[fuser]

Pakistan.

[layman]

I mean proper country

[fuser]

: Meh, Pakistan is more proper real than Israel. because every single motherfucking thing must somehow relate to Israel/teh jews.

[The Immortal Goon]

Yes, of course Gaelic Football is called football; the ball is often kicked. If you want some support for this claim about horses, then find an instance of hurling being called 'football', since it's a ball game played by people on their feet. They're even allowed to kick the ball. Good proof would be someone calling real tennis 'football', since it's an old ball game played on foot.

Well, the ball is probably more often manipulated with the hand. From what little I know, the spots division in old timey Ireland was based on the type of ball used. In this theory, and yes it's a theory, the English language divided sports based on class (as they did most things). I don't even remember where I initially heard/read about the theory it goes from horses. But it makes sense to me, though I admit I'm not an expert in it—I'm a modern historian after all. But a lot of English words are based on that same distinction, "Footman," is an example used for both war and distinction in servitude. Is it really too much to think that the same distinctions was made with sports? It makes sense to me, but I won't say that it's 100% accurate.

And does it really matter? I had one line in a long post about why I didn't like soccer after I was specifically asked to reply.

[Demosthenes]

And does it really matter? I had one line in a long post about why I didn't like soccer after I was specifically asked to reply.

I swear.

A historian quoting Wikipedia is not "giving you the history of a sport". It seems more like an admission that it's nothing whatsoever to do with the history he studies. And even then Wikipedia says this claim is 'controversial'. Yes, it would be, seeing as no-one can name a European horse-and-ball game that would need to be distinguished from football.

Yes, of course Gaelic Football is called football; the ball is often kicked. If you want some support for this claim about horses, then find an instance of hurling being called 'football', since it's a ball game played by people on their feet. They're even allowed to kick the ball. Good proof would be someone calling real tennis 'football', since it's an old ball game played on foot.

You're usually less give-a-fucky than all this. I'll tell you what, you run around believing whatever you feel is correct, and love soccer, and we'll do our thing.

No more need for pissy pants.

[fuser]

Soccer

Soccer !! Now that's crazy talk.

*inserts numerous anti america slangs.*

[Joe Liberty]

And that's complete bollocks. Baseball is not a type of football; cricket is not a type of football; (field) hockey is not a type of football; golf is not a type of football; tennis is not a type of football; handball is not a type of football; netball is not a type of football; basketball is not a type of football. Pool is not a type of football. Sports played on horses are rare; involving a ball, it's just polo. The idea that 'football' means "any ball sport involving people on their feet as opposed to on a horse" is ridiculous. And don't try to claim that other horse-based sports, such as steeplechasing, count; that would then mean track and field athletics are, by your brain-dead definition, a type of 'football'.

Okay, some of those things you listed aren't just variations on football (baseball most notably, as it's the most unique of all sports for a few reasons). But most of them are. Soccer (sorry, football), rugby, American football, basketball, hockey..those are all essentially the same sport: two teams square off against each other (AND a clock), the offense tries to move an object across a field into a designated scoring zone, the defense tries to stop them. That's the fundamental basis for all of those sports, the only differences are in the details (ball or puck, net or goal line or basket, different points awarded, etc.). They're all variations on the same theme.

What I was remarking about was your, and Demosthenes', weird hatred of a game that forbids the use of hands.

It's akin to making a ballet dancer wear ankle weights. It's just stupid.

I have to say I'm pretty much in full agreement with TIG and Demos on this.

[Oxymoron]

Back to original question, what do you soccer lovers think of my proposals for changes.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Okay, some of those things you listed aren't just variations on football (baseball most notably, as it's the most unique of all sports for a few reasons).

Well, baseball is extremely similar to rounders. But it's also quite like cricket.

But most of them are. Soccer (sorry, football), rugby, American football, basketball, hockey..those are all essentially the same sport: two teams square off against each other (AND a clock), the offense tries to move an object across a field into a designated scoring zone, the defense tries to stop them. That's the fundamental basis for all of those sports, the only differences are in the details (ball or puck, net or goal line or basket, different points awarded, etc.). They're all variations on the same theme.

But they aren't the totality of 'ball games played on foot' by any stretch of the imagination. If the claim was they are all 'goalball' games, you'd have a point. But it's not. And, to be pedantic, most of the ones I mentioned (baseball, cricket, golf, tennis and pool) aren't in this class.

It's akin to making a ballet dancer wear ankle weights. It's just stupid.

I have to say I'm pretty much in full agreement with TIG and Demos on this.

Again, someone who thinks that arbitrary rules in a sport are 'stupid'. Now, that's a stupid thing to think. Sport is about arbitrary rules.

[Joe Liberty]

Well, baseball is extremely similar to rounders. But it's also quite like cricket.

Very true, baseball originated from rounders, and they're all quite different than other sports. The defense controls the ball and there's no clock, just to name two of the most obvious things.

Again, someone who thinks that arbitrary rules in a sport are 'stupid'. Now, that's a stupid thing to think. Sport is about arbitrary rules.

I'd say sport is about rules that make the game balanced and competitive, not just pulling rules out of thin air for the hell of it. Which is how "no hands" seems to me.

They should go back to using human heads as the ball, that would be more interesting. Plus it would be an excuse to riot and kill before the game instead of afterwards. The violence would be much more spectacular if they did it before everybody was worn out from three hours of cheering for a nil-nil tie.

[Quantum]

Cheerleaders and bands at half-time because Americans seem to love theatrical performances at sports.

This.

The US specialises in sports almost no other nations play seriously, soccer scares them because of the competition.

Their team is actually decent for a country that doesn't care about the sport. Granted that they only have one other serious team in CONCACAF, Mexico, and ensures an almost certain place in the World Cup.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Back to original question, what do you soccer lovers think of my proposals for changes.

No. If you want a different game then watch a different game.

[Oxymoron]

I really do not want Soccer to get popular, it is a sissy game.

I was just throwing Ideas out to make this soccer a real sport.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Might you want to rephrase that last statement? It makes you sound confused.

[Oxymoron]

What do you not understand?

Soccer is half way between Ice skating, and ballet in terms of being a sport. I am just trying to find ways of making it a real sport, one which true sports fans (Americans) can get into.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I understand you fine. Your previous was self-contradictory is all.

If you're talking hypothetically, being facetious or just stirring the shit then fire away, but if there's even a slither of seriousness in your proposition then you may as well forget it.

First of all, Americans are fine with "sissy" (by which I assume you are referring to minimal contact) sports such as basketball, baseball and tennis. Secondly, soccer might be crap to watch if you haven't grown up for it and don't have any intuition as to how it works, but if you read up on it (I'd recommend zonalmarking.net's author Michael Cox or the book Inverting the Pyramid) then you could get a whole lot more out of watching it. Thirdly, there are too many invested interests for any major changes to happen, namely FIFA and the national FAs of the major leagues; no-one of influence would dare risk dividing the power, income or status of those institutions.

[Oxymoron]

By Sissy I mean the flops, and the fake injuries.
As far as basketball it has actually infiltrated the sport as well, because of the sissy euro players in the NBA. Before it was no blood no foul, no its fucking flopping like its Manchaster United.

But no I know Fifa is a corrupt organization that will never change the "sport".

I am speaking hypothetically.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Ah well, the diving/simulation is a whole other thing.

The rules on contact as they stand are unlikely to be changed because of how expensive individual players are; clubs don't want to risk their multi-million Euro investments. From there the best analysis I can think of comes from Gary Neville (ex-player for Manchester United):

[youtube]mNx5ok60U6A[/youtube]

[SecretSquirrel]

Soccer is a children's sport with no strategic depth, only skill. For what it's worth, I consider hockey and basketball to be just the same. All skill, no strategy

American Football compared to Soccer is like Go or Chess compared to Hungry Hungry Hippos. Hell, even baseball and cricket (boring and faggy sports both) are much better than soccer

[fuser]

Football doesn't need strategy? Okay I am not into soccer vs football thing but this is just ridiculous.