@the-gipper said:

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

Everybody's pockets? Or the pockets of those in charge? I can imagine it's difficult to resist when someone says "give me 15 seconds of airtime after every TD and I'll give you $10m per game. But then perhaps it shouldn't be up to the people who'd benefit to make that decision - there's a conflict of interest, surely.

Well, not really. The NFL is still for the most part a private business and the people that run it are out to make money. And yes, you are right, it is not everybody...just the owners/players/support staff....not the fans.

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

But that's the point, people think that 'real men' - where your 'realness' is measure by how willing you are to have pain inflicted on you as if we are living in some masochistocracy - wouldn't wear the pads in the first place.

Being a real man also involves not being stupid. It would be stupid for football players not to wear pads. Trust me...and ask anyone here that has played. Football is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport, and the injury situation would be astronomical if they did not wear pads.

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

I don't mean just in that particular case. It has very specific rules, that have evolved over the years to make the game more balanced - for example after the WR catches the ball there's a period where he's defenceless and can't be hit, until he makes a 'football move'; if you hit him after 0.6 seconds, say, it's a penalty, after 0.8 it's fine.

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band stuff, but it all feels very 'American' a lot of the time. I grant you, that's not a great definition. I guess it's like the difference between a goal in soccer being celebrated with 'good job old sport' and a TD being celebrated with 'fuck yeah! you're the mother fucking best! God damn I want your babies!' (exaggerated for effect, in case that didn't come across)

Not sure I follow you....soccer players that make goals also do a lot of silly celebrating. But what I am talking about is far more than celebration acts....it is the whole aura surrounding a football game. Again, it is different from the colleges to the pros.

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

Again, it's an evolution, hyper-specialism. Perhaps if the roster wasn't so large, compared to other sports, the specialism wouldn't be so great. If you only had a game day roster of 20 guys, you'd have to be much more versatile.

That would be going backward. The rosters have increased due to specialization. It is not going to devolve. Besides, no one wants it too, particularly not just to satisfy people that can't follow along.

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

But then it's far too easy to just hit a long pass to the guy on his own and he scores. The game used to be played like this, was changed and is now better for it, much more tactical. Imagine saying that the eligible receivers could line up where they liked on either side of the LoS?

No, that is not a apt analogy at all. The better analogy would be to say "a wr must have a defender between him and the goal line in order to catch a pass" Bollix!(besides, soccer doesn't have "plays" per say like football...there is no obligation to reset after a certain event occurs like a tackle)

Besides....why would it be too easy to hit a long pass to a guy in soccer? There are two teams on the field, nay? If that soccer player runs down the field toward the goal line to try to take a pass....then the job of the other team is to cover and defend the motherfucker......just like it is done in football, hockey, basketball. If you are too much of a slow ass to defend the guy making a break downfield then you deserve to be scored on easily. And besides....you still have the freeking goalie....and his job not to sit there and be a potted plant.

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

Yeah, that sucks. Nobody thinks that it's the 'ideal' solution by any means. Golden goal was trialled, for several years - after which there'd be penalties if there's no goal in 30 minutes - then voted against. Maybe it's better if you get the ball on the centre spot with a defender between you and the goal, and you go for it. Probably not, though, IMO.

Better to just play the game. Like I said, eliminating the offside to me would open it up....cause more scoring....and result in fewer ties and elongated OT perids in which nothing happens and then have the game decided by some silly, bastardized shootout contest.

Why not just eliminate the first 90 minutes....change the name of the game to "Shootout" and just play the game that way instead.

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

Everybody's pockets? Or the pockets of those in charge? I can imagine it's difficult to resist when someone says "give me 15 seconds of airtime after every TD and I'll give you $10m per game. But then perhaps it shouldn't be up to the people who'd benefit to make that decision - there's a conflict of interest, surely.

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

But that's the point, people think that 'real men' - where your 'realness' is measure by how willing you are to have pain inflicted on you as if we are living in some masochistocracy - wouldn't wear the pads in the first place.

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

I don't mean just in that particular case. It has very specific rules, that have evolved over the years to make the game more balanced - for example after the WR catches the ball there's a period where he's defenceless and can't be hit, until he makes a 'football move'; if you hit him after 0.6 seconds, say, it's a penalty, after 0.8 it's fine.

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band stuff, but it all feels very 'American' a lot of the time. I grant you, that's not a great definition. I guess it's like the difference between a goal in soccer being celebrated with 'good job old sport' and a TD being celebrated with 'fuck yeah! you're the mother fucking best! God damn I want your babies!' (exaggerated for effect, in case that didn't come across)

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

Again, it's an evolution, hyper-specialism. Perhaps if the roster wasn't so large, compared to other sports, the specialism wouldn't be so great. If you only had a game day roster of 20 guys, you'd have to be much more versatile.

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

But then it's far too easy to just hit a long pass to the guy on his own and he scores. The game used to be played like this, was changed and is now better for it, much more tactical. Imagine saying that the eligible receivers could line up where they liked on either side of the LoS?

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

Yeah, that sucks. Nobody thinks that it's the 'ideal' solution by any means. Golden goal was trialled, for several years - after which there'd be penalties if there's no goal in 30 minutes - then voted against. Maybe it's better if you get the ball on the centre spot with a defender between you and the goal, and you go for it. Probably not, though, IMO.

Playing both Football and Rugby I would argue that Rugby is in fact much more grueling than Football. There is no such thing as a timeout, unless of an injury. My first Rugby game I ended up with 35 stitches above my right eye and bruised over 40 percent of my body.

Playing for even longer than two hours will just continue to degrade the level of play as players become more fatigued. They don't have multiple back ups at every position.

OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.

As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.

Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?

Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?

(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).

I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.

Lol , if there was no goalie the games would be stupid. The best players in the world could shoot from damn near anywhere and score. It would completely break the game

Indoor soccer isn't outdoor soccer perfectly scaled down, it is a different game. Like flag football to football. There are no offsides because of the small field. There is no need basically. Every player pretty much plays the whole field and losing a guy behind you isn't as much of an issue. There is also less room to work with, which would make it harder to work with an offsides.

Forwards who do play far up though in indoor, in a technically offsides position, those guys are called cherry pickers and they're assholes

Then, uh, why the fuck are you here? See how we're not on some soccer forum because the rest of the world likes it?

You have to be suspect of any sport where the world championship is played by only teams from one country

Wow, I just thought that was always a rule (introduced the year I was born). I can't imagine the game with out that rule

As a defender, I would hate removing offsides. Having that invisible line there makes my job easier. It is an added tactic to use and would stop my me from running miles and miles in a game.

That would be like allowing as many forward passes a play as you like or making everyone on the field an eligible receiver.

Chris, I have played my entire life but have never heard of a "passback" rule. Are you talking about passing it back to a goalie and them not being able to pick it up?