sorry folks, my bad. that's what i get for watching the game in spanish when my understanding of the language is waning.
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.
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.
Good call salmacis!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Hakan Unsal is the new David Beckham in France 98. Petty, petty man.
