Soccer - When nothing else is on

I am once again attempting to give soccer a chance, mainly because I didn't feel like going anywhere and the U.S./Italy game was pretty much the only thing on. So, it was that or the Discovery channel showing something on killer ants. Granted, if the show on ants was two hours long, I may have chosen it. Still, while I may regret watching, I decided to record my experience for posterity.

The last time I really paid attention to the World Cup (or soccer in general) was when the Cup was here in 1994. I gave it a shot, but when the final ended up as a 0-0 tie and decided by penalty shots, I ignored it. I just don't think soccer is ever going to be that popular in the U.S., because it's what you know. Soccer's more popular in other countries because it's always been the main sport. In this country, it's always been way behind the home grown sports of football, basketball, baseball, NASCAR etc.. I can see a sport building in popularity (i.e. basketball in Europe and baseball in Latin America) if it's only competing with one major sport. Here, you've got to go through at least three.

One thing I must say before the game even starts is that it's nice the American women are getting with the soccer program, and going with the less is more clothing philosophy. Brazil has the most scantily clad fans and they are the favorites, in spite of having a player who goes by the name Kaka (Doo Doo was apparently left off this year's squad). So it's nice to see American girls trying to help Team USA along.

Watching the Italians come out, I'm reminded of a line by Minerva Mayflower in the movie Hudson Hawk. "That's why we hired the pasta slurping guinea". Of course, none of these guys actually look like Danny Aiello. Actually, as a team, they look a bit taller than the U.S. squad. In fact, the Americans are playing a couple of midgets. Hopefully, head shots won't be that important.

That's pretty funny. The Italian goalie just kneed his own teammate in the butt. And he's down and getting his butt sprayed with the numbing spray by a trainer. I wonder if the trainer had to take a class of spraying ass.

I am shocked. American Brian McBride just went down and actually came up with a bloody face from an elbow shot. Usually when I see a soccer player go down, it's after minimal contact, but they act like they just got gunned down. Come to think of it, some of the best floppers in the NBA (think Vlade Divac or Manu Ginobli), come from countries with big soccer followings. Coincidence? I think not.

Ha Ha. Italy just kicked it into their own goal. Hopefully, if the U.S. pulls out a win, the Italians are more forgiving than the Columbians. I don't know that much soccer history, but I do remember when the World Cup was here, a Columbian scored an own goal which gave the U.S. the win. He was later shot when he got back home.

Not really understanding the criteria for these red cards (ejections). The Italian guy got one for elbowing someone in the face, but the American got one for a slide tackle that was a bit late. Maybe I don't understand soccer, but there seems to be a big disparity between the degree of offence. What really gets me is the commentators keep saying the American red card was a make-up call. A make-up call? For what? The Italian red card? These same guys were saying the Italian red card was the proper call. If the Italian deserved to get tossed for his actions, but the American didn't, how is that a make-up? If that's the case, the U.S. got screwed because a make-up call was unnecessary. Was it done so the Italians wouldn't have to play 3/4 of the game down a man? In that case, why eject them anyway?

Second Half Thoughts
Without a doubt, the stupidest thing in soccer is the time. To begin with, does any other sport count up rather than down? Plus, what the Hell is stoppage time? They apparently add time to the end of the half/game to make up for when the clock should have stopped during play. Here's a thought - just stop the clock. They didn't even know how much stoppage time there was really going to be. They said they were going to add "about" two minutes of stoppage time. It ended up being 2 minutes and 13 seconds, and we didn't know that until the referees pretty much just stopped play.

This was actually one of the better soccer games that I've seen, because they didn't stall for a good chunk of the first half. The last time I tried to watch the World Cup, too many of the games were the soccer equivalent of North Carolina's pre-shot clock Four Corners offense (actually, it was just stalling, so I think calling it offense is the epitome of crap terminology). Granted, today's match is still not Phi Slamma Jamma, but at least both teams seemed intent on trying to score even if they only managed one apiece. Well, Italy scored two, but one was for us.
Great, we start the second half with another American being ejected for a late slide tackle. This is like the NBA ejecting a player for throwing a punch, and then tossing a couple more for a charging foul. If they keep this crap up, I definitely won' t be back.

The Italians are offside a lot. I looked up the rule, and it's about as clear as their yellow card rule. Now, the U.S. just had a goal negated for some kind of interference because an American was between the kicker and the goalie. Of course, the shot was from 25 yards away, and the interfering player was about dozen yards in front of the goalie. So, if that was really the correct call (I'm not trusting the clowns refereeing this game), I've got to mark this down as another stupid rule. No wonder 2-0 is a blowout in this sport.

On the plus side, I was afraid the U.S. would go into a stall while being a man down. Instead, they are still attacking. In fact, they seem to have more life than the Italians even with fewer players although guys from both sides appear about dead. Not that it does any good. The game ends (in stoppage time, of course) in a 1-1 tie.

From reading some post-game thoughts by those who know more about soccer than me, apparently we did rather well. I'm not so sure about that. I know the Italians are supposed to have great defense, and the U.S. did seem to go at the goal a lot, but we never kicked the ball into the net in almost 100 minutes of play. In soccer, a tie must not be like kissing your sister, but since I don't have a sister (or predilection for incest), I've never really understood that analogy. I will admit that unlike other soccer games I've watched, I didn't feel that I'd lost two hours of my life for this one. Heck, if a miracle happens (beat Ghana and hope Italy beats the Czech Republic), I might even try to catch the second round game for the U.S.. Of course, speculation is that the number two team out of America's grouping will end up playing Brazil with their fans in the skimpiest of outfits.

Still, I can't say I'm sold on this sport yet. First, there's that clock thing. I just don't understand how you can end a game not knowing how much time is really left. Can you imagine a basketball game ending with neither side really knowing how much time is left? Second, what's with the fouls? Modify the offside rule so you don't have it called 30 times in a match. Plus, it's rather stupid to me that you could conceivably make a team play 10 on 11 for almost the entire match. Even if you feel someone has earned an ejection, let the team substitute. This is like someone fouling out of a basketball game and the team not being able to put someone else in. Even the closest equivalent sport, hockey, only makes them a man down for a set period of time. This seems to give too much power to the referees, and probably makes it more likely a team goes into a defensive stall for a good chunk of the game. I don't see the advantage here. Lastly, what's the deal with limited substitution? I've always heard how well soccer players are conditioned (and they are), but these guys were gassed late in the game. A bunch of guys standing around sucking wind didn't make for an exciting ending.