It is amazing to me (though perhaps it shouldn’t be), how over-reactive and fickle the football community can be. A problem with more than one solution is casually mentioned every so often until a mistake of epic proportions sends the world into a frenzy — and that’s just a couple Round of 16 matches! One could only imagine how one-sided the discussion would be if England’s second goal happened in a World Cup FINAL. Of course we’re talking about the raging “Goal-Line Technology” debate following Lampard’s blast (and to some extent, “video technology” as a whole following the Tevez debacle). As is so often typical in the world of demanding sports fans and media, the most logical solution is being overlooked.
That solution, of course, is extra referees on the goal line. For Sepp Blatter and FIFA, it is literally God’s gift to their negligent stupidity as an administration. It eliminates every problem for which technology SHOULD be used in the game (and yes, folks, there are situations where technology has no place — the Tevez call included) at a cost of next to nothing to implement on a wide scale and with no disruption to match flow. As with seemingly all of my Glorious Football posts, a numbered list of facts on the subject to consider:
1. FIFA already employs 5 Officials per match.
Yes, I did say five, not four. There are four officials on the field, but a 5th is always present at the match. From Wikipedia, “A fifth official (FOF) assists the fourth official in a variety of tasks, and who may be called upon to replace another match official if necessary, for example in the case of injury.” Therefore, 1 of the 2 sets of extra eyes is ALREADY AT THE MATCH. If you can afford 5 officials, you can afford 6. (Let’s be honest, if you can afford 4 officials, you can afford 6.)
2. People like the human element? This retains the human element.
There’s really not much to say on this one. This preserves the human element, with the added bonus of these extra assistant referees not being required to constantly manage four or five things at once, including offside decisions and foul calls. They are purely there to assist with penalty shouts and goal/no goal plays (and of course the Hands of Henry/some sketchy-looking Argentinian who thinks he’s a deity). End of story, no chance for confusion. If their eyes are straying beyond 18 yards from their body, they’re doing something wrong.
3. Justifying error to full match video die-hards.
Effort must be made to quell the concerns of those who think every play in a match should be reviewable. While sometimes I’d agree it would be great for a referee to be forced to go back and look at a replay of a foul to think “man I was a bit harsh or foolish to give that a straight red card” (especially since basically every direct red in the 2010 tournament has been garbage), it will surely disrupt the flow of the match, and that is something the game cannot afford. This would leave the only other reviewable call in a match to be offside, and there a number of reasons why we should let the ARs do their job on this one.
Firstly, offside is called far too tightly in the modern game. Part of the importance of goal line referees/technology/whatever is to preserve the sanctity of the greatest achievement in the sport — finding the back of the net. However, calling a tight line often results in more goals/chances being disallowed under false positives than it does goals allowed that shouldn’t have been given (false negatives). Thus, the attacker has a net negative bias, in a game where the attacker is to be praised for the ultimate achievement. With a looser offside line and assistant refs not calling the advantage so tightly the game could see potential goals per match increases of significant magnitude, perhaps +0.5-1.0 goals per match as a result. This would be a huge advantage for the sport where the majority of fans want increased drama, action and scoring and requires no change in the rule; simply an upholding of the previously given directive that a “tie goes to the attacker” (equivalent to the “tie goes to the runner” rule in baseball) achieves this quite nicely.
Second, offside reviews will disrupt the flow of the match equally, if not moreso, than any other review. And let’s face it, even if an offside decision is reversed to the benefit of the attacking team, the chance is still lost anyway. You surely can’t award a free kick or even a penalty in a dangerous area just because of the decision change.
~~~~~~~
Haters of the extra officials will argue that they’ve not been worth their salt in UEFA competition, where they have been trialled in 205 Europa League matches in 2009-2010. However, it is hard to argue that two extra pair of eyes are NOT the way to go, simply because of the resulting zero negativity to the game:
– Flow is not lost. – Human element is retained. – Justice is done.
Sounds to me like exactly the outcome everyone prefers.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
This Isn't Your Dad's World Cup
Perhaps one of the biggest surprises of this World Cup thus far is not the shoddy officiating, or the high number of goalkeeper blunders, or even the widespread vuvuzela whining, but rather the rather distinct feeling of full 32-nation parity that we are seeing thus far. The Swiss over Spain. New Zealand on 2 points in two matches. France and England currently outside the top half of their groups. Certainly the pundits will not have seen all of these things coming (though avid and knowledgeable fans could easily have seen the Swiss victory from a mile away, but I digress). Have there been poor games played by squads? Absolutely. Greece’s first match was awful. Cameroon looked incredibly flat against Japan. Australia were simply outclassed by Germany. Yet these squads, which some pundits were quick to write off after their first matches, went 1-1-1 on World Cup matchday 2, with arguably one being harshly hit by their second sending off of the tournament. There are many reasons to believe that the prevailing mentality about World Cup play is set for a major shift.
1. North American and Asian Qualifiers have legitimate pro leagues, thus more footballers.
As my colleague Steven Maloney noted in the opener to his World Cup Day 9 review, “the professionalization of soccer in South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the United States/Canada in the 1990’s to present” is a significant factor in the new-found difficulties of the group phase. Consider that in World Cup 1998, Korea Republic finshed 0-1-2 with a -7 GD in a group containing the Netherlands, Mexico, and Belgium. Definitely not a group of death by any standards. Jamaica and Japan were both easily bounced by Argentina and Croatia in Group H, the Jamaicans departing with a -7 to match that of Korea. Even the USA was easily eliminated from a group of Germany, Yugoslavia, and Iran with a 0-0-3, -4 GD effort. Going back to 1994’s tournament in the United States, 13 of 24 nations qualifying for the finals were European, and 10 of them made the Knockout Phase. 10 of the 15 (of 32 total now) qualified UEFA nations made the Round of 16 in 1998.
2. Major Changes in economy/philosophy see European sides with vastly diverse squads.
Football has added the plea of “Stamp out Racism” to its “Fair Play” cry in recent years, and for good reason. Imports from around the world are on the rise, particularly African footballers. Consider that from 1986 to 1996, clubs reaching the UEFA Champions League final had a MINIMUM of 6 (Benfica 1990, the only team under 7) players from their home nation. Additionally only four African players even participated in a CL final during that span. Since 2000, only a handful of clubs have had 6+ home nation footballers, and famously Jose Mourinho’s Inter Milan had ZERO Italian starters.
Further consider that in World Cups 1994 and 1998 combined, African nations not named Nigeria (only 3 total even were accepted for 1994, with 4 making it in 1998) were a combined 1-7-10 (W-D-L) with 16 goals for and a whopping 36 goals against, for a -20 GD. Ironically, though Africa has improved, it’s still the defense which lacks most for African sides in the modern era where African strikers such as Eto’o and Drogba are amongst the world’s elite.
3. As the game spreads, the level of football improves.
The French/Italian belief that “The World Cup begins with the knockout phase” is dying, if not proving to be dead here in 2010. With the improvement of football around the world, there is no cupcake, surefire win match for favorites in the tournament within their group play. Teams like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or Nigeria who qualified consistently out of super-weak continents and were toppled far too easily have given way to the modern organized underdog full of belief that a result can be achieved. Algeria 0-0 England; New Zealand/Paraguay 1-1 Italy; South Africa 1-1 Mexico, Uruguay 0-0 France. These are all results that are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. With every 2 points dropped, the expectations of favored teams take a major hit and the players face the confidence body blow that comes from a home media thrashing. It is far too easy for a club to find themselves 0-2-0 or 0-1-1 and looking at a massively uphill task (which may or may not even be entirely within their control) to rescue their tournament.
4. Referees are often ARBITRARY rather than logical ARBITERS of the game.
Whether the culture of simulation or the culture of overprotection came first is something that can be debated at length on another day. What is true and must be learned for international tournaments is that bookings aren’t what they used to be. It can well be argued that no fewer than 75% of the red cards handed out in this tournament have been nothing short of appalling, so many of them a combination of silly cautions distributed far too easily. Such, unfortunately, is modern football. What has come with it is the culture of diving and embellishment that leads to even more cards. Simply embellishing with a ground roll, covering the face and hoping (Keita w/ Kaka) would never have drawn cautions 15-20-25 years ago as it does in the modern game. Neither would the nips at heels (Klose), incidental contacts (Lukovic), and harsh interpretations of “unsporting play” (Lodiero) we’ve seen lead to damaging first or second yellow cards, nor the incredibly arbitrary “persistent fouling” cautions we have today. However, since the game has been so sadly softened players (Klose) must respect that there is much more scrutiny and much less patience on the part of oft card-happy officials, and adjust their play. That doesn’t mean the cards are deserved, it simply means that the lines between careless, reckless, and violent conduct have been skewed (hopefully not irreparably), and unfortunately officiating in the tournament will reflect such.
That being said, don’t let point #4 take away from what is an exciting time in world football. We are witnessing new friends joining the ranks of the competitive (if not the elite) and I for one welcome that change, especially as an American interested in the future of football in our own great nation going forward. With the globalization of the game comes the inevitable evolution that a World Cup begins with your opening match as opposed to the Round of 16. Winning that golden trophy now requires seven matches of glorious football as opposed to only four.
1. North American and Asian Qualifiers have legitimate pro leagues, thus more footballers.
As my colleague Steven Maloney noted in the opener to his World Cup Day 9 review, “the professionalization of soccer in South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the United States/Canada in the 1990’s to present” is a significant factor in the new-found difficulties of the group phase. Consider that in World Cup 1998, Korea Republic finshed 0-1-2 with a -7 GD in a group containing the Netherlands, Mexico, and Belgium. Definitely not a group of death by any standards. Jamaica and Japan were both easily bounced by Argentina and Croatia in Group H, the Jamaicans departing with a -7 to match that of Korea. Even the USA was easily eliminated from a group of Germany, Yugoslavia, and Iran with a 0-0-3, -4 GD effort. Going back to 1994’s tournament in the United States, 13 of 24 nations qualifying for the finals were European, and 10 of them made the Knockout Phase. 10 of the 15 (of 32 total now) qualified UEFA nations made the Round of 16 in 1998.
2. Major Changes in economy/philosophy see European sides with vastly diverse squads.
Football has added the plea of “Stamp out Racism” to its “Fair Play” cry in recent years, and for good reason. Imports from around the world are on the rise, particularly African footballers. Consider that from 1986 to 1996, clubs reaching the UEFA Champions League final had a MINIMUM of 6 (Benfica 1990, the only team under 7) players from their home nation. Additionally only four African players even participated in a CL final during that span. Since 2000, only a handful of clubs have had 6+ home nation footballers, and famously Jose Mourinho’s Inter Milan had ZERO Italian starters.
Further consider that in World Cups 1994 and 1998 combined, African nations not named Nigeria (only 3 total even were accepted for 1994, with 4 making it in 1998) were a combined 1-7-10 (W-D-L) with 16 goals for and a whopping 36 goals against, for a -20 GD. Ironically, though Africa has improved, it’s still the defense which lacks most for African sides in the modern era where African strikers such as Eto’o and Drogba are amongst the world’s elite.
3. As the game spreads, the level of football improves.
The French/Italian belief that “The World Cup begins with the knockout phase” is dying, if not proving to be dead here in 2010. With the improvement of football around the world, there is no cupcake, surefire win match for favorites in the tournament within their group play. Teams like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or Nigeria who qualified consistently out of super-weak continents and were toppled far too easily have given way to the modern organized underdog full of belief that a result can be achieved. Algeria 0-0 England; New Zealand/Paraguay 1-1 Italy; South Africa 1-1 Mexico, Uruguay 0-0 France. These are all results that are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. With every 2 points dropped, the expectations of favored teams take a major hit and the players face the confidence body blow that comes from a home media thrashing. It is far too easy for a club to find themselves 0-2-0 or 0-1-1 and looking at a massively uphill task (which may or may not even be entirely within their control) to rescue their tournament.
4. Referees are often ARBITRARY rather than logical ARBITERS of the game.
Whether the culture of simulation or the culture of overprotection came first is something that can be debated at length on another day. What is true and must be learned for international tournaments is that bookings aren’t what they used to be. It can well be argued that no fewer than 75% of the red cards handed out in this tournament have been nothing short of appalling, so many of them a combination of silly cautions distributed far too easily. Such, unfortunately, is modern football. What has come with it is the culture of diving and embellishment that leads to even more cards. Simply embellishing with a ground roll, covering the face and hoping (Keita w/ Kaka) would never have drawn cautions 15-20-25 years ago as it does in the modern game. Neither would the nips at heels (Klose), incidental contacts (Lukovic), and harsh interpretations of “unsporting play” (Lodiero) we’ve seen lead to damaging first or second yellow cards, nor the incredibly arbitrary “persistent fouling” cautions we have today. However, since the game has been so sadly softened players (Klose) must respect that there is much more scrutiny and much less patience on the part of oft card-happy officials, and adjust their play. That doesn’t mean the cards are deserved, it simply means that the lines between careless, reckless, and violent conduct have been skewed (hopefully not irreparably), and unfortunately officiating in the tournament will reflect such.
That being said, don’t let point #4 take away from what is an exciting time in world football. We are witnessing new friends joining the ranks of the competitive (if not the elite) and I for one welcome that change, especially as an American interested in the future of football in our own great nation going forward. With the globalization of the game comes the inevitable evolution that a World Cup begins with your opening match as opposed to the Round of 16. Winning that golden trophy now requires seven matches of glorious football as opposed to only four.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Americans Just Don't Get the Vuvuzela
The Wave. Bleacher Beach Ball. Fan Chants. Air horn guy. Overuse of cheering. The South African Vuvuzela. What do all of these things have in common? It would seem that the majority of Americans, sports media included, don’t like any of them. Well, my fellow Americans, welcome to the World Cup — a place where magic happens and fan atmosphere is at its highest. As a Philadelphia Phillies fan, I often take grief about how “Philadelphia has the worst fans in the country… they’ll even boo Santa Claus!” Not surprising in this country that doing anything other than politely applauding or yelling “Go Team!” is looked upon with shock or disdain. Let’s take a look at some of the silly rules and political correctness that are hindering most American sports fans from having the true fan experience at the arena/stadium/etc.
1. The NCAA’s inexplicable ban on artificial noisemakers.
Ironically enough, in a move that probably typifies the American sports fan’s reaction to passionate following of one’s team, the organization that oversees sport played at arguably its most passionate level has the most draconian policies on fan enjoyment. Air horns, drums, tambourines, and artificial noisemakers of any kind are absolutely forbidden at NCAA events. Often times (especially for sports without a large-scale public venue such as Division I football and basketball) there is no alcohol allowed on presence either. Now, I won’t make this an essay about underage drinking and policies to curb such activity (understanding that many football venues are often little more than an open field with some bleachers and a scoreboard), so we’ll look at the first rule primarily. What exactly about drums or air horns is going to take away from the quality or performance of the players? In an indoor sport, I might understand due to building acoustics, especially in smaller venues. Outdoors however, an air horn won’t even cover up a referee’s whistle, and it certainly can help rally the support.
2. Ridiculous Levels of Political Correctness
Just when you thought Americans were the least politically correct bunch on the planet there comes this stunning revelation. Hate to break it to you, but chants like “Nemanja Vidic! Nemanja Vidic! He comes from Serbia, he’ll [expletive]in murder ya!” are commonplace in football stadiums. This is 2010, people swear all the time. If we could just get past this nonsense about political correctness and let people express themselves freely, Americans would understand that swears aren’t necessarily vulgar things to be looked-down upon, but useful terms for amusing stadium chants. A society where parts of your own language are even met with too high a level of disdain is never going to embrace the true football fan experience.
To add an amusing story to this, I was at Red Bull Arena a couple weeks ago for the big match between RBNY and the Columbus Crew. The South Ward chant leaders pulled out some notes pre-match and yelled into his megaphone: “OK, the club/league/someone has informed us we can’t use some common words, so let’s try to respect their wishes. This is the banned list. Sh*t,” (South Ward Response: “SH*T!!!”), A-hole (you see where this is going), and the f-word.” This “FBI Warning” style of approach did nothing to stop the “oooooooooOOOOO YOU SUCK A**H*LE” chants on every Will Hesmer goal kick. Politically correct? Absolutely not, but it’s how football is supposed to be.
3. General Disdain for Crowd Enthusiasm due to Unwarranted Smugness
A Twitter user I follow recently echoed the following blog posts on crowd enthusiasm and individuality that I link for your enjoyment (or rather shaking your head in frustration): Wave Hate and Smug Reaction to Other Fans
That’s right, so-called “true” fans hate the wave, and apparently all non-official color team gear. And what’s this I saw about hating on an adult wearing a personalized team jersey? If I want my kit to say “DiAmore 87,” I don’t think anyone in the footballing community would mock me, and if they did I’d probably give ‘em hell right back. The true fact of the matter is that American sporting venues are pretty much dead zones by the world standard. Enthusiasm is often forced by unnaturally shilling from hype-men on microphones and large “NOISE!!!” graphics. Yet, international hockey arenas often have terracing in the upper deck, and fans chant and bang drums and sing all game. Having seen a game or two of baseball from the Tokyo Dome, it’s much more lively than American baseball stadiums too. Japan is a country that lives and dies with baseball as much as the United States does. Obviously there’s the world football community, and full credit to the 500-1000 or so at MLS arenas that try to capture that atmosphere.
Back to the vuvuzelas. These African buzzing horns symbolize everything that is good about world sport, especially football. The good side of sport is that it is a meeting of world community and togetherness, the entirety of the human population joining to share in one glorious demonstration of ability and achievement for the pride of not just self (as is far too common with athletes) but of country as well. The World Cup, as demonstrated by the opening ceremony, is not just a celebration of sport but also one of cultural pride. Like it or not, the vuvuzela is as much a part of the cultural fabric of an African World Cup as anything else. Something else to consider (admittedly on a much shallower level than the rest of this piece): The vuvuzelas are great because there is NOTHING more annoying than having the crowd-focused sound dishes pick up fan chanting only well enough that you know they’re chanting and not well enough that you can’t understand a word the fans are saying unless it’s a song you already know (such as Manchester City’s “Blue Moon” chant).
I count myself fortunate in a small number of respects, primarily being able to get any seat as an away fan instead of being banished to a crappy section in the upper corner just because the home fans hate every other team for no apparent reason. A big part of me though longs for the international sporting fan style to finally be accepted in America. Passion for sport should be commonplace, not a diamond in the rough or the odd man out, which is often sadly how I feel in American sporting venues. Keep up the faith though football fans, our game is far too global to never make an impact on the United States.
1. The NCAA’s inexplicable ban on artificial noisemakers.
Ironically enough, in a move that probably typifies the American sports fan’s reaction to passionate following of one’s team, the organization that oversees sport played at arguably its most passionate level has the most draconian policies on fan enjoyment. Air horns, drums, tambourines, and artificial noisemakers of any kind are absolutely forbidden at NCAA events. Often times (especially for sports without a large-scale public venue such as Division I football and basketball) there is no alcohol allowed on presence either. Now, I won’t make this an essay about underage drinking and policies to curb such activity (understanding that many football venues are often little more than an open field with some bleachers and a scoreboard), so we’ll look at the first rule primarily. What exactly about drums or air horns is going to take away from the quality or performance of the players? In an indoor sport, I might understand due to building acoustics, especially in smaller venues. Outdoors however, an air horn won’t even cover up a referee’s whistle, and it certainly can help rally the support.
2. Ridiculous Levels of Political Correctness
Just when you thought Americans were the least politically correct bunch on the planet there comes this stunning revelation. Hate to break it to you, but chants like “Nemanja Vidic! Nemanja Vidic! He comes from Serbia, he’ll [expletive]in murder ya!” are commonplace in football stadiums. This is 2010, people swear all the time. If we could just get past this nonsense about political correctness and let people express themselves freely, Americans would understand that swears aren’t necessarily vulgar things to be looked-down upon, but useful terms for amusing stadium chants. A society where parts of your own language are even met with too high a level of disdain is never going to embrace the true football fan experience.
To add an amusing story to this, I was at Red Bull Arena a couple weeks ago for the big match between RBNY and the Columbus Crew. The South Ward chant leaders pulled out some notes pre-match and yelled into his megaphone: “OK, the club/league/someone has informed us we can’t use some common words, so let’s try to respect their wishes. This is the banned list. Sh*t,” (South Ward Response: “SH*T!!!”), A-hole (you see where this is going), and the f-word.” This “FBI Warning” style of approach did nothing to stop the “oooooooooOOOOO YOU SUCK A**H*LE” chants on every Will Hesmer goal kick. Politically correct? Absolutely not, but it’s how football is supposed to be.
3. General Disdain for Crowd Enthusiasm due to Unwarranted Smugness
A Twitter user I follow recently echoed the following blog posts on crowd enthusiasm and individuality that I link for your enjoyment (or rather shaking your head in frustration): Wave Hate and Smug Reaction to Other Fans
That’s right, so-called “true” fans hate the wave, and apparently all non-official color team gear. And what’s this I saw about hating on an adult wearing a personalized team jersey? If I want my kit to say “DiAmore 87,” I don’t think anyone in the footballing community would mock me, and if they did I’d probably give ‘em hell right back. The true fact of the matter is that American sporting venues are pretty much dead zones by the world standard. Enthusiasm is often forced by unnaturally shilling from hype-men on microphones and large “NOISE!!!” graphics. Yet, international hockey arenas often have terracing in the upper deck, and fans chant and bang drums and sing all game. Having seen a game or two of baseball from the Tokyo Dome, it’s much more lively than American baseball stadiums too. Japan is a country that lives and dies with baseball as much as the United States does. Obviously there’s the world football community, and full credit to the 500-1000 or so at MLS arenas that try to capture that atmosphere.
Back to the vuvuzelas. These African buzzing horns symbolize everything that is good about world sport, especially football. The good side of sport is that it is a meeting of world community and togetherness, the entirety of the human population joining to share in one glorious demonstration of ability and achievement for the pride of not just self (as is far too common with athletes) but of country as well. The World Cup, as demonstrated by the opening ceremony, is not just a celebration of sport but also one of cultural pride. Like it or not, the vuvuzela is as much a part of the cultural fabric of an African World Cup as anything else. Something else to consider (admittedly on a much shallower level than the rest of this piece): The vuvuzelas are great because there is NOTHING more annoying than having the crowd-focused sound dishes pick up fan chanting only well enough that you know they’re chanting and not well enough that you can’t understand a word the fans are saying unless it’s a song you already know (such as Manchester City’s “Blue Moon” chant).
I count myself fortunate in a small number of respects, primarily being able to get any seat as an away fan instead of being banished to a crappy section in the upper corner just because the home fans hate every other team for no apparent reason. A big part of me though longs for the international sporting fan style to finally be accepted in America. Passion for sport should be commonplace, not a diamond in the rough or the odd man out, which is often sadly how I feel in American sporting venues. Keep up the faith though football fans, our game is far too global to never make an impact on the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
