FIFA World Cup 2014

[D.o.s.]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

3 points for win, 1 point for tie.  Same as hockey (though now it is shootout loss instead of tie).  Not difficult at all.

I was specifically talking about its effect (or lack thereof) on who advance to the next round and who doesn't.  Also how one country advancing is totally dependent on another country (whom they have absolutely nothing to do with) winning or losing.  Confusing.

Confusing is relative.

What if I told you that there was a sport that you had to play with your hands, and you could walk with the ball but only if you bounced it off the ground between every two steps, and sometimes when you put the ball through the goal it was worth 2 points, 3 points, or 1 point? And that you only had 24 seconds to get the ball in the air at the goal, which we'll call the basket, but as long as you hit the rim of the basket you could get another 24 seconds?

So on and so forth.

[KGs Knee]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

3 points for win, 1 point for tie.  Same as hockey (though now it is shootout loss instead of tie).  Not difficult at all.

Not really. Hockey has 2-1-0 for win, OTL, loss. So in a way, a win is considerably more valuable in soccer.

By the way, soccer did try the sudden death OT. It was an abject disaster, and eventually got abolished.

Ah yes, the old "Golden Goal" rule.  Yeah, never was a fan of that.

Personally, I am perfectly fine with ties in soccer.  And from a practical standpoint, they are kind of necessary.  90 minutes is enough running around for a match that isn't an elimination match.  Particularly considering the fact you are only allowed 3 subs.

[kozlodoev]

Personally, I am perfectly fine with ties in soccer.  And from a practical standpoint, they are kind of necessary.  90 minutes is enough running around for a match that isn't an elimination match.  Particularly considering the fact you are only allowed 3 subs.

Yes, a lot of people don't realize that unlike most major American sports, in soccer you need to go up and down the field with little rest for the entire game. Sure, some of it is stoppage, but for comparison, you get to be on the court/ice for about 20-30 minutes in basketball and hockey, and you're off the field roughly half of the time in the average football game. Very different dynamics.

In fact, to me the main reason why the US coughed up the lead against Portugal was that most of the midfield (namely Michael Bradley) were on their last legs after the 80th minute. There was very little happening in terms of closing off space and trying to break Portugal's attacks there. In fact, swapping a MF for a D seems to have hurt them there, so Klinsmann is as much to blame as anyone for this one.

[Clench123]

I feel serious reduction in field size is needed so as to increase scoring rate and efficiency.  With less field size comes requirement for less players.  Less players the better. 

In football, you have four downs per team if I'm not mistaken.  If one team fumbles the ball, the other team gets it.  Those are simple.  What I don't get is the stupid kick after a touchdown.  Whar exactly is the point of that?  Also i don't get why they don't constantly pass/throw the ball to eachother like Rugby to avoid the other team getting it or tackling them.  Also I understand coaches draws plays and I get the importance of that.  What I don't get is how a running back would, knowingly, run into a pack of waiting line men when there is more than enough room on a 50 yard field to run.  To me it's stupid. 

I'll stick with Basketball and Boxing

[D.o.s.]

 

Football is probably the best example of a sport that makes exactly zero sense unless you understand how it works.

also, Wimbledon straight into World Cup is the best. Definitely helps the lack of NBA basketball.

[Donoghus]

Football is probably the best example of a sport that makes exactly zero sense unless you understand how it works.

also, Wimbledon straight into World Cup is the best. Definitely helps the lack of NBA basketball.

Trying to explain American football to a newbie is darn near impossible.  It'll take you hours upon hours.

[kozlodoev]

Football is probably the best example of a sport that makes exactly zero sense unless you understand how it works.

also, Wimbledon straight into World Cup is the best. Definitely helps the lack of NBA basketball.

Trying to explain American football to a newbie is darn near impossible.  It'll take you hours upon hours.

Depends on how much detail you want to go into. Explaining the difference between a safety kick and a punt is not any more complicated than the difference between an indirect and a direct free kick in soccer.

[Casperian]

Found this on Forbes.com about the USA - Ghana match

Of the top five metered markets Washington, D.C. led the pack with an 11.8 rating, followed by New York (10.2), Hartford-New Haven (10.1) and Boston (10.0) at a 10.0 rating or higher. The remaining top 10: Columbus, Ohio (8.9), Baltimore (8.7), Providence (8.4), Orlando (8.3), San Francisco (8.0) and Norfolk (7.8 ). According to ESPN, the Boston rating number is the highest overnight ever in the market on any network for the men?s World Cup.

Good job, Boston.

Also, best tweet ever?

[dang] I was really looking forward to @Cristiano getting beheaded... #WorldCup2014
? George R.R. Martin (@GRRM) June 22, 2014

[Moranis]

I was specifically talking about its effect (or lack thereof) on who advance to the next round and who doesn't.  Also how one country advancing is totally dependent on another country (whom they have absolutely nothing to do with) winning or losing.  Confusing.

Which is patently true for just about any sport that has group play, except you may need to swap country for franchise. Also, getting rid of ties doesn't affect this specific issue.

Not sure what your point is, but perhaps your preferences are better suited for tennis or something similar.

Exactly.  I also don't see why it is so difficult to understand.  Points are first.  If there is a tie, it is goal differential (which is clearly in the standings).  If they are still tied it is goals scored.  After that, it is points in the matches for all tied teams, then goal differential among the tied teams, then goals scored in the matches among the tied teams, and finally drawing of lots.  That last one is obviously not ideal since it takes it away from the field, but you have to do something.

If you look at the tiebreakers for the NFL, they are just as complicated.  The NBA is actually pretty complicated as well.  MLB just has a play in game, but that is pretty much impossible in the World Cup. 

In other words, tie breakers are complicated in pretty much all the major sports.  Soccer really isn't any different until you hit that last one (the drawing of lots).

[Casperian]

No surprises in Group B today

Final standings

1. Netherlands
2. Chile
3. Spain
4. Australia

[Moranis]

No surprises in Group B today

Final standings

1. Netherlands
2. Chile
3. Spain
4. Australia

still can't believe Spain failed to advance, but Chile played well and deserved it.

[Clench123]

I was specifically talking about its effect (or lack thereof) on who advance to the next round and who doesn't.  Also how one country advancing is totally dependent on another country (whom they have absolutely nothing to do with) winning or losing.  Confusing.

Which is patently true for just about any sport that has group play, except you may need to swap country for franchise. Also, getting rid of ties doesn't affect this specific issue.

Not sure what your point is, but perhaps your preferences are better suited for tennis or something similar.

Exactly.  I also don't see why it is so difficult to understand.  Points are first.  If there is a tie, it is goal differential (which is clearly in the standings).  If they are still tied it is goals scored.  After that, it is points in the matches for all tied teams, then goal differential among the tied teams, then goals scored in the matches among the tied teams, and finally drawing of lots.  That last one is obviously not ideal since it takes it away from the field, but you have to do something.

If you look at the tiebreakers for the NFL, they are just as complicated.  The NBA is actually pretty complicated as well.  MLB just has a play in game, but that is pretty much impossible in the World Cup. 

In other words, tie breakers are complicated in pretty much all the major sports.  Soccer really isn't any different until you hit that last one (the drawing of lots).

What is complicated about NBA tiebreaker?  They keep playing until one person wins.  5 minutes increment to determine the winner is not complicated at all.  And as far as the playoffs seeds, it's based on regular season wins.  For playoffs, it's best of 7 games.  Easy.

[fairweatherfan]

Football is probably the best example of a sport that makes exactly zero sense unless you understand how it works.

Counterpoint: cricket.  At least in soccer the main objective's pretty easy to figure out. 

Curling also kinda works but it's not nearly as popular as unAmerican football and cricket.

[fairweatherfan]

I feel serious reduction in field size is needed so as to increase scoring rate and efficiency.  With less field size comes requirement for less players.  Less players the better. 

In football, you have four downs per team if I'm not mistaken.  If one team fumbles the ball, the other team gets it.  Those are simple.  What I don't get is the stupid kick after a touchdown.  Whar exactly is the point of that?

I believe it comes from rugby: it used to be that the "touchdown" (you had to actually touch the ball to the ground in the end zone) was worth no points but gave you a free shot at a kick (which was where the actual points came from).  This is why rugby touchdowns are called "tries", because it's a free try at a scoring kick.

Of course, for a long time now in both rugby and football the try/touchdown is worth points, so it doesn't make much sense anymore.

One thing I don't get about NFL ball is why, when a RB is hemmed in behind the line of scrimmage with defenders closing, doesn't the RB just throw a forward pass out of bounds?  He can legally pass and if he's out of the tackle box, grounding shouldn't be an issue.  Turns a negative play into a no gain.

[Donoghus]

I feel serious reduction in field size is needed so as to increase scoring rate and efficiency.  With less field size comes requirement for less players.  Less players the better. 

In football, you have four downs per team if I'm not mistaken.  If one team fumbles the ball, the other team gets it.  Those are simple.  What I don't get is the stupid kick after a touchdown.  Whar exactly is the point of that?

I believe it comes from rugby: it used to be that the "touchdown" (you had to actually touch the ball to the ground in the end zone) was worth no points but gave you a free shot at a kick (which was where the actual points came from).  This is why rugby touchdowns are called "tries", because it's a free try at a scoring kick.

Of course, for a long time now in both rugby and football the try/touchdown is worth points, so it doesn't make much sense anymore.

One thing I don't get about NFL ball is why, when a RB is hemmed in behind the line of scrimmage with defenders closing, doesn't the RB just throw a forward pass out of bounds?  He can legally pass and if he's out of the tackle box, grounding shouldn't be an issue.  Turns a negative play into a no gain.

If its a called running play, you most likely have offensive lineman pulling and running down field blocking past the line of scrimmage.    You'd get nailed for having an ineligible receiver downfield which is a penalty.