Soccer Rules Question (and, why are the Americans so bad? - dmc)

Remove all ads!

I understand the difference between a tackle, and penalty, a yellow card and a red card. However, to me it seems like what is called is somewhat subjective. When does a hard tackle cross the line to being a foul, and when does a foul constitute a yellow card? Is it left completely to the referee's discretion? Is there a way to get a red card without first getting a yellow card? I need some help here.

[ June 14, 2006, 16:13: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

The obvious answer is when you hit the player and not the ball , but there are some cases where the tackle is foul even if you haven't touched the player,such as when you tackle with two legs.

It depends on many things like how much hard the foul has been, where in the field it has taken place, if the purpose of the defender was to make a foul and not take the ball etc.

No and yes. There are strict guidelines but in reality the referee bases his decision on many things ranging from if it is the second yellow card and therefore a red card to who is the player (famous players usually get away).

Yes, when the player is in a position where he can score and when the foul is extremely hard and done on purpose. Also, when you commit an act of violence, if you swear the referee and other similar things which don't belong to normal athletic behaviour.

 

A tackle from behind is always considered a foul, a tackle with both legs is always considered a foul, and a tackle with your leg straight forward is always considered a foul, anything else depends on the refs interpretation of the game at hand.

Immediate red cards are usually given when a player is about to break through, and is tackled from behind or stopped by pulling his shirt. Very hard fouls, like obvious tackles on ankles and kneecaps can also result in an immediate red card.

And stop calling it soccer already.

 

Thank you all. Very informative.

Pac man, the reason I call it soccer is we here in the states already have a game that is called football. I am completely aware that 90% of the western world refer to the game being played in the WC as "football". But to us uncultured Americans, since the term "football" was already in use to describe a completely different game, we went with soccer.

And the use of soccer in the U.S. is on all levels. The youth leagues are called soccer leagues. The youth league for American football and called peewee football leagues. Even at the pro-level, it's refered to as major league soccer, or now the more popular ISL (Indoor Soccer League).

 

Here are some more information. Easy explained.
Here are some more.

 

Aldeth, the US performed on earlier WC's, before American Football even existed, so you guys were more than aware there already was a sport called football. Since when is American Football officially a sport ? the 1960's ? Well, football, or soccer as you call it, is from the late 1800's. Bit weird to adopt a name that's already taken by a completely different ballgame. Matter of fact, i even consider it a breach of copyright.

 

Yeah, as people have said, the general line where a tackle turns into a foul is when the tackling player never touches the ball and takes the player. You can dive in, slide in, jump in, do what you want so long as you win the ball first. Exceptions to this rule are showing your studs, jumping in two footed and sliding in from behind. Also, shirt-pulling is a foul, as is elbowing to the face or head and holding someone down when challenging for a header.

Cards are down the ref's discretion most of the time, although in this World Cup FIFA seem to have given refs instructions top give yellows straight away for things like lunging in, showing studs and shirt pulling.

There are some ways to get a straight red card, but you have to do something severe and deliberately against the rules (like chopping a guy down from behind when he's running in on goal and it's obvious you're not going to catch him). Otherwise known as a 'professional foul'.

And any Yank here who tries to tell me that football isn't getting more and more popular over there is deluding themselves as I know for a fact that it is . It's just that the Americans don't like to entertain a sport they're **** at but it's definitely growing in popularity.

 

It is getting more popular, but the rubbish performance the U.S. put up against the Czechs was embarassing. Unfortunately, most soccer fans in the U.S. are very casual fans and don't realize that the U.S. Team is capable of a much better performance. I can't make any excuses for yesterday - the U.S. was clearly outclassed and outplayed - but they are capable of better. Unfortunately, casual fans are most likely not going to get an opportunity to see that this year, as the only chance the U.S. has of advancing is beating Italy, which is practically part of soccer royalty. I don't see that happening. It's looking like the U.S. is going to go 1-2 in the first round, and that means no second round.

@Pac man - dmc is correct in stating that football started as a sport in 1879. However, it was not formalized into a professional league until 1902. At that time, while I'm sure there were many in the states that knew there was a game already called "football" - hell most immigrants came from Europe, so they certainly knew - no one played soccer in the U.S. at the time, so there was no confusion. Soccer didn't become even remotely popular in the U.S. until the 1970s, and it remains today a second tier sport. The pecking order is clear in the U.S. The Big Three, in order of popularity, are football (American), baseball, and basketball. Everything else is a step below. Hockey was challenging to overtake basketball for a while, but now they can't even get a decent TV contract, so good luck seeing the games. Similarly, sports like soccer and track and field have followings, but they are definitely considered second tier sports in the U.S.

 

I don't think the US will get anything from Ghana either to be fair, they looked a much better team than the US. Their midfield is rock solid with Essien and Appiah (who are 2 of the better players I've seen in this tournament).

To be honest, the US were never going to get out of this group anyway, but they needed a better performance than that to try and boost interest.

 

Rugby is where it's at

 

You're probably right with that. Beating either the Czech Republic or Italy would have to be considered a major upset. And I can easily see them losing to Ghana as well, because that is their third match. If they lose to Italy - which they will in all likelihood - they'll have nothing to play for beyond pride when they go up against Ghana. So my prediction of a 1-2 finish is probably optimistic more than realistic.

 

You'd think that USA would still be able to cobble together a semi-decent team though. Regardless of soccer's relatively low interest level in that country, it is still a huge country with a soccer playing population that is larger than the entire population of some countries. You only need to find 20 good players and you'd think there would be a few thousand ex-South Americans floating around there who could make a good team.

Women's rugby is probably an extremely low interest sport in USA but they still have one of the top 2 teams in the world at that sport.

 

The US team is decent enough, it is good they just had the bad luck of getting into a very very tough group.

 

I think joacqin hit the nail on the head. While the U.S. is not a top 10 team in the world, I think you could make a good arguement of putting them somewhere around #20. The thing is, Italy and the Czech Republic are most certainly top 10 teams - maybe even top 5. The loss on Monday still leaves me scratching my head a bit though. It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose 3-0. Not only that, but if it's even possible, I'd say that the U.S. looked worse than the 3-0 score indicated. They didn't even look like they belonged in the same league as the Czech Republic.

You would think. The size of the U.S. population is estimated to currently be about 296 million. So you're right - even if only 10% of the nation is interested in soccer, that still gives us nearly 30 million people - which is comparable to a country like the Czech Republic. It's still considerably smaller than countries like France or Germany.

To further your point about women's rugby being a low interest sport in the U.S., I would like to point out that while I knew the sport of women's rugby existed, I had no idea we had a team that competed internationally.

 

And yet, much much larger than the 9 Million that Sweden can muster, and the Swedish team is WAY better than the American.

 

i don't think 10% is too much to ask.

1 - American kids everywhere do play football. Just that for some reasons, they gradually give it up when they go to college. At least that's the impression i've gotten from talking and seeing.

2 - i would say football is a significant part in sports for American women. The team women usa stars do go around to promote football among little girls when they are not playing that much.

3 - Freddy Adu. good player not born in u.s. but he is documented. And you say you come from los angeles? haven't you realize the influencial force of undocumented Americans?

 

I think raising top-level soccer/footballers, or top-level athletes in any very competative sport, requires *a lot* of infrastructure, the most important of which is cultural. You need a large pool of kids growing up idolizing footballers and playing playground ball obsessively. Then you need an infrastructure that recognizes talent at a young age and provides years of training.

Where I grew up, in (Am) football country, we played (Am) football all the time and followed our favorite teams closely. Though I played (soccer) football starting in 5th grade, I *never* watched games on TV, and *never* played a pick-up game with friends. In fact, I remember hanging out with my (soccer) football teammates, and we played a pick-up game of (Am) football!

I think this explains a lot about the US team: with the exception of a few immigrant players, the US players were fostered through a system that draws almost exclusively from the suburbs. In the US, the "soccer mom" is almost considered a political block: middle-class and upper middle-class mothers who drive their kids to soccer practice in a minivan. (Soccer) football is the sport overprotective moms encourage their sons (and daughters) to play, because it's considered far less aggressive and dangerous than (Am) football (and because all the running about wears out their hyperactive Ritalin-using ADD affected kids).

While this system might produce a few decent atheletes, it is *not* a way to produce 'brilliant' atheletes. The athletes aren't driven to perform by their entire culture, but rather by a small subset of their peers (and by their mom).

What I'm saying is that there needs to be a "dream" there to encourage kids from a very young age. In the US kids dream about basketball and (Am) football, whereas soccer is something their moms sign them up for to get them out of the house in the summer and fall...

 

To add to what Bion said, I think that the number of superior athletes any given country produces is proportional to the population. So it seems logical that America should produce far more world class athletes than a country like Sweeden for example. However, these world class athletes go on the play all different sports. What sport you go into is determined largely by culture, but also by how much money you can make. Soccer players make a pittance in the U.S. compared to athletes in basketball, baseball and football.

Also, it must be taken into account that a lot of the skills needed to be an exceptional soccer player (things like speed, coordination) are the same basic skill sets required in most other sports. It's all in how you hone those skills. Someone with excellent coordination and speed could probably become a baseball player as easily as he could a soccer player, but most of those people go into baseball, with the opportunity to make millions of dollars, rather than play soccer and lead an upper-middle class lifestyle. The same skills are also of use in things like basketball and football, but to a somewhat lesser extent, as size matters a lot in those sports as well. (There aren't too many basketball players under 6 feet tall, but there are a whole lot of baseball players who are of average height.)

And I don't think the salary demands can be understated. Minimum salaries in the major U.S. sports are around $300,000 annually. Those are for backups and benchwarmers who don't get into the game that often. There's only a handful of U.S. soccer players that make that much, and those are the stars. When deciding on a sport, the top level athletes no doubt take this into consideration. Play a sport where the salary tops out at a few hundred thousand annually, or play a sport that tops out at several million annually - not a tough decision.