pwnage! totally agree. and ill try to make an argumant with u, but im jes a kid so... here goes...

This organigzation seems to encourage these behaviors with lack of instant replay.

Instant replay would be good because

1. It would almost completely eliminate blown calls and unsportsmanlike behaviors

2. It would help modernise the game, and perhaps draw some more fan base from people like me who absolutely despise blown calls

3. It would really be 'for the good of the game' which seems to be FIFA's logo.

So, you people who disagree with me, read this one more time and maybe read some of the other comments.

Soccer would benefit greatly from a change in the offsides rules that encouraged the offensive players to move without the ball to get behind the defense and score which is actually illegal in soccer and the point of most other games.

It would also benefit greatly from the elimination of ties.

You can call soccer the "beautiful game" all you want. Nothing beats lazing around on a hot July evening catching 9 innings.

Oh, and ALL games would benefit from cheerleaders.

epiphonepunk07 , you rock!

". broken nose? no biggie. blood spewing from your mouth, nose, a cut? we walk it off."

F that, hammers, baseball is even more boring than soccer.  American football is exciting as hell, though.  Think it would be cool if the world got in to it a little more.  I'm not really sure about all the other sports we Americans don't play like Rugby and Cricket since I frankly don't know the rules too well...Rugby looks like a good ol' fashioned grusome sport.  Cricket looks boring as hell though.  Like baseball on a smaller field.

As for SpaceOddity I give your article a solid "LOL.  Truth."  I especially like the rant on shootouts.  It would be the equivalent of having a tie in Basketball and then saying "alright guys, to decide this game we're going to play some knockout."  I think soccer fans laud shootouts and "the hand of God" so much because even THEY'RE bored of it.  It's like they're saying without saying "finally something that can be construed as soccer that I don't have to fake excitement for."

Americans please stick to throw ball with hard hats and padding.

Janefonda (aka, Matt Lewis from Boston--sorry about those Celtics),

thank you for your comment.  It is unclear what a 'pathetic' argument is here . An argument can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound.  You are welcome to clarify which and why. If you have the intellectual capacity to do so, of course.  Of course, running around and calling people who disagree with you 'retarded' is a good way of demonstrating your lack of maturity and your lack of a capacity to formulate an argument of your own.  If you want to defend soccer, then hit me with your best shot.  Is that the best you can do?

seeing as how your arguments are pathetic i'm just going to call you a retard

Epiphone,

Thanks for the comments...but vision science is more complex than that.  I worked with one of the world's leading perception experts back in college.  The point about soccer is simple though--the lines judge or ref would have to move his head back and forth and never actually SEE what is happening at the EXACT moment the ball is passed and where the defender is relative to the offender.  Also, keep in mind what happens if there are deflections, and how that impacts the offsides rule, and if you can reasonably expect a ref to see the deflections (sometimes the deflections are so slight).

Lastly, I can simply give examples.  If calling offsides is so easy, and if FIFA got the best refs in the world for the World Cup (as they claim), then why have so many botched offsides calls (and other calls) been made? 

Of course, the refs are doing as good a job as can be reasonably expected--and therein lies the problem.  ITS NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE to *see* the events required to *see* offsides.  IF you can't SEE offsides, how can you reliably call offsides?

Thanks for the comments guys.  But just to be clear--my thesis is NOT that soccer is inferior to other sports.  The only reference to other sports is that their governing bodies have the intelligence to CHANGE and ADAPT the rules to common sense, technology, and the demands of the game.  That is where FIFA fails, and so why soccer suffers.

Soccer players flop all the time because:

 1) the ref has the impossible demand of running around the entire field trying to spot fouls he can't possibly *see* because he's too far away and the action is too fast.

2) players get tired--because of the lack of substitutions--and so flopping and lying on the ground is a way of RESTING, thus slowing the game down and making it boring.

3) Flopping wastes time.  Sure, the ref keeps track of his own time, but players still feel like they can waste time flopping, so they do it.  If you are fan, then it's a waste of your time to watch these millionaire athletes pretend they have career-ending injuries every five minutes.

My article is not about why I hate strawberry ice cream but love vanilla.  It is about why the rules of the game naturally lead to certain forms of behavior that should be avoided; why the rules should be changed; and why some rules, such as offsides, cannot even be *seen* by the ref (or lines judge) much of the time because of the LAWS OF PHYSICS and the laws of VISION SCIENCE.

If you have a problem with my arguments, then spell it out.  But i have arguments, not mere opinion.  Read my comments below for clarifications.

I should also add that I wrote this blog long before MOST of the controversies that have infected this World Cup.  If you hate FIFA, then this was the best World Cup ever--SO many blown calls, especially offsides.  If it's so easy to see, then how do refs blow the OBVIOUS calls? the ones that take 4 seconds to look at on instant replay.  And some would not even require instant replay, they are so obvious, it's just that the ref (and lines judges) weren't paying attention--the action was too fast for them. 

One blown call after another, goals allowed that shouldn't have been goals, goals taken away from offsides, even a goal taken away because the ball bounced in, bounced out, and the ref was too busy watching players flop, watching for offsides, watching the hot brazilian girl in the stands, etc, and missed the call.  Just terrible officiating--and these are the BEST REFS in the soccer world.  This isn't a league of children in the suburbs--this is the highest level of soccer, and they botch MAJOR calls practically EVERY game.  It's a disgrace to sport.

My revisions and suggestion for how to improve soccer are in the name of JUSTICE and FAIRNESS.  Only if you are against justice and fairness could you be against my suggestions.

Americans let go hit each other with a stick of hockey

hey, don't forget the wonderful slow motions we get in Soccer.  I mean, the slow-motion goalie yelling at his team, a player falling into grass in slow motion (WOW THAT IS AWESOME!!!) and the slow-motion action of 3 guys going for a header (LONG SWEATY MALE HAIR WAVING IN WIND!  NOW THAT IS GREAT CONTENT FOR SLOW MOTION!!)

Soccer has terrible rules thanks to it's relentless refusal to evolve.  Take note of some of the other slow-moving sports.  Volleyball evolved into rally scoring.  Hockey evolved its rules to promote scoring.  

Soccer has zero manhood.  Soccer has no pride, guts, or glory.  It blows my mind, considering it is one of the oldest, global sports.  You would think it would be more of a gladiator sport, with men fighting it out in honor of their country.  Why is it the exact opposite?

Man, there is ZERO entertainment value to soccer.  I friggen hate it.  I'd rather be stranded on an island with an Oprah porno on vhs than watch one more minute of this pathetic display of (wo)manhood.

Good article. 

hahaha, that was such a great breakdown of soccer. Had me laughing hard, but its all so TRUE!

funny stuff....great arugment.

but...the side judge actually keeps his eye on the ball mostly, glancing only to make sure hes where hes supposed to be in relation to the defender. so he DOES see when the ball is kicked. now the speed that the average human eye percieves things is .004 seconds. thats why, in baseball for instance, players can see a small object moving upwards of 100mph. (btw i know the .004 sec cause the blown first base call in baseball that ruined the tiger pitcher perfect game.) the human eye can obviously move extreamly fast. so when the ball is kicked the ref looks at where players are and thats the determination. its easy to call because the human body as a whole cant move nearly as fast as the eye. i.e. if a players offside now, he was offside .004 seconds ago. ofcourse calls get missed but thats natural. the problem isnt THAT rule in particular, which CAN be called with some measure of acuracy at game speed. its the "we dont want replay because we said so" mentallity that fifa has thats the problem. 3 year olds have a more mature persepective on life than that. anyway....funny blog, who cares what the haters say....like the guy from serbia bashing you that said americans dont like soccar because we suck at it....serbia didnt even make it outta group stage...just saying.

plus instant replay wouldnt slow down the game. celebrations for a goal last like a minute and a half, where a replay to determine if a goal was in fact a goal can be generated,reviewed, have a ruling made and radioed to the ref in about 15 secs. the same goes with offsides. i LIKE the way time is kep in soccar BUT they add lost time back on at the end of the half ANYWAY....yet theres no way to say "well we reviewed 1 goal and an offside it took 40 sec well add a minute of stoppage time cause who really knows EXACTLY when the refs gonna blow the whistle anyway"

thats one of the bigger problems. a game has 3 minutes of stopage time at the end, nothing happens and its blown final at 92:54. another has the same amount of stoppage time added, nothing special happens, and its 94 minutes+. really?

but all these things and all the reasons you "hate" soccer are nothing. the reason americans REALLY dont watch soccer is: no one likes a sissy.

take ice hockey. the goal is to put a small object into a net thats guarded by a goalie to score a point. games are generally low scoring in nature and in some cases, end in a draw. very very similar idea huh. yet hockey is far far more popular in america. why?

because people get smashed into walls at high speeds, hit in the face with sticks, slamed on to ice, and yes in some cases...theres a fist fight. but its not the voilence that makes it popular. its the fact that, like football sometimes basketball, when a player takes a big hit, they get up and get back to playing. broken nose? no biggie. blood spewing from your mouth, nose, a cut? we walk it off.

yet in soccer, if you get lightly brushed on the shoulder, it is common place to fall to the ground and wryth in pain as the angwish from such a devestating blow renders you incapacitated. actually you dont really need to be brushed, it just has to look like it could have happend...if you were standing at an angle..and that brazilen cheerleader had taken the refs attention from the game....

soccer players fall for ANYTHING. thats not what americans look for. we like toughness, heart, grit, determantion. THATS why soccer in its current form will never be popular in america.

Maddfunn writes:

"With all your criticisms on the offside rule have you ever paused to think how difficult it is to call and offside???? I am a soccer refferee and i can tell you that it isnt difficult to call an offside."

It's very easy to *call* offsides--you blow a whistle or wave a flag--that is not the problem.  And as I say in my blog, and in my comments below, the problem is that when the offsides is not completely obvious, it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually *SEE*.  Please reread my parts of the blog above and comments below to other posters who fail to appreciate the subtlety of my argument.  As a matter of scientific perceptual FACT, it is physically impossible for a human being to look at THREE distinct events in different spatio-temporal locations the EXACT SAME TIME.  I understand the line's judge runs up and down the side of the field to watch for offsides.  But he cannot at the very same time see a ball passed from the other side of the field while also seeing at the same time where the offender is relative to the defender, especially since they are often running in opposite directions.  The best he can do is turn his head REALLY FAST and then GUESS if the player was offsides or not.  the problem is not that the referees are fallible--that is trivially true because all human beings are fallible--but that the rule itself imposes an IMPOSSIBLE burden on the referee.  And that is why there have been COUNTLESS blown off-sides calls and non-calls in the World Cup, and this creates a gross INJUSTICE.  The easiest way to fix this problem is to institute instant replay, yet FIFA opposes this for reasons that are utterly stupid.  And that's why I wrote the blog. 

Please explain to me how a human being can see THREE DISTINCT events AT THE SAME TIME.  Please show me how I'm wrong about that.  If I'm not wrong about that, then I'm not wrong in arguing that the off-sides rule, as currently enforced without instant replay, is a piss-poor rule. 

This seems to be a rant that explains how single minded you are. With all your criticisms on the offside rule have you ever paused to think how difficult it is to call and offside???? I am a soccer refferee and i can tell you that it isnt difficult to call an offside. The whole point of a goal in soccer is because it IS singular, unlike basketball a goal is SPECIAL. You claim that in soccer the refferees should be perfect, then shouldnt we ban every sport?

I didn't read the entire article.  I watch soccer every 2 years and it is a beautiful
game but the rules are not to my liking.  Did you mention those yellow and red
cards and how a team like Germany can lose a star for a semifinal match?

Mastafade,

I obviously know that there are side judges who's sole purpose in life, since birth no doubt, was to run up and down the sidelines to call offsides.  The lines judge needs to keep track of THREE distinct events AT THE SAME time happening (sometimes) on OPPOSITES sides of the field.  I played organized soccer for several years and understand the game.  That doesn't change the fact that you  need THREE EYEBALLS to actually SEE offsides.  Read my other comments on the subject.  If you can show I'm wrong, please do so. Instead, you disagree with the FACTS.  The facts are against you.

How is it HUMANLY possible for anybody to actually SEE at the SAME TIME a ball being passed on one side of the field while an offender is trying to run past the defense, and the defense is running in the opposite direction to induce offsides, while the ball is being kicked on the other side of the field?   when that happens, it is NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE to see offsides.  Nothing you or anybody else has said anything to argue to the contrary.  And so my original argument stands.  Offsides, as it is currently enforced by FIFA (without instant replay) is a PISS POOR RULE.  Soccer, therefore, is a PISS POOR sport.  show me what's wrong with my argument.  Sure, you and lots of people love soccer.  fine.  but show me what's wrong with my argument. 

could not agree more. the perfect sport ruined by some really, really stupid rules. 

you know why we love 'soccer' cos you yank morons hate it..and anything the yanks hate has to be good!

were you the chubby kid scoring all those goals standing offside? Is that the reason why you got disheartened when you learned about the offsides rule and had to face the brutal reality you could never be a soccer pro? At least you found solitude in the fact that you won't miss out on all the cheerleaders :) 

Anbu,

You don't actually address the specific argument I have for why it is not reasonable to expect accuracy in calling offsides for whenever it is not obvious.  In fact, what you write supports my thesis that it so difficult to accurately enforce, that instant replay should be used.  I could repeat my argument, but go up to my blog and re-read the (3) on offsides.  There are THREE distinct events that have to be seen AT THE SAME TIME.  I already know that there are side judges whose job it is to call offsides.  To actually *SEE* offsides, at one and the same time you need to see:

1) when the ball is passed--that could be all the way on the other side of the field sometimes

2) where the offender is standing who will eventually receive the pass

3) where the nearest defender is standing relative to the offender AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THAT THE BALL IS PASSED.

So yes, when it's obvious, it's obvious, but when it's not obvious, it's just IMPOSSIBLE to actually SEE.  The side judge doesn't SEE the offsides, he DEDUCES and GUESSES and SPECULATES.  But it is PHYSICALL IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to see all three events happen at the same time.  It is easy to *deduce* offsides, sometimes, but you can't reasonably expect a human being to be able to SEE offsides when it's not obvious.  This is not something debatable, that is open to opinion. That is plain old FACT.  The best thing a ref can do is look up and down the field as quickly as possible once a pass is made.  But that's not good enough--that's not the same as actually SEEING the offsides. 

The argument about 'slowing the game down' is ridiculous.  Just add up the time that is wasted from players flopping all the time, lying on the ground, faking an injury, and then popping right back up once the paramedics arrive.  They flop all the time BECAUSE THERE IS NO INSTANT REPLAY.  If there were instant replays, you could PUNISH floppers, and quickly and legitimately reward players who get tripped up.  And to say that what distinguishes soccer from other sports is that they are incredibly sloppy with the time controls, and so don't stop the clock when the action is stopped (oh, of course, the ref keeps his OWN time, on his own whim) is a really crazy thing to say.  What distinguishes soccer from other sports is that you DONT TOUCH THE BALL WITH YOUR HANDS.  THAT is what distinguishes soccer from other sports.  (unless, of course, you're Diego Maradona).  The reason why NO OTHER SPORT is as sloppy with time as soccer is because all other sports that have clocks are run by governing bodies other than  FIFA, which is to say their governing bodies adjust the rules and regulations with technology.  In short, they are not medieval purists who feel threatened by common sense. 

So you *like* the fact that the clock doesn't stop when a player is faking an injury?  "Oh, but the ref is keeping time." well the clock DOES stop for all practical purposes.  You're contradicting yourself, as do other people who make that weak 'soccer is special because it's free flowing and has no stoppage in the action' argument.  It's total BS.  Soccer is interrupted every five minutes by diva dives and blown calls, and arguments over the blown calls and players wasting time by kicking it back to the goalkeeper.

To prevent time wasting like that, the NBA instituted the back court violation.  you can't kick the ball backwards past the half-court line.  Soccer should do the same thing.  Reforming the offsides rule in the way I suggest would not turn soccer into basketball, it would simply open up the game for more action and force defenders to actually PLAY DEFENSE instead of playing let's-get-the-offense-offsides-while-waving-our-arms-in-the-air-to-signal-offsides-to-the-ref.

And penalty kick shootouts---ITS NOT EVEN SOCCER.  They might as well flip a coin or play bingo.  If you like penalty kick shootouts, then just start a new sport--penalty-kick shootouts.  It would be more exciting than soccer, but don't confuse it with soccer.  Shootouts are NOT soccer. 

The rest of the world is in love with 'football' because they have no other sport to cling to.  It's a popular sport because it's very inexpensive to play.  But Americans are justified in not liking soccer as much as other sports because other sports change with the times, adjust the rules to keep the game exciting, and use technology to make the game FAIR.  That is the basic, common sense reason for having instant reply.  You wan't to REWARD the team that actually succeeds in putting the ball into the goal and NOT reward teams for diva diving, flopping, faking injuries, or deceive the refs into making bad calls (including offsides).  FAIRNESS and JUSTICE are why FIFA should have instant replay.  Just common sense reason for instant replay.  Why would anybody be against FAIRNESS? Against JUSTICE?  England lost 4-1 to Germany, and perhaps they would've lost anyway, but it should've been 2-2 earlier in the game, and psychologically, and practically, it's very difficult to comeback from having a clear goal taken away. 

The reason for using instant replay in that situation is that FAIRNESS and JUSTICE are GOOD, and unfairness and injustice are BAD.  If you agree with that statement, then you should be in favor of instant replay.  If FAIRNESS slows down the game by about 5 minutes per half, big frigging deal.  Teams spend four years and millions of dollars just to be eliminated from the tournament because the ref is too far away from the goal to actually see the ball go in it.  That's just utterly stupid.

(To answer your last question--I played organized soccer growing up, and I attended World Cup and MLS games.  Soccer is fun to play, but FIFA needs to bring the sport up to the 21st Century).