U.S. to host 2026 World Cup? Don't bet on it.....

[horses4courses]

Travel ban would jeopardize holding the event in this country.
An unqualified success in 1994, we are high on the list to host again.

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/fifa/243/...cup-fifa-chief

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Travel ban would jeopardize holding the event in this country.
An unqualified success in 1994, we are high on the list to host again.

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/fifa/243/...cup-fifa-chief

It is a waste of tax money and resources to host. Chicago hosted the world cup and after that experience the people did not want to host the Olympics.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It is a waste of tax money and resources to host. Chicago hosted the world cup and after that experience the people did not want to host the Olympics.

World Cup seems like it should bring in a lot of cash since you don't have to build venues like the Olympics. Probably plenty in Chicago got rich, just didn't trickle down to the city

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I say we don't compete to host the World Cup until they fix the worst rule in sports - the offside rule. I get the rule to prevent cherry picking, but when the ball is in the goalie box and the defense takes a step up, that looks to me like giving teams an excuse not to play defense. Imagine in basketball if the defense rushed past the foul line and the offensive player behind them couldn't get the ball without being offside.

While I'm at it, why does soccer only need one on-field referee, two side-line assistants, and a guy whose job seems to be holding up a lighted sign for substitutes when we need the same number in a hockey rink half the size of a soccer field and seven in American football?

Red cards to eject players and make a team play a man down? That would go down great in American Football. Fake injuries galore. Only three substitutes in a game. Even in baseball you can substitute until you run out of roster players. Does that make it a worse game?

Of course I watch the BPL every weekend. Fix those rules and then you really would have a beautiful game.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I say we don't compete to host the World Cup until they fix the worst rule in sports - the offside rule. I get the rule to prevent cherry picking, but when the ball is in the goalie box and the defense takes a step up, that looks to me like giving teams an excuse not to play defense. Imagine in basketball if the defense rushed past the foul line and the offensive player behind them couldn't get the ball without being offside.

While I'm at it, why does soccer only need one on-field referee, two side-line assistants, and a guy whose job seems to be holding up a lighted sign for substitutes when we need the same number in a hockey rink half the size of a soccer field and seven in American football?

Red cards to eject players and make a team play a man down? That would go down great in American Football. Fake injuries galore. Only three substitutes in a game. Even in baseball you can substitute until you run out of roster players. Does that make it a worse game?

Of course I watch the BPL every weekend. Fix those rules and then you really would have a beautiful game.

Any solutions?

Rules have been modified over the years in the game.
Offsides used to be far more restricting, when all players
in an offside position were penalized - regardless of
whether, or not, they were influencing play. That was
a significant change for the better.

There is a version of soccer that has no offsides.
Indoor soccer has no such rule.
There's a goal about every minute or two.
Not for purists, but fun to play - and a great way to stay fit.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Any solutions?

Rules have been modified over the years in the game.
Offsides used to be far more restricting, when all players
in an offside position were penalized - regardless of
whether, or not, they were influencing play. That was
a significant change for the better.

There is a version of soccer that has no offsides.
Indoor soccer has no such rule.
There's a goal about every minute or two.
Not for purists, but fun to play - and a great way to stay fit.

If you remember the old NASL, they had an "offsides" line at I believe 35 yards. That definitely opened up the game. Unfortunately FIFA said American soccer would never get recognized unless they adopted FIFA rules, and eventually they did. I would modify that to say once the ball has been controlled inside the 18 yard line, there is no offside. This keeps the long pass intent intact and prevents the problem of defenses basically using offsides instead of playing defense.

I'd go with at least two on field referees (they could operate like a lead and trail in two-person basketball refereeing).

Red card can still result in ejection for the player, but punish it like hockey - say ten minutes at ten men. I was watching Chelsea-Man U the other day, and when a Man U player got red-carded in the first half, the referee essentially decided the game. I'm not saying he didn't deserve the red, but eliminating the player, having a power play and having to use a sub seems harsh enough. No other sport has a penalty as harsh as soccer.

As far as substitutes, at the very least I would always allow one goalie substitution at any time, even if the team has used up its three subs. There was a world cup game where they thought a goalie had dislocated his shoulder. Since his team had already used their three subs, they were going to have to play with 10 men and someone on the field in goal. You can't decide a game on an injury. I'd also allow at least 5 subs for field players, with the idea that a coach could always keep one sub in his pocket in the case a field player gets injured and can't continue. It would be rare not to finish a game eleven on eleven.

I'd also think that any player that started rolling around on the ground like he had been shot would be given 30 seconds to get back into play. If he required the medical personnel to come on the field, he would have to sit out for, say, two minutes. That would cut down on the fake injuries.

[PhantomOnTour]

North Americans seem to be the only ones who have a problem with the rules of soccer.

[PhantomOnTour]

If you put men in the penalty box like hockey it will stagnate the game. If I'm gonna be down a man for 10mins I will instruct my players to kill the ball and basically stall the game until my guy gets out.
It will not have the desired effect of increased scoring
Which is all that Americans want...more and more and more scoring & nail biting excitement!!!!!!!!!!

Hollywood movies are end to end non stop action...virtually every flick ends with the grand chase/fight finale (see the end of the remake of The Taking Of Pelham 123 vs the original)
Basketball allows you, late in the game, to advance the ball to half court by just calling a timeout (WTF!?!?!?)
And on and on...it's a sign of the times

Soccer is just fine, although I admit the diving is a problem that could be solved with more refs on the field

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

If you put men in the penalty box like hockey it will stagnate the game. If I'm gonna be down a man for 10mins I will instruct my players to kill the ball and basically stall the game until my guy gets out.
It will not have the desired effect of increased scoring
Which is all that Americans want...more and more and more scoring & nail biting excitement!!!!!!!!!!

Hollywood movies are end to end non stop action...virtually every flick ends with the grand chase/fight finale (see the end of the remake of The Taking Of Pelham 123 vs the original)
Basketball allows you, late in the game, to advance the ball to half court by just calling a timeout (WTF!?!?!?)
And on and on...it's a sign of the times

Soccer is just fine, although I admit the diving is a problem that could be solved with more refs on the field

You can only advance the ball in the NBA. Which is to basketball as WWE is to wrestling.

So putting a man in a penalty box would slow down the game? Like you're getting NHL end to end action now? If a team can control a ball for 10 minutes while down a man, great. But as many times as I've seen 11 on 10, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about that.

Yes, not having offside inside the penalty box would open things up a little, but like I said, I've seen too many times where the defense plainly gets beat because they are not paying attention to everyone, only to get bailed out by offside. I was clear no cherry-picking - the ball had to be controlled in the penalty area. If you're telling me 18 yards is just too much to play good defense, I'm just going to shake my head.

No, the penalty for the red card is too harsh. As I said, the referee gets to decide the game. Americans may want scoring, but I was clear that the point was to allow the players to decide the game, not the referee. It's a bad rule which has nothing to do with opening up scoring. I just suggested the penalty so that the team suffers beyond just losing a player and having to substitute another. I mentioned the Chelsea-Man U game, which Chelsea dominated in terms of time of possession. It was not a good game to watch since Man U had almost no opportunity to mount an attack. I just wanted a good soccer game.

So you think three subs is enough? Even if a goalie gets hurt after subbing three? How the hell would allowing a goalie change and keeping 11 men on the field ruin the game? Even if you went to four subs, the coach could keep one in reserve so as not to lose a man at the end of a game. You want to tell me how that ruins the game?

For goodness sake, they've changed baseball rules a number of times in the last few years. Same bullshit that you hear from soccer. They had a tradition, the game was perfect the way it was, the "mistakes" were part of what made the game great. But you can't argue that replay hasn't made it so the game is decided by the players on the field. And the changes to timing that are coming in this year may or may not improve things, but at least they are willing to experiment. Soccer thought they were perfect until a couple of teams got screwed in the world cup because a guy 20 yards away from the goal with obstructed vision and a bad angle screwed up. So they got goal line technology and the game survived.

You know what they say. Even if you are on the right track you'll get run over if you just stand still.

[thaskalos]

1.) I like the offsides rule...because I hate to see the offensive players hanging around the opposing nets, ala basketball.

2.) An extra referee to help with the diving problem is a great idea...and a yellow card should be automatically given to those who seek to fool the ref by diving.

3.) The substitutions should be increased to 5...because an unlimited amount would turn the game into a circus.

4.) The red card should spell immediate expulsion from the game...but it shouldn't be given without a yellow card first. Two yellow cards should continue to equal one red.

5.) Video replay should be used more liberally...to decide penalty calls, offside calls which nullify goals, red-card fouls...etc.

6.) Any team involved in game-fixing should automatically get relegated to the country's 3rd Division league...even if it's a perennial local powerhouse, like Greece's Olympiacos. And the crooked referees should be imprisoned...along with the crooked team and league officials.

The hell with "tradition". Modernize the game...and let the results be decided by the players on the field.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A player is on a one-on-one break with one defender on him. He dribbles all the way to the penalty area. Meanwhile one of his teammates is sprinting down the field. He is sprinting past the dribbler and defender, no other player in front of him except the goalie. The dribbler passes him the ball, he scores, but...sorry, he was a step behind the defender when the dribbler passed the ball, so offsides. No reward for hustle, no penalty for the poor defense.

Does that sound like a fair rule?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

A player is on a one-on-one break with one defender on him. He dribbles all the way to the penalty area. Meanwhile one of his teammates is sprinting down the field. He is sprinting past the dribbler and defender, no other player in front of him except the goalie. The dribbler passes him the ball, he scores, but...sorry, he was a step behind the defender when the dribbler passed the ball, so offsides. No reward for hustle, no penalty for the poor defense.

Does that sound like a fair rule?

Yes...IMO, it's fair. What would we rather have...attacking players lurking by the net behind the defenders, waiting for a lob the way the basketball players do?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...IMO, it's fair. What would we rather have...attacking players lurking by the net behind the defenders, waiting for a lob the way the basketball players do?

I didn't write it like a cherry picker. He outsprinted the defense and never passed the ball until it was almost on the goalie. I agreed that we didn't want any cherry-picking. The point is that you punished the offensive player for hustle. I was careful to suggest that the offside rule doesn't get waived until the ball is controlled within the 18-yard box. I'd rather err on the side of giving the offensive player an advantage he worked for than rewarding the defense for playing lousy defense.