Master Index of Archived Threads


Why American Fans Don't Like Soccer

MFS62 Jun 10 2006 06:31 PM

Just my observation. What most of the rest of the world finds appealing is the basic reason why I think soccer has not been taken to heart by American fans. Its non-stop action. I may have posted this before (and probably in better words. But please bear with me). The reason American fans don't like soccer is because it deprives fans who have grown up watching baseball, (US and Canadian) football and hockey of their greatest pleasure - the opportunity to second guess the coach/ manager for tactical, in-game decisions. Think of guys sitting around the bar watching the game. In baseball, they can make comments like: He shoulda' bunted He shoulda' taken the pitcher out He shoulda' pinch hit for that bum He shoulda' hit and run In football: He shoulda' passed He shoulda' run He shoulda' gone for it, rahter than punting In hockey: (I'm reaching) He shoulda' kept the first line in there He shoulda' pulled the goalie when he gave up the third goal That guy shouldn't be on the penalty killing unit All of those decisions are situational. But in soccer, the coach has no apparent in-game input. So there are no specific moves the fans can second-guess. The strategy is set before the game and during half time. That's it. I know there may be some subtle adjustments made possible by the infrequent in-game substitutions, but there is no direct, immediate result visible from those types of situational moves. Maybe if they started taking in-game commercial breaks, it would make us happier. After all, at least it would the coach the opportunity to call a set play we could disagree with later. And it would give us an opportunity to order that refill. Later

metirish Jun 10 2006 07:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 10 2006 07:26 PM

I get what you are trying to say but soccer is such a spontaneous sport where the great players are allowed to perform and invent the unimaginable, having a coach call a set play goes against everything soccer is about, a coach in soccer does his best work in the training ground, some coaches are defensive minded, some are all about offence, the Dutch in the 70's invented what was dubbed " total football", of course any coach can only play with the players he has, if like Brazil you have a tradition of greatness then you are expected to play beautiful, countries like Ireland with a small pool of players to choose from would think defence first, when you watch the World Cup you will see some teams will play just to not concede a goal early and hope to nip one on the break, others will just play a "big man" up front and pump the ball long, that comes formt he coach and he'll get second guessed for that, Argentina for example have only four players on the current squad form the 2002 WC, the coach left behind players that would walk into most teams, you think he's not getting second guessed for that?...... Soccer is about invention, some Countries have the players to do that, others don't, South American teams down the years are known for attacking football while teams from Europe are more about tactics and defence, I think you should give Americans more credit, the ones that like the sport understand it just fine I think.

MFS62 Jun 10 2006 07:24 PM

Exactly. But as I said, that is lost on the "typical" second-guessing American sports fan. Later

Elster88 Jun 10 2006 07:26 PM

I don't buy that. There are a million ways to second guess the players in soccer too, and if the fans want they could always blame the coach for poor coaching too. You can also second guess the coach. There are different ways to play (boil it down to simplest terms: offensive-minded vs. defensive-minded), choices on substitutions and who to play, etc., etc.

OlerudOwned Jun 10 2006 07:47 PM

American fans aren't big into soccer because it needs to be assimilated, unlike baseball and football and basketball, which are American born. People who grew up on soccer tend to like soccer better, people growing up around hockey tend to favor that, and etc.

Nymr83 Jun 10 2006 10:25 PM

lets not turn hockey into some kind of beloved sport either...soccer is WITHOUT A DOUBT played by more people in the united states than hockey ever has been or ever will be.

OlerudOwned Jun 11 2006 12:07 AM

Nymr83 wrote: lets not turn hockey into some kind of beloved sport either...soccer is WITHOUT A DOUBT played by more people in the united states than hockey ever has been or ever will be. I didn't, I meant that hockey is big in places like Canada but not so much in most of the states for the same reason soccer isn't big in the states: culture. Of course there's exceptions, but it seems to hold true for the most part.

RealityChuck Jun 11 2006 05:03 PM

Soccer is big in the US until you turn 12 or so; then the top athletes go into other sports. The low scoring is a big factor. As is the fact that you have to be a passionate fan to watch soccer. Look at the people in the stands of any soccer game outside the US -- they are much more into what's happening and live and die for their teams. Note, too, that no US sport has to have a chain link fence or the equivalent to protect the players from the fans (hockey's glass is to protect the fans, not the players). You think the Mets vs. Yankees or Yankees vs. Red Sox bring out passion? Take a look at any two non-US soccer matches. But if you don't feel passionate about either of the teams involved, few of even the biggest fans are all that interested in soccer.

TheOldMole Jun 12 2006 12:44 PM

It's basically the 0-0 games.

metirish Jun 12 2006 12:47 PM

So far there has been one zero zero game in this World Cup...

Johnny Dickshot Jun 12 2006 12:53 PM

I don't believe fans necessarily love baseball because they can second-guess; or that soccer fans don;t find their game every bit as intellectually stimulating and worthy of conversation as baseball fans do baseball. As said above, it's mainly a function of where you grew up, and before that, whether the English or Spanish conquered you.

MFS62 Jun 12 2006 12:54 PM

TheOldMole wrote: It's basically the 0-0 games. It must be very disheartening for young American soccer players, as they pass through puberty, to come to the realization that more often than not, they can't "score". Later

metirish Jun 12 2006 12:56 PM

If it were all about high scores then Arena Football would be more popular, I am curious to see what kinda numbers ABC got for the weekend games.

MFS62 Jun 12 2006 01:09 PM

metirish wrote: If it were all about high scores then Arena Football would be more popular, I am curious to see what kinda numbers ABC got for the weekend games. I was playing off Mole's comment (which I know you hate) using "score" in a sexual context. Later

Edgy DC Jun 12 2006 02:18 PM

Firsty, it's a gross black-and-white generalization to say that that American fans don't like soccer. Secondly, implicit in the statement is the presumption is that stateside fans with brown skin aren't Americans. Most importantly, if the US ripped through Group E like, say, the Mets through Arizona, don't think for a second that Team America wouldn't become the biggest thing in nation overnight.

metirish Jun 12 2006 02:20 PM

I agree Edgy, which is why the score today was such a disapointment.

MFS62 Jun 12 2006 02:24 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Secondly, implicit in the statement is the presumption is that stateside fans with brown skin aren't Americans. That is why I broke this from the "Racist, Ignorant...." thread. My comments had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with my POV of the "typical" American sports fan. In fact, soccer interest of fans both Black and White was at its highest here when Pele played in the NASL. Later

Yancy Street Gang Jun 12 2006 02:30 PM

I can't see Team America becoming the biggest thing in the nation overnight. They'd get some buzz, for sure. Their fifteen minutes of fame, but I don't think there would be a bandwagon. To play soccer on the professional level requires a great deal of skill. I'm not saying otherwise. But for an eight-year-old to play it with his peers doesn't require a lot of skill. That's why it's so popular. If the ball comes near you you can kick it, and if it doesn't you can chase it. When kids grow up they stop playing soccer, and they stop playing kickball, and dodgeball, and they don't watch those games either, unless their kids are playing. The reason that I don't care about soccer is that it means nothing to me. I don't know enough to watch intelligently. To me, it's a bunch of people chasing and kicking a ball. (Basketball and hockey are the same to me, except that in hockey it's a puck and not a ball.) I don't know or understand any of the strategies, or any of the plays. And I don't care to learn, either. Baseball I can understand. Football I can understand, because the action keeps stopping, and I can evaluate the situation and think about what might come next. But watching soccer players on the field is like watching fireflies buzzing around in a jar. That probably doesn't explain why soccer isn't popular with Americans, because basketball certainly is. (Maybe basketball is helped by the star power of the athletes.) But it explains why it isn't popular with me.

Elster88 Jun 12 2006 02:41 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Firsty, it's a gross black-and-white generalization to say that that American fans don't like soccer. Secondly, implicit in the statement is the presumption is that stateside fans with brown skin aren't Americans. This seems to be a little bit of soapbox-jumping to me. On the one hand, what you say is correct. OTOH, I would guess that baseball, football, and basketball are all waaaay more popular in this country. I would also guess that NASCAR and even hockey still are more popular. Then there is golf, tennis, lacrosse, and even bullshit like X-Games that probably get as much TV time as soccer. I think it is safe to say that soccer, at best, is the fifth most popular sport in this country, whereas it is the most popular sport worldwide. Would it be less offensive if the thread title had been, "Why a Low Percentage of Americans Like Soccer Relative to the Percentage of Citizens of Most Other Nations That Like Soccer."? MFS62's title gets the same point across, and I think everyone who read it understood what he was getting at.

sharpie Jun 12 2006 02:57 PM

Dave Eggers weighs in: http://www.slate.com/id/2142554/tap1/

Edgy DC Jun 12 2006 03:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 12 2006 03:15 PM

Sure but the way the question is framed influences the possible answers. Maybe there's nothing wrong with either soccer or America, but rather the US just has other interests that occupy their (our) limited time. Depending on on how you guage popularity (screen time, game attendance, participation), being the fifth-most popular sport is a pretty good thing. Has any American women's team sport team captured the popular imagination like the soccer team that won the World Cup as the host country? The only comparable I can come up with were the 1984 and 1996 Olympic gymnastics teams.

Elster88 Jun 12 2006 03:06 PM

sharpie wrote: Dave Eggers weighs in: http://www.slate.com/id/2142554/tap1/ It's hard to take him seriously when there are paragraphs like this: ]It was, by most accounts, 1986 when the residents of the United States became aware of the thing called the World Cup. Isolated reports came from foreign correspondents, and we were frightened by these reports, worried about domino effects, and wondered aloud if the trend was something we could stop by placing a certain number of military advisers in Cologne or Marseilles. Then, in 1990, we realized that the World Cup might happen every four years, with or without us. Either be serious or be funny, pal.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 13 2006 06:47 AM

Check out these animated re-creations of plays! It's a Czech site, so do your best. Kinda disputes the notion that there's nothing to second guess. or strategies at work. [url]http://aktualne.centrum.cz/sport/fotbal-ms2006/clanek.phtml?id=175117[/url]

metsmarathon Jun 13 2006 09:20 AM

not being all to familiar with the sport, i've gotta ask... soccer doesn't have plays that the coach can either teach or call? if basketball teams can run plays or hockey teams, then why the heck can't soccer? are you sure there are no plays in soccer? because it doesn't seem quite right to me... also, the reason kids stop playing soccer in this country when they grown up is largely, isuspect, because of the social pressure tehre is to play the big three sports of basketball, baseball, and football. they are hte established sports, the glory sports. a gifted athlete is more likely to be pressured by his peers and circle of influence, to guide his skills towards the more popular sports, sports wherein he can garner greater glory, fame, scholarships, or, in rare circumstances, paychecks. and soccer isn't that sport. at least not in this country, and not right now. its a self-perpetuating thing that soccer isnt popular in this country. and i suspect it would not turn popular overnight with a successful world cup showing for team usa. it would help, sure, but without continued positive pressure, it would amount to a spike of popularity, and not a plateau, or, more importantly, a continued upward rise.

Rotblatt Jun 13 2006 09:24 AM

Cool, JD. Rosicky's second goal (#76) is embarassing. We tried an off-side trap and got stung by it--despite our supposed advantage in speed and fitness. Rosicky's first goal, though, was just masterful.

Rotblatt Jun 13 2006 10:10 AM

metsmarathon wrote: soccer doesn't have plays that the coach can either teach or call? if basketball teams can run plays or hockey teams, then why the heck can't soccer? are you sure there are no plays in soccer? because it doesn't seem quite right to me... its a self-perpetuating thing that soccer isnt popular in this country. Oh, they absolutely run plays. Corner kicks, free kicks, and throw-ins--especially on the offensive third of your field--are pretty much all set plays. Those are all referred to as "set pieces." It's not so different from American football, in terms of players running "routes." People will set up in pre-determined positions and the kicker will decide who to try for based on how the defense is set up. The type of play called depends on the team you're facing. With the 6'9" Koeller, the Czechs were clearly going to try and put the ball in the air in front of him and it paid off pretty quickly for them. When undersized teams face larger teams, they'll use the short kick on corners (instead of a long, high cross into the penalty box, they'll do a short pass on the ground to someone outside of the box to try and create some openings). We did a lot of this yesterday, which I personally didn't like, especially after Koeller got injured. On non-set plays, it's generally a little more free-form, but, as in basketball, there are some standard moves--equivalents of the pick-and-roll, etc, like the simple give-and-go (pass to someone, then sprint up the line. Instead of trapping, the receiver will boot it up the line to the originator). There's a ton of strategy involved. The Czechs yesterday were collapsing into the box on our attacks, and what we SHOULD have been doing was taking the ball to the outside to try and draw defenders away from the box. The few times we managed this, we had chances, but most of the time, we seemed to be driving in straight from center. Now, Reyna managed to create something there once or twice, as did Johnson, but we probably would have had more chances had they been getting feeds from our wings straight into the box. Part of the problem was that Beasley was playing out of position on the right side, despite having played on the left for the last, oh, three years, AND being left-footed. Not sure what Arena was thinking. Counter-strikes are another big part of the game. I think something like 35% of all goals are scored on counter-strikes. On set pieces or when a team is down or having trouble scoring, they'll often bring up one or more defenders to give themselves a better chance of scoring (more men for the defense to mark, etc.). While it can create chances for their offense, it also makes their defense vulnerable, and on a failed attempt, the defense can catch the other side off-guard by a quick start--maybe on a clear by a defender or a quick throw by the keeper to a midfielder who quickly passes to a streaking forward. Now, for the elite teams, there's a lot more creativity involved than on the set pieces, but it's still all about strategy. The players who can see the whole field and read defenses--and who have the technical ability to create chances based on what they see--are the ones who truely make a difference. Look at Nedved's play yesterday--it was more about intelligent passing and getting into good position than technical dribbling ability or nuclear strikes like Rocisky's. He's the kind of play-maker we were missing yesterday. Of course, we had more problems than just that, like consistently failing to win loose balls, Keller kicking the ball to Czechs instead of Americans, and in general, not playing like we cared enough . . . But my point is that, for decent teams, there's plenty of strategy involved.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 13 2006 11:27 AM

Mexico's first goal in their game the other day looked to me as an example of a set peice working to perfection -- corner to header (who times his leap and changes the direction of the ball *just so*) to scorer -- timing so perfect that neither of the last two were on their feet by time they're plays were made.

metirish Jun 13 2006 01:41 PM

That's good stuff Rotblatt.

Elster88 Jun 13 2006 01:46 PM

Agreed.

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2006 01:57 PM

I think a good way to break ties would be to award bonus points to the team who raises their arms in mock disgust the fewest amount of times in a game. Most teams seem to be threatening the triple-digit mark with that an all-purpose gesture. When a foul is NOT called the offended player raises his arms with a 'where's the call ref?' look on his face. Meanwhile, when a foul is called, the same guy will stand over the opponent he's just leveled with that same gesture in a 'Who me?!?' pose.

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 02:01 PM

Watching guys rend their shirts and cry to the heavens over non-calls is half the fun of watching Italy. More than half, sometimes.

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2006 02:06 PM

So is watching guys who hit the ground holding their knees/ankles/heads as if they're likely to spend the rest of their lives horribly crippled ... and then are sprinting downfield 15 seconds later.

Mr. Zero Jun 13 2006 02:10 PM

[url=http://cbs.sportsline.com/worldcup/story/9482434] The Ignorant American's Guide to the World Cup[/url] pretty funny.

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 02:19 PM

Wow, a self-aware satirist in sports journalism. It's been a while.

Willets Point Jun 13 2006 02:20 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: So is watching guys who hit the ground holding their knees/ankles/heads as if they're likely to spend the rest of their lives horribly crippled ... and then are sprinting downfield 15 seconds later. There should be an award for that to go alongside the Golden Boot.

Elster88 Jun 13 2006 03:17 PM

I have no idea why soccer players are the golden standard for too much crying to the ref and flopping to get a whistle. It happens in every other sport to at least the same degree. Have you never seen a flop in basketball? I mean, did you ever see Dennis Rodman play? You've never seen a player bitch at the refs? Does the name Rasheed Wallace ring a bell? At least in soccer the coaches tend to stay out of it. I've never seen a soccer coach uproot a goal or the corner flag, yet I've seen Lloyd McClendon STEAL THE DAMN BASE and take it to the locker room with him (hilarious, btw). Hell, there are morons who get on Willie all the time for NOT getting thrown out of games. This is where the anti-soccer bias rears it's head most often. Americans point to soccer players for faking being hurt, flopping, and whining over calls. In the average baseball game there are at least 25 instances of people bitching over balls and strikes, and probably for every basketball game there are at least double that number of people embarrassing themselves by whining and carrying on. Let's not even get started on American football.

Vic Sage Jun 13 2006 03:29 PM

]watching soccer players on the field is like watching fireflies buzzing around in a jar. Yancy / Vic similarity score = 989 For me, its also the utter arbitrariness of the sport. You have to put the ball in the other team's net, right? A fairly universal type of game. Oh, but you can't use your hands! Why? Cuz that what makes it soccer / futbol / football! It's like if the rules of baseball required players to hop, instead of run. I think there would be a lot of 0-0 games in baseball, too, if you had to hop to first base. And it would make the game pretty freaking hilarious, too, watching fat guys pogo-ing down the baseline. American football just says, "ok pick up the damn ball and run with it or throw it, or kick it, but just get it into the endzone! And smack the other team around to stop them, while you're at it." Now, THIS i understand. You have to use sticks in hockey and lacrosse to move the ball/puck, but you don't have to play with 1 hand tied behind your back, or hop around on 1 leg, or hold the stick with your anus... although THAT'S A SPORT I'D PAY TO SEE! The only thing i can think of in other major sports as utterly arbitrary as "don't use your hands!" is the requirement to dribble in basketball. But scoring is so prevalent in that sport (there is a score almost 1/2 the time a team gets the ball), its an important requirement just to slow those guys down a bit. And many basketball strategies revolve around minimizing dribbling (where turnovers are most likely to occur), through positioning and good passing. Are there similar strategies in soccer designed to allow players to minimize the "no hands" play and maximize "yes hands" play? Yes, soccer appreciation is largely based on a cultural divide (what you grew up with), but for me, this silly arbitrary rule which is at the very ESSENCE of soccer and defines the sport, just makes me shake my head, in the same way pogo-style baseball or anus-style LaCrosse would (albeit without the curiousity factor).

Willets Point Jun 13 2006 03:31 PM

Can I say that while I agree with Elster I still find there's a unique dramatic quality to the soccer player reeling in pain on the ground who then pops up and runs down the field seconds afterwards.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 13 2006 03:53 PM

]American football just says, "ok pick up the damn ball and run with it or throw it, or kick it, but just get it into the endzone! And smack the other team around to stop them, while you're at it." Now, THIS i understand. Too bad the NFL is so stuffed with idiotic rules that the above description is enormously too simple. And for all the seeming "actionless activity" of players struggling to get a threat going in soccer (or the between pitches spike tapping and cup-adjusting in baseball for that matter), for my pesos soccer beats the 3 seconds of action/cloud of dust/30 seconds of huddling/3 seconds of action... etc ... ad infinitim ... of the NFL. Talk about boring. All that said, as a novice world game viewer, I'd like more commentary that attempts to describe what the teams are *trying* to do -- why is the defense aligned that way, what were the other options of that last run, etc etc, who's job is whose as it relates to O&D, etc.

Elster88 Jun 13 2006 04:01 PM

Vic Sage wrote: ]watching soccer players on the field is like watching fireflies buzzing around in a jar. Yancy / Vic similarity score = 989 For me, its also the utter arbitrariness of the sport. You have to put the ball in the other team's net, right? A fairly universal type of game. Oh, but you can't use your hands! Why? Cuz that what makes it soccer / futbol / football! It's like if the rules of baseball required players to hop, instead of run. I think there would be a lot of 0-0 games in baseball, too, if you had to hop to first base. And it would make the game pretty freaking hilarious, too, watching fat guys pogo-ing down the baseline. American football just says, "ok pick up the damn ball and run with it or throw it, or kick it, but just get it into the endzone! And smack the other team around to stop them, while you're at it." Now, THIS i understand. You have to use sticks in hockey and lacrosse to move the ball/puck, but you don't have to play with 1 hand tied behind your back, or hop around on 1 leg, or hold the stick with your anus... although THAT'S A SPORT I'D PAY TO SEE! Are you kidding me? Seriously is this a joke? Soccer is the most arbitrary of sports?! Have you seen the baseball rulebook recently? You realize that the each base has exactly 90 feet difference between it? Where did that number come from? How come there's 9 players in the field instead of 8? Explain the logic or, er, non-arbitrariness, that was used to select the distance between the mound and the plate. Can you explain the difference between a legal and an illegal block in football? Soccer and basketball are by far the simplest of sports, you put ball in a goal. It's very simple why in one you have to dribble the ball, and in the other you have to use your feet. Because otherwise you have to come up with a convoluted, ridiculous set of rules (see football, American).

Rotblatt Jun 13 2006 04:02 PM

Bah. You're an uncultured heathen, Vic. ;-) And American football just a more arbitary version of rugby. I mean, four downs? What the hell is that about? And no forward laterals?!

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 04:09 PM

Soccer basically has like a half dozen rules. Don't use your hands. Don't go offsiides. No tripping, no elbowing, no tackling, and don't bring a gun onto the field. Sounds reasonable to me.

Vic Sage Jun 13 2006 04:13 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]American football just says, "ok pick up the damn ball and run with it or throw it, or kick it, but just get it into the endzone! And smack the other team around to stop them, while you're at it." Now, THIS i understand. Too bad the NFL is so stuffed with idiotic rules that the above description is enormously too simple. Every sport has myriad sometimes byzantine rules. But football isn't DEFINED by the "no spearing" rule, or "forward lateral" rule. All their rules are designed to either make players safer or make teams more competitive. they are not intended to create arbitrary obstacles for the athletes, purely in order to distinguish it from other sports. My description of football is simple, certainly, but accurate in describing the essence of the game. Just like you could describe baseball without gettng into the "infield fly" rule. ] And for all the seeming "actionless activity" of players struggling to get a threat going in soccer (or the between pitches spike tapping and cup-adjusting in baseball for that matter), for my pesos soccer beats the 3 seconds of action/cloud of dust/30 seconds of huddling/3 seconds of action... etc ... ad infinitim ... of the NFL. Talk about boring. Well, i wasn't talking about "boring", but now that you mention it... football, like baseball, is broken down into discreet moments of particular action -- players line up, the ball is snapped, the players do their specific jobs, and a play is attempted that either succeeds or fails. Then, the sequence is repeated. 30 seconds of setup, followed by 10-30 seconds of action. As in baseball, this time between plays, like the time between pitches or between at bats at a baseball game, allows fans to consider the situation, think about details, observe, conjecture, discuss. The drama is framed. Sometimes the drama is compelling, sometimes its not, but i don't find the interstitial moments boring. I find them NECESSARY in order to build anticipation and heighten drama. Soccer and hockey don't have that, and thats why those sports bore me. Basketball has just enough of it (less than baseball and football, more than hockey and soccer), to keep my interest. But at least hockey players don't have to skate backwards only, nor are basketball players required to dribble with their foreheads, so while they're not my favorite games, i can at least watch them without giggling.

Vic Sage Jun 13 2006 04:25 PM

Elster88 wrote: Are you kidding me? Seriously is this a joke? Soccer is the most arbitrary of sports?! Have you seen the baseball rulebook recently? You realize that the each base has exactly 90 feet difference between it? Where did that number come from? How come there's 9 players in the field instead of 8? Explain the logic or, er, non-arbitrariness, that was used to select the distance between the mound and the plate. Can you explain the difference between a legal and an illegal block in football? Soccer and basketball are by far the simplest of sports, you put ball in a goal. It's very simple why in one you have to dribble the ball, and in the other you have to use your feet. Because otherwise you have to come up with a convoluted, ridiculous set of rules (see football, American). you misunderstand me. I didn't say soccer's rules are more complicated, or quantitatively more arbitrary than other sports, nor that other sports rules don't have arbitrariness built into them. Drawing lines is, by its nature, an arbitrary excercise. I'm talking about the NATURE of the arbitrariness. The "no hands" rule isn't about safety, or maintaining competitive balance, or measuring the passage of time (clock? innings?), or a rule that developed over a century in order to deal with a specific problem in the game. I see the "no hands" rule as being unique amongst the major sports in terms of preventing athletes from using 2 of their 4 limbs for absolutely no reason other than the choice to define the sport in that way. how about a sport where athletes tie anvils to their ankles? Or blindfold themselves? How about one where you can only play with a stick up your ass? this is the kind of arbitrariness of which i speak. like i said, its clearly a cultural divide. For my money, though, i just think its a silly game. your mileage may, and clearly does, vary.

Willets Point Jun 13 2006 04:30 PM

I think the lengths you go to find a way to describe the flaws of the sport are telling. When I was in grade school and nobody brought in a bat we'd play baseball at recess by having the pitcher throw the ball to the batless hitter who would catch it and then throw it somewhere in the outfield (if he dropped the ball it was a strike). This sure was fun but you'll never see it in the Major Leagues because the rules arbitrarily prevent a hitter from using his hands and he has to use a silly piece of wood instead.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 13 2006 04:34 PM

Vic Sage wrote: As in baseball, this time between plays, like the time between pitches or between at bats at a baseball game, allows fans to consider the situation, think about details, observe, conjecture, discuss. The drama is framed. Sometimes the drama is compelling, sometimes its not, but i don't find the interstitial moments boring. I find them NECESSARY in order to build anticipation and heighten drama. Exactly. It's why I love baseball, and can watch football. None of the other sports have ever done anything for me. (Although I once did spend about two weeks on the Knicks bandwagon back in the 1980's.)

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 04:43 PM

Using no hands is no more untque than asking them to use a hockey stick or lacrosse stick. It creates a challenge that makes a game out of it. If you pick up a hockey puck and throw it at the net --- you know, use the fingers that your birthright entitles you to use --- you've broken the rules.

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2006 04:54 PM

]I have no idea why soccer players are the golden standard for too much crying to the ref and flopping to get a whistle. It happens in every other sport to at least the same degree. The flopping and angling for calls aren't unique to soccer, I just get a kick out of the the 'bad thespian' quality to it all. Players don't just flop, they go down like they've been shot. They don't just attempt to play up the foul, they over-emote while rolling around as if they got the worst of it in a gun fight from some cheaply made western movie. The arms-up 'Where's the foul/Why the foul?' gesture isn't just done, it's seemingly mandatory as if adding drama to the performance is as much a part of the script as it is in daytime soaps.

Vic Sage Jun 13 2006 04:57 PM

Requiring the use of a bat or a stick to hit a hard baseball or puck makes the game possible. Its not an arbitrary rule. If you tried to hit it with your hands, you'd break your fingers. the tools one is permitted to use to play a game are regulated to establish (1) consistency, and (2) safety. Certainly the size, weight, etc of the bat, stick, ball, etc, are based on arbitrary rules, but not the requirement to use it, which is one of the defining characteristics of those sports. Again, "no hands" is not about consistency, safety, fairness, etc. You could have a perfectly good sport where athletes could pick up and run with the ball and throw it, not just kick it, so it isn't a necessary rule (like a rule that requires you to use a tool to move or catch hard objects flying around at 90mph). Unlike rules that regulate necessary tools, the "no hands" rule regulates the athlete's use of his/her body parts, not for safety, etc., but simply to create an arbitrary handicap that distinguishes it as a sport. In fact, it is a sport DEFINED by the handicap it creates for its participants. {i heard my 5-year old son describing the game to a 3-year old as "the game where you can't use your hands"} Do you really think using a bat or stick is a handicap in playing baseball or hockey, and is therefore analagous?

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 05:11 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 13 2006 05:14 PM

Sure. I can't handle a lacrosse stick for the life of me. Just as "arbitrary" as anything else. If it was about safety, they'd just make the ball softer. (The lacrosse ball was originally made of deerskin stuffed with buffalo hair, but those arbitrary Indians still thought it would make an interesting challenge to handle the soft cuddly thing with modified spears instead of their hands.) Playing a game with your feet is just what makes a game of it. It's really a very obvious challenge and a very primitive sport. You know why there aren't more field goals in football? You can only use your feet? What's with that? I have no idea what consistency and fairness have to do with this? How is this applied to one sport and not the other?

Rotblatt Jun 13 2006 05:11 PM

]Requiring the use of a bat or a stick to hit a hard baseball or puck makes the game possible. Its not an arbitrary rule. The very use of a "hard baseball" or puck--or any object at all--is completely arbitary, and thus, any tools that arise because of your arbitrary choice of object is also arbitrary.

Edgy DC Jun 13 2006 05:13 PM

Similarty score of Rottblatt and Edgy on the rise.

Willets Point Jun 13 2006 05:15 PM

Rotblatt wrote: ]Requiring the use of a bat or a stick to hit a hard baseball or puck makes the game possible. Its not an arbitrary rule. The very use of a "hard baseball" or puck--or any object at all--is completely arbitary, and thus, any tools that arise because of your arbitrary choice of object is also arbitrary. Throwing the ball at 90 miles per hour is arbitrary too. Our recess game was played with a tennis ball and not even the biggest six grader could throw 90 miles per hour if he wanted too so there's no safety issue.

Rockin' Doc Jun 13 2006 07:54 PM

Vic Sage - "As in baseball, this time between plays, like the time between pitches or between at bats at a baseball game, allows fans to consider the situation, think about details, observe, conjecture, discuss. The drama is framed. Sometimes the drama is compelling, sometimes its not, but i don't find the interstitial moments boring. I find them NECESSARY in order to build anticipation and heighten drama." The periodic breaks in the action also are perfect for a quick trip to the fridge for a snack and another beer. Soccer is a fine game and I appreciate the athleticism and conditioning involved to play it at a high level, but I personally don't enjoy watching soccer. As a spectator sport I find soccer to be extremely boring. So I just don't watch it.

holychicken Jun 14 2006 09:00 AM

I am really at a loss as to why not being able to use your hands is arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive, but having to use a stick and play on ice is not. . . I am sorry, but that stance is just totally bizarre and I can't see how anyone can logically hold that position. In football, why can't you throw the ball forward at any point? If everyone were allowed to do it, it would be perfectly fair. And why not be able to dribble the ball with your feet? Why, if it hits the ground, is the play over? These are all rules that have absolutely nothing to do with competitive balance nor do they protect players. In baseball, why make the players run to first first? Why not allow them to run the bases in any order they choose? Seems pretty arbitrary and restrictive to me.

Vic Sage Jun 14 2006 10:59 AM

talk about illogical... reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical strategy in which one tries to make another position seem illogical by extrapolating it to rediculous lengths. Anything can be made to seem rediculous in that fashion. But there are differences between "restrictions" and "handicaps". Rules, as i've said, are by their very nature arbitrary. And all rules, by permitting one thing and not allowing other things, are by defnition restrictive. Even a 5-year old knows that soccer is the game defined by its handicap. No other sport is understood, on its most basic elemental level, as such. Its not bizarre or illogical for me to reject games based on such handicaps, anymore than it'd be illogical to prefer baseball where runners run (to WHATEVER base), instead of hopping. And i'd appreciate it if we'd keep the discussion about soccer, and not about what a moron i am for feeling the way i do.

holychicken Jun 14 2006 11:33 AM

I don't think you are a moron, I just think your stance is absurd. On top of that, I disagree that I am "extrapolating it to rediculous lengths." IMO, I am just using a ridiculous stance in an equally ridiculous way. ]Even a 5-year old knows that soccer is the game defined by its handicap. I am really lost on this "soccer is defined by no hands." Considering I am not sure what you mean, it is hard to debate. How is football defined, IYO?

Edgy DC Jun 14 2006 11:39 AM

Ice hockey is defined by playing on ice. Rather than a surface most people can traverse on a normal day. Football is definded by the use of feet. Comparing the use of feet to playing with a stick up your ass (you post, more often than I care to think about, regarding things in people's asses) isn't ridiculous?

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 02:25 PM

I'm not sure why there is such a heated debate over this, but I think Vic's point is simple enough. Soccer requires us to use our feet to obtain our objective. And whether it is arbitrary or not, it is certainly counter-intuitive...and yes, it does seem a little silly. Think about how we use our limbs in everyday life. We use our legs and feet to transport us around. We use our hands to obtain our objective. We don't just play sports with our hands, we eat with our hands, we write with our hands, we do work with our hands. If I were sitting here typing this with my feet, it would look rather silly. (The only thing I can think of that are controlled by our feet are pedals in a car, and that's only because our hands are busy steering.) Think about it, if you saw a mechanic fixing your car with his feet, wouldn't this bother you? Or would you think "Oh, that's just how they do it in Europe." And for this reason, sports like baseball or football are, in a sense, intuitive. Just like in every day life, we use our feet to transport us around the field and use our hands to catch, throw, and otherwise obtain our objective. Now, the use of a bat or hockey stick...this is also intuitive. Why? Because they are tools... and since the first caveman used a rock to hit his prey, man has used tools to better obtain their objective. And like a mechanic who uses a wrench, a writer who uses a pencil, a baseball player uses a bat and a hockey player uses his stick (with their hands) to obtain their objectives. And the reason these things are tools is because they allow the player to increase his chances of success. One cannot hit a home run without a bat, or generate a slap shot of 120 mph without a stick. As an illustration, consider this, a hockey player without a stick instantly becomes the worst member of his team, a soccer player allowed to use his hands, becomes the best. Which brings us to soccer...forcing a player to use is feet to obtain his objective is counter-intuitive to anything in real life. Do we really dispute that? If we brought in a guy from some deserted island, put him on a soccer field and told him to put the ball in the net, does anyone think his first instinct would be to kick it over? Or would he pick it up, jog over, and throw it in? And the funny thing is, there is a game just like soccer, with the same objective, where players are allowed to use their hands. It's called handball...but for whatever reason, it hasn't caught on. Soccer is essentially handball, except a qualifier (no hands) has been thrown in to make the game harder. And for that reason, it is comparable to requiring a basketballer to only shoot with his chin, or a baseballer required to hop to first. Now, is this any reason to dislike the game? Not for me, but if it bothers someone else, so be it. We all have a right to our own criteria. I don't like soccer (I don't dislike it either) for the same reason I don't like hockey or lacrosse or golf before I started playing it. I don't understand it. And I don't have the energy, nor time, to learn it.

Edgy DC Jun 14 2006 02:47 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 14 2006 02:57 PM

]And whether it is arbitrary or not, it is certainly counter-intuitive...and yes, it does seem a little silly. Well the argument is that the premise is distinctly arbitrary in a way the premise of other games isn't, so that's where we are. Is it silly to do things with your feet? I guess so. Dancing can be silly. I find this unique to soccer not at all. Is it counter-intuitive? Left to no rules outlining my behavior on a lacrosse field or basketball court or hockey field, I'd pick the ball/puck thing up, run away from people with sticks and throw it in the net. To the extent that I used a stick provided me, it would be for combat. The most intutitive thing, in beating your opponent in a physical contest, is to pummel him, preferably with rocks. In order to compete physically, but both walk away --- in order to practice war by other means --- we create arbitrary rules. ]And the funny thing is, there is a game just like soccer, with the same objective, where players are allowed to use their hands. It's called handball...but for whatever reason, it hasn't caught on. Ask yourself why.

Rockin' Doc Jun 14 2006 02:53 PM

Should I ever get sued and find my career on the line, I swear I'm calling Centerfield.

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 03:11 PM

="Edgy DC"] Well the argument is that the premise is distinctly arbitrary in a way the premise of other games isn't, so that's where we are. Is it silly to do things with your feet? I guess so. Dancing can be silly. I find this unique to soccer not at all. Dancing is a form of movement. Soccer is unique in that you are asked to exhibit control of an item (a ball) with your feet when far more dextrous appendages are available to you. ="Edgy DC"]Is it counter-intuitive? Left to no rules outlining my behavior on a lacrosse field or basketball court or hockey field, I'd pick the ball/puck thing up, run away from people with sticks and throw it in the net. To the extent that I used a stick provided me, it would be for combat. And that is the only distinction I am making here. It would be instinctual to use your hands. You would not attempt to control the ball or puck with your feet. Nor would you attempt to control the stick with your feet when engaging in combat. And someone who attempted to do so, could look somewhat silly in your eyes. ="Edgy DC"]The most intutitive thing, in beating your opponent in a physical contest, is to pummel him, preferably with rocks. In order to compete physically, but both walk away --- in order to practice war by other means --- we create arbitrary rules. I agree with that. The only point I'm making is that the "feet only" rule, is a bit odd...or at least, unusual. ="Edgy DC"] ]And the funny thing is, there is a game just like soccer, with the same objective, where players are allowed to use their hands. It's called handball...but for whatever reason, it hasn't caught on. Ask yourself why. I don't know why. Are you implying that the "no hands" rule was what led to its popularity? Maybe...but I have never seen anything establishing a cause/effect relationship.

Elster88 Jun 14 2006 04:14 PM

]If we brought in a guy from some deserted island, put him on a soccer field and told him to put the ball in the net, does anyone think his first instinct would be to kick it over? Or would he pick it up, jog over, and throw it in? This seems silly to me. You can do the same thing for just about any sport. If we brought in a guy from some deserted island, put him on a lacrosse field and told him to put the ball in the net, and also put a lacrosse stick on the field, does anyone think his first instinct would be to pick up the ball with the stick and propel it with the netstick? Or would he pick it up, jog over, and throw it in? If you put a guy on a deserted island on a hockey rink, and told him to put the puck in the net, does anyone think his first instinct wouldn't be to ask you why in hell did you put me on ICE?!?!?

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 04:47 PM

You're mixing two separate points. The island guy was used to illustrate the following: 1. Is it counter-intuitive to use your feet to obtain your objective? Yes. Clearly. Even in the example you cite with the lacrosse stick, it is conceded he would use his hands, and not his feet. The point you raise is the following: 2. Fine, it's counter-intuitive to use your feet, but doesn't your primitive man example show that it is equally as counter-intuitive/arbitrary to use a lacrosse or hockey stick? No. And the reason for that is what I discussed earlier. While it is true that a primitive man's first instinct would not be to use a tool available to him, use of tools, when one discovers its need and purpose, is completely intuitive and not arbitrary. If you told a primitive man to unscrew a bolt, he would attempt to do it with his bare hands, even as a wrench was lying next to it. But if the bolt were too tight, eventually, the primitive man would figure out how to use the wrench and use it. The wrench facilitates his objective, and as such, is not arbitrary. Though he may at some point attempt to unscrew it with his feet, the man would quickly realize the folly of this method. The use of the lacrosse stick, or any sporting "tool" mirrors the same concept. I know almost nothing about lacrosse, but if a golfer, tennis player, hockey player etc were deprived of his tools, the player would be rendered meaningless. You cannot drive a golf ball 400 yards without a club. You cannot hit a baseball 400 feet without a bat. You cannot return a 100 mph serve without a racket. The use of their device enables the player. The no-hands rule disables, or hampers, the player. Now, I recognize that there is a certain arbitrariness to tightening that bolt to the point a wrench is necessary...or that it is arbitrary to put a golf hole 500 yards away. My only point, is that the use of tools designed to assist a player is different than telling a player not to use his most dextrous appendages. What does this matter? Other than the fact that it irks Vic, nothing. And nothing I write is meant to imply that soccer, or its fans, are in any way silly. But just because it may not be enough to turn you away from the game, let's not pretend that the distinction Vic made isn't a valid one.

Elster88 Jun 14 2006 04:51 PM

There are a lot of holes in your "tools" argument, but this discussion is starting to bore me. Saying that using your feet is not intuitive....but using a stick because it's a tool is intuitive....just don't work, methinks. Your last point is the best one, at the end of the day, who cares why someone doesn't like soccer or why I don't like hockey and lacrosse? _________________ FTR, the argument that Vic makes about soccer is similar to how I've always felt about hockey...who gives a crap which team can skate and control a puck(?!?!) with a wooden stick the best.

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 05:22 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 14 2006 05:36 PM

Perhaps a better illustration of Vic's point can be seen with the following example. If you are suddenly thrown into a ring against a gladiator, even though you have never used a sword before, you will use one. You will never think to yourself “Hey, let me try not using my hands at all.” Take a look at the original Olympic Games. In Ancient Greece, events included the footrace, javelin, discus, horseriding, and wrestling/fighting. All of these events had their origin in combat and all of them were designed to show the prowess of the athletes. And all of these games reflect the basic principle I mention above...feet/legs are used to transport or move. Dexterity competitions involve hands. Conspicuously absent are competitions where the contestants run on their hands or throw javelin with their feet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Edit: I understand, this argument may be boring...I would find it boring myself if it weren't for this personality defect I have that drives me crazy when I see a logical point of view discarded or discredited simply because it may be unpopular. I don't share Vic's feelings about soccer, but I think his point is a valid one. And I don't see how bringing up hockey sticks or other sporting equipment can even be offered as a parallel to the no-hands limitations. Golf clubs allow a player to drive a ball 400 yards where he otherwise would be limited to how far he could throw it. Hockey sticks allow players to generate slap shots that crack goalie masks where he otherwise would be limited to how fast he could throw the puck. Tennis rackets allow players to hit blistering topspin forehands...baseball gloves enable us to make catches we wouldn't make. Why is it so hard to see this is different than being told, "Don't use your hands"? Simply stated: Using your hands to control a ball: Intuitive Using tools to allow you to do stuff you could never do with your hands alone: Intuitive Using your feet to control a ball: Counter-Intuitive

Johnny Dickshot Jun 14 2006 05:33 PM

For the purpose of delivering a bouncy inflated leather ball to a teammate on the run, while being pursued by enemies yourself, or for the purpose of receiving said leather ball on the run while being chased; or for the purpose of sending said leather ball with maximum speed and precision past an opponent trying to stop it, legs and feet are better tools than hands and arms. For the purposes of stopping the ball, hands are good tools and perfectly legal for all the players on the field whose job is to stop the ball.

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 05:42 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: For the purpose of delivering a bouncy inflated leather ball to a teammate on the run, while being pursued by enemies yourself, or for the purpose of receiving said leather ball on the run while being chased; or for the purpose of sending said leather ball with maximum speed and precision past an opponent trying to stop it, legs and feet are better tools than hands and arms. For the purposes of stopping the ball, hands are good tools and perfectly legal for all the players on the field whose job is to stop the ball. I don't agree with this. If you allow one team to use their hands to catch and throw the ball, they destroy the team limited to their feet. In fact, I would go as far as to say if these were the rules, a random team of CPF-ers would destroy Manchester United.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 14 2006 06:03 PM

Centerfield wrote: In fact, I would go as far as to say if these were the rules, a random team of CPF-ers would destroy Manchester United. Oooh, can we set this up? I think it would be fun!

Willets Point Jun 14 2006 06:07 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="Centerfield"]In fact, I would go as far as to say if these were the rules, a random team of CPF-ers would destroy Manchester United. Oooh, can we set this up? I think it would be fun! We'd probably still lose to Chelsea.

Centerfield Jun 14 2006 06:13 PM

My prediction is contingent on the fact that the CPF-ers could stay upright for 90 minutes without passing out. Anyway, I'm in, if this game is played. I suck at soccer, but I am really really good at faking injuries and sobbing uncontrollably in pain. On Edit: Can you imagine how that would go over? CF to Beckham: Thanks for coming guys. Anyway we just wanted to let you know, we're going to be using our hands because we feel it's counter-intuitive...

Nymr83 Jun 14 2006 07:04 PM

is it legal to knock the ball down with your hands if you dont actually catch it?

Johnny Dickshot Jun 14 2006 08:09 PM

Centerfield wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]For the purpose of delivering a bouncy inflated leather ball to a teammate on the run, while being pursued by enemies yourself, or for the purpose of receiving said leather ball on the run while being chased; or for the purpose of sending said leather ball with maximum speed and precision past an opponent trying to stop it, legs and feet are better tools than hands and arms. For the purposes of stopping the ball, hands are good tools and perfectly legal for all the players on the field whose job is to stop the ball. I don't agree with this. If you allow one team to use their hands to catch and throw the ball, they destroy the team limited to their feet. Let's go to penalty shots. You throw, I kick.

Nymr83 Jun 14 2006 08:16 PM

i'd actually rather you throw on a penalty shot, the problem with stopping penalkty shots is that you dont know which way they are kicking it until the last second, its much tougher to change your arm angle if you are throwing it.

Elster88 Jun 14 2006 08:23 PM

]And I don't see how bringing up hockey sticks or other sporting equipment can even be offered as a parallel to the no-hands limitations. Golf clubs allow a player to drive a ball 400 yards where he otherwise would be limited to how far he could throw it. Hockey sticks allow players to generate slap shots that crack goalie masks where he otherwise would be limited to how fast he could throw the puck. Tennis rackets allow players to hit blistering topspin forehands...baseball gloves enable us to make catches we wouldn't make. Why is it so hard to see this is different than being told, "Don't use your hands"? Feet allow a player to propel a ball dozens of yards that they couldn't with their hands. A person using his feet will be able to keep the ball away from someone trying to bend over and pick it up off the ground with his hands. How hard is it to take the next logical step in designing a game? "Hmmmm, we can kick it far with our feet. We can control it better than someone trying to bend over and scoop it up. Let's keep the idea of using our feet and just disallow all use of hands." Seriously, what don't you get about how simple and logical the progression is here? It's the same as the thought process that was used to develop other sports.

Nymr83 Jun 14 2006 08:30 PM

why is this even being argued over? i can't think of a MORE unnnatural motion in sports than pitching. if you don't like soccer thats fine, but these are some pretty dumb arguments (not dumb people, don't red light me.)

Edgy DC Jun 14 2006 09:16 PM

We can call soccer silly, but no soccer team ever signed José Lima.

MFS62 Jun 15 2006 09:57 AM

Edgy DC wrote: We can call soccer silly, but no soccer team ever signed José Lima. But that doesn't mean their team's wifey (girlfriend? both?) watch would not be just as spectacular. Seriously, is there any way (without a maniacal knowledge of worldwide soccer) for us to know how many soccer teams have given contracts to players hoping they could capture past magic? It seems to me that players move from teams, and Countries, all the time. Later

Centerfield Jun 15 2006 05:52 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 15 2006 05:59 PM

Elster88 wrote: Feet allow a player to propel a ball dozens of yards that they couldn't with their hands. A person using his feet will be able to keep the ball away from someone trying to bend over and pick it up off the ground with his hands. How hard is it to take the next logical step in designing a game? "Hmmmm, we can kick it far with our feet. We can control it better than someone trying to bend over and scoop it up. Let's keep the idea of using our feet and just disallow all use of hands." Seriously, what don't you get about how simple and logical the progression is here? It's the same as the thought process that was used to develop other sports. I am with you that kicking the ball will allow a player to propel the ball much further than they would be able to with their hands. However, the point of soccer is not to advance the ball as far as you can, it is to maintain possession of the ball until it has been deposited into the goal. Sure, one team can kick it to advance it faster, but if another team is allowed to carry it with their hands and run, the hands team will be more successful. For an illustration, look at football. When football players want to maintain possession, they carry it with their hands. Nothing prevents a football player from attempting to control the ball with his feet, it's just that all football players realize this is not an effective tactic. In fact, the only time they kick the ball, is in punts and field goals...both instances where a player is more concerned with distance than possession (and as you point out, kicking is a more effective way to attain distance). Similarly, nothing prevents basketball players from using their feet either (there is no kicked ball rule on offense). Or fielders in baseball from kicking the ball from base to base. It is just universally understood that kicking is not an effective means of maintaining possession and control. ="Johnny Dickshot"] Let's go to penalty shots. You throw, I kick. You would win. But that is because penalty shots remove a critical aspect of the game (maintaining possession against defenders) and institute a new element (a line you cannot cross). In other words, penalty shots have lost the essence of soccer...the main reason "purists" don't like it as a way of deciding games. If we were to set up the scenario we discussed, the match would never reach penalty shots. The team allowed to use their hands would win in crushing fashion. I take your drawing the argument to penalty shots as a concession of your earlier point...that using one's feet is a less effective manner of depositing a ball into a goal than using your hands. If you are not conceding, I apologize. ="Edgy DC"] We can call soccer silly, but no soccer team ever signed José Lima. I don't know if you are referring to me, but I assume you are since I am the only one still championing the opposing argument...and if that's the case, you've mischaracterized my position. I explicitly state that I don't think soccer is silly. Though I'm no fan, I realize that these are some of the most finely conditioned, talented athletes in the world. I also recognize and admire the passion of its fans. I said that soccer is based upon a counter-intuitive premise (exercise of control of a ball using one's feet)...and that premise, the use of one's feet, can be seen as silly for those not accustomed to it. A while ago, I saw a tidbit on some show about contortionists who could balance on their hands and shoot a bow and arrow with their feet. If we were to stumble upon such a competition, ask yourself, what your honest reaction would be to this sport...even if it had the most passionate fans you have ever seen. Now, with that in mind, is not not possible to understand Vic's point about soccer?

Edgy DC Jun 15 2006 05:59 PM

I thought it was clear that I was trying to be stupit.

Centerfield Jun 15 2006 06:04 PM

Sorry. Sometimes it's hard for me to pick up stuff like what when I'm in that mode.

Vic Sage Jun 15 2006 06:08 PM

thank you, cpf admins.

Edgy DC Jun 15 2006 06:12 PM

Soccer is the great unifier.

ScarletKnight41 Jun 15 2006 06:17 PM

OMG - that was funny!

Willets Point Jun 15 2006 07:01 PM

What is the hippy hugging?

MFS62 Jun 15 2006 07:37 PM

It looked like a bar of soap. Later

Johnny Dickshot Jun 15 2006 08:01 PM

]However, the point of soccer is not to advance the ball as far as you can, it is to maintain possession of the ball until it has been deposited into the goal. Sure, one team can kick it to advance it faster, but if another team is allowed to carry it with their hands and run, the hands team will be more successful. Actually I think the point of soccer, what's sort of woven into its origins if not expressly stated, is the idea that the ball is something that is NOT to be possessed, but is in motion at all times, or at the most temporarily paused, and that's what drives the foot thing, unless or until it it deposited into a goal. It's not that denying one a chance to use their hands is an arbitary handicap, but that using hands by definition is counter to the central idea of the ball in motion. Eduardo Galeano 'Soccer in Sun and Shadow' sez: ]They call it by many names: the sphere, the round, the tool, the globe, the balloon, the projectile. In Brazil no one doubts the ball is a woman. ... The ball can be fickle sometimes, refusing to enter the goal because she changes her mind in midflight and curves away. You see she is very easily offended. She can't stand getting kicked around or hit out of spite. She insists on being caressed, kissed, lulled to sleep on the chest or on the foot. She is proud, vain perhaps, and she's not lacking a motive: she knows all too well that when she rises gracefuilly she brings joy to many hearts, and many a heart is crushed when she lands without style. Is that gorgeous or what?

Willets Point Jun 15 2006 08:43 PM

There are two things I'd like to expound upon the original question "Why do Americans hate soccer?" First, I think it's overstated. Americans do like soccer, they play it and it has its spectators. Its not the most popular sport in the country, but so what? It has its spot. Second, it's not just Americans that give soccer a second-class status. I find it interesting that modern day soccer originated in England and the English were great promoters of the game. English sailors, merchants and ex-patriates popularized the game in places as culturally and linguistically different as Italy, Brazil, and Argentina. And yet the nations of the world that speak English and are close to England culturally (former English colonies actually) tend not to be big soccer nations. Canada, the United States, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand all in fact each have a homegrown sport called "football" that is more popular than soccer in their respective countries. I find this an interesting conundrum.

Nymr83 Jun 16 2006 01:15 AM

what is New Zealand football? its not just the Australian game?