THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US FOOTBALL AND WORLD FOOTBALL

The flop is practiced in the NFL by punters, just like in futbol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67pscGafQgs

Does it work?

Oh Yeah!

Those sly dogs..

I know...and to think, they actually teach those dimwits to cheat.

One noticeable difference: in a game of American or Canadian football which isn't a defensive slug fest, there is actually some excitement--the game actually moves along.

Watching international football is only marginally more exciting than watching paint dry.

In 1876, McGill University (Montréal) and Harvard played a game of rugby football, and agreed to play by "Harvard rules." The American and Canadian games have evolved from that.

The Canadian game has diverged somewhat in a few respects, and a great deal in one particular. If you kick a field goal, and it lands between the uprights, but below the bar, that's one point. The Canadian field is 110 yards, which makes the 55 yard line midfield. But the really big difference is that in Canadian football, you have three downs to make ten yards. Obviously, the passing game is much more important north of 49. When Warren Moon came down to Houston from (Calgary?) Canada, it revolutionized game plans in American football, because he took it as a matter of course that he should pass for at least ten yards in two downs.

Warren Moon could pass the ball like nobody's business, but a Superbowl ring eluded him.

That's a shame, too, ain't it?

Yes. (Well, as the world turns, I dunno, but re football, would have like to see him get that.)

The best thing about American football is that if you want to take a pee after a few beers, the next commercial break is about 3 minutes away.
Futbol football demands a longer attention span than American football.

It's interesting to notice that both sports have something in common: those who don't understand them tend to deride them (as a way of protecting themselves against their own ignorance of the sport).
A futbol fan watching American football: "What's the excitement all about? Hey, the game lasts nothing: they give the ball to one guy, there's a melée, a pile up, I can't even see where the ball is... and now they have another minute to make another play".
An American football fan watching futbol: "What's the excitement all about? They're just running and passing and chasing the ball and they can't put it in the box. What's the fuss if they score so little?".

The key is to know the strategy. If you understand the strategy, you enjoy the game; if you don't, you don't.

fbaezer
In the game that saw Japan eliminated, they settled the game at the end with a series of one on one kicks. How did they arrive at the decission to do that?

To me:

American football brings moments (or minutes) of sheer excitement, alongside with a usually good time of watching the game.

Futbol is sometimes boring, but usually it's mildly exciting with some moments of big excitement. And when my Pumas or Mexico play an important game, my guts are trembling for the whole 2 hours and I finish exhausted.
Esthetically I enjoy it a lot.

Baseball is pure joy. Perhaps it's -on the average- the least exciting of the three , but for me it's the most esthetically rewarding.

On the contrary, I only understand the most basic strategy of basketball. So i seldom watch it and usually enjoy it less than other sports. But I acknowledge: it's my fault, not the sport's.

ed, after that if it's still tied, they blindfold the goalies and do it again.

lotsa fun...

So true, and it's the reason I became a huge hockey fan.

BTW. I found George Will, the columnist, to be a wonderful source of information on baseball strategy.

No goals in normal play; no goals in extra time; knock-out phase.

That was a typical football match for those who oppose it. Very difficult to enjoy if you are not Paraguayan or Japanese.
You see, Paraguay plays a sort of catenaccio (the "lock" invented by famous Helenio Herrera for Italy in the 60s): you give away control of the ball, defend heavily and send a few players in vertical counterattacks when the other team has "belittled" the pitch (the field) , and Japan was waaaay too cautious attacking, a fearful strategy, knowing that the Paraguayans master catenaccio.
Japan, of course, had the better chances, but they were not many and the game was dull.
Spain, in the quarter-finals didn't fear the Paraguayan strategy, and was over and over and over pounding the Paraguayan defensive wall. Paraguay's strategy almost paid off, when they were awarded a penalty shot after a foul in one of their counterattacks, but the striker missed. Spain kept on attacking and finally won 1-0. An exciting match.

IN the world of football, there's a huge debate on strategy, divided mostly by "offensive" and "defensive" strategies.
Italy has a history of good results playing "defensively". Other famous "defensive" teams are Paraguay, Switzerland, Norway.
Brazil and Argentina are famous for being offensive and technical, while Germany and England are considered offensive and physical, while Spain tries a combination of both offensive styles.
On the current World Cup:
Italy was early out with it's defensive style.
England betrayed their style and were out (I don't get why Capello, their Italian coach, was hired again).
Brazil betrayed their style and were out (Dunga, the defensive coach, is now a dirty word in Brazil).
Argentina was true to its style and was humbled by Germany (but the Argentinians still love Maradona).
Holland is supposed to play "total football". It has worked for them.
Uruguay is your typical "defensive" squad, who now has a very talented attackers and a good playmaker.
And so on...

Argentina

Thank you. I watched the game with all Spanish language commentary. Hard to know what's going on when you also don't know the rules.

I don't believe that's the way it works, Set.

I believe that a point is awarded to the offensive side for any missed field goal attempt [ it doesn't have to go below the crossbar, it can be anywhere except thru the uprights above the crossbar], where the receiving player fails to get the ball out past the goal line. This may come about because the receiving player is tackled or he goes down on one knee to concede the single point.

I think that any errant field goal attempt that goes thru the end zone is also good for one point.

There used to be a 2 point rouge if an offensive ball carrier goes back into the touchdown area and he is tackled. Not sure if it still exists.

One of the better aspects of Cdn football is that the quarterback isn't allowed to ground the ball. He has to actually try to make a play.

me thinks futbol is lacking in cheerleaders...

I saw Holland versus Argentina for the cup in Buenos Aires in '78. There were a lot of moments of excitement in that game, and Holland was especially impressive on defense. I had a bet of two pounds with a friend of mine on the outcome of the game. About 20 minutes into the second period, he bet me five pounds that the Dutch wouldn't even score. So, Argentina won, in overtime, and i lost two pounds. But the Dutch did tie it up before the end of regulation time, so he owed me five pounds. My net was three pounds (enough in those days to get stinking drunk in Ireland).

I understand that at that level, there is great excitement, and i also understand that those who have played or just simply followed the game all their lives find it exciting. But to be honest, most American football games bore me, because they aren't at the level of play in the playoffs or the Superbowl, or one of the college bowls. (Sunday afternoon NFL is one of the best sedatives i know of.)

I played baseball from the time i was knee-high, and i enjoy watching a baseball game. I also understand that people who are not familiar with baseball find it marginally more exciting than watching paint dry.