From: mlindroos@abo.fi
Subject: Re: Soccer in Barcelona 92 & New Rules
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:29:27 GMT

In article <Bsvs1n.4o6@apollo.hp.com>, moynihan_r@apollo.hp.com (Robert Moynihan) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.130906.6572@cam-orl.co.uk> fs@cam-orl.co.uk (Ferdi Samaria) writes:
>>
>    <much debate rule changes and boring WC '90 deleted for brevity>
>>
>>I have no objections to change, it just worries me that the present tendency
>>to modify the existing rules is not a consequence of Italy 90 but of USA 94.
> 
> Ferdi, do I have your attention?  Good.  Read this carefully now, and remember it.
> The United States has -no- input into FIFA as far as rule changes are concerned.
> It has -no- votes, -no- influence.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.   ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN,
> FDA, CIA, FBI, and other acronyms have none either.  With no national professional
> league, and no national television contracts to hold over FIFA's head, our networks
> are <thankfully> impotent to force rule changes on football.  The mere fact that the
> World Cup is being played here in 1994 does not give them any more power.  There was
> no reason for FIFA to give any one of them broadcast rights, there is enough
> competition among networks and superstations that none of them would have the clout
> to force rule changes through to bid on the contract.

[Yawn.] Thanks, Robert. Nice post although I doubt the message is going to sink
in this time either. Some self-proclaimed "experts" just won't believe that
NBC & co. do *NOT* control (or even care that much about-) soccer. Maybe we
should make a r.s.soccer FAQ list someday and include Robert's paragraphs
above, file under "Americans bastardizing soccer":-)
 
> There is one reason and one reason only that FIFA instituted the no backpass rule, 
> and it sounds like this: "nil-nil."  Get the picture?  A hard fought, two-way
> pitched battle that results in a 0-0 tie is exciting.  A game where fullbacks boot
> the ball back to their keeper from midfield any time an opposing player comes within 
> 10 meters of them is -boring-.  And many of those boring games wind up 0-0, as teams 
> play not to lose rather than to win.  Deciding that the sport was in danger of becoming 
> a leading cure for insomnia at its alleged highest level of play, FIFA determined that 
> this ridiculous method of time-wasting had to go.  Perhaps the rule goes too far.  Time
> will tell.  However, there is not a single human being, governing body, or corporate
> entity in the United States that had -any say whatsoever- on the design or implemen-
> tation of backpass rule.  So please, cut the "Americanizing" crap and if there is any 
> blame to place, place it squarely on FIFA's shoulders, not ours.  To paraphrase the 
> infamous John Bigbooty, "It ain't our damned rules committe, monkey-boy."  
> 

A good point, again. There is *nothing* wrong with the game itself as long as
it is played the way it was meant do be played. That is, by two teams that want
to WIN. It's the acting, the Greg Louganis-style faked dives inside the penalty
area, the time-wasting and the endless bouncing and juggling by the goalies
that puts people off. Now, my old pal Ferdi is waxing our ears again with that
old "instruct the referees/change attitudes - not rules" refrain. I am sorry,
but it doesn't work (as if the refs don't have enough things to do already).
FIFA have been trying to for the last thirty years, with no success.
---
Those Americans everyone seems to be so concerned about will have no trouble at
all if the average score turns out to be 1-0 again. Their own baseball (five
runs per game) and American Football (six touchdowns per game in the NFL) are
not necessarily more "open" than soccer in this respect. What NO ONE should
be forced to put up with is the time wasting trash only soccer seems to accept
as a "natural part" of the game. Basketball has its shot clock, hockey states
that the puck must be kept in motion, American Football demands that the ball
be brought back in play within 30 seconds etc..
---
Preventing goalies from using their hands on backpasses was a good start. 
Too bad FIFA didn't ban all backpasses from outside the penalty area, like
team handball does. That would be my next step, and any player who tries to 
get around it by ballooning the ball into the stands gets booked. Also, the
goalie should not be allowed to block or hold the ball with his hands for 
more than approx. one second (like in ice hockey). If he does, the other team 
gets a lateral throw-in from the sidelines. Finally, I have two rules that
would apply ONLY to professional/international soccer. The first thing is
to stop the clock every time the ball is not in play (injuries, corners, goal-
kicks, free-kicks, throw-ins etc.). Obviously, the match time would have to
be shorter than 90 minutes as about 40-50 minutes are normally lost due to
time wasting and the like. The second would be a separate 30-second
clock similar to basketball's 10-second-rule. For those of you not familiar
with basketball, this means that as soon as the defending team gains possession
of the ball, they have thirty seconds to get it out of their own half of play.
The clock is reset every time the attacking team touches it. Simple isn't it?
These four proposals would completely kill all forms of timewasting while not
having a direct influence on the actual game.    

> Have a nice day.
> 
> -Bob Moynihan                     Bush/Quayle '92: Just say noe.
>  moynihan_r@apollo.hp.com         Go Ipswich Town!
> 

MARCU$ 

PS: As exciting as those goalless draws *CAN* be, isn't it strange that they
are never mentioned among the classic, greatest soccer matches of all time?
WORLD SOCCER published a list of a dozen or so "great encounters." NONE
of these was a goalless draw.