouling out in basketball is one of the stupidest rules in sports.  Basketball fouls are routine infractions of basic gameplay.  Automatically ejecting players for routine gameplay infractions is asinine.  The equivalent would be ejecting a soccer player for playing the ball out of bounds fives times in a game, or automatically ejecting a hockey player for getting three 2-minute penalties in a game.  Too many close basketball games are determined in the last minutes with good or best players ejected simply for playing defense throughout the game.  Personal fouls should not even be tracked.  Maybe a good compromise would be to make every personal foul on a player after the 5th a technical foul, but the player is not ejected from the game and can still play offense and contribute on defense.  

There is no good reason for the substitution limit in soccer.  It\'s just a mistake that will probably never get fixed due to sports puritanism.  Every other whole-squad sport on earth has unlimited substitutions (hockey, basketball, football, lacrosse, field hockey, Ultimate...the list goes on).  If soccer had unlimited subs then there would be a LOT more action throughout the game and less walking and stalling by the players on the field trying to recover.  Subs should be allowed on your own throw-ins and corners and on anybody\'s goal kick, just like in high school and youth soccer.

[Drew_Kingsley]

I had never thought about that in basketball, Wolf. Maybe expand the definition of a flagrant foul - treat it more like soccer\'s "yellow card" - but get rid of fouling out.

As far as international soccer, I think they need to get rid of stopping time. In NCAA soccer, there is no extra time, but the clock stops after a goal or when a player is injured. This would get rid of the flopping that ruins the last 5-10 minutes of any one-goal match.

[kindm's]

If you were allowed to foul unlimited in basketball it would allow teams to simply implore the hack shaq technique when it comes to defense

by eliminating players who continue to foul it minimizes the impact that this technique can have.

It would be the same in hockey if you could fight the whole game. In hockey if you get in more than 2 fights in the same game you are ejected and an automatic 1 game suspension

it eliminates thuggish and goon like tactics.

by having players foul out it forces players to have to keep their game under control or it will cost their team.

Soccer needs sudden death overtime. this whole lets play 30 minutes and everyone gets a chance crap is stupid. It reminds me of soccer in the states where the whole participation and everyone gets a trophy mentality began.

[wildcoyote]

There is no good reason for the substitution limit in soccer.  It\'s just a mistake that will probably never get fixed due to sports puritanism.  Every other whole-squad sport on earth has unlimited substitutions (hockey, basketball, football, lacrosse, field hockey, Ultimate...the list goes on).  If soccer had unlimited subs then there would be a LOT more action throughout the game and less walking and stalling by the players on the field trying to recover.  Subs should be allowed on your own throw-ins and corners and on anybody\'s goal kick, just like in high school and youth soccer.

Here\'s why substitution limits are a good idea- NFL field goal kickers. A brutal, physical football game can be decided by a 180 pound pip squeak coming of the bench to do the one (and only) part of the game he can do exceptionally well. It\'s not right that the players who\'ve been busting their asses all game have to stand by a hope while someone who\'s been hanging out on the sideline all game in a jacket decides their fate.

In rugby there are also strict substitution rules.  The rugby equivalent of an extra point or field goal must be attempted by a player who was already on the field.  Often different players attempt different types of kicks. Some have a stronger foot, others more accurate.

Imagine an NFL clock winding down Pats/Colts and knowing it would be Wes Welker attempting the game winning field goal.

[Wolfman]

If you were allowed to foul unlimited in basketball it would allow teams to simply implore the hack shaq technique when it comes to defense

by eliminating players who continue to foul it minimizes the impact that this technique can have.

Do you know about team fouls and the double bonus?  Your logic doesn\'t work because these systems are in place.  Teams cannot just foul like crazy.  If you\'re still worried, an alternative can be an automatic tech for every team foul after 10 in a half and any personal foul after the 5th on the same player.  But ejecting players for personal fouls is still asinine.  In any other sport you have to do something totally egregious to get ejected.  basketball is the only sport where you get ejected for routine gameplay infractions.

It would be the same in hockey if you could fight the whole game.

Not even close to the same.  Fighting the whole game risks serious injury to players and casts a bad light on the game.  Touch-fouls in basketball for routine defense do neither.

by having players foul out it forces players to have to keep their game under control or it will cost their team.

Please.  Do you watch the NBA?  Do you see the meaningless actions that guys get called for?  Even when a foul is deserved, grazing a guy\'s forearm while you\'re trying to block a shot is not an issue of "keeping your game under control" that warrants ejection.

Soccer needs sudden death overtime. this whole lets play 30 minutes and everyone gets a chance crap is stupid.

This I can agree with.

There is no good reason for the substitution limit in soccer.  It\'s just a mistake that will probably never get fixed due to sports puritanism.  Every other whole-squad sport on earth has unlimited substitutions (hockey, basketball, football, lacrosse, field hockey, Ultimate...the list goes on).  If soccer had unlimited subs then there would be a LOT more action throughout the game and less walking and stalling by the players on the field trying to recover.  Subs should be allowed on your own throw-ins and corners and on anybody\'s goal kick, just like in high school and youth soccer.

Here\'s why substitution limits are a good idea- NFL field goal kickers. A brutal, physical football game can be decided by a 180 pound pip squeak coming of the bench to do the one (and only) part of the game he can do exceptionally well. It\'s not right that the players who\'ve been busting their asses all game have to stand by a hope while someone who\'s been hanging out on the sideline all game in a jacket decides their fate.

Hmmm....You make a good case for eliminating kicking from football, but not for eliminating kickers.  As long as kicking is part of the game, then the best kicker a team can get should kick.  Nobody wants to watch receivers shank 25-yard field goals.  Furthermore, your no-kickers theory has a major problem when it comes to kickoffs.  The game would be completely undermined if only regular position players could take kickoffs and thus kickoffs rarely went deeper than the opponent\'s 25-yard line.  You could use your same logic to argue for the elimination of hockey goalies: a brutal, physical game being decided by a guy who only does one thing well and needs to be physically protected by everyone else on the team.  But I know you would not argue for the elimination of hockey goalies, because that would be ridiculous.  Specialists are part of some sports.  It\'s OK.  Something tells me you played TE/LB in high school and your kicker missed an easy kick in a huge game?