Rush goes full RINO: Let’s face it, yesterday’s soccer match was “enjoyable”

posted at 7:41 pm on July 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Politico and the Daily Rushbo, today he’s saying this, tomorrow he’ll be endorsing the North American Union. And then, before you know it, conservatism will have been defined so far down that even atheists who support gay marriage can sneak inside the tent. Where does it end?

The game was enjoyable, though, wasn’t it? The last 10 minutes of extra time, when the U.S. had a few fair shots at tying it, were electric. And Tim Howard was so rad, he had the Secretary of Defense calling him up today for the obligatory reflected-glory photo op, replete with a soccer ball awkwardly and implausibly in frame for easy visual reference. There’s no shame in enjoying the World Cup. But how do you enjoy the sport when it’s been drained of the manufactured pressures that inflate the drama this month — nationalism, instant elimination, the world’s best players competing in a quadrennial event? How do I go from this to caring how the New York Red Bulls are doing in MLS on any given day? And if the answer is “Watch the Champions League,” how do I get myself to care whether Barcelona beats Bayern Munich or Bayern Munich beats Barcelona?

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says it’s a lost cause:

Is there something fundamentally different about watching soccer that turns people away by the millions? Apparently so. For one thing, there’s a lot of movement but not much action. American audiences see people kicking the ball to a teammate, only to have it intercepted by the other team. A lot. To the average American used to the hustle of basketball, the clash of titans in football, the suspense of the curve ball in baseball, or the thrilling crack of the slapshot in hockey, the endless meandering back and forth across the soccer field looks less like strategy and more like random luck. It lacks drama. Of course, that’s not true at all, but that is certainly the perception.

Why aren’t those millions of youth soccer players since 1974 watching? Perhaps another perception is that it is a kid’s game. Kids get to run around, kick something, and generally wear themselves out to the gratitude of parents. Parents who dutifully and diligently attend their kids’ games don’t seem inclined to tune in to professionals on TV.

Lots of truth to that. He thinks the fact that the games are low-scoring is problematic too, but baseball’s also low-scoring and dominated American sports for decades. The main obstacles, I think, are the “meandering,” the fact that MLS is JV compared to the European leagues, and the sense that any game as old as this that hasn’t taken root in the U.S. yet will never truly be an “American” game. That’s one of the reasons righties were snickering at Chris Hayes’s little soccer lesson yesterday. An evergreen suspicion among soccer skeptics is that soccer evangelists like the sport partly because it’s not an American game, because, a la Hayes, the U.S. can’t assert its dominance willy nilly like it can in, er — remind me again of a sport in which the U.S. routinely asserts its dominance. (Did you watch post-Dream Team Olympics basketball, Chris?) Ah well. I think he meant “in countries like Iraq,” not any sport. There’s a pro-soccer mentality for you.

Two clips for you here, one of the new RINO-in-chief and the other of soccer’s foremost true-conservative critic. (Who’s offering her criticism live from the star-spangled red-state streets of Paris, France.) And here’s the poll Rush mentions showing that soccer fandom is higher, slightly, among self-identified liberals than it is among conservatives. Maybe that’s the Hayes effect at work, i.e. lefties are more internationally-oriented in most things, sports included, but I think there’s a demographic component too. World Cup interest is notably higher among Latinos than it is among blacks and whites and Latinos, of course, tend to identify more often as left than as right. That may be what’s driving the liberal numbers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Rush goes full RINO: Let’s face it, yesterday’s soccer match was “enjoyable”

The best thing about it was that it got Tim Howard named as the new Secretary of Defense on Wikipedia.

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Let’s face it, yesterday’s soccer match was “enjoyable”

It was. The Walloons advanced.

reddevil on July 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Phew, I was starting to have soccer thread withdrawals.

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Soccer is only enjoyable if its your nation that is participating.

Come on, you know I’m right.

Just like US Gymnastics. Who really watches it unless its at the Olympics?

portlandon on July 2, 2014 at 7:46 PM

The Walloons advanced.

reddevil on July 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Long live Flanders!

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 7:46 PM

What is this ‘soccer’ thing of which you speak?

Tard on July 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Blasphemy!!!!!!! XD

coolrepublica on July 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM

He thinks the fact that the games are low-scoring is problematic too, but baseball’s also low-scoring and dominated American sports for decades.

Not like soccer though. 5-4 is a common baseball score. In soccer, a score like that would make you question if anybody was bothering to play defense.

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 7:48 PM

While I dont always agree with him, I cant say enough how much I love listening to Rush and believe he is right more often than not. He is the absolute best at what he does. No one else comes close. Hannity is a record on repeat and isn’t very intelligent. Beck can be entertaining but over the top nonsense half the time. Rush is entertaining, gets the media/left riled up, can really see whats coming and explain motives for things, and can pick a part any argument made by the media/left like no one else.

Talk radio is going to suck the day Rush is done. There will never be another like him.

bucsox79 on July 2, 2014 at 7:50 PM

remind me again of a sport in which the U.S. routinely asserts its dominance.

Football. The rest of the world is so scared of us, they won’t even play it. Or they just find it horribly boring. Or maybe they’re wiser than all of us and knew for years that Bob Costas is an idiot, and that men running into each other while wearing pink for a full month looks pretty stupid.

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM

The last 10 minutes of extra time,

Extra time? WTH is that?

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Wait until the Left finds out that Tim Howard is Christian!!!!!!

faraway on July 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM

I peeked at the game before we went to a local pub for dinner. When we got there, it was on every screen. All my kids played and although I don’t understand the way the time is kept, it was fun. Wish the ending had been different. Even if you don’t like the game, it’s always fun to cheer our folks.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Like watching paint dry.

Americans will never take to a game that can end in a tie but nobody really knows when it will end.

BacaDog on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

I never got why conservatives made a point to hate soccer.

Is it because the us simply isn’t any good at it, and that makes you insecure? Is it because you just don’t like fun and good times? idk

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

******************** KOOKS *********************************!!

EIB Flashback » Keep Our Own Kids Safe
***************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZoB04BI0Ko

canopfor on July 1, 2014 at 6:53 PM

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 7:55 PM

I still think soccer would be more exciting if they released a bull on the field. That would liven things up quite a bit. Soccer with a little Pamplona, running with the bulls added in.

TarheelBen on July 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Soccer is certainly not an American sport but it is a highly competitive sport nonetheless. Have we arrived at the point when even team sports are partisan? Well, have we?

Dan_NV on July 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM

May I remind peoples,..that soccer is the past-time, er down-time of Jihadys when they ain’t in be-heading mode!!

Jus say’n (snark)

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Why don’t you grouches like World Cup soccer? If there is one thing I could change about conservatives it would be to make them all less grouchy! World Cup soccer is fun to watch. Period.

ramesees on July 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM

remind me again of a sport in which the U.S. routinely asserts its dominance. (Did you watch post-Dream Team Olympics basketball, Chris?)

Hey, when we actually tried again we won.

We went 8-0 in 2000, laid an egg in 2004, and then dominated again in 2008 (8-0 yet again) and 2012 (you’ll be shocked, but we went….8-0).

Also, for what it’s worth, the US Women’s team hasn’t lost an Olympic game since prior to 1996, the year of the Dream Team II.

So I’d say we pretty routinely assert our dominance in basketball. It may not be as pronounced as in 1992, but that’s because the rest of the world got better.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Oh, and the damn clock should run down, not up.

BacaDog on July 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Libs love it cause ain’t no contact…fits their “play nice” mentality…

hillsoftx on July 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Why don’t you grouches like World Cup soccer?

ramesees on July 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM

No cheerleaders

faraway on July 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I don’t watch MLS or Champions League, but I usually find international tournaments entertaining.

Next tournaments for the US are the Gold Cup (2015), not a huge deal, just has North and Central American countries. Spoiler alert, Mexico or the USA will win it while rolling over countries like El Salvador and Canada 5-0.

The US will host a big tournament, Copa America in 2016. Involves North, Central, and South American countries. The US will have to take on teams like Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and Uruguay. That one should be entertaining and could be a good measuring stick to see how the 2018 team may do.

El_Terrible on July 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I’m thinking that Rush might be gay.

Pork-Chop on July 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I never got why conservatives made a point to hate soccer.

Is it because the us simply isn’t any good at it, and that makes you insecure? Is it because you just don’t like fun and good times? idk

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Why do liberals make it a point to hate NASCAR?

Stock answer is: “It’s boring.”

Well, so is soccer to many people.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Football. The rest of the world is so scared of us, they won’t even play it. Or they just find it horribly boring. Or maybe they’re wiser than all of us and knew for years that Bob Costas is an idiot, and that men running into each other while wearing pink for a full month looks pretty stupid.

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Its really funny to watch the pre-season game from Munich or Stuttgart or wherever it is. The crowd doesn’t know the rules very well, so they cheer at the weirdest times….like when a team calls a time out or both teams bunch up in the huddle.

It is funny. You just have stay up really late.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM

US soccer is boring, however imagine if athletes like Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson, Le Bron James and the like were playing, as they are in the rest of the world? I think our opinion of the game would be different.

Tater Salad on July 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Extra time? WTH is that?

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM

It’s what we call overtime.

And yes, it is with intense shame that I admit I know that fact. But honest, soccer was only a youthful indiscretion. Once I stopped playing (after sixth grade), that “sport” (I use the term loosely) lost all its attraction.

Let the rest of the world have soccer. Lord knows they need something to feel good about.

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM

it bores me.
so I don’t watch it.
I know some that say they enjoy it to make themselves feel superior to others, they bore me too.

dmacleo on July 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM

The game was enjoyable, though, wasn’t it?

No. It wasn’t.

I never got why conservatives made a point to hate soccer.

We didn’t. We made it a point to hate morons that won’t shut up about trying to convince us this boring pseudo-sport is sooo amazing. Like that annoying door to door salesman that keeps trying to sell you texture coating for your house. Or that drive thru-attendant who can’t comprehend why not everyone wants a pound of mayonnaise on their burger.

CapnObvious on July 2, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Why don’t you grouches like World Cup soccer?

ramesees on July 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM

There’s no suspense. Its like watching a movie from 1935. And tell me that you can tell the difference between live action and a replay. I can’t. In every other sport (NFL and MLB), you know its a replay.

No one gets pissed at you when you turn the ball over.

No one cares if you let the ball go out of bounds.

What, exactly, is the purpose of the coach? “Hey…Hey!….kick the ball to him….run…..run……no…”

Can you buy a soft sponge brick to throw at the TV when Manchester United doesn’t score? No.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:09 PM

What is this ‘soccer’ thing of which you speak?

Tard

I think it has something to do with “The War on Women.”

BD57 on July 2, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Soccer (aka Football) will succeed in this country if they rid the game of that STUPID … OFF SIDES rule. What crap!

If a defender is beaten then LET IT GO.
If the defender stops in his tracks and lets the ‘undefended, offensive player) get past him then the damn SIDE JUDGE lifts his flag and ‘poof’ the play is HALTED.
Stupid, stupid, stupid rule.
RISK / REWARD make it so and Americans will get to like the game.

Missilengr on July 2, 2014 at 8:10 PM

US soccer is boring, however imagine if athletes like Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson, Le Bron James and the like were playing, as they are in the rest of the world? I think our opinion of the game would be different.

Tater Salad on July 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Yeah, our opinion would be, “WTF??? All these awesome athletes are being wasted on a sport that consists mainly of grown men wandering aimlessly around a field the size of New Hampshire, except for brief interruptions for faking injuries and riots? Oh, the humanity!!!”

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM

https://twitter.com/AP

Retweeted by The Associated Press
AP Sports @AP_Sports · 2h

Nielsen: 21.6 million US viewers for #WorldCup game vs Belgium – and that doesn’t count watch parties, bars, offices http://apne.ws/1rkJfPa
==================================================================

Nielsen: 21.6 million viewers for Belgium game
By DAVID BAUDER
— Jul. 2, 2014 5:53 PM EDT
**************************

NEW YORK (AP) — An estimated 21.6 million people watched Belgium knock out the United States soccer team in the World Cup on U.S. television — an impressive total for a weekday afternoon that almost certainly undercounts how many people actually saw it.

The Nielsen company said Wednesday that 16.5 million people watched the game on ESPN, with 5.1 million more seeing it on the Spanish-language Univision network. In addition, nearly 1.7 million people watched an online stream of the event, Nielsen said.

The record U.S. television audience for soccer is the 24.7 million who saw the United States play Portugal on June 24, which tied the 2010 World Cup final between Spain and the Netherlands.

The Portugal game took place on a weekend, however, when there were more people with free time available to watch. The U.S.-Belgium game started at 4 p.m. on the East Coast, earlier in other time zones, during a working day.

Nielsen does not measure viewership in bars, offices or other public places. In 2010, ESPN estimated that the stated audience size for weekday World Cup games would increase by 23 percent if public viewing were taken into account.

Still, Tuesday’s knockout game exceeded the average viewership for the most recent World Series and NBA Finals, events that took place during prime-time when more people were home to watch.

The just-concluded NBA series where the San Antonio Spurs beat the Miami Heat averaged 15.5 million viewers, with 18 million watching the final game. Last fall’s World Series averaged 14.9 million viewers, with 19.2 million watching the Boston Red Sox beat the St. Louis Cardinals in the last game.

U.S. coach Jurgen Klinsmann said Thursday that everyone connected with the soccer team is excited to see how the sport is reaching a U.S. audience. He could see it coming, given the popularity of the game among young people and the large crowds that turned out for the team’s sendoff games before the World Cup.

“Soccer is breaking through and gets its deserved recognition without taking anything away from the other big American sports,” Klinsmann said.

(More…)
============

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nielsen-216-million-viewers-belgium-game

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM

FYI, we still need a thread on what happened in Murietta, California AP.

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Oh no they got canopfor. He’s down, and posting soccer stories too. You Bastards!

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I still think soccer would be more exciting if they released a bull on the field. That would liven things up quite a bit. Soccer with a little Pamplona, running with the bulls added in.

TarheelBen on July 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Personally I think it would be more exciting if it were played on a live minefield.

oscarwilde on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I’m pretty tired of this meme that soccer is some kind of liberal game. I have plenty of not so kind words about that.

Also, we need to stop giving Ann Coulter credit, air time, and attention: she’s bad for the party, bad for conservatives, and even worse for herself. At this point she’s becoming an irrelevant parody of herself.

Sammo21 on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I never got why conservatives made a point to hate soccer.

Is it because the us simply isn’t any good at it, and that makes you insecure? Is it because you just don’t like fun and good times? idk

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Yes, the same reason we like guns, our insecurities. You’re like a 21st century Freud.

Bishop on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Oh, and…the clock.

The soccer clock tells you how long you’ve played. Real sport clocks tell you how much time is left to play. Sorry, I just don’t want to have to do math to figure out how much longer I have to suffer.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Oh no they got canopfor. He’s down, and posting soccer stories too. You Bastards!

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Corpseman! Corpseman!

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:15 PM

“Soccer is breaking through and gets its deserved recognition without taking anything away from the other big American sports,” Klinsmann said.

That bit must make Franklin Foer absolutely sick. Guten Werk, Mein Herr!

cbenoistd on July 2, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Soccer (aka Football) will succeed in this country if they rid the game of that STUPID … OFF SIDES rule. What crap!

Missilengr on July 2, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Succeed? No. Still too boring. But ditching offsides would certainly improve the game. Even when I was a kid playing on a soccer team, the offsides rule just didn’t feel right. From the perspective of an adult, that rule can have only one logical purpose: “Make a boring game even more boring.”

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:17 PM

I’m pretty tired of this meme that soccer is some kind of liberal game. I have plenty of not so kind words about that.

Also, we need to stop giving Ann Coulter credit, air time, and attention: she’s bad for the party, bad for conservatives, and even worse for herself. At this point she’s becoming an irrelevant parody of herself.

Sammo21 on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Noah, is that you?

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Personally I think it would be more exciting if it were played on a live minefield.

oscarwilde on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

And snipers.

faraway on July 2, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Baseball, a slow, boring game for old farts, is on the decline.

Soccer is on the rise.

Eventually soccer will eclipse baseball in this country.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

As usual you missed the premise of the conversation as a whole…

Rush Limbaugh: Liberal Media Pushing Commie Kickball Because It Idealizes Europe

conservativeBC on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Speaking of RINOs, it’s hard to imagine AP (not a RINO, despite his claim) and Noah (card-carrying RINO), sharing the same website for long. I’ve got a bad feeling about this . . .

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:22 PM

It seems like a lot of people eschew certain sports because they mostly attract the ideolgy they don’t espouse. That’s ridiculous. If you are liberal and like NASCAR admit it. If you like soccer it’s ok. If your friends laugh at you just give them a superior look and don’t answer.

I would like to see those overstuffed football players run all over the field for that length of time. They can barely make it down the field without turning blue.

I don’t like all sports but I don’t despise those who like the ones I don’t. I can’t see watching cars driving around and around a track (sorry G2)and basketball is just a bunch of guys running back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Same with hockey.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

In soccer, a score like that would make you question if anybody was bothering to play defense.
Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 7:48 PM

OTOH, how could anyone tell if they were/weren’t?

whatcat on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

ditching offsides would certainly improve the game. Even when I was a kid playing on a soccer team, the offsides rule just didn’t feel right. From the perspective of an adult, that rule can have only one logical purpose: “Make a boring game even more boring.”

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Offsides in soccer is a rule that is meant to level the playing field, and give lesser teams a reasonable chance to succeed.

Also known as “fairness”. A truly liberal-socialist tenet.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

What is this BS about baseball being a low-scoring sport? A 3 -2 score in baseball is like a 21 – 14 score in football (with the PATs), and the football score isn’t low-scoring. And what’s not to like about a no-hitter, or better yet, a perfect game? Just stop it, for crying out loud!

HiJack on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

It was. The Walloons advanced.

reddevil on July 2, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Well played.

22044 on July 2, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Baseball, a slow, boring game for old farts, is on the decline.

Soccer is on the rise.

Eventually soccer will eclipse baseball in this country.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

1974 called . . .

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Baseball, a slow, boring game for old farts, is on the decline.

Soccer is on the rise.

Eventually soccer will eclipse baseball in this country.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

oh……

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM

It seems like a lot of people eschew certain sports because they mostly attract the ideolgy they don’t espouse.
crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Even when I was a lib, back in the day, I knew soccer was a sissy-game.

whatcat on July 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Gay.

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM

World Cup interest is notably higher among Latinos than it is among blacks and whites and Latinos, of course, tend to identify more often as left with their ancestral homelands than as right demonstrate patriotism. That may be IS what’s driving the liberal numbers.

FIFY
I think you’ll find that World cup interest among Latinos FOR ONLY THE U.S. TEAM is notably LOWER than blacks and whites. Reap the Multi-Culti Whirlwind.

CapnObvious on July 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Eventually soccer will eclipse baseball in this country.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Yeah, baseball was supposed to die with the rise of the NFL and NBA as well. How’s that working out? Oh, right, record profits for baseball owners.

Most popular sports in the first half of the 20th century, in no particular order: Baseball, Boxing, Track and Field, Horse Racing, College Football

Most popular in the 2nd half of the 20th century, in no particular order: Baseball, Pro Football, College Football, Boxing, Basketball, Hockey

Most popular now: Pro Football, College Football, Baseball, Pro Basketball, NASCAR, MMA, Hockey, and College Basketball

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

I never got why conservatives made a point to hate soccer.

Is it because the us simply isn’t any good at it, and that makes you insecure? Is it because you just don’t like fun and good times? idk

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

I can’t speak for all conservatives just for myself. I’m a conservative and I hate soccer. But then I’m an equal opportunity hater because I also hate baseball. Well I’ve hated it since the traitorous Dodgers left Brooklyn and went West somewhere. Then again I hate basketball and football too. The only game involving a ball that I might consider watching is Australian rules football only because there’s a chance at some real mayhem there and that scoring thing they do. I mean what other sport is there where some guy at the goal, in a white coat no less, sticks his foot out waggles his hand and the score magically doubles for one team or the other? I am somewhat of an anomaly where sports are involved though. I was exiled from Kentucky because I don’t like bourbon, I think country and Western music sux, never been to a horse race and hate basketball. Lucky to get out of the Bluegrass state with my scalp.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Liberals like soccer because Americans suck at it and they get a guaranteed blow against the country they despise. I agree with Kareem on the whole lots of motion with nothing really happening aspect even though the announcers and fans seem to treat each second as the second coming. I actually liked playing as a youth, but not interested in watching. Rush is probably just trolling or the libs finally broke him.

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Oh no they got canopfor. He’s down, and posting soccer stories too. You Bastards!

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Flange:Lol,. Curses,…well,…might as well post white and black kick-ball
stories As The World Burns and Turns!!…Haha,ahems:)

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Offsides in soccer is a rule that is meant to level the playing field, and give lesser teams a reasonable chance to succeed.

Also known as “fairness”. A truly liberal-socialist tenet.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Fairness: “Protecting our tender little princesses from the harsh reality of their own incompetence.”

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

It is just boring to watch and I have tried in the past. I always came away feeling that it was a waste of time that I wont get back. I am sure gay Whopper eaters can at least fake enthusiasm for it.

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Way back when, ESPN would show a lot of Australian Rules Football. During off-crew, we’d get absolutely smashed while watching the game. It wasn’t until I had to be a bit more serious about life when I learned the guy in the white coat was actually part of the game. For a long time, I thought it was the Aussie equivalent of Rainbow Man.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Liberals like soccer because Americans suck at it and they get a guaranteed blow against the country they despise.

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Southernblogger: An automatic ProgressiveTard Gimme, jus freaggin
brilliant!!! (sarc):)

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

So who knew that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a conservative?

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Cricket! Now there’s a man’s sport. It’s like croquet without the hammers.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

In 1995, MLB revenues were $1.4 billion, or over $2.2 billion when accounting for inflation. Since that time, gross revenues for the league have grown a staggering 264 percent in 18 years.

Death of baseball, you guys!

What is this BS about baseball being a low-scoring sport? A 3 -2 score in baseball is like a 21 – 14 score in football (with the PATs), and the football score isn’t low-scoring. And what’s not to like about a no-hitter, or better yet, a perfect game? Just stop it, for crying out loud!

HiJack on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Baseball only seems “low-scoring” if you consider the period from roughly 1993-2006 to be the norm. Scoring is down right now, but not at historically low levels (we’re in no danger of a 1968 redux). It just looks low in comparison to the record offenses of, for lack of a better term, the “steroid era” (though steroids were far from the only factor), which contends with the late 20′s/early 30′s as the biggest boom period for offense.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM

I’m not sure,….but this could be Soccer related:

https://twitter.com/AP

The Associated Press @AP · 2h

U.S. launches million-dollar media campaign warning Central American families not to send children to U.S.: http://apne.ws/1mLafzP

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

I think a lot of sports do better watched live. I don’t know why but that’s how I feel about baseball.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Rush is probably just trolling or the libs finally broke him.

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

A lot of what Rush does is tongue-in-cheek.

TarheelBen on July 2, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Latinos also play a lot of baseball.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:34 PM

I never got why…

triple on July 2, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Considering the source I think that is all you need to say.

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Way back when, ESPN would show a lot of Australian Rules Football. During off-crew, we’d get absolutely smashed while watching the game. It wasn’t until I had to be a bit more serious about life when I learned the guy in the white coat was actually part of the game. For a long time, I thought it was the Aussie equivalent of Rainbow Man.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Yeah, I finally figured out a couple of the rules. There are only two reasons you can stop running. One is to puke the other is to beat the crap out of another player. Now I never did figure out if the other player had to be on the opposing team. It seemed to be almost random.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM

remind me again of a sport in which the U.S. routinely asserts its dominance.

Remind me again of what “national” team the US really has ever had in any sport.

We don’t do “national” teams. We do professional leagues. national teams and countries investing all of their worth in some contrived sporting event is a Eurotrash/commie thing, not an American one. We sheered the Miracle on Ice not because “the US team” won, but because a team of amateur Americans who were not anything near professional ability beat the snot out of the totally professional and eminently national Soviet team. We put a bunch of third stringers out and they came through and beat the Soviet national team. That was what enjoyed, not the win, itself.

Other than that soccer still blows chunks but anyone who enjoys it is free to spend their time watching it. Good for them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Cricket! Now there’s a man’s sport. It’s like croquet without the hammers.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Don’t some cricket matches last like a month, or something?

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 PM

There was a soccer game yesterday?

M240H on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 PM

which contends with the late 20′s/early 30′s as the biggest boom period for offense.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM

A lot of that was the design of the playing fields. Many didn’t have an outfield fence, so a drive in the gap had a higher probability of turning into a homerun. Another point in that time period was a pop foul was usually lost in the crowd standing next to the baselines. Today, foul ground belongs exclusively to the players.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Agreed. Baseball and real football are at their best when you are there and part of the whole fan atmosphere. I have lost my voice for days at a time.

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:38 PM

He thinks the fact that the games are low-scoring is problematic too, but baseball’s also low-scoring and dominated American sports for decades.

baseball isn’t really “low scoring”. That’s not the correct measure, anyway. Baseball consists of umpteen individual battles in every game and, for bettors, single, doubles, homers, whiffs, etc. are all great material for discrete bets. Baseball is a constant stream of discrete actions that are easily quantifiable and with enough variation to keep the excitement (and betting) lively.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Latinos also play a lot of baseball.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Football hurts when you play on dirt. A lot. Not a whole lot of neighborhood or community grass in those parts. And as a race, latinos are just too short for basketball. There’s no future in it for them. Like the Japanese.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Don’t some cricket matches last like a month, or something?

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Yeah, there’s a little known fact, that I just made up, nobody has ever scored a point in any cricket game. But that’s understandable since it’s a British sport.

Oldnuke on July 2, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Soccer: More fun to watch than baseball and football but not as much fun as hockey.

Football is where the guys huddle and discuss their next play for what feels like 10 minutes, then get into position, then spend 4 seconds playing, then start the cycle again.

Baseball is even worse: watch a game on TV, and see that the people sitting behind the catcher during a pitch aren’t even watching.

Johnny 100 Pesos on July 2, 2014 at 8:41 PM

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Oh man you made it out, I thought you were a goner there.

Flange on July 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM

I think a lot of sports do better watched live. I don’t know why but that’s how I feel about baseball.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:33 PM

I’m not arguing, just wanted to mention that my experience had been the opposite. There’s a lot of waiting in baseball (e.g., between innings, switching pitchers, etc.), and when I’m at the stadium, there’s less to distract me from the boredom. Watching it on TV, you at least get lots of interesting commentary and analysis.

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM

A lot of that was the design of the playing fields. Many didn’t have an outfield fence, so a drive in the gap had a higher probability of turning into a homerun. Another point in that time period was a pop foul was usually lost in the crowd standing next to the baselines. Today, foul ground belongs exclusively to the players.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Actually that’s backwards. It was when parks starting having fences and they juiced the ball (after 1919) that scoring exploded. Home runs were very rare prior to this new trend of fenced outfields.

Home run record progression from Wikipedia:

5, by George Hall, Philadelphia Athletics (NL), 1876 (70 game schedule)

9, by Charley Jones, Boston Red Stockings (NL), 1879 (84 game schedule)

14, by Harry Stovey, Philadelphia Athletics (AA), 1883 (98 game schedule)

27, by Ned Williamson, Chicago White Stockings (NL), 1884 (112 game schedule)
Williamson benefited from a very short outfield fence in his home ballpark, Lakeshore Park. During the park’s previous years, balls hit over the fence in that park were ground-rule doubles, but in 1884 (its final year) they were credited as home runs. Williamson led the pace, but several of his Chicago teammates also topped the 20 HR mark that season. Of Williamson’s total, 25 were hit at home, and only 2 on the road. Noticing the fluke involved, fans of the early 20th century were more impressed with Buck Freeman’s total of 25 home runs in 1899 or Gavvy Cravath’s 1915 total of 24.

29, by Babe Ruth, Boston Red Sox (AL), 1919 (140 game schedule)
Even with that relatively small quantity, and still pitching part-time, Ruth alone hit more home runs than did 10 of the 15 other major league clubs. The second-highest individual total was 12, by Gavvy Cravath of the Philadelphia Phillies. Ruth homered in every park in the league, the first time anyone had achieved that distinction. Ruth was a pitcher by trade, and the ultimate exception to the axiom that pitchers can’t hit. Ruth had led the league with 11 in 1918, despite playing only 95 games, and still in the “dead-ball” era. By 1919, after the War, the materials for baseballs began to improve and became naturally “livelier”.

54, Babe Ruth, New York Yankees (AL), 1920 (154 game schedule)
Ruth hit just a few more home runs on the road (26) than he had the previous year (20), but he hit far more (29) in the Polo Grounds in New York (where the Yankees played at the time) than he had in Fenway Park (9) in Boston the year before, as he took full advantage of the nearby right field wall, although he also hit many long drives at the Polo Grounds. Of the other 15 major league clubs, only the Philadelphia Phillies exceeded Ruth’s single-handed total, hitting 64 in their bandbox ballpark Baker Bowl. The second-highest individual total was the St. Louis Browns’ George Sisler’s 19. Ruth’s major-league record slugging percentage (total bases / at bats) of .847 stood for the next 80 years.

Boom goes the live ball in 1920.

NotCoach on July 2, 2014 at 8:44 PM

A lot of that was the design of the playing fields. Many didn’t have an outfield fence, so a drive in the gap had a higher probability of turning into a homerun. Another point in that time period was a pop foul was usually lost in the crowd standing next to the baselines. Today, foul ground belongs exclusively to the players.

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:37 PM

That was also true of the period before that, though. There’s no one causative factor for the boom that culminated in the ridiculous offensive season of 1930. Some of it was stadium-related, some was due to the ball (much more likely to be a “fresh” ball, since the death of Ray Chapman led to fears of using balls that were too scuffed/muddied, and there’s always the idea that baseball likes to “juice” the ball to inflate offense when it’s needed), some it was the new post-Ruth emphasis on HR-hitting, since in the early days of baseball a “power-hitter” was supposed to be a guy who hit doubles and triples to the gaps. By this time the spitball was illegal and, IIRC, all the guys “grandfathered” in as legal spitball pitchers were retired, and baseball was making more of an effort to police other types of doctoring, like the “emory ball” and the “shine ball.”

Whatever the reasons, 1930 was a ridiculous year for offense.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 2, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I did enjoy reading Ann Coulter’s take on soccer. It was very funny. My favorite lines were:

Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd. When baseball players strike out, they’re standing alone at the plate. But there’s also individual glory in home runs, touchdowns and slam-dunks.

In soccer, the blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway. There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child’s fragile self-esteem is bruised. There’s a reason perpetually alarmed women are called “soccer moms,” not “football moms.”

Do they even have MVPs in soccer? Everyone just runs up and down the field and, every once in a while, a ball accidentally goes in. That’s when we’re supposed to go wild. I’m already asleep.

Liberal moms like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.

No other “sport” ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer. This was an actual marquee sign by the freeway in Long Beach, California, about a World Cup game last week: “2nd period, 11 minutes left, score: 0:0.” Two hours later, another World Cup game was on the same screen: “1st period, 8 minutes left, score: 0:0.” If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he’d still be alive, although bored.

You can’t use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here’s a great idea: Let’s create a game where you’re not allowed to use them!

Dollayo on July 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM

In college, some of the smartest student athletes were soccer players, while the ones known to be at least smart were baseball and football players.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Soccer (aka Football) will succeed in this country if they rid the game of that STUPID … OFF SIDES rule. What crap!

If a defender is beaten then LET IT GO.
If the defender stops in his tracks and lets the ‘undefended, offensive player) get past him then the damn SIDE JUDGE lifts his flag and ‘poof’ the play is HALTED.
Stupid, stupid, stupid rule.
RISK / REWARD make it so and Americans will get to like the game.

Missilengr on July 2, 2014 at 8:10 PM

BINGO!!! The reason why soccer games have so little scoring, and most American fans consider it boring.

Without that rule, there would be more breakaway plays, or else defenders would play further back to prevent them, opening up more room in the middle of the field.

In American football, if a pass receiver gets behind the defense and catches a pass, he scores an unopposed touchdown. Meaning that defenders have to cover receivers racing downfield, which leaves more room in the middle of the field for short passes and running plays.

If soccer leagues are afraid of matches becoming too high-scoring, they could adopt an off-sides rule similar to that in ice hockey, where no attacking player may precede the puck over the blue line. This would prevent attacking players from hanging in front of the opposing goaltender waiting for a breakaway, and defenders could mass at the “blue line” during play in midfield, but once the ball goes over the line, it’s off to the races, and let the faster team win.

Steve Z on July 2, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Time to eat! I’ve only been to a couple of baseball games (minor league) which probably explains why I don’t way 300 lbs.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I generally don’t bother reading the idiotic sh1t soccer haters write, because I don’t really care, and it’s idiotic sh1t. And Allah is probably right and the idiots are suggesting that somehow enjoying soccer is for RINOs and sissies or something?

But let me just say it once — this is idiotic sh1t and soccer is just another sport, one I happened to have played and love watching. I’m 55 and no, soccer is not new to the U.S. (unless you’re an idiot); I’ve been playing soccer since grade school.

The Rush thing is silly. And you idiots who are writing idiotic sh1t about soccer are idiots.

There.

Jaibones on July 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Watching it on TV, you at least get lots of interesting commentary and analysis.

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Turn the sound down. Most of the time, they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. “Good spot for that splitter”…a nanosecond after it enters the catchers mitt. Sitting at home, we see it from the outfield camera and know that it was a changeup.

Good lord. Where’s my rubber baseball sponge……

BobMbx on July 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Southernblogger on July 2, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Oh, the REDSKINS at R.F.K., be still my heart.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Why don’t you grouches like World Cup soccer?

ramesees on July 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM

0-0 1-1 1-0 1-1 2-1 2-0 2-2 2-2 1-1 0-0 3-1 2-2 2-2 1-0 0-0

CW on July 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2