football without incessant commercials
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:56 am
ARCHIVE
football without incessant commercials
Started by John Grasso, Jun 15 2014 02:31 PM
Page 1 of 2
33 replies to this topic
#1 John Grasso
Starter
Board of Directors
348 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Guilford, NY
Posted 15 June 2014 - 02:31 PM
I've really been enjoying the World Cup this week.
No commercials during play.
No stoppages for instant replay.
A minimum of gabbing by the announcers during the game.
A game that's over in 2 hours.
Only one game played at a time.
#2 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:44 PM
John Grasso, on 15 Jun 2014 - 2:31 PM, said:
I've really been enjoying the World Cup this week.
No commercials during play.
No stoppages for instant replay.
A minimum of gabbing by the announcers during the game.
A game that's over in 2 hours.
Only one game played at a time.
The play doesn't stop... well, the clock doesn't stop, so there's no opportunity for commercials.
Nothing much happens, so there's no need for instant replay.
Nothing much happens, so there's nothing for the announcers to talk about.
2 hours? Seems like much longer....
Given that they only do the World Cup once every few years, and so few games are actually played, they better not overlap games!
It is a beautiful game, though.
#3 JuggernautJ
Starter
PFRA Member
322 posts
Gender:Male
Location:NinerLand, CA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:47 PM
Of course (and as is your point) it's entirely different in American Football.
And the above reasons are exactly why I've gone from someone who watched every game and hung on every moment to someone who watches only "my teams" and does something else at the same time to occupy my mind during unending, brain-cell destroying series of commercial after commercial.
#4 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,723 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:56 PM
No sponsors across the front of the shirts either . . . outside of the uniform manufacturer, of course.
There is instant replay, the clock doesn't stop but there's 'stoppages' in play. Goals, 'chances' and fouls are definitely replayed. Unless you meant that the game isn't stopped to go under the hood? Which we'll see if/when the goal-line technology is needed, how long it takes to make the decision.
Games overlap (played at same time) for the 3rd match of group play, plus overlaps occur if/when a match goes to extra time in the knockout rounds.
I do like that you can watch a game in a tight two hour TV window, and of course I like that there's only commercials before, at halftime, and after the match is over.
#5 Timmy B
Starter
Forum Visitors
145 posts
Location:Enola, PA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:51 PM
Well, since history is the focal point of this forum (even though soccer might not be), it looks like some (a lot?) of you don't remember when, prior to the 1994 World Cup, played right here in the good ol' USA, commercials were routinely inserted at least several times in each half during the course of play on a telecast. The 1982, 1986 and 1990 World Cups (the first ones televised live in the US) were routinely interrupted by commercials during play. And yes, goals were occasionally missed by these sponsor breaks.
Likewise, CBS telecasts of the NASL in 1967, ABC/NASL telecasts in the '70's, heck ANY telecast of a soccer game had commercials during the run of play before 1994.
Obviously, this is unthinkable today for any soccer telecast. But 20 years ago and beyond, it was very much the norm...but not for Latino coverage. They have always done the game coverage commercial free.
#6 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors
668 posts
Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:39 PM
I honestly will never understand how a lot of people in the world get so excited over soccer. Soccer in my opinion is even more boring to watch than baseball.
#7 BD Sullivan
All-Decade
Forum Visitors
3,625 posts
Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:43 PM
Timmy B, on 15 Jun 2014 - 9:51 PM, said:
Well, since history is the focal point of this forum (even though soccer might not be), it looks like some (a lot?) of you don't remember when, prior to the 1994 World Cup, played right here in the good ol' USA, commercials were routinely inserted at least several times in each half during the course of play on a telecast.
When CBS broadcast Pele's first game with the Cosmos in 1975, they missed his first goal because they were in commercial--but they did show the replay.
#8 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:11 AM
BD Sullivan, on 15 Jun 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:
When CBS broadcast Pele's first game with the Cosmos in 1975, they missed his first goal because they were in commercial--but they did show the replay.
I heard the commercial was a promo for the movie "Heidi"....
#9 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:27 AM
There is something seriously wrong with an activity where you cannot use your hands and hit the ball with your head?
In a wild and wooly contest that might see-saw back-and-forth and end with a 1-0 score, it is easy to see why fans of this pastime need to find excitement elsewhere - things like firing machine guns in the parking lot, dropping toilet seats on people seated below, or urinating on each other.
If there was a choice, the better and more thrilling telecast would definitely be bowling. Don Carter where are you now?
#10 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,844 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:19 AM
oldecapecod 11, on 16 Jun 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:
There is something seriously wrong with an activity where you cannot use your hands and hit the ball with your head?
THat is the main reason I cannot get into this sport. I will watch a game here and there but only World Cup action.
#11 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:35 AM
I can't get into watching soccer either-- I think the World Cup is great for folks who see the action in soccer that I've never been able to appreciate, and it's interesting that the tournament has 32 teams in 8 divisions, with each team playing their divisional rivals. I hope that's as similar to the NFL as it gets, since the top two teams in each division go to the playoffs, something Roger Goodell would love but most of us wouldn't.
Regarding commercials, there could be "side by side" coverage as has been done in NASCAR and Indy car races, but what you would see in football is the same view that you get during downtime if you're at a football game-- and, what's worse, I think that there would be the incentive for the networks to run a 30-second ad between each down, with the game going to full screen only when the ball is snapped. I don't know what the current average number of plays are run in an NFL game, but I suspect that the breaks would make the game longer.
#12 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors
152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:13 AM
Finding a way to open up the game would be a big improvement. I do not know what the original reason was for the offsides rule, but from a novice's perspective, getting rid of it would allow for the equivalent of the long bomb in football or the home run in baseball. Think how baseball changed when Ruth started hitting home runs; traditionalists hated it but the casual fan loved it and packed the parks. Of course, the US is about the only country that cannot pack parks when soccer is being played, so most of the world doesn't mind closed up play and 1-0 scores.
#13 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:26 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 10:35 AM
"... Regarding commercials, there could be 'side by side' coverage as has been done in NASCAR and Indy car races, but what you would see in football is the same view that you get during downtime if you're at a football game..."
AT a game versus a game on TV...
What many seem to forget is the true reason for so many commercials: physical necessities.
When you are at a game, it is doubtful a rest room visit could be completed in less than 15 - 20 minutes.
If you are watching a game in the comfort of a living room or den with friends, when there is a need, it is usually done in 3 - 5 minutes and, on the way, another beverage can be obtained. And... that is required by each member of the group.
The at home situation as described does not pertain to those equipped with bed pans and with a good woman serving as needed.
The Brits were going to serve tea at their contests until they read of a tragedy that took place in the American west.
An old Indian drank 20 cups of tea and the next morning he was found drowned in his teepee.
#14 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:47 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 16 Jun 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:
Finding a way to open up the game would be a big improvement. I do not know what the original reason was for the offsides rule, but from a novice's perspective, getting rid of it would allow for the equivalent of the long bomb in football or the home run in baseball. Think how baseball changed when Ruth started hitting home runs; traditionalists hated it but the casual fan loved it and packed the parks. Of course, the US is about the only country that cannot pack parks when soccer is being played, so most of the world doesn't mind closed up play and 1-0 scores.
Surprisingly, there aren't that many offside penalties in a game. I was looking at the stats for that on defense and offense
http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/def ... &year=2013
http://www.nflpenalt...fside?year=2013
and the worst offenders-- the Jets and the Rams-- had 15 and 10 for the entire season, less than one per game in each case. When they met in 2012, there were 8 penalties in the game, and a few of those had to do with a false start, illegal motion and encroachment, but most plays are ruined by holding or pass interference. If penalties were limited only to contact offenses, it probably would make for a faster game
#15 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:24 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 12:47 PM
"... If penalties were limited only to contact offenses, it probably would make for a faster game"
Are you saying there should be no penalty for any type of movement, any form of positioning, or a myriad of other offenses not involving contact?
Where's Tony McAuliffe? That's nuts!
Instead of a penalty, what would there be - a do-over?
It would take three days, not three hours, to play a game. Maybe that's not such a bad thing?
It would require practically 24/7 coverage and there would be lots of bathroom time.
#16 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,279 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 16 June 2014 - 04:22 PM
Soccer needs a 10-second rule and a 24-second shot clock
As i noted in another thread some time back, there have been teams that have averaged just 1 shot a game in World Cup play. IIRC, even the top teams average about 6 shots a game .... that's one ever 15 minutes.
#17 Kelly1105
Starter
PFRA Member
489 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Eastern Pa.
Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:54 AM
I can see the for lack of a better term the "beauty" of the game . But one thing that annoys me is how can you play a game and never really know when it will end. The clock goes forward which is OK but the extra time is a mystery. Play could be extended 2 minutes or 5 but no one knows but the official in charge of time keeping. They do know that stop watches can be stopped....Right?
#18 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
357 posts
Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:36 AM
If we take as a given that football has been continuously played annually, and that, thusly the various decades were on a line to today, and fans were just as rabid years ago as now....
Then those that whine about low scoring games, mostly defensive games, how do you explain the immense popularity at one time of low scoring (American) football games. Fordham won the Sugar Bowl 2-0 in 1940, for instance. In the mid-1930s played three straight years of 0-0 ties against Pitt at the Polo Grounds. And there were few if any complaints in newspapers at the time, large crowds came out every year to see these games. All of their games were not this low scoring, but many were, the better games. Against St. Mary's, Stanford, etc. American football fans, 60,000, 75,000, would attend these 3-0 and 0-0 gaames and there were no complaints.
I know actual 0-0 scores were rarer in the NFL, but low scoring games were not.
Explain this. Back earlier there were rapt reports on basketball games with scores like we see in ice hockey today. This was when one of the other sports followed closely was the new auto races, so it is not as if fans were unfamiliar with speed, a form of high scoring, if you will.
I know there is a sort of revulsion at ties in US sports today, football virtually eliminated them, in college totally. In the NFL, usually it is bad teams that end in a tie after OT. Hockey mostly tried to eliminate them.
Advertising drives the profits. I have no comments on TV commercials. I really don't appreciate when in NFL they come back from break, have a kick-off, then go to a break again. That is excessive. And the promotion of alcohol as if trying to sell it to toddlers (with the infantile ads) is a bit odd.
Not sure why soccer seems less regimented than our sports. I also find the extra time mystery to be just that and I think they are considering showing how much time will be added. But that's the way it is. Why should everything be changed for us? There is no need for clocks or 10 second rules. It isn't basketball. I always found it ridiculous in the NCAA when Villanova pulled a big upset with no 30 second clock, showing how masterfully a deliberately played game could be (against Georgetown), how the clock could be used productively. And yet that was last game ever played that way as the clock began the next season. Now I realize Dean Smith abused the rule, in the past it was awful teams that stalled, not the #1 team. I guess I am against the current. I hate the DH, the special kicking football, the hatred of the extra point....
#19 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:49 AM
Kelly1105, on 18 Jun 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:
I can see the for lack of a better term the "beauty" of the game . But one thing that annoys me is how can you play a game and never really know when it will end. The clock goes forward which is OK but the extra time is a mystery. Play could be extended 2 minutes or 5 but no one knows but the official in charge of time keeping. They do know that stop watches can be stopped....Right?
The way I've seen it explained is that they don't want to interrupt the momentum of the game, although the time is being added only for the times when the ball wasn't in play, like if they're carting a hurt guy off the field, or if people are celebrating that a GOOOAAAALLLLL had just been scored-- I guess the players are staying pumped, champing at the bit, waiting for the signal to get going again. Exactly 45 minutes after the half has started, you know that the officials are going to announce that extra time has been added. Apparently, it's about 3 to 5 minutes, and if something happens, they don't add more time. And, instead of counting it down to zero, they move it up from zero.
I wouldn't even have a problem with that, except that the TV and the scoreboard don't really give a clue about how much the extra time will be-- it would be more exciting if, every time an official says, "let's save that for the end", there would be a display clock showing what the new total for extra time will be-- and then that clock would count down. We're used to people chanting "3...2...1...", but I don't think I'll ever see an crowd going "3:41, 3:42, 3:43!!!"
#20 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,279 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:22 PM
luckyshow, on 18 Jun 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:
If we take as a given that football has been continuously played annually, and that, thusly the various decades were on a line to today, and fans were just as rabid years ago as now....
Then those that whine about low scoring games, mostly defensive games, how do you explain the immense popularity at one time of low scoring (American) football games. Fordham won the Sugar Bowl 2-0 in 1940, for instance. In the mid-1930s played three straight years of 0-0 ties against Pitt at the Polo Grounds. And there were few if any complaints in newspapers at the time, large crowds came out every year to see these games. All of their games were not this low scoring, but many were, the better games. Against St. Mary's, Stanford, etc. American football fans, 60,000, 75,000, would attend these 3-0 and 0-0 gaames and there were no complaints.
I know actual 0-0 scores were rarer in the NFL, but low scoring games were not.
Explain this. Back earlier there were rapt reports on basketball games with scores like we see in ice hockey today. This was when one of the other sports followed closely was the new auto races, so it is not as if fans were unfamiliar with speed, a form of high scoring, if you will.
I know there is a sort of revulsion at ties in US sports today, football virtually eliminated them, in college totally. In the NFL, usually it is bad teams that end in a tie after OT. Hockey mostly tried to eliminate them.
Advertising drives the profits. I have no comments on TV commercials. I really don't appreciate when in NFL they come back from break, have a kick-off, then go to a break again. That is excessive. And the promotion of alcohol as if trying to sell it to toddlers (with the infantile ads) is a bit odd.
Not sure why soccer seems less regimented than our sports. I also find the extra time mystery to be just that and I think they are considering showing how much time will be added. But that's the way it is. Why should everything be changed for us? There is no need for clocks or 10 second rules. It isn't basketball. I always found it ridiculous in the NCAA when Villanova pulled a big upset with no 30 second clock, showing how masterfully a deliberately played game could be (against Georgetown), how the clock could be used productively. And yet that was last game ever played that way as the clock began the next season. Now I realize Dean Smith abused the rule, in the past it was awful teams that stalled, not the #1 team. I guess I am against the current. I hate the DH, the special kicking football, the hatred of the extra point....
I have never complained about low scoring.The problem I have with soccer is the very, very low number of real scoring opportuntiies. Hockey is a low-scoring sport, but NHL teams average approximately a shot on goal per minute of play. In soccer, the average for the best teams in World Cup play is a shot on goal every 15 minutes.
Baseball is also relatively low scoring, but every time a pitch is thrown, there's the chance of a home run and a score. And, in football, every play (except for a kneel-down by the quarterback) is a potential scoring play.
Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11
football without incessant commercials
Started by John Grasso, Jun 15 2014 02:31 PM
Page 1 of 2
33 replies to this topic
#1 John Grasso
Starter
Board of Directors
348 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Guilford, NY
Posted 15 June 2014 - 02:31 PM
I've really been enjoying the World Cup this week.
No commercials during play.
No stoppages for instant replay.
A minimum of gabbing by the announcers during the game.
A game that's over in 2 hours.
Only one game played at a time.
#2 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:44 PM
John Grasso, on 15 Jun 2014 - 2:31 PM, said:
I've really been enjoying the World Cup this week.
No commercials during play.
No stoppages for instant replay.
A minimum of gabbing by the announcers during the game.
A game that's over in 2 hours.
Only one game played at a time.
The play doesn't stop... well, the clock doesn't stop, so there's no opportunity for commercials.
Nothing much happens, so there's no need for instant replay.
Nothing much happens, so there's nothing for the announcers to talk about.
2 hours? Seems like much longer....
Given that they only do the World Cup once every few years, and so few games are actually played, they better not overlap games!
It is a beautiful game, though.
#3 JuggernautJ
Starter
PFRA Member
322 posts
Gender:Male
Location:NinerLand, CA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:47 PM
Of course (and as is your point) it's entirely different in American Football.
And the above reasons are exactly why I've gone from someone who watched every game and hung on every moment to someone who watches only "my teams" and does something else at the same time to occupy my mind during unending, brain-cell destroying series of commercial after commercial.
#4 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,723 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:56 PM
No sponsors across the front of the shirts either . . . outside of the uniform manufacturer, of course.
There is instant replay, the clock doesn't stop but there's 'stoppages' in play. Goals, 'chances' and fouls are definitely replayed. Unless you meant that the game isn't stopped to go under the hood? Which we'll see if/when the goal-line technology is needed, how long it takes to make the decision.
Games overlap (played at same time) for the 3rd match of group play, plus overlaps occur if/when a match goes to extra time in the knockout rounds.
I do like that you can watch a game in a tight two hour TV window, and of course I like that there's only commercials before, at halftime, and after the match is over.
#5 Timmy B
Starter
Forum Visitors
145 posts
Location:Enola, PA
Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:51 PM
Well, since history is the focal point of this forum (even though soccer might not be), it looks like some (a lot?) of you don't remember when, prior to the 1994 World Cup, played right here in the good ol' USA, commercials were routinely inserted at least several times in each half during the course of play on a telecast. The 1982, 1986 and 1990 World Cups (the first ones televised live in the US) were routinely interrupted by commercials during play. And yes, goals were occasionally missed by these sponsor breaks.
Likewise, CBS telecasts of the NASL in 1967, ABC/NASL telecasts in the '70's, heck ANY telecast of a soccer game had commercials during the run of play before 1994.
Obviously, this is unthinkable today for any soccer telecast. But 20 years ago and beyond, it was very much the norm...but not for Latino coverage. They have always done the game coverage commercial free.
#6 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors
668 posts
Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:39 PM
I honestly will never understand how a lot of people in the world get so excited over soccer. Soccer in my opinion is even more boring to watch than baseball.
#7 BD Sullivan
All-Decade
Forum Visitors
3,625 posts
Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:43 PM
Timmy B, on 15 Jun 2014 - 9:51 PM, said:
Well, since history is the focal point of this forum (even though soccer might not be), it looks like some (a lot?) of you don't remember when, prior to the 1994 World Cup, played right here in the good ol' USA, commercials were routinely inserted at least several times in each half during the course of play on a telecast.
When CBS broadcast Pele's first game with the Cosmos in 1975, they missed his first goal because they were in commercial--but they did show the replay.
#8 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:11 AM
BD Sullivan, on 15 Jun 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:
When CBS broadcast Pele's first game with the Cosmos in 1975, they missed his first goal because they were in commercial--but they did show the replay.
I heard the commercial was a promo for the movie "Heidi"....
#9 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:27 AM
There is something seriously wrong with an activity where you cannot use your hands and hit the ball with your head?
In a wild and wooly contest that might see-saw back-and-forth and end with a 1-0 score, it is easy to see why fans of this pastime need to find excitement elsewhere - things like firing machine guns in the parking lot, dropping toilet seats on people seated below, or urinating on each other.
If there was a choice, the better and more thrilling telecast would definitely be bowling. Don Carter where are you now?
#10 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,844 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:19 AM
oldecapecod 11, on 16 Jun 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:
There is something seriously wrong with an activity where you cannot use your hands and hit the ball with your head?
THat is the main reason I cannot get into this sport. I will watch a game here and there but only World Cup action.
#11 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:35 AM
I can't get into watching soccer either-- I think the World Cup is great for folks who see the action in soccer that I've never been able to appreciate, and it's interesting that the tournament has 32 teams in 8 divisions, with each team playing their divisional rivals. I hope that's as similar to the NFL as it gets, since the top two teams in each division go to the playoffs, something Roger Goodell would love but most of us wouldn't.
Regarding commercials, there could be "side by side" coverage as has been done in NASCAR and Indy car races, but what you would see in football is the same view that you get during downtime if you're at a football game-- and, what's worse, I think that there would be the incentive for the networks to run a 30-second ad between each down, with the game going to full screen only when the ball is snapped. I don't know what the current average number of plays are run in an NFL game, but I suspect that the breaks would make the game longer.
#12 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors
152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:13 AM
Finding a way to open up the game would be a big improvement. I do not know what the original reason was for the offsides rule, but from a novice's perspective, getting rid of it would allow for the equivalent of the long bomb in football or the home run in baseball. Think how baseball changed when Ruth started hitting home runs; traditionalists hated it but the casual fan loved it and packed the parks. Of course, the US is about the only country that cannot pack parks when soccer is being played, so most of the world doesn't mind closed up play and 1-0 scores.
#13 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:26 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 10:35 AM
"... Regarding commercials, there could be 'side by side' coverage as has been done in NASCAR and Indy car races, but what you would see in football is the same view that you get during downtime if you're at a football game..."
AT a game versus a game on TV...
What many seem to forget is the true reason for so many commercials: physical necessities.
When you are at a game, it is doubtful a rest room visit could be completed in less than 15 - 20 minutes.
If you are watching a game in the comfort of a living room or den with friends, when there is a need, it is usually done in 3 - 5 minutes and, on the way, another beverage can be obtained. And... that is required by each member of the group.
The at home situation as described does not pertain to those equipped with bed pans and with a good woman serving as needed.
The Brits were going to serve tea at their contests until they read of a tragedy that took place in the American west.
An old Indian drank 20 cups of tea and the next morning he was found drowned in his teepee.
#14 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:47 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 16 Jun 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:
Finding a way to open up the game would be a big improvement. I do not know what the original reason was for the offsides rule, but from a novice's perspective, getting rid of it would allow for the equivalent of the long bomb in football or the home run in baseball. Think how baseball changed when Ruth started hitting home runs; traditionalists hated it but the casual fan loved it and packed the parks. Of course, the US is about the only country that cannot pack parks when soccer is being played, so most of the world doesn't mind closed up play and 1-0 scores.
Surprisingly, there aren't that many offside penalties in a game. I was looking at the stats for that on defense and offense
http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/def ... &year=2013
http://www.nflpenalt...fside?year=2013
and the worst offenders-- the Jets and the Rams-- had 15 and 10 for the entire season, less than one per game in each case. When they met in 2012, there were 8 penalties in the game, and a few of those had to do with a false start, illegal motion and encroachment, but most plays are ruined by holding or pass interference. If penalties were limited only to contact offenses, it probably would make for a faster game
#15 oldecapecod 11
Veteran
PFRA Member
556 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze Florida
Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:24 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 12:47 PM
"... If penalties were limited only to contact offenses, it probably would make for a faster game"
Are you saying there should be no penalty for any type of movement, any form of positioning, or a myriad of other offenses not involving contact?
Where's Tony McAuliffe? That's nuts!
Instead of a penalty, what would there be - a do-over?
It would take three days, not three hours, to play a game. Maybe that's not such a bad thing?
It would require practically 24/7 coverage and there would be lots of bathroom time.
#16 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,279 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 16 June 2014 - 04:22 PM
Soccer needs a 10-second rule and a 24-second shot clock
As i noted in another thread some time back, there have been teams that have averaged just 1 shot a game in World Cup play. IIRC, even the top teams average about 6 shots a game .... that's one ever 15 minutes.
#17 Kelly1105
Starter
PFRA Member
489 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Eastern Pa.
Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:54 AM
I can see the for lack of a better term the "beauty" of the game . But one thing that annoys me is how can you play a game and never really know when it will end. The clock goes forward which is OK but the extra time is a mystery. Play could be extended 2 minutes or 5 but no one knows but the official in charge of time keeping. They do know that stop watches can be stopped....Right?
#18 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
357 posts
Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:36 AM
If we take as a given that football has been continuously played annually, and that, thusly the various decades were on a line to today, and fans were just as rabid years ago as now....
Then those that whine about low scoring games, mostly defensive games, how do you explain the immense popularity at one time of low scoring (American) football games. Fordham won the Sugar Bowl 2-0 in 1940, for instance. In the mid-1930s played three straight years of 0-0 ties against Pitt at the Polo Grounds. And there were few if any complaints in newspapers at the time, large crowds came out every year to see these games. All of their games were not this low scoring, but many were, the better games. Against St. Mary's, Stanford, etc. American football fans, 60,000, 75,000, would attend these 3-0 and 0-0 gaames and there were no complaints.
I know actual 0-0 scores were rarer in the NFL, but low scoring games were not.
Explain this. Back earlier there were rapt reports on basketball games with scores like we see in ice hockey today. This was when one of the other sports followed closely was the new auto races, so it is not as if fans were unfamiliar with speed, a form of high scoring, if you will.
I know there is a sort of revulsion at ties in US sports today, football virtually eliminated them, in college totally. In the NFL, usually it is bad teams that end in a tie after OT. Hockey mostly tried to eliminate them.
Advertising drives the profits. I have no comments on TV commercials. I really don't appreciate when in NFL they come back from break, have a kick-off, then go to a break again. That is excessive. And the promotion of alcohol as if trying to sell it to toddlers (with the infantile ads) is a bit odd.
Not sure why soccer seems less regimented than our sports. I also find the extra time mystery to be just that and I think they are considering showing how much time will be added. But that's the way it is. Why should everything be changed for us? There is no need for clocks or 10 second rules. It isn't basketball. I always found it ridiculous in the NCAA when Villanova pulled a big upset with no 30 second clock, showing how masterfully a deliberately played game could be (against Georgetown), how the clock could be used productively. And yet that was last game ever played that way as the clock began the next season. Now I realize Dean Smith abused the rule, in the past it was awful teams that stalled, not the #1 team. I guess I am against the current. I hate the DH, the special kicking football, the hatred of the extra point....
#19 Mark L. Ford
President PFRA
Administrators
1,143 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Harlan, Kentucky
Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:49 AM
Kelly1105, on 18 Jun 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:
I can see the for lack of a better term the "beauty" of the game . But one thing that annoys me is how can you play a game and never really know when it will end. The clock goes forward which is OK but the extra time is a mystery. Play could be extended 2 minutes or 5 but no one knows but the official in charge of time keeping. They do know that stop watches can be stopped....Right?
The way I've seen it explained is that they don't want to interrupt the momentum of the game, although the time is being added only for the times when the ball wasn't in play, like if they're carting a hurt guy off the field, or if people are celebrating that a GOOOAAAALLLLL had just been scored-- I guess the players are staying pumped, champing at the bit, waiting for the signal to get going again. Exactly 45 minutes after the half has started, you know that the officials are going to announce that extra time has been added. Apparently, it's about 3 to 5 minutes, and if something happens, they don't add more time. And, instead of counting it down to zero, they move it up from zero.
I wouldn't even have a problem with that, except that the TV and the scoreboard don't really give a clue about how much the extra time will be-- it would be more exciting if, every time an official says, "let's save that for the end", there would be a display clock showing what the new total for extra time will be-- and then that clock would count down. We're used to people chanting "3...2...1...", but I don't think I'll ever see an crowd going "3:41, 3:42, 3:43!!!"
#20 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,279 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:22 PM
luckyshow, on 18 Jun 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:
If we take as a given that football has been continuously played annually, and that, thusly the various decades were on a line to today, and fans were just as rabid years ago as now....
Then those that whine about low scoring games, mostly defensive games, how do you explain the immense popularity at one time of low scoring (American) football games. Fordham won the Sugar Bowl 2-0 in 1940, for instance. In the mid-1930s played three straight years of 0-0 ties against Pitt at the Polo Grounds. And there were few if any complaints in newspapers at the time, large crowds came out every year to see these games. All of their games were not this low scoring, but many were, the better games. Against St. Mary's, Stanford, etc. American football fans, 60,000, 75,000, would attend these 3-0 and 0-0 gaames and there were no complaints.
I know actual 0-0 scores were rarer in the NFL, but low scoring games were not.
Explain this. Back earlier there were rapt reports on basketball games with scores like we see in ice hockey today. This was when one of the other sports followed closely was the new auto races, so it is not as if fans were unfamiliar with speed, a form of high scoring, if you will.
I know there is a sort of revulsion at ties in US sports today, football virtually eliminated them, in college totally. In the NFL, usually it is bad teams that end in a tie after OT. Hockey mostly tried to eliminate them.
Advertising drives the profits. I have no comments on TV commercials. I really don't appreciate when in NFL they come back from break, have a kick-off, then go to a break again. That is excessive. And the promotion of alcohol as if trying to sell it to toddlers (with the infantile ads) is a bit odd.
Not sure why soccer seems less regimented than our sports. I also find the extra time mystery to be just that and I think they are considering showing how much time will be added. But that's the way it is. Why should everything be changed for us? There is no need for clocks or 10 second rules. It isn't basketball. I always found it ridiculous in the NCAA when Villanova pulled a big upset with no 30 second clock, showing how masterfully a deliberately played game could be (against Georgetown), how the clock could be used productively. And yet that was last game ever played that way as the clock began the next season. Now I realize Dean Smith abused the rule, in the past it was awful teams that stalled, not the #1 team. I guess I am against the current. I hate the DH, the special kicking football, the hatred of the extra point....
I have never complained about low scoring.The problem I have with soccer is the very, very low number of real scoring opportuntiies. Hockey is a low-scoring sport, but NHL teams average approximately a shot on goal per minute of play. In soccer, the average for the best teams in World Cup play is a shot on goal every 15 minutes.
Baseball is also relatively low scoring, but every time a pitch is thrown, there's the chance of a home run and a score. And, in football, every play (except for a kneel-down by the quarterback) is a potential scoring play.
Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11