Field Theory by Hadyn Green

Read Post

Field Theory: Call it what you will

15 Responses

  • Phil Cook,

    It's descended into Olympics territory for me (I'm very much with you on "See also: IOC"), and I won't be watching, much as I'd like to.

    But meanwhile, as a pedant and a bastard, I like to suggest to dire-hard "soccer" (not "football") partisans that they should be pronouncing it "sosher", at least — with nice soft c sounds, as in "Association".

    Wellington • Since Jun 2014 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Not to engage in a pedantry contest..

    Engages in pedantry contest: It was called football for (maybe) hundreds of years before it was called soccer, which name only came into use after rugby diverged.

    It's still mostly called football (or a homonym) in all the countries where rugby (or some other code) is not the main footbally sport.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • llew40,

    I'm lucky enough to be heading there next week

    That said, the experience of dealing with FIFA throughout the ticketing process has been deeply unedifying. It genuinely seems to be a process designed specifically to maximize economic return and minimize outcomes for, y'know, fans.

    Since Nov 2012 • 140 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Its simple...

    anywhere in the world. "soccer" refers to only one game... even if it is not the preferred term for that game. The ball is always the same size and shape and the field and goal-posts are the same anywhere...

    "football" is local parlance for the most popular game involving feet and inflated bladders cased in leather (or modern equivalent), even if the foot-contact with the ball is only a minor part of the game, and the field of play, goal, and shape/size of ball all vary.

    Football (or footy) may well be Soccer, or Rugby (Union or League), or Australian Rules, or American Grid-Iron... probably others too? depending on where you are and who's talking...

    Insisting that the game you prefer is the only true or real "football" is a fools errand.

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Phil Cook,

    the soft 'c' shuffle?

    pronouncing it “sosher”

    I like it.
    C'est la vie...
    'Sosher's life'

    This could launch a 1,000 t-shirts!
    kick start a war chest...
    to Change The World!

    (As a sport it is ...
    philosophy with legs.
    Much like Irish dancing,
    no need to take up arms...)

    which all means it is time for that Rabelaisian Miserablist:

    Fans: remember you are abroad...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7950 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    One of the challenges in officiating football is contact interfering with possession that is not obviously enough to knock a player over. A lot of 'soft' falls outside of the penalty areas arise simply because players would not otherwise be awarded a foul.

    The English traditionally solved the problem by taking a robust approach that prized a certain toughness, but in conjunction with water logged pitches it tended to hinder the development of passing and dribbling based play. I actually just made that up, but it kinda sounds like it could be true. I couldn't watch the 'long ball' based games the Premier League threw up in the early 1990s.

    Anyway. England's first game against Italy (being a re-match of the Euro 2012 quarter final) could decide which of the two teams progresses from group D and so will be completely fascinating. So much hinges on how England's new look midfield fits together: Sterling and Lallana were hugely impressive in the domestic season and Oxlade-Chamberlain and Barkley looked good in the recent warm up matches.

    Spain v the Netherlands on Friday night should also be great to watch - the loser will almost certainly meet Brazil in the round of sixteen (assuming they go on to qualify). Brazil will have to be careful - it faces another Maracanazo and the locals already seem pretty restive.

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    Of course the Rugby World Cup IRB bears no resemblance to FIFA? No sausages for Rugby then? Thank goodness for that!

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Stemson, in reply to WH,

    Yes - officiating contact can be problematic.

    Whilst pretending to be fouled by diving is cheating, diving when actually fouled is perfectly legitimate. If you are in the box and a defender makes illegal contact, you are within your rights to hit the turf.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Auckland • Since Oct 2007 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Ianmac,

    Of course the Rugby World Cup IRB bears no resemblance to FIFA? No sausages for Rugby then? Thank goodness for that!

    The IRB has its faults and vested interests, but there's really no comparison to FIFA -- it's not a corrupt organisation. The IOC would possibly be a better comparison.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green, in reply to Ianmac,

    Of course the Rugby World Cup IRB bears no resemblance to FIFA? No sausages for Rugby then? Thank goodness for that!

    Don't be a drop on the graph dude. The IRB are pretty shonky for sure, but it's like comparing FIFA's Lex Luthor to the IRB's Captain Boomerang.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington,

    I'm with John Oliver. FIFA are the worst people on the planet and I hope the Brazilian people kick up a fuss about it. But I'm also hella looking forward to the matches and hope Brazilans get some joy out of the tournament they've paid so dealy for.

    It's hard not to see every major world tournament like this not being without accompanying protests in future.

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 949 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    Whilst pretending to be fouled by diving is cheating, diving when actually fouled is perfectly legitimate. If you are in the box and a defender makes illegal contact, you are within your rights to hit the turf.

    I agree. I remember deciding that football players hit the turf too easily as kid watching the 1986 tournament. I haven't entirely changed my mind but my more recent memories are of defenders' professional fouls on attackers. It gets harder to assess the merits of a claim for a foul as players get closer to goal.

    I bought a 42-inch smart TV to watch the tournament today and have just finished setting it up. It's doing a great job of looking good in my living room and is actually quite impressive. The only minor drawback is that LG doesn't currently seem to have rights to all of the UK's on-demand services. Be that as it may, I feel that I've attained some sort of optimally kitted out state, however temporarily.

    And the Black Caps look as though they are closing in on a win in Kingston.

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    What an odd start to the World Cup. 3-1, all four goals scored by Brazilians, and the first goal of the cup an own goal. And I think Brazil can count themselves lucky, especially in that second half.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Brazil looked a bit nervous early on and who can blame them. Came back well though. I only saw the first half but really enjoyed it, really open play and several chances each way.

    I think that claim to the title just got a little stronger today.

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 949 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Peter Darlington,

    The second half got off to a rather lacklustre start, and Croatia had a few more chances than Brazil should've given them. But yeah, first game of the cup, we'll see how it goes...

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.