Given the muddled perception of the USA in international soccer, it's dangerous for those of us who live here to suggest changes to the game. So for purposes of this discussion, I'm English (mother's side), Irish (paternal grandmother), Scottish (great-aunts) and, sadly, French (hence the name).
But whatever your nationality, the World Cup has shown few glimpses of the game at its best and many of the game at its worst. At times during the dreary first week, when ESPN's announcers would welcome viewers on American Forces Network, it was tempting to ask whether the troops had suffered enough.
We soccer fans can joke about bad soccer. A World Cup snoozer is, in many respects, no different than a Super Bowl blowout or error-riddled Final Four game. Referees are human. And if the easy answer were "more goals," we'd be watching indoor soccer in the winter and the World Cup of lacrosse now.
Yet FIFA, the sport's international overlords, have taken the occasional step to repair the game when it seems to be in danger of going wrong, particularly as the average number of goals per game creeps closer to two. Teams get three points for wins now, not two. Goalkeepers can't pick up simple passes from their teammates and hold the ball forever. In theory, referees can punish dives.
They also tend to introduce a new ball for each World Cup, promising that it'll dip and swerve to produce spectacular goals. That approach backfired this time around, as field players had as much trouble as goalkeepers in adjusting to the infamous Jabulani, spraying passes all over South Africa and misjudging normally simple crosses. Next time, perhaps FIFA will introduce a ball that splits in two in mid-air, giving goalkeepers quite a bit to think about.
FIFA can still tinker a bit, particularly with an offside rule that most of the sport's commentators don't understand. An experiment with additional assistant referees could prove fruitful, particularly if they're empowered to flag some of the nonsense seen on free kicks as in the USA-Slovenia game, which saw several U.S. players held in a variety of grappling holds.
Ultimately, though, it's attitudes that must change, not the game itself. Players' attitudes, coaches' attitudes, media attitudes and fan attitudes.
Players and coaches need to realize at some point that their negativity, particularly diving, is backfiring. Consider Cristiano Ronaldo, the wonderfully skilled Portuguese player who has been known to dive for a foul rather than proceed with a scoring chance that had a better chance of succeeding than the free kick he just won. Players and coaches have been trained to think otherwise. Besides, players are more afraid of making a ghastly mistake on a big stage than they are of being labeled a cheat.
That's where fans and the media come in.
In U.S. sports, we have a strong deterrent against blatant cheating: a gauntlet of reporters in the locker room after the game. Not so in international sports, where athletes can rush through "mixed zones," waving off questions. Soccer players in particular aren't used to being hounded by the press. Ridiculed, yes. Forced to endure scrutiny and outright falsehoods over their social lives, yes. Grilled about diving? Not so much.
Fans and the media also have the right to demand more from this sport than simply grinding out results, and they generally have no problem voicing such opinions.
And yet fans and the media also need to be patient. Perhaps a bit more forgiving, too, so that players and coaches will feel emboldened to take more risks.
Maybe, for example, on Wednesday, when the USA could really stand to throw caution to the wind to get a win against Algeria.
Follow Beau Dure on Twitter: www.twitter.com/duresport
North Koreans not discouraged about World Cup loss
World Cup going South America's way so far
The 10 biggest World Cup upsets
World Cup 'Ambush Marketers' Have Charges Dropped
At World Cup, each referee appears to have his own standards
A change of the rules might help. If there were more officials on the field, perhaps there would be better conduct by the players. Once there is a feeling of "lawlessness" on the field, it is difficult to reverse it, except by the use of the implementation of "law".
Allow me to explain one example thereof: In ice hockey, a defending player who shoots the puck out of the arena is penalized for delay of game (2 minutes). Clearly, delay of game in such situations constitutes a cynical play. Surely, in all games, the games and the spectators are served best if the object of play - ball or puck - is actually kept in play. A positive attitude by players would be an attitude of "keep the ball in play at all costs". Positive attitudes must be encouraged and, for sure, negative attitudes must be penalized. In soccer, such balls are put into play by a throw-in from the spot where the ball left the field. That's hardly a penalty at all (almost a reward relative to the danger they ball may have posed prior to being kicked out).
My proposal: kicking the ball out of play (delay of game) will be punished by awarding a free kick to the opponents from the spot on the field from which the cynical act of delaying the game was initiated.
I've played soccer, ice hockey, field hockey, rugby, and lacrosse (and a little baseball: YUCK!). There's much all these sports, but especially soccer, could learn from each other.
Allow me to suggest fully transparent time; spectators and players should, at all times, be able to determine how much time is left in the game (allow the referee to signal stop and start of the clock by signalling a time-keeper as he deals with stoppages on the field).
How about utilizing the entire bench? Soccer ought to permit the spectators to see the best - and as rested as possible - players on the pitch at all times. Like ice and field hockey, soccer should permit unlimited, on-the-fly substitutions. What harm would it do? How would the game be changed for the worse?
Tweek or eliminate the offside completely. Field hockey eliminated the offside years ago, and you'd be hard-pressed finding a player or spectator asking to have it back. If not a complete elimination,how about an ice hockey-style "blue line"; discourage strikers loitering too far up field, but allow creative passes inside the offensive zone without the penalty of offside calls for what amount to infractions of mere millimeters. Is there skill in the offside trap.
The game is perfect right now.
3 points for a win sounds good on paper, but the real world result would eliminate the crowded playoff races we have seen the last few years.
Not gonna happen.
WC to North America bandwagon starts here ;-)
Soccer is about to explode here in the states and the world is not ready. I love being part of the growing fan base.
http://vasoccernews.blogspot.com