As a note, if you click on the 'time ago' to the right of the posters name on a post you like, you can get to the post specific screen where you can favourite comments.
"It's quite traditional to help foreign visitors on Hiiumaa because back then it meant they were here because of [a] shipwreck or something like that, and they needed help."
It's crazy that your 1st thought seeing a stranger in your village is that he might be lost or distressed.
I am amazed by Karpathy's writing. He can express complicated thoughts on these topics in a way that makes you feel you would have come to the same conclusion :)
How was it a shit show? I’m genuinely curious. I attended 5 games (Atlanta, LA and Dallas) and was a fantastic experience minus the process to get tickets.
Not OP, but I would guess: "hydration breaks" to inject commercials, half-time shows that felt alien to much of the core audience, and various rule-bending shenanigans (Ronaldo, Balogun).
Hydration breaks a tad weird. Half time shows were pretty subtle, didn’t change the length of the break except for the final. There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing. Def always things to improve but I had fun, all people around me seemed to have fun. I flew in an out and always was either public transportation or uefa provided shuttles… It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
Oh boy, how could I forget about the Iranian team, and the other players/referees/staff that were rejected or stuck at the airport for hours ? It was worse than a sh-t show actually.
> There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
Soccer is a legitimate name for the sport. Football is properly the name of a whole group of sports OR in a local context the locally most popular type of football.
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
Lots of people call it that. The Australian national team are called the Socceroos. The best, most authoritative magazine about the sport is called "World Soccer", published in the UK, where the name soccer originated. Even if the name soccer was used only in the USA, it would be a legitimate name. Different cultures use different names for things.
An argument I've heard is that since hydration breaks can affect the game, if you are going to have them they should be mandatory and at the same time in all games in a tournament rather than doing them like they did when they were originally introduced in 2014. Then they were only done in games when the conditions on the field got dangerous.
football games can have "momentum". An extra break allows for a breather and a tactical intervention from the coach. That also why we saw keepers sitting down (faking injury) in the Premier league last season.
Anyway, a hydration break while it's raining is a bit of a tell it has nothing to do with the needs of the players.
Telling of what? I imagine if you're running around like eg Ronaldo would be during a game, it doesn't matter how air conditioned the space is, he'd still need to hydrate, on account of all the running that happens. I'm no football expert, but I'm lead to believe that does happen during matches.
I think your attitude, which is all too common, is that we should do things according to the "footballing nations" without any other consideration for the rest of the world. North America is part of the world.
The US itself is far and away the world's biggest sporting nation, and many there see football's informality and cynicism as antiquated and, honestly, embarrassing. The world outside of the US wants to protect "their" game, though it's not theirs to begin with, ignoring the existing, systematic issues with it, even making contrived arguments about the word "soccer" itself.
FIFA's shenanigans off-the-field were a problem, but they're not unique to the World Cup nor its location. I'd argue the last Copa America and Cup of Nations had worse issues with officiating/corruption.
I'm American, so I'm not sure who your comment is for. Anti-Americanism isn't a "gotcha" to me. If anything, it's confirmation of the persistent asymmetry in these discussions.
Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else.
For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA).
The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted.
Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.
> The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America.
What does this mean?
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?
Again, if you don't want things ruined, then that implies that you don't think football, in its current state, is not already ruined. This isn't a position you've earned, you're just assuming it.
And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching.
What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
I love the references to a massive sporting culture in America while talking about a sport that has an order of magnitude more fans than there are Americans on the planet.
Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
UEFA isn't really an initialism (well, maybe a backronym). FI is from French and FA is from English. French also has the word Football, but it was taken from English. - Googling.
The Iranian team’s treatment is a prime example. The Somalian ref being denied entrance is another. And the Balogun red card is a double example (it shouldn’t have been a red card in the first place, but the precedent that the President of the host country can get a call overturned is even worse).
I am the last person to defend FIFA - I love the UEFA's stance here - but only Balogun's suspension can be pinned on FIFA. Those other things are down to USA politics. Bad, for sure, not really down to FIFA.
Other than those awful hydration breaks, they didn't ruin it much. I didn't love the extended half time in the final, but I was only hate watching Argentina anyway so didn't care much. Better to have the standard interval but not egregious to extend in the final. Overall it was a good tournament, a proper "feast of football" as we used to say. Some fine-tuning to do with the VAR but even then there weren't as many egregiously unfair calls as in years past. (Croatia's disallowed goal being a memorable example because it was so rare.) Many, many good games and some memorable moments - Cape Verde!
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
Yup! We had a bunch of friends over. Good times were had by all.
Finals are boring more often than not. You just have to accept that. And when one of the team’s key skill is suffocating the other side, a game like that was to be expected. Only my mighty compatriots were able to crack the code… once.
- The number of teams expanding weakened the group stage to a point of being ignorable
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
Ticket prices for all events anywhere will not come back down unless we make international travel harder. There were Taylor Swift fans who flew to every concert of one of her tours. When I attended the Hungaroring Grand Prix every single person seemed to be visiting from outside Hungary. Hosting in the wealthiest country of size of course made this worse but I predict ticket prices for popular events will only keep going up and up.
Argentina received more yellow cards on its last three games. How is that a "free pass"?
Cucurella should have been sent off, same as the Paraguay player for covering his mouth. Fernandez did get a yellow card for a very light challenge that he tried to avoid..
All the Argentina haters need to look at the facts. I expected more from HN.
Messi should've gotten red in the Algeria match (same ref who didn't have the balls to give star player a card, was doing the finals). Against England, Argentina were playing rugby again, and the ref just let it pass. Against Egypt, Egypt got a goal disqualified which.. was a goal. Against Switzerland, a rule of identity mismatch was used wrongly (it can only be applied on same team). Argentina was lucky to end the final with 10 players and only 1 goal against. It should've been 9 players, with a 3-0 score, but the corrupt FIFA couldn't match-fix that part. It'd have been too obvious.
I guess you also think the "Hand of God" goal, was also a legitimate and fair goal because something something Maradonna something something Malvinas something something god?
Look, it's football. We're all entitled to have opinions, state them with vigour and passion, but...
Step back. Is it fair to drop the "racist" slur on somebody for having a different perspective?
Referees do their best, and often get it wrong, but it seems to most people - including many neutrals - that refs got it wrong more times than not when Argentina was playing, and in Argentina's favour.
Is that a conspiracy? Well, Infantino definitely wanted Argentina in the final, so did he try and create that somehow? He seems pretty shady, it's hard for people to trust that he _didn't_.
But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people, in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.
I get that for an Argentinian, that seems unfair, but if this had happened to England's benefit, do you honestly think you'd be making the same accusations and would accept it if any criticism that came in their direction was met with slurs?
Peace. Chill. We're good. We're brothers in football. Let's hope we get another World Cup in our lifetimes, and that we get to enjoy it - and that means something different to what we just saw, for everyone's sake.
> But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people
Honestly I found it really frustrating that Balogun got that red card (and gross when political meddling suspended it) while Messi got nothing for a similar infraction. But variance is part of the game. I don’t actually think most of it is in any way malicious and I am not sure refs can do much more. So much is subjective. I’ve watched games where they hand out yellows for every minor infraction and it’s a shitty experience for everyone (fans, players, and coaches).
I do think Messi gets favoritism. He gets awarded free kicks right outside the box for softball fouls that no one else gets. But they are trying to protect their star. They don’t want the WNBA thing where every other game Clark gets egregiously fouled.
> in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.
I don’t really understand the hate for the hydration breaks. Giving athletes some water seems reasonable even if the underlying reason is ads. I think they should be 1-2 minute breaks, though.
The halftime show in the final was more egregious than the hydration.
Dude, this is gross. Stop calling people racist for disagreeing with you about Argentina. It’s not racism to call out concerns about Argentina’s play or reffing bias.
You should be embarrassed to repeatedly resort to ad hominem attacks like this.
First, it was a new formula of the tournament with more teams which explains the headlines about a someone setting a new record every 2 days.
Second, the hydration (ads!) breaks were clearly used to tweak some tactics, player positionning, etc, making it another half-time. It's a strategic opportunity. Why not introduce a 2 min drill, then ? - yuck- That's not football.
Third, I won't talk about that specific red card or that penalty kick, but the fact that players and staff complained so much about the refereeing issues hurts the trust we can have into the game as a whole.
The 27 min half time was only in the final. Every world cup introduces changes that will stick or not (e.g golden goal rule). Hydration breaks probably won’t stay.
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
This bit was kind of baffling to me. Like, the US has a bunch of large stadiums. Presumably they sometimes get used for stuff. How is it not a constant disaster?
There’s a medium sized (50k capacity) stadium near me, and even _with_ a train station with a train each way every ten minutes right beside it, and within easy walking distance of about five high capacity bus routes, it’s always a bit of a shitshow when a big event finishes. I’ve no idea how it could work _at all_ if you’re just depending on buses and cars, which a bunch of the US stadiums seemed to be.
I believe a big issue was that significant amounts of parking were closed at each of the host stadiums for "security reasons", fan watch areas, etc. When they did some overhead shots of the stadiums, you could see tons of empty parking lot space.
For local NFL games in a bigger stadium that, most people attending do drive, but do not park at the stadium, rather nearby, then walk the rest of the way. This spreads out the traffic over a much larger set of roads.
Yes. I was there at the france-spain match. Flew in in the morning was directed to the shuttles by super nice volunteers. Reasonable lines that were mostly in the shade and they were handling free water bottles.
I can't agree with that. Host countries share their culture through the World Cup. South Africa had vuvuzelas, Qatar put a bisht on the winning captain's shoulders, and the USA had a half-time show.
"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
That's a stretched interpretation. The first sentence says the interval does not exceed 15 minutes. The most natural way to read the last sentence is that the competition rules state how long the half-time is under those parameters (i.e., the rules can state that the interval is 10 minutes, but not 1 hour); likewise, the referee can allow the competition organizers to change the duration of the interval -- the competition rules notwithstanding --, but still within the parameters of the 1st sentence.
I'm almost too afraid to ask but what the hell...what makes a good half-time show?
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
The football itself wasn't bad, it was all the other stuff - prices, unfair treatment for Iran, hydration breaks, the whole Balogun thing, the pre-game and half-time shows at the final, Trump photo-bombing the Spanish celebration, etc. Every WC has its own problems and some of these things will be forgotten about soon, but it definitely seemed more ruthlessly commercialised than ever before.
The racism participants were subjected to was the worst part for me (though I understand teams were treated very well by the local population). Hydration breaks. Incessant celebrity spotting. So many small details reminding you that US capitalism might already have succeeded in ruining the game you love. Or that they see the success of the tournament as a signal to ramp up the attacks on European club football (pushing for a franchise model).
I feel like how I imagine golfers felt once LIV golf was announced.
I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly silly comment. The "shit show" was systemic at the strategic level. Of course, people who went to see a game had a good time, the "shit show" is at the competition level.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games.
- The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it.
- The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks.
- as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
How and when VAR should be applied is an ongoing contentious discussion not exclusive to the World Cup.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
I say let the coaches have the right to initiate a VAR review. They inform an official they want a certain moment/decision/action reviewed. As long as the review gets resolved in their favor, they can keep invoking VAR. This would disincentivize review spamming, disrupting play. If there are too many VAR calls in a game, you can squarely blame the ref.
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.
Maybe the way that Infantino nakedly advanced political favors for Trump (the f×××ing peace prize, Folarin f×××ing Balogun) and now wants a fat slice of payback?
reply