So ESPN and baseball fanatics everywhere will be fixated for the next few days on the "Perfect Game That Never Was" played tonight in Detroit. When reading the ESPN recap, one line discussing the "human factor" in umpiring really stood out at me: "...in a sport that still relies on the human eye more than any other sport..." Maybe I'm over-reacting, but this line just sums up how clueless the American mainstream sports community is to any sport that isn't "American." It's just not true. You can't say a competition between teams from two countries is a "World Series" and you can't say that the officiating in baseball relies more on the human eye than "any other sport" when soccer is also officiated without official replays of any kind. It's simply not true. And to add insult to injury, this is coming from ESPN, the supposed champion of soccer in America. Pathetic.
A couple thoughts: A) LOLWTF B) I love soccer, and hate baseball, but even I will agree that umpiring an MLB game must be the hardest thing in sports. Everything important about the job happens in the span of a millisecond. C) You need to chill. Maybe you're new to this stuff, but the quality and quantity of coverage in the US is exponentially better than it was even four years ago. Oh, and I don't know what relevance your last link was supposed to have to anything, but anyone moron that writes this: is not worth the time of day. Being negative about soccer in the US, despite the possibility of a 50% growth in numbers...all because it's inferior to the Super Bowl's numbers? That is idiocy of the highest order, worthy of BS poster status.
A couple of more thoughts: A.) Fair enough, after having a sleep on it, I will be the first to admit I over-reacted a little. I read the article, and it rubbed me the wrong way, so I posted this little rant on here. If no one agrees with me, no worries. B.) Referees/Officials etc, have a terrible job all around, they're making split second calls in any sport and they have to live with the wrath of the fans when they're wrong. However, I do take objection to the notion that an umpire has a harder time officiating a match than a soccer referee isn't giving a fair lot to either sport. An umpire has to make split second decisions on strikes and balls and who's safe and who's out. A soccer referee is making split second calls, from much further away, often through other players due to poor line of site andThey're both insanely hard for completely different reason. C.) I completely agree with you, the coverage of soccer is improving at a lightening fast rate in this country. However, that doesn't mean we can't hope and press for better coverage and a wider respect of the sport. However, I don't think that I was saying the World Cup coverage was worthless because it didn't match up to Super Bowl numbers ... because it never will, because there is only one Super Bowl. What I meant to say (and probably could have expressed more clearly) was that it's important to have the proper appreciation of the actual scale of ESPN's coverage instead of buying into their press-release cool-aid on how soccer has arrived and they're the reason why. To me, pragmatism matters, accuracy in language matters and semantics - however nit-picky they may be, matter.
Just because ESPN is committed to promoting soccer doesn't mean they're not also trying to promote baseball. MLB is the oldest pro league in this country, it has a lot of history, and a perfect game is a big deal in baseball. The World Cup is next week; this story is happening right now. Even a well-established sport like baseball needs a bump now and then, or a hook to get more viewers. It's not like baseball TV ratings are through the roof. Way better than soccer, yes, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind making them better.
And there's no way around it: That spoiled perfect game is an absolute tragedy. Wouldn't surprise me if it ignites a real push to institute more technology review in baseball -- which in the long run could only help soccer (or at least those who'd like to see refs assisted by technology).
It just highlights the fact that we have the technology to get these calls right (including similar ones in soccer). No good can come of this stubborn refusal to modernize under the excuse of "tradition". There are ways to use technology without spending 10 minutes reviewing a replay each time - this debate just seems so poorly thoguht out in my eyes.
One-out-of-three Americans don't know what sport will be played at World Cup http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/june_2010/world_cup_what_s_that
Well, technically there are other "World Cups" of this-and-that. Hell, I'd be surprised if one out of three Americans know who's playing in the Stanley Cup Finals right now. For that matter, I'd be surprised if more than half of all SuperBowl viewers on any given year know which team is the AFC team and which is the NFC team.
Digging deeper into those poll results, some might find this interesting: If the U.S. team advances to the World Cup finals, however, 62% say they are at least somewhat likely to watch, with 36% who say they are Very Likely to do so. But even with the American team on the field, 37% say they are not very or not at all likely to watch any World Cup action. This is from Rasmussen's Super Bowl poll taken in February: Sixty-two percent (62%) of Americans plan to watch the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints slug it out today in Super Bowl XLIV. Thirty percent (30%) say they won’t be watching the game in Miami, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another nine percent (9%) aren’t sure if they’ll watch or not.
A lot like the US hockey team when they went on to win gold. Americans love winners. Hopefully our guys can at least get to the quarters.
I would say that Americans like a story. Simply saying "Tune in the the World Cup to watch some soccer" doesn't really bring in casual fans, but "Hey, did you hear that the US team is kicking ass at the World Cup?" will get some interest. The average casual fan wants a narrative to follow.
How many of those one-of-three come from the substantial number of people who don't pay the slightest attention to any sport?
This year (being a world cup year) I have not been following any other sport at all. Normally I at least follow hockey. But yeah I was at the bar didn't even think twice about the baseball perfect game.
Baseball is probably the most difficult sport to officiate. Even within ten feet of the play, umpires will sometimes mess up. I feel bad for KG Jr, retires and not a peep is said about the sweetest swing baseball has ever seen. Plus, it doesn't matter because the World Cup is not within USA media coverage code. The code clearly states, unless the sporting event contains the word "super" in it, it shall not be covered until a week in advance. This law shall be ignored for anything relating to the word "draft."
Dude, you need a hobby, or a girlfriend; probably both. I hope that neither baseball nor soccer succumb to technology to determine balls, strikes, goals, fouls, etc. Say goodbye to the advantage clause, and "in the opinion of the referee." It would make both games sterile and unappealing. The human element is what make them real; put in the techno stuff, and you may as well just play them on your computer. And besides, what happens when there's a tough call, and the system crashes? Computers know noting about intent, or whether a tackle is fair or not, not to mention what is and what is not unsporting conduct. Just saying.
Nobody expects computers to make judgement calls like that. But I don't think it would hurt the integrity of the game to have a goal-line camera to make sure that the ball completely crossed the line.
The media will say and do anything to bring the viewer in. Heck, in the narrative of someone, they will make up stuff just to get that viewer.
"Proof Soccer isn't Even on the American Sports Radar" The idea that a lack of interest in soccer in America deserves a new thread seems a bit much. Everyone already knows it's not the biggest sport. Everyone already knows it doesn't get the same media attention. Everyone knows there's a bias in America towards American sports. This isn't new. It's been going on for 40+ years. And ******** baseball. Hell i'm in LA. Nobody cares about baseball. That nohitter story barely got discussed. it's 100% Lakers all day everyday for the last two weeks. There is NOTHING new here. NOTHING.
I've noticed that soccer coverage in this country has sunk to the level of 2002. I'd say it peaked in 2006 - thank Arena for the decline afterward. I don't know if it's the recession or what. It just seems like the media - print, televised, internet - is scrambling to put coverage of any sport but soccer. Hell, today I heard a TV guy plugging the NCAA baseball championships as "June madness". When does anyone pay attention to that? And right in the middle of the world cup, too. 5 years ago, my paper had MLS coverage - just the AP reports, but they were there. Now we get syndicated Mike LoPresti opinion columns: it's not about a lack of space. I finally wrote the sports editor complaining that any local coverage (and especially soccer) would be better. No response on that one. It would be pathetic except that columnists and TV pundits really do have an impact on what people are interested in.
Did you see today's SI? ESPN the Magazine (with special newsstand-only preview mag) and ESPN's $30 book just for this WC? ESPN in general? Go to a bookstore. Look in the magazine rack. There are about 200% more special editions for the World Cup than last time around. Using newspapers as a gauge is bad for just about anything because they're working very hard at destroying their own medium. Oh, and the College World Series thing? That's essentially required to be pushed due to the contract the NCAA has with ESPN for all sports championships but the big ones.