Wow. Lame. Thank God for football. And by football I mean real football with tackling, blood, injuries, HGH, helmets, etc.

i enjoy watching brazil play soccer...guys from the usa? not so much.

if only one of our players knew how to properly dive, perhaps we could have scored more than one (real) goal

I don't think diving as that big of a roadblock to soccer's popularity in the US. We already have flops in basketball and WR's who ask for a flag every time there is contact. I think the bigger roadblocks are the low scoring games and ties. Perhaps Americans would prefer a 2-point line 40 yards out?

"Doesn't the dribbler deserve a somersault or two to remind the world that the only way to stop him is through violent and graceless means?" No. No, man. Shit, no man. I reckon you should get your ass kicked doing something like that.

"Doesn't the dribbler deserve a somersault or two to remind the world that the only way to stop him is through violent and graceless means?" NO!!! The reason the fancy boy is flopping, by definition, is because the ball has been taken from him cleanly (therefore not violently and certainly not necessarily gracelessly). Otherwise, it is not a flop, and should be called as a foul. That someone would try to defend this practice makes me very angry.

Hey, why is there no fucking soccer today? Why was there no fucking soccer yesterday? What does a horseshoe do? Are there any horse socks? Is anybody listening...

I read the article. They're still pussies.

Oh, and leave it to Slate to find a way to make soccer even more boring.

I remember getting a pair of shin pads when I was a kid that said "Copa Mindual Italia '90" on them. I had no friggin' idea what that meant, but they were the cheapest pair, so of course I ended up with them. I miss the days when an American kid who played soccer had no idea there was anything called the World Cup. Oh, who am I kidding, I'm just pissed because I'm not going to win the World Cup Pants Party and the post that comes with it.

Anyone defending taking a dive in soccer should be forced to watch this clip of an Arkansas baseball player faking getting hit by a pitch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhtnK_bC-Ic&search=college%... If baseball was played like soccer it would be about as popular as soccer. And the Daily Closer would be all about bass fishing.

That's got to be the single most wrongheaded defense of soccer I've ever read. If the guy is diving, then he was stopped without violent or graceless means. It means he faked those violent means. The whole point of that paragraph starts from an illogical starting point. Christ, Austin Kelley, do soccer a favor, and STFU.

Unsilent, are you saying Dwayne Wade should play soccer?

Diego Maradona was about 4'6", and he didn't have any trouble staying on his feet when people tried to hack him down.

Sam, Major League Lacrosse has a two point line. No one watches that either. Soccer needs to get rid of the offsides rule. No other sport penalizes you for running faster than your opponent. Why is this a rule?

Of course, if the refs ever called the fouls that happen to "real men" who don't hit the deck when fouled, it would be less of an issue. This might be easier to manage if there were MORE THAN ONE REF TO COVER A 120x80M FIELD WITH 22 MEN ON IT!

Divers, like Slate writers, got beat up in elementary school.

I don't see how diving in soccer is any different than a basketball or football player who contests every single call that doesn't go his way even when he totally knows that he's wrong. That said, I've seen several cases in this world cup where a player could have made a great play, perhaps even score, if he hadn't collapsed like a sock puppet the second he felt contact from a defender.

silky, he'd be one of the best attacking mids in the world

I wouldn't mind the low-scoring games, or the ceaseless flopping, or having soccer shoved down my throat every 4 years, as long as they would do SOMETHING to open the game up and have actual legitimate chances at scoring. Hockey may be low-scoring, but you generally have to pay attention the entire game because it is possible that a score could come at any minute.

Good God is Slate a bore. Articulation does not equal intellect, and going against conventional wisdom does not equal compelling. *cough* LeBron in the playoffs *cough* Also: Soccer needs to get rid of the offsides rule. Silky, you are grossly misinformed. Getting rid of offside penalties would decrease offense. Must we educate the ignorant on EVERY soccer post?

Dave Eggers rules. That Slate writer is an idiot.

I tried to convince a friend that diving in soccer is strategy just like an intentional walk, or taking a knee. I mean why WOULDN'T you go for it on every down? Are you a pussy? Why WOULDN'T you try to strike a guy out at every at bat? Yeah, he didn't buy it either, but I remain convinced.

Offside does not punish anyone for being faster than their opponent. If the offensive and defensive players start out even (meaning the player is onside), then the faster offensive player can outrun his opponent all he wants. Eliminating the offside rule would mean you'd have one or two guys hanging back by the goal waiting for their teammates to chuck them the ball. That wouldn't improve scoring. Or maybe soccer should just artificially inflate their scoring system the way that football does. From now on, one goal equals six points, a penalty is worth 3 points, and an own goal is worth 2 points.

I've played a LOT of organized soccer, and not just pee-wee stuff either. Diving is for wusses, as are shin guards. Anyway, diving isn't what turns people off. 90 minutes with one, maybe 2 or 3 goals is. The same with ties. But, you can't just fix those things to draw crowds. Look at indoor soccer. Lots of scoring, no ties (even a 2 point line in some leagues). They don't draw fans for shit. The problem now is that soccer is firmly entrenched as a lame sport in the American mind. Pity. Maybe if the US team would become a real contender things would turn around a bit. (Sorry if this double-posts. Freaking Gawker technology.)

As to my previous post about inflated scoring, this piece written after France '98: http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/1998/oct15.htm

Silky: Arggh..for the last time, get off the freaking offsides rule. If it wasn't there, people would just stand next the goalie and try to cherry pick goals. As a result, defenders would stay back, instead of pushing the play, and well, you get the rest. Hobbs: The beauty of soccer is that since there aren't that many of them, goals are very important. Hence you have to pay attention because any play could be that sublime moment that leads to an awesome goal. And in a related note, Slate sucks.

CC, it seems to me like telling a wideout he can't try and get open until after the QB throws the ball. I don;t think you're talking me out of this.

Silky: Arggh..for the last time, get off the freaking offsides rule. If it wasn't there, people would just stand next the goalie and try to cherry pick goals. As a result, defenders would stay back, instead of pushing the play, and well, you get the rest. This is balls out stupid. If the team can't get an advantage by outnumbering the players on offense (requiring the defense to match players), then maybe you need to get rid of some of the players. They apparently don't do much. it'd be like saying that since there's no offsides in basketball, a good strategy would be to leave someone underneath your own basket all the time, so every missed shot would equal a layup. it wouldn't work, because the 5th guy is needed for both offense and defense. so, yeah, your argument is stupid. offsides penalizes not the runner, but the long passer. get rid of it. it is stupid.

oh, whoops, i don't mean you have to get rid of offsides. its a rule, and some rules are dumb and anti-competitive (like only 1 offensive player can be moving when a football is snapped). but don't pretend like the game couldn't handle it. rule changes create good changes and bad changes that the game adjusts to. oh, and as for flopping, i agree its like bums in the NBA faking taking a charge. we all love histrionic floppers like john stockton & vlade divac, don't we?

You're right, Silky. It's like the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it compose a worthwhile argument that doesn't waste everybody's time."

I guess my comment didn't post last time...argh Gawker...but it agreed with moomacher's first point. offside isn't the issue except for somebody who doesn't understand the game. (sorry silky). football (american) has a very similar rule in that you can't be past the ball until it is in play (i.e. snapped), which is called--surprise, surprise--"offsides." imagine how much greater football would be if a team could just run its receivers anywhere on the field before the ball is snapped. or, just plant a defensive end right next to the quarterback before the snap. (note the sarcasm).

As far as comparisons to flopping in basketball, that is only valid up to a point. Yes, you could say its dishonest to flop on a drive to draw a charge. But at least that rarely if ever involves rolling around on the ground, grabbing your face (when you were grazed on the hip) and acting for all the world like the most gutless five year old crying for his mommy to buy him a toy. Then having the audacity to get up and pretend you're all macho. Puke.

Here's the thing with scoring. I noticed that an attack on the goal in soccer is very similar to that of a hockey game. In hockey, rebound shots and pressure on the goal are common, but in the World Cup games I have seen, there is frequently one shot on goal if any. If they could just attempt more shots on goal during a try, I would be rivited. I don't know if the lack of rebound chances are because the field is so large (probably) or the players aren't skilled enough to get a good kick on it (not as likely), but I for one would like to see more of a success rate near the net and more shots on goal. Give me more scoring and I'll appreciate this on the same level as the rest of you soccer nuts.

Soccer, as it is, is inherently low-scoring. Someone complained about this, and I suggested a way to remedy it. Eliminating the offsides rule would undoubtedly change the sport (see: forward pass, three point line, etc.)and drewheyman is right that change can be good. You would probably have to allow more substitutions as well, (perhaps on the fly) because there would be even more running, in order to cover the cherrypickers. No one would hang by the goal, because they are indeed needed at both ends of the field. Lacrosse has an offsides rule that keeps three players on the offensive and four on the defensive side of the field at all times, with three midfielders allowed to go anywhere they want, perhaps that could be considered as well. Changing/eliminating the offsides rule would drastically alter the sport, but it would make it more high scoring, and perhaps, more appealing to spectators as an American professional sport. Jakob, your football analogy doesn't work because in football, everyone starts the play from a (relative) standstill. Soccer's offsides is not like that, but it is a part of the game. How's that for time-wasting?

Americans liking soccer has nothing to do with the game itself. Americans don't like soccer because everybody else in the world likes it. It sets Americans apart and allows Americans to put their nose up to the rest of the world. This, of course, is a very French thing to do.

Did Skip Bayless talk to Austin Kelley? This reeks of a "go against conventional wisdom for attention" article. Not once, in all my years of playing and watching soccer, have I ever heard or read somebody make an argument for diving. Concerning the low-scoring nature of soccer, I think it is part of what makes it so interesting. Rarely are teams completely out of the game; because you can score so quickly (and at times, undeservedly), it requires total concentration from both teams the entire game. Look at that Argentina-Mexico game: Mexican defenders left Rodriguez completely open (watch the highlights, he has TONS of space), and he ends up scoring the goal of the tournament. The bigger problem is the way we (and by we, I mean ESPN) tried to present soccer. Instead of allowing the stellar Adrian Healey to call the main matches, we have a man more comfortable with baseball and his sidekick who deserves a linguistic red card.

If you were to abolish the offside rule, teams would simply employ one extremely quick striker who would run into space behind the back line as soon as his side gained possession - not having to wait for the pass, of course. One long ball later, the leather is nestling in the back of the onion bag, and a couple of puffed-out centre-halves are making up their minds to stay back in future. They stay back, so everybody stays back. Instead of freeing the game up, you're actually closing it down. Besides, there's no sight better in football than a sweetly sprung offside trap. You're missing the point, chaps.