Conference trucks::football;1

    And I suppose there's NOOOOO discrimination whatsoever in the US of A ?
    
    jb.

    
    Dave, I didn't see the article but it's crap.  There are numerous Roman
    Catholic players in the NI club sides and in the national side.  Pat
    Jennings, Gerry Armstrong, Martin O'Neill and many more RCs all played
    for NI.  Quite a few of the current side are also Catholic - Donaghy,
    Rogan and O'Neill.  I'm sure there are more but I neither know nor care
    about the religion of most of the squad.
    
    Generally there is a 2:1 ratio (similiar to the ratio in NI) of
    Protestants to Catholics in the side however the side is not picked on
    religious grounds.
    
    Most of the supporters are protestant because many of the Catholics in
    NI support the Republic.  Windsor Park is in the Loyalist "Village" area
    and many Catholics won't go there.
    
    As for club football.  Linfield have traditionally been a protestant
    club.  They were sectarian although did sign a Catholic a couple of
    years ago - Tony Coly.  Apparently it was a mistake but he remained at 
    the club and became a firm favourite with the fans.  The other clubs
    are non sectarian although some do have predominately Catholic or
    protestant support due to their location.
    

    Where was the report?
    
    
    

I don't know which paper published this report, or who from the U.S. was quoted,
but it seems about as ridiculous as these things can get. No official member of 
the USSF or any of the local organizig groups wold be stupid enough to make a 
remark like that. I will be the first to admit tht the U.S.is probably THE most
hipocritical country in the world when it comes to bashing other countries on 
complex issues such as age-old "tribal conflicts" or human rights abuses. (I am
American, by the way).

My guess would be that the comment was made by a private citizen, exercising his 
right of free speech, saying he would lobby for N.I. to be banned, or stage 
protests outside the stadium or something like that. Perhaps because there are 
so many Irish-Ameicans, but there seems to be a large and (reasonably) powerful 
grass roots group who get involved with the situation in NI, and as well-meaning
as these people may be, many of them are grossly misinformed and over-simplify 
what has become a very complex political issue. Would these same people protest 
France's participation because Jean-Marie LePen has racist views, and at least a
fair number of people in France support him?  

These kind of people annoy me to no end. Using something like this as a platform
for a different agenda has no place in sport. But, as we have seen from Olympic 
boycotts, etc. it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the politics 
from sports, as long as teams are competing as countries.

Tom

    
    I didn't think that it could have come from the U.S.  This is not meant
    to be anti American and I don't wish to start a argument here on the
    situation in NI.  There is however a section of the Irish American
    population which is totally ignorant of the situation on this island.
    
    I suspect the same person would probably write an article suggesting
    the Northern Ireland Rugby team be banned should the Rugby World Cup
    ever come to the United States.  There is no NI rugby team of course.
    
    I think a video of the celebrations in the streets of Belfast during a
    balmy night in June 1982 should be sent to the author of this report.
    The celebrations were caused by a victory over hosts Spain in the World
    Cup thanks to a goal by Gerry Armstrong and great goalkeeping by Pat
    Jennings despite the sending off of Mal Donaghy.  All 3 are Catholics.
    For one veening at least the whole of Northern Ireland was on the same
    side.
    
    Gary.

That's my point, Gary. You mentioned the facts - that the N.I. team is selected 
on ability alone, with no regard to religion. I wanted to word my reply 
carefully, so not to fan he flames on a big Northern Ireland debate. The thing 
with these kind of comments is that there are an awful lot of uninformed people
who seem all too likely to prove their ignorance. It isn't so bad that some poor
fool spouted off about this, but that the press (?) reported it so that the 
author of .0 believed that it was a credible source or an official viewpoint.

What's that saying? better to keep quiet and be thought of as a fool than to 
open your mouth and remove all doubt. 
 
No offense intended to anyone

Tom

    
    	re .4..
    
    	Well said Gary. There is a great deal of ignorance of the truth
    	about NI in *Britain*, so how we can expect US citizens to be able
    	to know what's going on heaven alone knows...
    
    	I suggest you write-lock this topic so's we all get back to talking
    	Football and leave those sort of political/sectarian statements to 
    	others that are not fortunate enough to know how sport can transcend 
    	such bigotry and intransigence.
    
    	Andy. 

    I read the report in the papers. It seems that a few weeks ago, the
    manager of Linfield (Eric Bowyer) said that it was virtually impossible
    to sign a Catholic for the club. The Irish National Caucus (or some
    such U.S. based organisation) took up this remark. In their opinion,
    Northern Ireland should no longer play at Windsor Park (home of
    Linfield). If they continue to do so and if NI qualify for the World
    Cup then they will protest at their games. Furthermore, the Republic of
    Ireland should refuse to play at said venue. If they do play there
    during the WC qualifiers and do make it to the finals, then they too
    will be picketed. 
    
    I will refrain from commenting...

re.7
>    Cup then they will protest at their games. Furthermore, the Republic of
>    Ireland should refuse to play at said venue. If they do play there
>    during the WC qualifiers and do make it to the finals, then they too
>    will be picketed. 


Presumably then whoever qualifies from group three will be picketed, as
all of them will have to play at Windsor Park??

    Well, let them picket, they might get blown up in an IRA 'tragic mistake' 
    bomb blast.
    
    jb.

    The real question, and one hinted at earlier, is who are the USA to
    point fingers ????.  On a football front, who are they to attempt to
    lay down the line ???.  FIFA have bent over backwards, for all the
    wrong reasons, by awarding USA the WC94. FIFA states that the home
    nation must have a national 'professional' league set up, which conforms
    to FIFA Laws of the game.  THe US does not have a national professional
    league set up, (my understanding is that there is conflict between 2
    authorities..bit like England there) and that they play 4 x 20 minute 
    quarters game duration.  The latest thing is that FIFA would like the
    WC94 final played at New York Giants stadium, which can only have a
    maximum playing surface width of 71 yards...the FIFA minimum is 75yds.
    If the North Americans dont like football, then stuff them..the game is
    universal enough without them.  Let them continue having World Series
    which consists of 12 USA teams and 2 Canadian sides. IMHO FIFA has
    scored an own goal, by bending too far in trying to woo the American
    public to football.  Its the last straw that they can start dictating
    who can and cant play in the tournament, when they really are a 4th
    division side in world footballing terms.
    
    Flame off, Im off for a lie down, and I didnt mean to upset
    anyone...honest.
    
    Yours in football
    Paul
    

    Re. -1
    
    It should be apparent from the previous replies that, in fact, the USA
    is NOT doing any finger pointing.  This entire story was fabricated and
    spread outside of the USA.  No where in any US publications that I am
    aware of has this been reported.
    
    US soccer (football) may have it's problems, but it's not quite as bad
    as the author of the previous note would have everyone believe. 
    Although, I am American born and raised, I have spent a total of 8
    years living in the UK at various times.  I have played soccer since I
    was a schoolboy in the UK, went on to play for the US Air Force
    European champions, and coached at the collegiate level in the US for
    6 years.  The two US professional outdoor leagues both play 2 x 45
    minutes halves, just like everywhere else in the world.  Where this 4 x
    20 minute period stuff came from is a mystery to me.  
    
    So maybe we haven't been one  of the world powers for the last century,
    but sometimes I get a little tired of the sheer arrogance of some
    football supporters outside of the USA who continually bash us.  We're
    on our way up, so I suppose you better bash us while the bashing is
    good....it may not be long before your worst nightmare comes to pass...
    the USA as a world soccer power!
    
    Steve (who readily admits to being a Coventry City supporter)

Well said, Steve. I too am getting tired of having to defend the US's position 
on footballing matters. Face it folks, despite whatever problems exist, the 1994 
World Cup WILL be played in the US, so you might as well learn to accept it. The
way I see it, this is a chance for soccer to break new ground in a new area. For
the sake of the game worldwide, it is important for it to emerge from a closed
club of a few S.Ameican and European powers and become a truly world game. The 
African countries have already begun to emerge, and this is good, even if one 
DOES beat your favorite Europea team. After 1994, it seems that there will be 
other World Cups played outside of Europe and So.Ameica, as Morocco, Japan and
Korea have shown interest. It seems a matter of time before one of those 
countries gets to host the Cup.

Am I naive in thinking that fans of the game worldwide would want to share the 
greatest sport in the world with those that are not yet "enlightnened"?  One of
the things I really enjoyed in '86, '88 and '90 (the rare times world class
soccer was on TV here) was to develop the interest of my American friends who
were not fans. These people became fans, and are the people who will be looking 
for tickets to games in 1994.  If I hadn't made the effort to share soccer, 
friends would have missed out on a lot of fun in the subsequent years. 

It isn't likely that soccer in the US will become the #1 sport, but I *DO* see
it eventually becoming a permanent fixture on the American sporting scene. For
me, that is enough.

Tom

    
    Tom,
    
    	Football *is* a world sport, it has been for many years. It does
    not have to be played in the U.S. for it to be a world sport. The
    African nations have been around for some years, and as you rightly say
    are improving vastly. I personnally would have nothing against the
    World Cup being played in Korea, or for example Senegal (where the
    African championships were held recently.)
    
    	I also would have nothing against it being held in the U.S. if it
    were not for the fact that most Americans (I exclude your enlightened
    self), don't really seem to care! Maybe I'm wrong here but that's just
    the feeling I get. I'm also worried about the fact that it will be
    used simply as a conveyance for commercials. 
    
    	Basically what I'm saying is, I hope football DOES take off in the
    states. But, football has a healthy future and does not need the U.S. if 
    the majority of Americans are not interested.
    
    		Steve

    
    	Picking up your point about TV Commercialisation, Steve, could
    	you ever imagine seeing the kick-off to the World Cup Final having
    	to be re-taken because "Television hadn't released the kick-off to
    	start yet" � la Superbowl(bore)?
    
    	There's no doubt some of the converted in the US are in this note
    	and contributing to the discussion, but a LOT of the folks in the
    	good ol' US of A don't even know what THE World Cup is...yet! And
    	will they want to continue to be involved once they do? I hope so,
    	but have my doubts too.
    
    	Andy.

    
    Steve,
    that's exactly what I'm thinking, too.
    
    G�nter

	The article in the base note was from the Sunday Times. (Irish edition
	of a British newspaper)

	Dave

    Re my previous note
    
    The 4 x 20 quarter argument was used by a nation competing against the
    USA for the right to be host.  In a recent survey in the States to find
    the most popular sports, football was 76th !!...I find it difficult to
    even think of 75 other sports..but it was above synchronised swimming.
    
    When working out in California, in the early 80's, i attended a 'pro
    soccer' game, which comprised of 4 quarters.  I also watched quite a
    few high school coaching sessions where they were advocating no contact
    !!...fair enough I thought as it could stop the kids injuring
    themselves.  I got invited to play a game for a local team, and being
    quite an agressive midfielder (when I was fit) or in the back four
    (when not fit), imagine my surprise/shock when after about 15 mins play
    the teams asked me to stop being so physical because 'soccer isnt
    played like that'...they went ape-sh*t when I slide tackled.  Apart
    from the few enlightened persons in this conference ( I apologise for
    my earlier outburst), football is just not popular in the
    States..perhaps they see it a womans game, as the USA recently won the
    Womens world cup.  If my experiences reflect what it being
    trained/coached at the grass roots level, then I cant see it flourish.
     
    Im sure that recently in the Guardian there  was something about the
    team that Rodney Marsh is involved in is in financial trouble and is
    about to go bust..is this true.
    
    Remember it was to woo the American public that FIFA were proposing
    changing the size of the goals, to change the rules about minimum size
    of pitch for a WC final, to Suit NY Giants stadium is out of order. Its
    like England hosting the WC, and FIFA insisting that the final be held
    at Upton Park, where ther is little room for corners, throw-ins etc.
    
    Im sure that as an organised event WC94 will be superb, but I would
    imagine that tickets for games would be easy to get as local interest
    will be minimal.
    
    Paul
    
    

    Re. .19
    
    I would love to see the survey that is referred to that had football
    (soccer) as the 76th most popular sport.  I have seen many surveys of
    this kind, but none even had as many as 50 sports mentioned, never mind
    76+.
    
    Is it not possible that the California experience of the author of the 
    previous reply was the exception, rather than assuming that it is the 
    rule?  I could argue that based on an experience that I had playing 
    football in the UK, that the sport was not very popular there...while 
    playing for RAF Upper Heyford in a local league, we played several of our 
    matches on sheep pastures, where the sheep were shooed off prior to the 
    match - needless to say, executing a slide tackle in a pile of sheep dung 
    was a memorable experience!
    
    At this point in time, football (soccer) is the most played high-school
    sport in many states.  Here in the New England area there are more
    schools playing soccer than any other sport, and this is for both boys
    and girls.  Interest in the sport does exist and is growing all the
    time.  In the town that I live in, just outside of Boston, there are
    already more kids playing youth soccer that playing Little League
    baseball and Pop Warner football combined!  Just look at the attendance
    figures for last summers Ireland-USA game at Foxboro and keep an eye on
    the attendance for this summers matches featuring Ireland, Italy,
    Portugal and the USA.  As another historical note, I covered Olympic
    soccer at Harvard Stadium in 1984, and that was well attended and very
    well received.  The Norwegians, in particular made a great many friends
    in the Boston area.
    
    I should probably cut myself off now, I am generally read only-with the
    occasional brief posting, so these last two notes are very much out of
    character for me, but I really get irked by the comments made by
    football fans from outside the US who continually find fault with us.
    Perhaps at a future point I can find time to post some historical
    perspective of the game in the US, we have almost as long a history as
    most of the rest of the world.  (US teams finished 2nd and 3rd in the
    1904 Olympic games)  Evolution just took us down a different path -
    the game remains popular, but it is not the "religion" that it has
    become in the rest of the world.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .19
    
>>    Im sure that as an organised event WC94 will be superb, but I would
>>    imagine that tickets for games would be easy to get as local interest
>>    will be minimal.
    
    Don't bank on it, as Steve said in .20, the olympic football matches
    were very well attended -this was one of the main reason's why FIFA
    chose the US.
    
    Football is BIG over there, when I was in Florida during the summer, I
    was surpised at the number of football pitches they had - I saw more
    pitches in the small part of Tampa I visited than I've seen in this
    part of southern England. IMHO football is being surpressed by the two
    major sports in the US - Basketball and American football, obviously
    too many powerful institutions (TV for one), have too much invested in
    these two to risk losing interest and eventually money to football.
    
    The more coverage football gets - the more interest will be generated
    and the more interest the more money and more coverage etc etc, so
    football will eventually take over as the major sport in the US -
    staging the world cup will do no harm to anyone.
    
    paul

    
    I'm convinced that the WC in the USA will be very well organized and
    I'm quite sure that the attendances will be very high, too.
    But - don't get me wrong there is no offense meant - will there be
    "real" football atmosphere at the stadiums? This will be of course a
    very hard task after the electric atmosphere in Italian stadia. 
    May be we Europeans are too arrogant in this position so prove us wrong. 
    However, I'll try to get there in '94, compare and enjoy it.
    
    G�nter
    
    PS  You say there are many people playing football in the US. So there
    must be many people having enough knowledge of football. Is it right to
    say that the crowd (in '94) will know about football? I mean over here 
    every man has kicked a ball (at least at his child age). 

    
    i think everyone's being a bit unfair towards the States.
    by all accounts they had a very good under 21 side a couple of
    years back which will probably develop into a very good senior side
    by the WC.  anyway I for one am looking forward to holidaying in
    the land of discovery (??) in fact the president himself invited 
    the other ( :^) ) and it's going to be a lot easier to find the
    grounds than italia "traffic choas" 90.
    
    Chris
    

    Whatever you say mate.

    
    hey Gunter, not only have we all kicked a ball, we're all experts and
    probably a lot of us would have been professional players had we not
    had trouble with the cartilage, ankle, achilles tendon.....
    
    Dont get me wrong Im not agaisnt the WC being in the States, but i am
    against the 'bending of the rules' to suit the USA for commercial
    reasons and not for the good of the game.  I would have thought that if
    we're crazy enough to play on a sheep pen, thats shows just how popular
    the game is...or how dumb we all are...a lack of good facilities does
    not mean a lack of popularity.
    
    The poll I was referring to was the most popular televised sports in
    the States, which was published in the Guardian a few months back.  I
    think the editorial staff of the Guardian are against the WC being held
    in the States, and keep looking for reasons to knock it.
    If Scotland makes it to the 94 finals, than Ill try to get over
    there..any bet on which unheard of country beats us this time ???
    
    Paul
    

    Life ? Don't talk to me about life.
    
    A quick blast of the improbability drive and I am going to connect WC
    94 in the US with Manchester Utd v Southampton (5/2/92)....
    
    Bryan Robson scored a third goal for Utd in extra time - but this was
    only obvious from the slo mo.  I hope that WC 94 will benefit the game
    as a whole by 'borrowing' a few common sense ideas from NFL football
    namely :
    
    a) More officials (2 referees, 4 line judges)
    b) Slo mo replays
    c) 'Wiring' one official for sound so explanations for decisions can be
       given (this at least will save us from commentators' inane
       judgements)
    d) Making football more family orientated (some clubs in the UK are
       trying)
    
    With the advent of the Premier Division in the UK, with its so-called
    financial benefits, this would seem the ideal environment to try some
    of these ideas.  Certainly I do not expect all 92 league clubs to
    install 'instant replay' equipment - but the larger (richer) clubs
    could.
    
    I, like the author of .25, am not in favour of change for change's
    sake, but if the sport is to improve we must seek inspiration from
    wherever it exists, and not necessarily from within the game itself
    (sin-bins are already common practice in Ice Hockey and Rugby League -
    they could also have their place in association football)
    
    PFC
     

    Some good points there..
    
    More officials..Not sure how 2 refs would work given that football is
    more free-flowing than stop start American football.  What would be
    beneficial would be officials acting as 'goal-line minders' to
    eradicate the Robson incident stated.
    
    Slo mo replays are OK, but again they would stop the flow of our
    game..the officials of the 66WC final would still be trying to decide
    whether the ball was over or not. Not all our games are televised, and
    there is a cost related to this, which probably the fan woould have to
    pay for.
    
    Wiring an official is a good idea..providing he remembers to have it
    switched off when Robson, tony Adams et al are mouthing their
    obscenities at him.....if he forgot then the family aspect of football
    wouldnt have a chance !!
    
    
    There are a lot of ideas, at country level about changes to the game,
    which have to filter up to UEFA and FIFA, which takes about 2-3 years
    before they get round to approving or rejecting things eg preventing
    passbacks was raised 3 years ago, and looks like taking effect from
    next season.
    
    Paul
    

    
    as i said in the Manchester note, i think instant replay officials
    would be an excellent idea in order to provide a factual decision,
    but i dont think smaller clubs could afford the extra expense required
    to fit such a system.
    as for referees being wired for sound, well, i dont know about that
    one, it would certainly radically change the game!
    Ian.
    

    
    	I totally disagree. Instant Replay will destroy the very nature of
    	the game, which is based on flowing, non-stop committment, pressure
    	effort, call it what you will. How can the official(s) keep
    	stopping the game to verify decisions? What sort of instances would
    	warrant this evaluation, and who would decide when to stop the
    	game? It wouldn't work. For God's sake, surely a higher standard of
    	refereeing could be achieved by making it a proper professional body
    	with better training. Perhaps some sort of electronic
    	Wimbledon-style goal-line detection device for those 1966-type 
    	instances? I don't know.
    
        If you want to change the game into 5-second-long chunks then go
    	ahead, but you won't recognise it afterwards.
    
    	More officials sounds more sensible, but there must surely still be
    	only one absolute arbiter of the law on the pitch, otherwise 
    	confusion would reign more than anything we know at the moment.
    
    	Andy.

My feeling is that there should be 4 linesmen and one referee. the linesmen
should have the power and be prepared to act more than they do now..

This way, all this nonsense about the ball crossing the line, the player who
punched another and so on would be erradicated.
Football seems to be the only game where the officials can miss decisions.
That a few thousand people and millions on TV see them except them

Video playback and wiring referees isn't geared for football. Football is to much
of a fast sport with minimum interruptions. American football has the sort of
rules that enable the game to be stopped hence playback and things are ok.

tony

    Life ? Don't talk to me about life.
    
    I offer video play-backs as an *option* - the referee will still have
    the power to take the decision on the events as he sees them, as he has
    now to decide whether to talk to the line judges or not.  How many
    times do we see a referee talk to line judges in football as opposed to
    how many times this happens in Rugby ?
    
    The events of the United match are a case in point - had the referee
    not been unsighted, he may have seen it; but as people are fond of
    saying you can't give what you can't see.  Video replays offer the
    *option* of extra eyes - as do extra officials...but do we want the
    officials to outnumber the players ?  I take the point that football is
    not really suited to overuse of video replays...but used wisely and in
    moderation, they could help.
    
    A previous note referred to Robbo 'having a go' at the referee - in
    Rugby he would have been sent off.  Referees should clamp down on
    'lip'; professional footballers should play to the whistle.
    
    PFC
    

    i like the 4 linesmen idea...
    Ian.
    

     <<< Note 157.32 by KERNEL::HAWLEYI "Careful with that axe, Eugene" >>>
               -< i thought we were always in agreement, andy! >-

>    i like the 4 linesmen idea...

     I'm not sure if Mark Hughes does.

     Stuart    

    
    >                  -< 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.0 >-
    
    Stuo,
    
    are those marks for technical expertise or artistic impression?
    
    Ian.
    :-)
    

    
    Ian 
    
    I reckon the poor bloke Saunders whacked must have seen at least 
    four linesman and two referees not to mention a few stars 
    
    *^)

    I think a step in the right direction would be to get the one referee
    we have at the moment udpdated to professional status. It's been banded
    round for a long time that old pro footballers could continue in the
    game and have a lot more understanding of the pressures and tricks of
    their fellow colleagues.  
    
    The idea of two referee's, one in each half could help, like hockey, but 
    four linesmen, offsides are bad enough already, without doubling the
    opportunity of getting offside decisions awarded. 
    
    I think a slackening of the offised rule or even the 35yard line offside 
    line would mean a increase of space for midfields to play in. At the 
    moment in England with both sides pushed right up and playing offside 
    the game is played in small corridors in the middle of the pitch with 
    little room to play, which tends to stiffle the game. 
    
    antony 

    
    The current rules states that an international soccer game is 2x45
    minutes with 15 minutes interception (or what ever you call the pause
    between halfs). It doesn't matter if the WC is held in USA, Australia,
    Botswana or on the Faroe Islands, the rules will be the same. 
    
    The International Football Association Board (IFAB) gets a lot of
    application for changing national rules. Sweden have several requests of
    changes of national rules to be decided by IFAB in May. All frekicks
    will be direct, if you backpass to the goalie he can't take the ball with
    his hands. There are other countries applications to be decided as
    well. I don't think that FIFA will change the rules just to benefit WC 
    in USA. There will be a lot of showbiz around the games, but the rules 
    are rules, no TV-network can change that. 
    
    The games will be well attended, and all the world will watch them on
    TV. If the majority of USA don't bother to watch it, who cares? It's a
    great oppotunity to wake up an interest for the sport, but it's more a
    domestic problem if USA dont grab that opportunity. 
    
    The original discussion of this topic was about football, politics and
    religion. Well, football (and almost all other forms of athletics) is
    one of the few things where political opinions, color of your skin or
    religious beleives don't matter that much. We love an artist where ever
    he comes from or what he beleives in. Of course will political
    situations have effects on football, we have seen that here in Europe
    recently. But if we watch a game between two teams mixed with
    catholics, protestants, communists, democrats, whites, blacks and
    chinese, do we really care? We still love to see that beautifull pass,
    that cracker of a goal or that brilliant defending. That's my opinion,
    i will applaude a great effort who ever makes it. 
    
    Mats 

    Weel said mats...
    
    Re previous few points raised..
    
    15 mins break between 2 x 45min halves ??  My Law book says the game
    shall be of 2 45 mins duration with a MAXIMUM of 5 mins stoopage
    between them.  Football League(FL) allows 10 mins interval..I wasnt aware
    that international have a longer break. If they do theres another
    example of the game being played to different laws.  Another example is
    that FL refs are instructed to consider the implications regarding
    crowd trouble if they were to send off a player for foul/abusive
    language....I recieved an official letter about this following the TV
    program which had a ref wired up during an Arsenal Millwall game, and
    the Arsenal players wer being extremely abusive to him..he took no
    action.  I complained to the FA, that as a referee, I have to apply the
    laws of the game, and here was an official not applying those same
    rules, that was their response.
    
    Linesmen do have 'power' to make decisions..depending on referees
    instruction, and its up to the ref to heed or ignore them.
    
    Refs and linesmen are almost semi-professionals, as they have to give
    up an incredible amount of their time to honour their committments and
    training/instruction programs.  All WC refs for Italia90 had to attend
    2 x 2 week sessions, as well as numerous i day sessions. Virtually all
    FL officials are self-employed or have jobs such as School teachers,
    where they can get a lot of time off, or work flexi-hours.
    
    Cheers
    Paul  

    Re : .38
    
    I agree, Paul, well said Mats.
    Your comments regarding referees actions vis a vis crowd trouble is an
    interesting point.  Is it the responsibility of referees to clamp down
    on back chat/abusive language (anyone watching football on t.v. with
    hearing difficulties who can lip-read must be more aware than most) ?
    Or should we place the responsibility with the management, be it at
    club level or international level ?  I continue to harp back to Rugby,
    where the referee is respected and obeyed (IMHO).  Where does this
    respect originate ?
    This discussion originated with comments re WC 94 and the lack of US
    interest, and one noter commented that the americans were appalled at
    his 'aggression' when playing.  Does the lack of respect footballers
    show the officials explain this lack of interest ?  Or is it that they
    do not understand the game ? Surely not.
    PFC
    
     

    One of the better suggestions being made to FIFA re rule changes is
    that similar to Rugby Union where if, after awarding a foul against a
    team, they argue about it, or dont move back 10yds immediately, the
    foul is awarded 10 yds further on. This could mean that a foul 5yds
    outside the box could become a penalty...this would IMHO stop any
    backchat immediately, and stop defenders standing over the wall to
    delay things until a 'wall' is in place.
    
    We discussed the responsibilities of a ref re responsibilities at a
    refs meeting last night. Its his responsibility to administer the laws
    of the game as number one, but as the Football League state, if as a
    direct result of his actions, crowd trouble could occur, he has to
    administer common sense.  What refs and common sense have in common is
    another thing, I can hear a few people say BUT....If a player uses foul
    alnguage to a ref he shoul, in theory walk.  What I think the FA are
    saying is that the crowd may not see/hear the abusive comments and may
    get riotous if a player is sent off, and that the ref should take that
    into consideration.  Its not following the laws..but who wants to be
    reponsible for causing a riot ???. Take the situation where a player
    commits a bad foul and the ref decides he is booked, but the player
    also gives him a lot of verbal (dissent, which is also a bookable
    offence).  The ref may decide that he is to be sent off, but the crowd
    dont see/hear the dissent, and think he is being sent off for the foul.
    They could get very heated about this, especially if an opponent had
    committed a similar incident (without the verbal stuff) only minutes
    before, and had only been booked. Its not an easy decision is it
    ??..send the player off and potentialy cause trouble, or let a player
    who has committed two cautionable offences stay on the park.
    
    Still I suppose thats what they get their �110 match fee for.
    
    Paul 

    The book "Laws of the game and universal guide for referees" are
    published bu FIFA and contains the rules for international football.
    These are the rules that IFAB stated on their last meeting on june 28th
    1990.
    
    Every national football assiciation has it's own rulebook with domestic
    variations. For examle, in Italy a goalkeeper has kick or throw out the
    ball within 4 seconds, in Sweden he can take his time but not take more
    than 4 steps after he got control of the ball. The knobs under the
    shues (i don't knoe the correct name) can 19mm long and 12,7mm thick.
    In some european countries they can be longer.  So there is differences
    in rules, but it is FIFA rules that counts when it comes to WC.
    
    There is also differences in diiferent leagues here. a tackle in the
    first division that dont give a foul can be awarded a red card in the
    eighth division. swedish referees are educated to always use "common
    sense" but common sence for a first division referee is different from
    a referee in lower divisions. A player always reacts impulsive when a
    referees decision goes against him. He outbursts and say ugly things. A
    referee accepts that, but not when the player continues to gnab about
    it. In a low division, just one outburst can give you a red card.
    
    Have you once seen a penalty in the Greece or the Italian league
    without at least five minutes of aggressive discussion about it? It's
    the way and tradition of those countries. The crowd expects it, the
    players do it and the referees are used to it.
    
    The professional players are used to international rules and so is the
    international referees. It's the only universal guideline how to play
    football. Perhaps thats why americans have that lack of interest. They
    are use to the show-biz like football and not familiar with the
    international standard. Perhaps a general "enlightenment" is
    appropiate.
    
    Mats
    
    PS. I am curious about the comparision with rugby. Are there differences
        in different domestic rules, or do all countries play by the same
        rules?
    
    

    
    Rugby Union rules about backchat to referees (called Sir by the
    players) being punished by 10 yards is the same all over the world.
    
    Apparantly (sarcasm comming on) the rules that govern football are the
    same all over the world as well. It doesn't work though because the 
    officials don't get the backing from the governing bodies and the
    players run riot over the refs (called @#%& by the players).
    
    I would like to take the opportunity of agreeing with Paul for a change
    that it would be a brilliant idea to see the arguing at every decision
    (especially on the continent) punished in a way similar to Rugby Union.
    However, Paul's point on not sending off a player because it might
    upset the crowd is unfortunately exactly what happens. And that is
    terrible for football. Until football gets referees who are consistent
    and brave enough to carry out their job as expected (ie by the rules
    layed out fro them) then nothing will change. Plus if the players show
    disrespect for the ref then how do you expect the crowd to be any
    different (backchat law could start to gain the respect that might
    improve the game and make it worthwhile playing again)..
    
    Gary..   

I, too, like the idea of penalising players who argue, stand over the ball 
etc, by the extra 10 yards, but I'm surprised that Paul, as a ref, is keen on 
this and the don't-annoy-the-crowd rule. We're always hearing these days that 
what everyone wants is CONSISTENT refereeing. The more opportunity there is 
for refs to interpret the situation differently, then the more scope there is 
for all sorts of dissent.

The best example at the moment is the 'professional foul' - was he really 
'going to score' when he was brought down? And 'interfering with play' in an 
offside position?

To introduce more opportunities for the ref to annoy people seems likely to 
lead to trouble.

This is all very sad, as I think refs in general don't get the respect they 
deserve. Somehow RU players are brought up to not argue with refs - football 
players seem to feel they have the right to argue, cheat, appeal for 
everything. I agree with a previous reply which said it's up the the rulers of 
the game to ensure that rules are obeyed and that referees are backed-up. We 
should stop whingeing about how many players are beeing booked and sent off, 
and keep sending themn off until they and their clubs realise that the referee 
IS ALWAYS right - even when he's wrong!!

grahame

    re .41 
    >than 4 steps after he got control of the ball. The knobs under the
    >shues (i don't knoe the correct name) can 19mm long and 12,7mm thick.
    
    In Britain they're called studs,  (and shues is (are?) spelled shoes,
    but commonly called boots)
    
    Helpingly yours,
    
    Stevo
    

It's been a few days since I was last in this topic, so I thought I'd comment on a
couple of points made earlier.

re .23 (Gunter) Yes, there are a lot of Americans who have played the game at one
time or another, and do appreciate/understand what's going on down on the pitch.
I was at the USA-Ireland match, and after the US equalized, they just started 
to kill time or th last 15 minutes. Sure, the crowd was happy with a 1-1 result, 
but they let the players know that they didn't like it when they made a backpass
instead of going forward.  One of the most puzzling things about US soccer is 
that they have been saying for years tht when the generation of soccer playing 
kids grows up and THEIR kids play, soccer will take off. This generation HAS 
grown up, and there IS interest, but not on the scale people were predicting 
20-25 years ago.   

re .25 (76th in the Survey) The question was asked about TELEVISED sports, which
is altogether different. A lot of people play, but know very little about the 
professional game, or who the top players/clubs/countries are. What the media 
need to do is to have feature stories on these players before the WC, so that
the average casual fan will have some idea that Ruud Gullit isn't just the bass
player in a reggae band and Cantona isn't some new kind of cognac. We've said it 
before, and I'll say it agian: Soccer is a sport that does not lend itself well
to TV. There are ways around it, and that's somethng for another topic.

re .26 (family-oriented) Soccer in the US *IS* family oriented. There were a ton
of kids in the crowd at the Ieland game (with their mothers as well as fathers).
Soccer appears to be more popular with women, perhaps because they too have 
played the game. My wife (who never cared for/played) reluctantly went along to 
a Napoli-Juventus match when we were in Italy in '90, but was very disapointed 
that we couldn't make the Inter match the day before we left 2 weeks later. She
was hooked! However in Italy there were very few women in the stands. In the US,
it appears to be more of a "wholesome" sport, uncorrupted by the cynical aspects
we find in other parts. I don't know if it is possible to grow in popularity 
without picking up some of the negatives along with it.

As for attendance at the '94 WC, I don't think tickets will be "easy" to get, 
but I think it will be possible to get them. In each of the cities there are 
enough grass-roots fans (like me!) who will go regardless of who is playing. 
Then there are the ethnic communities who will be out in full force if their 
country is playing locally. Between this and tickets snapped up by travel agents
in the participating countries and the varoius media freeloaders and bureaucrats,
there won't be any empty seats.

Anyway, that's enough spouting for me. This is an interesting discussion, let's 
keep it going.

Tom

 

	re .45

> before, and I'll say it agian: Soccer is a sport that does not lend itself well
> to TV. There are ways around it, and that's somethng for another topic.

	I think we've done the reply to this as well. There is nothing in
	the medium of TV itself which stops soccer being presented well.
	The problem is with the crass use of made of the medium by most
	U.S. networks.

	Tony

Right, Tony, it's more a matter of how TV in the US is used to televise sports 
in general. Unfortunately, this IS a key factor in promoting a sport for mass
appeal. TV networks pay leagues a ton of money for the rights to televise the
sport, and this can often be the make-or-break issue. The NHL (ice hockey league 
in N. America) has had problems being recognised as a "real" sport (evn though
the league has been around for 75 years) because they don't have a national TV 
contract.  TV ratings were poor, since hockey is generally only popular in the 
north and eastern US. The World League of American Football is an example of 
how TV rules. Even though the teams in London, Frankfurt and Barcelona (and some
US cities) did well on the field and at the gate, the league was almost 
cancelled. Why? because not enough Americans (including me) thought it was 
worth watching on a spring weekend, so TV almost pulled the plug. 

OK, this might not be the best example, but I think people can see how this 
could relate to soccer on TV. It works differenly in other countries, but it is
definitely part of the equasion here in the US. We could get into a lengthy 
discussion about American culture, but this isn't really the place. 

Personally, I'm a little torn. While I'd like to see soccer become a major sport 
in the US so we would have a pro league, I like the idea that we actually WILL 
be able to get World Cup tickets as well as any friendlies that come along. If 
the championships of other US sports were being played in [ANY CITY], there is 
NO WAY Joe Average will get tickets. How easy would it be for you to get match 
tickets if the World Cup or European Cup was played in your country?

Tom