Good stuff. I was surprised to learn that coaches could challenge non-calls with the red flag. Perhaps it was done to sell more ad space.
The discussion that "Joe Buck" and "Troy Aikman" had about the specific nature of NFL rules is actually something I find interesting because as much as I enjoy high-level soccer, the games are officiated in a very antidemocratic (for lack of a better word) way. The rules are quite general/vague, there is only one official with authority to call violations, and the teams don't even know how much time is remaining. In-stadium replays of questionable calls are also verboten.
On the one hand, this reduces the amount of cynical gamesmanship. But I think this comes at the cost of the integrity of individual matches.
On the one hand, this reduces the amount of cynical gamesmanship.
Assuming you don't think flopping is cynical gamesmanship. ;)
But I think this comes at the cost of the integrity of individual matches.
Particularly when the swing of, e.g., one PK being awarded is so enormous, and it's basically a judgment call. And that's not even getting into the occasional bribery scandals that we've seen.
Yeah, I was reading along thinking "wow, Troy Aikman is impressively well spoken..." up until I got to the part about "Well, that’s exactly why hockey is un-American, Joe."
Obviously, by the time Wittgenstein shows up, it's pretty much impossible to miss the joke.
Berube is not right. On practical grounds, as is said above, the surface area and population you are governing are too large and too numerous for as much arbitrariness as in hockey. And on theoretical grounds, the logical extreme of making everything a judgment call gives you figure skating. NTTAWTT.
Actually, soccer has very precise rules. The "imprecision" comes in FIFA rules, which state that the ref should refrain from calling every little foul so as not to impede the flow of the game. U.S. High School League rules, on the other hand, require that every foul be called.
As a practical matter, fouls are called differently depending on what the level of recreation league play is. Tripping has to be intentional to be a foul, so what is presumed intentional at the skill level of a 12 year old is very clearly an accident at the 6 year old level.
It is clear to me which teams in the Premier League are coached to commit fouls (e.g., Arsenal), knowing that the ref has to go with the flow of the game. That's not what I think soccer should be about.
The big difference with hockey is you can make substitutions WHILE PLAY CONTINUES. So you have to make some allowances before calling too many men. In all other sports you can only make subs when play is stopped.
Oh, and Belichick was right, Berube' is wrong. The fact that he resorts to elevating Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to debating Wittgenstein in order to make his case (or rather, quotes someone else elevating Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to debating Wittgenstein) is proof of the shallowness of his argument, notwithstanding his assertion in comments that he really has no opinion one way or the other, which I think only strengthens my point.
It is clear to me which teams in the Premier League are coached to commit fouls (e.g., Arsenal), knowing that the ref has to go with the flow of the game. That's not what I think soccer should be about.
Of course, soccer players tend to exaggerate any spills they happen to take, hoping that their theatrics will induce the ref to call fouls. And without the benefit of instant replay, the refs have to make snap judgement calls as to what actually happened. Not all tackles that result in falls are dirty.
In addition, refs are not supposed to call fouls if there is no gain from the foul. If they did then the flow of play would be seriously impeded, with no real gain for the fouled team.
Pourquoi? Because he believed that the Football Giants had had twelve men on the field just before the ball was snapped (and that, you see, would be one too many). I was unaware that coaches could request reviews of plays (a) after the previous play had been completed and (b) to call for a penalty that had not been assessed, but I understand that the NFL has slightly different rules for Patriots, so I let it go.
IIRC, neither objection is correct. The flag was thrown after a TV timeout after the punt in which the infraction occurred, and that non-call is reviewable. (In Berube's defense, the details of what is and is not reviewable are extremely baroque and change every year.)
I'd note the overall loathsomeness of that piece's tone, but it's Crooked Timber and everything there makes me want to climb through the monitor and strangle the author.
Good stuff. I was surprised to learn that coaches could challenge non-calls with the red flag. Perhaps it was done to sell more ad space.
The discussion that "Joe Buck" and "Troy Aikman" had about the specific nature of NFL rules is actually something I find interesting because as much as I enjoy high-level soccer, the games are officiated in a very antidemocratic (for lack of a better word) way. The rules are quite general/vague, there is only one official with authority to call violations, and the teams don't even know how much time is remaining. In-stadium replays of questionable calls are also verboten.
On the one hand, this reduces the amount of cynical gamesmanship. But I think this comes at the cost of the integrity of individual matches.
On the one hand, this reduces the amount of cynical gamesmanship.
Assuming you don't think flopping is cynical gamesmanship. ;)
But I think this comes at the cost of the integrity of individual matches.
Particularly when the swing of, e.g., one PK being awarded is so enormous, and it's basically a judgment call. And that's not even getting into the occasional bribery scandals that we've seen.
I wonder how long it took for most readers to realize the Buck/Aikman debate was fiction?
Aikman, "niceties," was what tipped me.
Yeah, I was reading along thinking "wow, Troy Aikman is impressively well spoken..." up until I got to the part about "Well, that’s exactly why hockey is un-American, Joe."
Obviously, by the time Wittgenstein shows up, it's pretty much impossible to miss the joke.
Fair point about the flopping, but that's also a problem in the NBA, which has 3 times refs covering half the people in much less space.
Fair point about the flopping, but that's also a problem in the NBA, which has 3 times the refs covering half the people in much less space.
Berube is not right. On practical grounds, as is said above, the surface area and population you are governing are too large and too numerous for as much arbitrariness as in hockey. And on theoretical grounds, the logical extreme of making everything a judgment call gives you figure skating. NTTAWTT.
"I understand that the NFL has slightly different rules for Patriots, so I let it go." Just like American historians, then.
"I understand that the NFL has slightly different rules for Patriots, so I let it go." Just like American historians, then.
Actually, soccer has very precise rules. The "imprecision" comes in FIFA rules, which state that the ref should refrain from calling every little foul so as not to impede the flow of the game. U.S. High School League rules, on the other hand, require that every foul be called.
As a practical matter, fouls are called differently depending on what the level of recreation league play is. Tripping has to be intentional to be a foul, so what is presumed intentional at the skill level of a 12 year old is very clearly an accident at the 6 year old level.
It is clear to me which teams in the Premier League are coached to commit fouls (e.g., Arsenal), knowing that the ref has to go with the flow of the game. That's not what I think soccer should be about.
The big difference with hockey is you can make substitutions WHILE PLAY CONTINUES. So you have to make some allowances before calling too many men. In all other sports you can only make subs when play is stopped.
Oh, and Belichick was right, Berube' is wrong. The fact that he resorts to elevating Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to debating Wittgenstein in order to make his case (or rather, quotes someone else elevating Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to debating Wittgenstein) is proof of the shallowness of his argument, notwithstanding his assertion in comments that he really has no opinion one way or the other, which I think only strengthens my point.
It is clear to me which teams in the Premier League are coached to commit fouls (e.g., Arsenal), knowing that the ref has to go with the flow of the game. That's not what I think soccer should be about.
Of course, soccer players tend to exaggerate any spills they happen to take, hoping that their theatrics will induce the ref to call fouls. And without the benefit of instant replay, the refs have to make snap judgement calls as to what actually happened. Not all tackles that result in falls are dirty.
In addition, refs are not supposed to call fouls if there is no gain from the foul. If they did then the flow of play would be seriously impeded, with no real gain for the fouled team.
Pourquoi? Because he believed that the Football Giants had had twelve men on the field just before the ball was snapped (and that, you see, would be one too many). I was unaware that coaches could request reviews of plays (a) after the previous play had been completed and (b) to call for a penalty that had not been assessed, but I understand that the NFL has slightly different rules for Patriots, so I let it go.
IIRC, neither objection is correct. The flag was thrown after a TV timeout after the punt in which the infraction occurred, and that non-call is reviewable. (In Berube's defense, the details of what is and is not reviewable are extremely baroque and change every year.)
I'd note the overall loathsomeness of that piece's tone, but it's Crooked Timber and everything there makes me want to climb through the monitor and strangle the author.