I understand why so many hate FIFA soccer
It's not the flops, because we see plenty of that in the NBA.
Americans get pulled down by their jerseys - no call. Americans get tripped trying to score - no call. So many "off sides" calls to negate USA goals (what is it this WC, 4 or 5 disallowed?). American player comes down on the back of a BH player's ankle - red card.
Every match seems to have similar officiating to when VT beat Miami in Miami, but the officials gave the game to Miami. Yeah, that's the level of officiating we seem to have every match.
It's Team USA versus the other team and the FIFA officials.
42 Replies
1mo
Maybe it's because the US doesn't suck, and maybe it's because the tournament is being held here, but the USMNT is drawing eyeballs at a level only the NFL normally does. The group stage rounds are matching NFL regular season game TV ratings, the opener vs. Paraguay drew viewership comparable to a top Sunday Night Football broadcast, and Fox is projecting if the USMNT actually made it to the finals, it would be the 2nd most watched broadcast behind only the Super Bowl.
Are there some loud complainers out there? Sure. But every sport has that. At least for right now, there is more love for soccer in the US than ever before.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
Nothing else on right now. During the group stages I watched some, but I watched the college World Series annd US open instead when that was on.
I am interested because our team is playing well. Would I watch if our team was eliminated? Group stages….no. Round of 16 and beyond….probably, assuming it’s later in the day when I’m not running errands or playing golf or something else AND there wasn’t something else to watch.
Like today…I have no idea who’s playing, but I’m stuck at home with my daughter so I might watch, assuming I don’t find some movie or something to start watching before games start.
It’s sports. I love sports.
But even with that, I don’t watch any NBA or NHL until the championship. Same would go for soccer (if it wasn’t for the reasons mentioned earlier).
(In response to this post by Tafkam Hokie)
1mo
enough attacking power to keep up with the Red Devils for 90 minutes.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
records, with a lot of games left to play.
** Edited by PhotoHokieNC at 7/2/2026, 10:31:47 AM
** Edited by PhotoHokieNC at 7/2/2026, 10:33:53 AM
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by Tafkam Hokie)
1mo
Going back to Pele coming here to push the sport you get that feeling that more people were watching but it's never really felt like it's had that pop. This year you can feel that pop. Everyone's having fun, as you mentioned stadiums getting filled, civic associations getting out for the visitors etc. This time it feels really different.
(In response to this post by Tafkam Hokie)
1mo
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
but in practice it makes a ton of sense.
(In response to this post by HokieGator)
1mo
be opposed to seeing the rule mirror the rule in ice hockey. Basically a "blue line" would be added to the field and the ball would have to be the first thing to enter the zone before any attacking players could enter the zone. It should have a direct impact on how defensive teams implement offsides traps and whether attacking teams still want to pass the ball all the way back to the goalie or not. In terms of the flow of the game, those changes may not be that bad of a change.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1mo
it, what the dynamic might be. Essentially it's a rule against a fast break, like we see in basketball, So I guess what would happen is it would force a couple players to lay back on defense just in case so in a weird way it would make it harder to score with fewer players at the offensive end. Paradoxically it would hurt scoring I would think...
...but I dunno, that's why I'd like to see it played that way once to understand the rule. Not really into it though haven't watched any game or highlight yet.
(In response to this post by HokieGator)
1mo
A couple of possible tweaks come to mind.
1. Once the ball is inside the 18 (extended, not just the box), you can be anywhere any time. Once it's that close, the D damn well better be checking each guy or pay the price.
2. Or a little more like hockey where the ball has to cross the 18 extended first, then anything goes.
3. Your whole body has to be past the deepest defender, not just a pinky toe. Though I admit that this one would lead to just another type of barely being offside by a pinky toe.
(In response to this post by `lag)
1mo
thing those 2 sports have in common are:
1. Both are sports
2. Both are called "Football"
3. Both are played 11 v 11
And that's about it.
I think there can be some comparisons to Basketball and Hockey. Like soccer, both of those games have 'flow'. Offense turns to defense instantly, with the same players on the field doing both. That happens in football on a fumble or interception a few times a game, but it's just not the same. When there's a turnover in football, if it's not an immediate score, then offensive and defensive specialists all switch. In the other 3 sports, all, the same guys just continue.
In football, you line up with a plan of attack and run a 5 to 8 second long play, then you do it again, and again. In soccer, basketball and hockey, yeah, there are set plays, but 99% of the game and success comes from improvising.
Offsides in football is a vastly different animal, and football is a vastly different sport.
Note - I do like football, a lot, but the comparison you're making just doesn't hold.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1mo
(In response to this post by Late 80s Hokie)
1mo
who committed the infraction, benefitted from the advantage or not. In American football, if Corey Moore lined up in the neutral zone prior to the snap of the ball and he sacked the QB on that play, then did Moore gain an unfair advantage on that play by being offsides?
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1mo
I'd need to see it played so I could get a feel for that. Even pickup basketball you sort have an offsides rule eg taking the ball to the top of the key in a halfcourt game to allow the D to set.
(In response to this post by Late 80s Hokie)
1mo
(American football, ice hockey, etc.) have offsides rules. How would you feel if American football got rid of the offsides rule and allowed all 11 defensive players to stand right next to the QB before the snap of the ball? It wouldn't matter if QB is taking the snap under center, in the pistol formation, or shotgun formation. That would be an example of cherry picking in American football.
(In response to this post by HokieGator)
1mo
Players are free to cherry pick but do they all? And it would have to be strategic. If you send too many guys ahead (forward?) you are at a disadvantage on defense.
I think it would make the game more “open” and result in more scoring…which is what we are all watching for.
Would it be the exact same for American football, eh, I don’t think so. The mechanics of the two games are very different. That said, it would be interesting to see what decisions would be made in American football if you could line up offsides (offensively as well). Do you send all your defense offsides? Then someone will be wide open on offense…and so on. But in that case/game, I’d argue that is much more of a fundamental or drastic change than it would be in soccer. Again, I’d liken it to basketball
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1mo
US uses a 3-5-2 (3 defenders and 2 strikers) formation. You can bet at least the 2 strikers will cherry pick during the game. If a team uses a 3-4-3 or 4-3-3, then at least the 3 strikers will cherry pick the entire game. Even if a team opts for a more defensive formation (i.e. 5-4-1 or 5-3-2), the strikers will be cherry picking.
Cherry picking of any kind would basically ruin the game because the sport would devolve into "bootball." Bootball (if you don't know) is a term soccer fans use when a team's only strategy is to kick the ball long and have a striker and/or attacking mid-field run onto it. In American football it would be similar to the passing tree having only 1 route; the fly pattern. There would be no real short or medium passes because teams wouldn't "need" to have the ability to work the ball from the back up through the midfield. If you ever watch little kids when they are first learning to play the game, they basically play "bootball." No one wants to watch professional athletes play "bootball" because it won't show off their skill level (aka no heel passes or flicks to spring a teammate loose on a breakaway chance).
The mechanics of football and American football aren't that different though. Even rugby (league and union rules) have offsides rules. What is different about the three sports is how each sport defines the imaginary "line of scrimmage." In football, it is the last defender that isn't the goalkeeper. In American football and rugby, it is the ball. In ice hockey, it is the blue line.
(In response to this post by HokieGator)
1mo
comparison.
(In response to this post by HokieGator)
1mo
...but tend to cheer the bad calls against the other team.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
...after the red card travesty.
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
1mo
they applied the rules. For example, there were a couple times the referee either called a foul or gave the US the advantage when a B&H player committed a "professional foul." Normally a professional foul comes with a yellow card, but the referee opted to keep the cards in his pocket for whatever reason. Then VAR decided that Fol's foul warranted a red card even though the referee had a clear view of the play and didn't even give him a yellow card. In other FIFA sanctioned matches where a similar incident occurs and no card is given, the majority of the time VAR decides to give that player a yellow card. Very rarely does the video review lead to a straight red. So what changed last night to influence the decision to go straight red particularly when there was no clear intent on Fol's part? It was obvious from the video evidence that both players were going for the ball and their feet essentially got tangled up. FIFA decided a long time ago that intent would be an important component when deciding whether a foul warrants a yellow or red card.
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
1mo
...to penalize the US out of the WC.
Disgusting!
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1mo
Naturally it would be very difficult to prove with any solid piece of evidence without any of the parties involved (including FIFA) making the boneheaded mistake to expose themselves of the plan. I haven't been able to watch all of the games, but I have seen a couple articles talk about how even the officials have been inconsistent in this tournament. One article even raised the possibility that FIFA was trying to change something (not sure what exactly) and the officials were just following FIFA's directive. Historically if FIFA is going to enforce a new policy, then it publicly issues a memo months in advance to give teams (and fans) time to adjust to the change. I don't recall seeing FIFA issuing any memo leading into this tournament.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
because according to the rule...we're offsides. I'd like there to be a tolerance in that rule now that they can measure it to the mm of a foot or 25cm or whatever unit you want to use. I don't think being 1mm forward of your defender gives you a real advantage. A foot or more? sure.
The refs have been letting them play and that's not just in our games. I found the red card egregious because of the clear lack of intent and a player that was going for the ball and had to step somewhere and unfortunately his foot landed on the calf and slid down. Absolutely a yellow card but I don't think that rises to a red card unless he does cause serious injury.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
Most have said it was a yellow card.
(In response to this post by ElbertoHokie)
1mo
be interpreted as a reckless challenge that had the potential to cause serious injury, even if there was no intent to injure.
OK, I'm not totally 50/50. I'd lean towards yellow as well. But I also don't think it was a horrendous call.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
the refs won't call them all. Teams know that. It's real bad in college basketball. See: Houston.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
And yeah, when you are offsides, you are offsides. The US was last night and it wasn't close.
The physicality of this tournament is astounding to me vs the number of cards I've seen. I mean, there was a match a few days ago where the team had a guy tackled to the ground twice, in the box, with a chance at a free header for a shot and nothing was called.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
Would our FB D tackle as cleanly as some soccer players in this WC
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
1mo
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
1mo
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
** Edited by ColoVT82 at 7/2/2026, 7:31:43 AM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
go to the FIFA Facebook page.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
1mo
"The match was marked by poor refereeing against the United States, with a number of calls inexplicably going against the USNMT, including a late no-card foul against Christian Pulisic on a clear goal-scoring opportunity to close out the first half. The poor calling of the match culminated in a red card for the rising star striker Folarin Balogun that put the U.S. down to 10 men for the last third of the match."
Yeah, FIFA officiating sucks...lol
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
1mo
red card suspension can be appealed (then for only one game of the two). At least, that's what I just read online, so it's got to be right.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1mo
"The red card was one of the most egregious calls I've ever seen."
I agree...lol
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)