2014 World Cup

[DGuller]

Flopping rankings.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-world-rankings-of-flopping-1403660175?mod=trending_now_1

We're not doing so bad at all.  Behind most other American continent countries, but ahead of all European countries.

[Valmy]

Man CONCACAF has perfected the flop.  No wonder three out of our four bids are advancing.

[Liep]

Losing the battle?  Europe plus S. America have been pretty consistent.  12 in 1994, 14 in 1998, 11 in 2002, 13 in 2006, 11 in 2010, 11 in 2014.  I think the status quo has, well, kept the status quo. 

So you're fine with Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, etc?

[PRC]

This may have already been posted:

https://news.yahoo.com/ann-coulter-world-cup-column-182845703.html

Ann Coulter: Real Americans hate soccer
'No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer,' columnist writes
By Dylan Stableford

Millions of Americans watched the United States advance in the World Cup on Thursday. Ann Coulter was probably not one of them.

In a column published on Wednesday, Coulter, the conservative pundit and provocateur, blasted the sport of soccer and trolled its U.S. fans, whom she refers to as "Americans" — quotes marks included.

"I've held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone," Coulter's column begins. "But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay."

Coulter lists all the reasons why she says soccer is not a real sport. Among them: "Individual achievement is not a big factor."

"The blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway," Coulter writes. "There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised. There's a reason perpetually alarmed women are called 'soccer moms,' not 'football moms.'"

Another: It's boring, she claims.

"If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he'd still be alive, although bored," Coulter quips.

It's not violent enough for Coulter.

"The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport," she writes. "Most sports are sublimated warfare."

In American football, she writes, "ambulances carry off the wounded. After a soccer game, every player gets a ribbon and a juice box."

And despite the stellar ratings that Sunday's USA-Portugal game received in the United States (18.2 million viewers, according to ESPN), Coulter doesn't believe the sport is actually catching on here.

"The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's 'Girls,' light-rail, Beyoncé and Hillary Clinton," she writes. "The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is 'catching on' is exceeded only by the ones pretending women's basketball is fascinating."

Coulter claims she's not the only one bored by soccer in the States. "One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not 'catching on' at all, is African-Americans," Coulter writes. "They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

"If more 'Americans' are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law," Coulter adds. "I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time."

[Valmy]

Coulter claims she's not the only one bored by soccer in the States. "One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not 'catching on' at all, is African-Americans," Coulter writes. "They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

I was not aware African-Americans took all their cultural direction from the French.

[derspiess]

Coulter claims she's not the only one bored by soccer in the States. "One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not 'catching on' at all, is African-Americans," Coulter writes. "They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

I was not aware African-Americans took all their cultural direction from the French.

I can think of a couple things: fancy names with accent marks and Hennessy.

[PRC]

Coulter claims she's not the only one bored by soccer in the States. "One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not 'catching on' at all, is African-Americans," Coulter writes. "They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

I was not aware African-Americans took all their cultural direction from the French.

I can think of a couple things: fancy names with accent marks and Hennessy.

Pass the Courvoisier.

[derspiess]

Coulter claims she's not the only one bored by soccer in the States. "One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not 'catching on' at all, is African-Americans," Coulter writes. "They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

I was not aware African-Americans took all their cultural direction from the French.

I can think of a couple things: fancy names with accent marks and Hennessy.

Pass the Courvoisier.

[alfred russel]

Take the Italy and Uruguay game. A critical game for both countries. What determines it? In part that Italy got a guy sent off and Uruguay didn't. Yeah a team can overcome that, but I'd rather see the teams compete at top quality and the more skillful team move on.

The most skillful team doesn't get a player sent off, besides Italy had been playing for a draw even before the red card so it didn't chance much.

And, people, the whole point of a red card is to put the receiving team in a decisive disadvantage, thereby discouraging misconduct on the pitch.

But is it effective?

It seems there are two types of misconduct that get red cards: sportsmanship (no biting, headbutting) and competitive ones (such as dangerous play, or clear scoring opportunities).

As for the first, it isn't as though sports with less drastic penalties have demonstrably worse sportsmanship. American sports don't have frequent biting incidents, for instance. But beyond that, red cards contribute to one of the worst shows of sportsmanship that is all over the place in soccer: faking injuries to draw cards. 

As for the second, I've seen a shitload of red cards for dangerous play in my admittedly brief soccer viewing lifetime. I've never seen a major injury from a foul. In American college football, there was a recent rule change to eject players (with substitution) engaging in the most dangerous types of fouls, for which I have seen lots of serious injuries. Depending on circumstances, these can carry over to suspensions for half of the next game. That was considered quite controversial.

Yeah, those are the rules, and coping with the rules can be defined as a part of a team's skill. But if the rules gave red cards for picking your nose and Messi was sent off for fishing out a booger, surely everyone would recognize that would be stupid. I'd like to see the team most skilled at traditional skills win, not the one best able to avoid biting people, or headbutting people, or having a guy engage in a bit of dangerous play.

[Liep]

The actions you get a red card from are clearly defined, avoid those. There aren't any stupid actions you can get a red card from.. so I'm not sure where you're going.

And there are discouragements in the NFL at least, huge ass fines, suspensions and penalties that can have severe effect on a team. You can't compare playing at man disadvantage here because it's much more of a man vs. man sport.

[Eddie Teach]

Americans don't care about track, figure skating, or swimming either, but that doesn't stop us from tuning in every 4 years.

[Liep]

Americans don't care about track, figure skating, or swimming either, but that doesn't stop us from tuning in every 4 years.

It's a global phenomenon. Every year around this time I get into tennis for example.

[FunkMonk]

I'd like to see the team most skilled at traditional skills win, not the one best able to avoid biting people, or headbutting people, or having a guy engage in a bit of dangerous play.

This is what usually happens.

[Admiral Yi]

Another downside to ejections is it virtually forces the offending team to squat in their half.  Surely you don't need any more of that in this sport.

I believe i asked the same question last WC and got an answer, but I still don't get the rationale for off sides.  It seems to me that no matter how far an offensive player goes down the pitch, the defender can just follow him.

[Liep]

Perhaps you chance to a more defensive style of play, and it could mean you need to use a substitution. But if you need a win, you need a win.

And the offside has been a part of the game for well over a 100 years (perhaps not in its current iteration), it's tactically and strategically a big part of the game. Why it was made in the first place I don't know. Possibly because it took out the players that was stationed on the opposing side of where the ball was. The attacker near the goal, and the defender marking him.