boingboing at July 2nd, 2014 09:01 — #1
jhutch2000 at July 2nd, 2014 09:13 — #2
Ok, the lightning round with six balls actually sounds pretty damn fun!
[mod edit: removed signature]
mister44 at July 2nd, 2014 09:20 — #3
Honestly, a few those things sound fun.
I personally thought making goals much smaller and remove the goalie might make it more interesting, sort of like basketball with feet. Then again no one should listen to me. The only sport I actually enjoy watching is American Football.
the_borderer at July 2nd, 2014 09:27 — #4
Being vaguely competent in goal was the only reason I stopped being the wierd fat kid who was always picked last in PE lessons.
Please don't take that away from me.
varghesemac at July 2nd, 2014 09:58 — #5
It's been said in reference to MLS that if you just make each goal worth seven points (and maybe give two or three points for corner kicks and goalie saves), Americans will relate much more to the scores, and leave the same games thinking they've seen plenty of action.
medievalist at July 2nd, 2014 11:25 — #6
Ah, yes, the outsider viewpoint. http://xkcd.com/793/
daneel at July 2nd, 2014 12:21 — #7
You should watch Rugby.
Actually, I think there's a push to popularise Rugby in the US using the players who couldn't make it through the NFL draft.
This is 7s, not proper 15 a side, but this US guy could be properly good.
ashen_victor at July 2nd, 2014 12:21 — #8
¡Habréis de quitarme el burro de mis frias manos muertas!
Also, If we can't use rolling Rs no more how will we make motor sounds? Think of los niños!
crenquis at July 2nd, 2014 12:47 — #9
My wife usually gets into the Rugby World Cup...
Other than live Dodger baseball games, she generally doesn't care about Sports Ball.
The ears kind'a freak her out, though:
samsam at July 2nd, 2014 14:46 — #10
I finally had the presence of mind to stop myself from continuing an argument -- six replies in -- with a once-every-four-years American World Cup-watcher on Reddit who was explaining to me how much better the game would be if the offside rule (he called it the "outside rule") didn't exist, because then players could camp out at the goals and there would be a lot more points.
brainspore at July 2nd, 2014 14:59 — #11
andersjm at July 2nd, 2014 16:47 — #12
Thing is, teams that want to win would still make someone goaltend, only that someone would get serious concussions from ball strikes.
7etoatreides at July 2nd, 2014 21:47 — #14
I like soccer, but there are weird things about it. Such as the timer never stopping even when the ball is not being played and players faking injuries and never getting punished for it. I also think ending a tied game with shootouts is ridiculous. They migh as well throw a coin or play rock paper scissors.
daneel at July 2nd, 2014 21:51 — #15
I can only imagine that the people who think soccer is weird, has silly rules and get annoyed by things ending as a draw aren't fans of cricket.
smashmartian at July 2nd, 2014 21:59 — #16
Some sort of football version of Duckworth-Lewis instead of penalties, perhaps? That would make the game far more approachable.
bzishi at July 2nd, 2014 23:49 — #17
You have to wonder why the opposing team even tries to chase him. Their strategy should be to simply prevent him from getting the ball because after that point it is over.
ldobe at July 3rd, 2014 03:34 — #18
Eh, I like shootouts better than extra innings. With bases-ball, you just get to watch pitchers tire themselves out while the outfielders collect flies.
Personally, I'm a pretty avid soccer fan, and I think the game has a lot more athletic integrity than, say baseball, which isn't to say baseball is easy. But it's a game of skill, and has so much down time, I can't pay attention to it at all. Hell, you can get a shutout, most exciting thing for a pitcher, most boring thing to watch for me. At least with soccer they keep the ball moving, and there's always the chance of a break out and someone getting an unexpected goal.
And people actually do get in trouble sometimes for excessive flopping. But the reason why they don't get in trouble most of the time is that the ref knows that every extra second someone's flopping, their team has to play at a greater disadvantage.
gths at July 3rd, 2014 06:44 — #19
Well yeah, although Duckworth-Lewis is just a limited over thing, as opposed to the true form of test cricket. On a hot summer's day, is there anything better than sitting back with a cool drink and watch England be bad at a game they invented?
immutable_mike at July 3rd, 2014 09:14 — #20
immutable_mike at July 3rd, 2014 09:19 — #21
As much as I love cricket I'm always surprised when it gets raised in the context of sport. It's a game, not a sport. I mean, it's more "Snakes and Ladders" than chess, but it's still a game.
I still look back fondly on the rotund players of the 1970's (and before) and i'm slightly suspicious of excess athleticism.
next page →