11/05/24
June 03, 2002
Faking Injury.: We see a lot of "flopping" in the NBA, but they are amateurs (think Waiting for Guffman) compared to soccer/football players of the World Cup. Is it all part of the game?
I think it's one of the reasons (with low scoring being another main one) why the sport has never really caught on in a professional league in North America. When you compare the faking of an injury in soccer with the "playing with pain" attitude of football and hockey, it's really hard to support the sport or the players. That said, I have fun watching the World Cup games and "judging" the performances of these "injuries". Right now, Brazil and Italy have provided the best range of acting from "my leg has been blown off by a mine" to the subtle "I'm sure that he made contact with my leg in some form, please let me indicate thusly". Just a quick question: why do they cover their face with their hands when they get hit in the back/legs? Is that so we don't see them laughing/grinning?
posted by grum@work at 03:37 PM on June 03, 2002
To their credit, FIFA is trying to discourage diving at this year's Cup. It is, however, a big part of the game, and will probably continue to be. Comparing the "playing with pain" attitude of hockey and american football with diving on a soccer pitch, however, is like comparing apples and oranges. The truth is, soccer players are just like every other athlete- they play with just as much pain as the next guy. No one dives in order to be taken out of the game. Diving is strategy. Unlike the constant substitutions that occur in american football and hockey, soccer is played non-stop for 45 minutes at a time. Sometimes, a guy just needs a break...
posted by rabi at 04:18 PM on June 03, 2002
One of Brazil's players got red-carded for doing such a thing towards the end of their match with Turkey. It made me happy. Fifa's attempts seem to be working well so far in this cup, as I've seen very little dramatic diving.
posted by Ufez Jones at 04:42 PM on June 03, 2002
It is the most unfortunate part of the game in my opinion. The onus is put squarely on the ref to make a split second decision that could swing an extremely important game. Was it a dive? Was it a foul? Did the player embellish the foul? Does the dive warrant a card? Does the foul, if it occurred, warrant a card? I don't envy refs their job (though I have to say it would take a brave man to dive in front of that Per Luigi Whatsit who looks like the King of The Undead Refs). What is so terrible about diving is that it undermines the integrity of the game, and shows that to many players, the result has become more important than the love of the game, and that is a shame. You want the ref to come in and card the player, but what if he blows the call? Just another angst-filled dilemma in the ongoing muddle of life.
posted by kafkaesque at 05:09 PM on June 03, 2002
Ufez Jones: sadly you've got it the wrong way round. The Turk was sent off not Rivaldo (who blatently faked it). They should really have a post match citation panel (like in rugby) that can hand out bans for this sort of thing.
posted by nedrichards at 07:19 PM on June 03, 2002
Ufez: I think you're mistaken. None of the Brazilian players got a red-card in that game, and it was the Turkish player who got the red-card because of the Brazilian over-acting. From ESPNsoccernet.com's report: Turkey's Hakan Unsal was sent off in injury time for kicking the ball at Rivaldo as the Brazilian prepared for a corner kick. The link for this discussion at the top is about Rivaldo admitting he faked the injury. The only yellow card Brazil got was for Denilson arguing with the referee at the 76 minute mark.
posted by grum@work at 07:27 PM on June 03, 2002
Must. Use. Preview. To. See. If. Comment. Is. Still. Relevant. *smacks head*
posted by grum@work at 07:28 PM on June 03, 2002
sorry folks, my bad. that's what i get for watching the game in spanish when my understanding of the language is waning.
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:57 PM on June 03, 2002
Pierre Luigi Collina : king of the undead refs; absolutely brilliant. I am afraid I am going to be nicking that phrase. The Brazilian, Rivaldo, was not sent off, although there is a commitee meeting tomorrow to decide retroactively what his punishment should be. Rumour has it he will be fined £1000. Given he probably earns about £50000 per week I am sure this will kill him. Diving isn't about pain thresholds it's a strategy and more acceptable (I think) in some countries than others. Some Argentines for instance, have gone on record as finding it amusing, or quaint, that English players still think the game should be played in a gentlemanly spirit. Many footballers are brave to the point of stupidity. Birminghams left back, Martin Grainger once playe nearly an entire game with a broken leg. Most famously of all, in the 1956 F.A cup final, the Manchester City goalkeeper, Bert Trautmann, played on with a broken neck. Although Rivaldo admits he cheated he does not appear to think he did anything wrong, nor does his manager. The most interesting aspect was the quote by the Turkey manager, who was clearly less than delighted.
posted by Fat Buddha at 10:30 AM on June 04, 2002
OK, let's nail this "low-scoring" myth for once and for all. You will see a goal in football as often as you will see a touchdown in American football. A game of football lasts, from kick off, to final whistle, about 110 minutes, and on average, has about 2.9 goals. That works out at 37.9 minutes/goal. (These are rough figures, but I believe they are not far off reality.) An American fooball game lasts about 190 minutes. According to nfl.com, 1090 touchdowns were scored in the regular season last year, which works out at 37.6 per team, and 2.35 per team per game. That is, the average NFL game, last year, had 4.7 touchdowns per game. That works out at 1 touchdown every 40.4 minutes. Football is low scoring? In any case, in other sports, a low scoring match is not necessarily a problem. In baseball, a 1-0 pitcher's duel is not described as boring. On the other hand, many Europeans cannot get into basketball because there is too much scoring, thus lessening the importance of each score. Football in the USA is not unpopular because of the low scoring. If that were the case, then cricket or Australian Rules football would be popular, would they not? It is unpopular simply because it is unpoular. One generation of fans brings their children along and creates another generation of fans. Baseball has never caught on in Europe for the same reason. I have never understood this American tendancy to bitch about the game of football. No other sport such venom. I can only deduce fans of traditional American sports feels threatened by it.
posted by salmacis at 11:31 AM on June 04, 2002
Good call salmacis!
posted by StarFucker at 12:30 PM on June 04, 2002
Small problem with your math salmacis...an American football game is only 60 minutes of GAME time. Sure there are the interruptions and commericals and half time, but the actual game time is 60 minutes (ignoring overtimes). North Americans are used to breaking up our sporting events with commercials and such, so that really doesn't bother us (except for baseball, which everyone complains about all the time). That means that there were 4.7 touchdowns in 60 minutes, which is one touchdown every 12.8 minutes, which is about 3 times as often as football/soccer. And 1-0 pitching duels in baseball ARE boring if they take 3 HOURS to play. I went to a baseball game a couple of years ago that took just OVER two hours to play, and I was shocked.
posted by grum@work at 02:52 PM on June 04, 2002
Sorry...lost something there.... I went to a baseball game a couple of years ago that took just over two hours to play, and I was shocked at how fast paced and entertaining it was. I wish more games were like that.
posted by grum@work at 02:54 PM on June 04, 2002
You'd probably find that in most games of football there are only about 60 minutes of active play. The ball spends some time off the pitch, free-kicks have to be taken, injured players have to be treated, which reduces actual playing time. Referees are meant to make some adjustments to how long is played to take this into account, but never do. I think the score rate issue is a red herring though. Diving or faking injury are what irks me most about professional football. But then I'm English and as Fat Buddha said we have this attitude that the game should be played in a gentlemanly manner. English players will sometimes exaggerate fouls by plumetting to the ground. (Owen against Argentina in France 1998 springs to mind). However, it would be unusual to see an English player rolling around on the floor as if in agonising pain. Some other countries don't have this perception that this kind of behaviour is unfair, but who am I to judge? Unsal would have been sent off whatever Rivaldo did anyway. He'd already been booked and kicking the ball at an opponent when play has stopped is a bookable offense (probably for ungentalmanly conduct). Rivaldo should have been sent off for two bookable offences - time-wasting and simulation (as they call it). It was never a penalty either. But Brazil are the Manchester United of international football, so it's no suprise to see referees favouring them.
posted by squealy at 05:35 PM on June 04, 2002
grum: You're not seriously suggesting that the constant interruptions of American football somehow invalidates my maths are you? Game time is irrelevent here. If you're a spectator, you'll wait approximately 40 minutes between a goal or a touchdown. Of course, American football also has field goals and safeties, whereas football has no "near miss" goals, but the point remains. If you want to improve the NFL's average, then knocking 40 minutes or so off the time it takes to play a game would do it, as well as enormously improving the live spectacle. In a point also relevent to the preceding thread, I'm surprised more Americans don't follow football because of it's non-stop action. If you're watching a football game live on American TV, isn't that about the only time you'll ever see 45+ minutes without a commercial break?
posted by salmacis at 05:40 PM on June 04, 2002
squealy: Actually, Rivaldo should have been cautioned, rather than sent off. I'm glad that FIFA are going to use video evidence to examine the incident, but really, a $1000 fine makes a mockery of their disciplinary procedures. A one match suspension is the minimum punishment for such behaviour, I believe. I have no problem with the penalty being awarded, even though, as you say, the incident was just outside the penalty area. The Turkish defender tried to cheat to prevent a goal, so morally, a penalty was right. I hate it when an obvious goal scoring opportunity is foiled by foul play, and the only thing the attacking side gains is a difficult-to-score free kick. There has to be some way of making the punishment fit the crime.
posted by salmacis at 06:01 PM on June 04, 2002
salmacis: You could argue that Brazil gained something by the Turkish player being sent off. But as it was very late in the game I guess I see your point. Sure it's unfair that they only get a free-kick, and it annoys me too, but the rules are the rules and the incident was outside the box. Anyway, since when did Brazil find a free-kick difficult to score? We'll have to agree to disagree on Rivaldo. I think he deserved to be sent off for two bookables, but the referee makes the decisions and players and fans just have to accept them. I agree a one match suspension for Rivaldo would be just, but I believe they can't suspend players for simulation on the basis of video evidence. They can though uncard players who are judged to be booked because an opposition player dived. This was all decided beforehand, or so I read somewhere. If I could find a link and work out how to post it I would. Sorry.
posted by squealy at 06:19 PM on June 04, 2002
If you're watching a football game live on American TV, isn't that about the only time you'll ever see 45+ minutes without a commercial break? Honestly, I think Americans' attention spans are too short. (Speaking as an American who nearly forgot what that sentence was about before I ended it; this one, too.)
posted by kirkaracha at 06:39 PM on June 04, 2002
Rivaldo will get kicked lots for this: the defenders' union mandates such behaviour. And good centre-halves know how to kick strikers properly, when neither the ref nor the linesmen are watching. (One of my best mates was on the books of Villa, captained the university team, and now plays semi-pro: he gave me a brief primer of how to piss off a striker by kicking him in the first five minutes of a match, as it'll put him off his game. It's perhaps for this reason -- that good defenders, like yer classical Italian centre-half, can get away with murder -- that certain footballers act as if they have been murdered.) And yeah, Rivaldo deserved a yellow -- in front of the bloody linesman, who just stood there -- and Hakan Unsal deserved a second yellow. I still remember Ray Wilkins getting sent off in '86 for throwing the ball at the ref during England vs. Portugal. It was the first time I'd heard my dad really swear.
posted by etagloh at 07:24 PM on June 04, 2002
Hakan Unsal is the new David Beckham in France 98. Petty, petty man.
posted by nedrichards at 07:49 PM on June 04, 2002
As a casual World Cup fan, that's one of the things that puts me off most about the sport. I can't recall another sport outside of professional wrestling in which participants fake injuries so dramatically. With all the moaning, face-covering, and clenched fists held upwards as if the athlete has been forsaken by God, it looks more like opera than sport. The best part is how it has filtered down to the rest of soccer. My nephew is a high school student who travels the country with a regional youth team, and when I saw him playing a team from South Africa a few months ago, every minor collision caused one or both athletes to fall to the ground as if they had been shot.