Just play

I thought about trying to come up with something eloquent about the greatness of sports in their purest form. However, I'm just going to be blunt. Marco Materazzi is an ass and should be suspended from international play for a long time. Yeah, I called him an ass. He can come head butt me in the chest if he deems it necessary. Sure, Zinedine Zidane probably shouldn't have head butted Materazzi in the chest and I'm not going to try too hard to defend him. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking. Maybe he wasn't really thinking (would you consciously decide to head butt someone in the chest?). Maybe he thought he could get away with it. However, Materazzi is the worst kind of athlete. He's the kind of guy who will do whatever it takes to try to get under the skin of an opponent. That isn't what sports should be about!

What prevailed in the World Cup was the "if you can't beat 'em, get 'em to get red carded" philosophy. From Materazzi continually insulting Zidane and speaking bad about the females in his family to the Portugal players' antics in the game against England to get Wayne Rooney kicked out to all the diving and writhing and carrying on. It's ridiculous. At some point, you're just going to say "enough is enough!" I've been there. It's a natural human reaction to holding, grabbing, pinching, insults, etc.

Marco Materazzi isn't alone in this category. Reggie Evans grabbed at Chris Kaman's private area. Bruce Bowen has been accused of questionable antics in gaining his status as a star defender in the NBA. NBA players flop to draw offensive fouls and flail to draw fouls on defenders. David Eckstein, Craig Biggio and others lean into inside pitches to get free passes to first when they should be making an attempt to get out of the way of the ball. I'm sure there are football players who use questionable tactics to get under the skin of opponents, too, although none come to mind off the top of my head. One major difference is that there are players all over a soccer field, spread across a large area with limited officials. Thus, it's easy to get away with stuff and bait an opponent into retaliating ... and everyone knows that officials see the 2nd punch (or retaliating action) much more often than the 1st.

I'm sick of players acting like this. Usually, it's not the good players who do it because they don't have to. It isn't how sports should be and leagues need to start looking at the cause and effect, instead of just the effect. Fine, punish Zidane, but don't let Materazzi and people of his ilk skate unscathed.

---

Related:

• Anticlimax at the World Cup
• Hey FIFA!
• Wishing for un-"flop"-able officials
• An Eye for an Eye

All-Star Game Solution

The Sporting News was onto something when they created a 25 man All-Star roster comprising starters at every position, utility bench players and a full bullpen - rather than just having four closers. While I disagree with some of their choices, I'm coupling their All-Star selection idea with a call for a longer All-Star break to allow players to more fully recuperate during the mid-season break.

What have I come up with? I'm glad you asked ... a 7-game series to decide home field advantage in the World Series. You may be thinking "you're going to make the All-Stars play 7 games?" No, that would be something Bud Selig would come up with. I'll give a couple different options. In option A, three All-Star teams are assembled (by an impartial panel created by MLB) for each league, an A, a B, and a C squad. The A squad has the best players at each position from a given league, along with the best bench players. The B squad has the 2nd tier and the C squad has the third tier. The relief pitchers would be selected similarly, with the top closer, set-up guy, two long relievers and a specialist from each side going with squad A, the 2nd best group going with squad B, and the 3rd best group going with squad C. Seven different starting pitchers would be selected, one for each game. The A squads will play the first 3 games, the B squads will play the next two, and the C squads will play the last two. If the AL squad wins 6 of the 7, then the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th World Series games would be in the AL park, with the NL hosting only one game, the 4th. Also, the winner of the majority of the games in the previous year's All-Star series gets to choose whether or not to have the DH used in the set the next year. Option B is similar, but the three All-Star teams would come from each of the divisions. So, there would be squads representing the AL West, Central and East and the NL West, Central and East. Under this scenario, you could either have the West always play West, Central always play Central, East always play East, rotate, or randomize it. Also, you could be systematic or random in assigning which coupling plays three games and which two only play two. I guess a third option would be to allow each of the leagues to compile the best teams ... but I shy away from that because I wouldn't want a league tanking some games to try to win others. So, for instance, the AL sending their third best team up against the NL's best so that they can send the best AL team up against the 2nd best NL team and the 2nd best AL team up against the 3rd best NL team.

How does this help the players? Currently, the break is 3 days, Monday - Wednesday. If you play in the All-Star game, you travel to the place, play on Tuesday, then travel back. Under my format of one game per day, even if you had to play the first three games, you'd get Thursday-Sunday off. If you played the middle two, you'd get Monday-Wednesday and Saturday-Sunday off. And, if you played the last two, you'd get Monday-Friday off ... that's an entire work week!

One of my concerns with the All-Star game format is that there is a lot at stake and it's not a real game situation. Brad Penny was throwing 97-99 mph last night. He never throws that hard in real games because he has to pace himself. So, the batters in the All-Star game are at a distinct disadvantage because they never get two AB's against the same guy and it's almost like facing an elite closer every inning. Sure, you get some pitchers like Kenny Rogers and Tom Glavine who don't benefit much from muscling up fastballs and trying to throw them past guys. But, what do you expect hitters to do against Halladay, Liriano, Santana, Papelbon, Jenks, Rivera, etc.? Plus, the batters in the All-Star game are used to getting 4 AB's a night, not one or two.

So, there you have it ... my solution to the All-Star game.

---

Related:

• All-Star conspiracy?

All-Star conspiracy?

The National League has not won any of the last ten Major League Baseball All-Star Games. It has lost nine times, and one abomination ended in a tie. The most recent loss came last night when Trevor Hoffman blew a 2-1 lead and a save after allowing a single and two extra-base hits.

A digression: the commentators touted Hoffman's great career record in save situations when he came in. He proceeded to blow the save. They proceeded to tout Mariano Rivera's similarly impressive career numbers when he appeared as a result. Don't they learn? Maybe save situations are different when they come against stacked line-ups.

Now back to the real point. The All-Star Game was recently (in baseball history terms) made meaningful when the commissioner's office decided that the winning league would have home field advantage in the World Series. Remember the "This time it counts" campaign? The American League has once again secured that privilege after Michael Young's two-out triple last night.

The thing that got me thinking is that the fans get to choose the starting line-ups (modulo injury, etc.) of the two sides. What if American League fans vastly outnumbered National League fans? Or what if they voted more often? Couldn't they vote for sub-optimal players on the NL side to increase the chances that the AL would win the World Series advantage?

I'm not suggesting that anything like this has ever happened. I'm just suggesting that maybe this policy isn't very good. One way to fix it would be to drop the home-field consequence. Another would be to take All-Star voting out of the hands of the fans. That's my vote, since they often collectively make such stupid decisions.

One counter-argument is that fans vote for who they want to see, even if those players aren't necessarily having the best seasons. But I don't think that's true. I think a lot of voters just don't pay that much attention to what they're doing. They vote for who they've heard of, or who they think is good based on past seasons.

So long as the outcome of the game affects the World Series, the leagues should decide their own players. They would control their own destinies. If things are going right, then this should result in pretty much the same outcome as fan voting. But it would steal a little ammo from the conspiracy theorists.

Straight from the couch

Today on ESPN's Around the Horn, the first topic was "Zidane to blame for loss?" I'll rundown this topic, and the rest of the topics on the show for anyone who doesn't watch because they can't stand Jay Mariotti (I'm with you). You can't pin the loss on Zidane. Henry and Ribery were already out of the game. Henry is incredible with the ball and losing him was a big blow. France didn't have a lot of people who could create goals, and he, along with Zidane, were obviously the two best. Then, once Zidane was red carded and France was a man down, it would have been a major upset for them to score and win before PK's. However, France's only goal was on a PK by Zidane very early in the game anyway. The only two goals Italy allowed in the entire tournament were an own goal vs. USA and the PK by Zidane (on an awful foul call, but one that was made up for by a no call on an actual foul in the box in the 2nd half ... apparently, two wrongs do make a right). So, what I'm getting at is that even with Zidane for the duration of OT, playing 11 vs. 11, the chances of France getting another goal were slim ... especially with Henry already being subbed out.

Second, although Jay Mariotti seems to think not having Zidane for PK's was an enormous blow to the French side, I disagree. Sure, Zidane probably would have taken the 1st kick for the French side. You can even assume that he nails it. However, don't you think the guy France sent up 2nd would have gone 3rd? Fabien Barthez didn't come close to stopping any of the Italy attempts. The Italy keeper didn't prevent any French kicks from going in either ... he just got lucky that one hit the cross bar and bounced out. If Zidane would have been allowed to kick all the PK's for France, or if Italy had missed one and the last French person missed, you could peg Zidane for a lot of the blame. But, given the rules, Zidane and four (at least) other French players needed to make kicks, and that probably wouldn't have happened.

One last thing, rumors are that the Italian defender who received the head butt both gave Zidane a titty-twister and called him a terrorist. The titty-twister story comes from Woody Paige, so I'm not sure if it's true, although the defender did have ahold of Zidane on the play and had ample opportunity. Remember when Chris Kaman had his private parts attacked by Reggie Evans? Kaman didn't just let it go, and I doubt Evans yelled something racist at Kaman. Kaman shoved Evans and probably would have been red carded in a soccer match. I don't know if Zidane was called a terrorist or if he wasn't, but FIFA, given all their posturing about anti-racism before the World Cup, should definitely be investigating this matter. If I recall correctly, racism by players was supposed to result in forfeiting the match, which would mean that France would be World Cup Champions. I hope this issue isn't swept under the rug ... I just find it hard to believe that a seasoned vet like Zidane would lose his cool without a fair amount of provocation.

Topic number two is baseball at the MLB break ... and Michael Smith is calling the Yankees the most impressive team so far. Unfortunately, he failed to recognize Mike Mussina and Randy Johnson as the 1-2 punch at the top of the NYY rotation, instead given us Wang as the number 2 guy. Woody Paige just called Justin Verlander "Veelander." I'm not sure what the point of this topic is. It's easy to pick the Tigers and not look at other teams. What about the Mets? Who thought Tom Glavine would pitch at an elite level or that Wright, Beltran and Reyes would be this good? The San Diego Padres are leading the West. I don't like the selection of the Yankees because they are loaded, even with the injuries they've had. Sure, they lost Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield, but they still run Damon, Jeter, Rodriguez, Giambi, Posada out there every day. Randy Johnson hasn't thrown real well, but he's been out there. Mussina has been healthy. They've had some unfortunate injuries, but they're only two games up on the Blue Jays, who have been without A.J. Burnett most of the year.

The third topic is LeBron and whether or not he'll win a title in Cleveland. Mariotti's argument was that no Cleveland team has won anything lately. Nice, Jay. LBJ is the most talented player in the NBA and may already be the league's best player. The two teams that were ahead of them in the Eastern Conference, when it was all said and done, were the Pistons and Heat. The Pistons lost a key cog in Ben Wallace. The Pistons have good offensive talent, they don't need another go-to offensive player, so the loss of Wallace's energy at the defensive end and on the boards will result in the Cavs jumping over them. The Heat might have a vastly different roster next season and Shaq is getting old. Dwayne Wade is a very good player, but I'd take King James given the choice between the two. The Nets and Bulls will be in the mix, the Bucks are an improving team, and the Raptors seem like they are turning things around, but it's hard to argue against LeBron and the Cavs having a shot at getting to, and winning, the NBA Finals in the near future.

Moving on, we wind up talking about golf and who the better pick is to win the British Open, Tiger or Phil. Paige picked neither, which doesn't even make sense given the question. It's the British Open, I'll side with Adande and Jay (reluctantly) and take Tiger as the better pick to win it.

Federer and Nadal is the next topic and whether or not it is a legit rivalry. If I have my numbers right, Nadal is 5-0 against Federer on clay, they are 1-1 on hard court, and Federer won yesterday on grass, in their first meeting on that surface. Nadal is vastly improving on grass and isn't just a one surface pony. I don't like his capris or calling for a towel every other point, but it's definitely a rivalry at this point because both of them are competitive on pretty much every surface, although neither has broken through on the other's best surface. They met in the finals of the last two majors, with each of them winning. If that isn't a rivalry, then I don't know what is. OU v. Texas football was still a rivalry even though OU won 5 in a row.

Should Danica Patrick jump to NASCAR? I'm with Michael Smith ... definitely! I don't know if Patrick is, or isn't, a good driver. I don't know what the difference is between driving Indy and Stock cars, but she should at least take a shot if it's a better job. She hasn't won any IRL races, she might as well give the more popular circuit a shot.

I'm skipping the Showdown topics because they were lacking ... Who was the 19-inning game the toughest on? Like today's episode, my post is going out with a wimper, not a bang. Oh well, maybe tomorrow will bring us at least one of the Dallas writers and no Mariotti.

Anticlimax at the World Cup

In case you haven't heard, Italy has beaten France 5-3 on penalty kicks to win the World Cup, after playing to a 1-1 tie. Both goals were scored in the first twenty minutes, and the last hundred were riddled with sloppy play.

It's one thing to make your way through the tournament on shootout penalty kicks, though neither of these teams had to. But can we all agree that this is just not the right way to decide the final?

Zinedine Zidane stole the show with his overtime head butt square in the chest of Marco Materazzi, sending him to the turf on his rear. The French captain was subsequently awarded with a red card.

I can't even begin to explain this event. I suspect it is the result of much that we will never know, and so I find the many immediate reactions wanting in depth. It may have been a "vicious" play, but why a head to the chest? I await even an inkling of explanation.

---

Other World Cup posts:

• Hey FIFA!
• Wishing for un-"flop"-able officials

Jason Varitek ... All-Star? Really? No.

I don't know what it's like to be voted into the All-Star game as a starter by the fans. So, perhaps it is unrealistic for me to think Jason Varitek should skip out on the game because of his lack of production this year. But, given that Varitek is hitting .244 (last among AL C's who qualify on the stats at espn.com) and is only ahead of two AL C's (Toby Hall and Jose Molina) with more than 100 AB's. The AL is loaded at the catcher position, with the list headed by Twins catcher Joe Mauer (who has a .391 batting average and more RBI's and runs than Varitek), A.J. Pierzynski (.326), Victor Martinez (.307, 11 HR's, 56 RBI's), Ivan Rodriguez (.306), and Ramon Hernandez (.274, 15, 59) who leads AL catchers in HR and RBI's. Throw in Kenji Johjima (.294, 10, 41) and Jorge Posada (.292, 11, 45) and you realize that the only "qualified" AL catcher who has been worse offensively this year than Varitek is Oakland Athletic Jason Kendall. Not only does Varitek not deserve to start the All-Star game, he doesn't deserve to represent the AL.

I've said for years that fans voting for the starters is a horrible idea. The problem isn't really that the fans get to decide the players that start. The problem is that the players they vote in automatically make the team. Go ahead, let the fans pick the starters, but make them come from the players who deserve to make the squad. If you lead the fan voting, you will start as long as you are selected for the team based on merit. This year, Jason Varitek wouldn't qualify, so the next person in line in fan voting at catcher would get the start. That is a way to keep the fans involved but keep them from making idiot decisions that keep deserving players (Francisco Liriano) off the squad. Liriano was outdone for the final spot on the AL team by the "punch A.J." campaign that resulted in a seventh White Sox player making the trip to Pittsburgh. A.J. is deserving, but Liriano has been almost untouchable on his way to a 9-1 record with a 1.99 ERA. The problem is that A.J. shouldn't have been on the last chance ballot (there shouldn't be a last chance ballot, but that's another argument entirely) because he should have had Varitek's spot on the roster!

The managers in the game can control how much everyone plays. The best players should get the most time in the game, not the players the fans vote for as the starters. Is it fair to Joe Mauer that he plays for the Twins? How many Twins games have been televised on ESPN this year? This isn't a major shot at ESPN, they show games that get good ratings. However, MLB needs to recognize what is happening and realize that there are enough stars who are having really good seasons (Pujols, Thome, Ortiz, Ichiro, Berkman, Konerko, A-Rod, Manny, Dunn) that you don't need all the "fan favorites," whatever that means. Add in Vernon Wells, Troy Glaus, Jose Reyes, Edgar Renteria, Scott Rolen, David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, etc. ... you don't need Jason Varitek when you can play Mauer, Pierzynski, Rodriguez, Hernandez, etc. Plus, there are guys like Gary Matthews Jr. who are having career years and should have a chance to play in the game ... it might be their only shot at a spot in the mid-summer classic.

And, while I'm on the subject of the All-Star game, baseball needs to implement a couple changes so they can make sure everyone gets to play, especially the position players. The biggest change is that players can re-enter the game after being removed, although you would have to sit out at least 3 innings before you were eligible to be re-inserted. Given free reign, managers could, hypothetically, send the same batter up every AB. If he gets on base, you pinch run for him with someone and then substitute him for the next batter. If he gets out, just sub him out and sub him back in. I would also allow pitchers to re-enter the game, which might prevent scenarios like Mike Mussina not pitching in the All-Star game at Camden Yards when he was the only Orioles representative. That was almost as bad a situation as Bud Selig calling the game a tie ... there's no tieing in baseball!

Slash this talk

An article in this week's Sporting News addresses the trend in the NFL of drafting college QB's and having them play different positions in the NFL. I have not finished the entire article, so it may get better. However, I'm in disagreement with the author on the tone of the piece. The reason teams are looking at players like Reggie McNeal (Texas A&M) at positions other than QB is the same reason Texas A&M pegged him as their stud QB ... McNeal is a freak! He's an incredible athlete and you want to get the ball in his hands. That's why Matt Jones (U of Arkansas and Jacksonville Jaguars) was a QB in college. That's why Antwaan Randle El (Indiana, Pittsburgh, Washington) was a college QB. Brad Smith, Seneca Wallace, Woody Dantzler, etc.

There have been really good athletes who were also really good QB's ... I'll throw Steve Young out as an example. Perhaps, Michael Vick might be able to develop into a really good QB, although I don't think he's there yet. Does Daunte Culpepper qualify? I think Donovan McNabb would qualify if he kept himself in shape because he played basketball at Syracuse. So, the NFL has a place for athletes at the QB position. But, being a terrific athlete is less of an advantage in the NFL than it is in college. The emphasis is on being able to handle the demands of quarterbacking in the NFL ... making good reads and getting the ball into the hands of the playmakers.

College coaches have figured out that top notch athletes are very valuable at QB because they pose a dual threat. The defenders aren't as good, overall, as the guys who play on Sundays. Does anyone remember how amazing Michael Vick was playing against college defenses? Vince Young torched the USC Trojans in the national championship game in January. Does anyone think he'll be doing the same thing for Tennessee next season? College coaches are putting the ball in the hands of their best athletes if they can play QB, rather than putting their best athletes at RB and WR and having a traditional QB. So, Reggie McNeal and Matt Jones played QB in college, despite their shortcomings as QB's. They could have played WR, too, but they probably wouldn't have had the same impact on their teams.

The NFL people are just doing the same thing college coaches have been doing for years ... they are taking great athletes playing QB on one level and transitioning them to different slots at the next level. It's possible that they'll catch on to the current college trend of having great athletes at QB and they'll find ways to take advantage of athleticism within the context of the pro game. The result would be more players in the mold of Michael Vick. The players who can't play QB at the next level don't ... just as a lot of HS QB's move to different positions at college. But, as the game evolves, it seems that there are more opportunities for athletes to succeed at the QB position.

The point is that teams aren't going after athletes who were college QB's because of the success of Randle El. The Seahawks had Seneca Wallace on the team last year. Woody Dantzler was drafted by the Cowboys previously. Matt Jones was on the Jags last year. Kordell Stewart was a "slash." The NFL teams are looking to get the best athletes. The trend in college to put athletes at QB results in tremendous athletes having to transition to new positions at the NFL level. Teams aren't going to draft a college QB who isn't a great athlete just so they can run "gadget" (or trick) plays with him lined up as a WR!

Paul Thompson started last season as the starting QB for the University of Oklahoma. However, after being replaced by redshirt freshman Rhett Bomar, Thompson began playing WR. If you can't cut it at QB but have tools to be used someplace else, or are worth more to your team at a different position, you'll find yourself on the field someplace other than under center. Thompson was still the backup QB, but it was a waste of talent having him on the bench waiting for Bomar to stumble up or get injured.

Hey FIFA!

I am neither a soccer fan nor a soccer aficionado. I have not played in an organized soccer league since elementary school. However, I have some ideas for FIFA. Stick with me. At times, it is hard to see the forest through the trees, so an outside perspective can shed some light on how things could be, rather than how they have always been. An example is beanballs in baseball. Sure, an eye for an eye is how things have been done in the past and is considered "old school," but it's also barbaric and dangerous. Throw inside to get people out. Don't throw up and in with fastballs. If you get hit ... take your base and take it like a man. If you think the pitcher is throwing at you on purpose, charge the mound. Go one-on-one, but only as a last resort.

Now, getting back to soccer:


1. Watching the Italy v. Germany game, I was not really rooting for one side or the other, I just wanted one side to score. Heck, if both teams scored, that would be fine too. I just did not want the game to be decided in penalty kicks after 120 minutes of scoreless "action." If a team wants to win a game, they should have to score a real goal, not win a PK shootout. You shouldn't be able to piss away two hours. You play to win the game ... that should involve trying to score while simultaneously trying to keep the other team from scoring. This would be similar to the rule that the 5th set of a tennis match (in majors) will not be decided by a tie break. If you are up 2 sets to 1 and the 4th set is tied 6-6, you have a chance to finish out the match with a tiebreak. But, if it's 2-2 (sets), 6-6 (games), you just have to keep playing. A doubles match at Wimbledon on Wednesday went all the way to 23-21 in the 5th set, a 5th set that lasted over 3 hours.


2. Stop the whining. The first rule change would allow delay of game warnings to be given to players who pick up the ball when possession belongs to the other team. If you want to grab the ball and toss it to the other team to get play going more quickly, fine. But, don't stall in order to try to prevent the other team from taking advantage of their free kick or throw-in. The first time you do something out-of-line, you'll get a warning. Subsequent schenanigans will result in yellow cards and/or red cards if you keep going. If you are looking for a similar thing in a mainstream American sport, think delay of game in basketball. If you grab the ball out of the net or step over the line when a team is trying to inbound the ball, you get a warning. The second time, you get a technical foul.


3. If you get fouled in the box, you take the penalty kick! Henry (France) got fouled (questionably) by a Portugal player today. The result was a penalty kick for France. Zidane took the penalty kick. Why doesn't the fouled player have to take the PK? The Heat don't get to let Wade shoot FT's for Shaq. Hockey players who are fouled have to take the penalty shot themselves. My change would make it like any other sport ... if you are fouled, you take the shot! How does this not make sense?


4. I don't mind penalty kicks being awarded for fouls in the box. However, I don't think all fouls in the box should be treated as equal. If there is a lot of congestion and the offensive player is fouled (marginally), should he get a PK? What about a player who is taken down from behind just outside of the box with no one in front of him? Shouldn't he get a PK? What I'm getting at is that calls like in the Italy v. Australia game and in the France v. Portugal game shouldn't decide the games. My remedy ... three levels of fouls in the box. For incidental contact that leads to the defense gaining an advantage, give a yellow card for a foul. For plays like in the Italy v. Australia and France v. Portugal that led to PK's, give red cards ... but the player who is removed from the game isn't suspended for the next game. He is just lost for that game. For unquestionable calls that obviously give the defense an advantage, give them a penalty kick. American sports similarity would be fouls in hockey, some lead to penalty shots while some just result in a player getting a couple minutes in the "sin bin."


5. Don't reward the whining, writhing, complaining, acting, flopping, etc. Give more yellow cards for trying to deceive officials and definitely do not reward the acting and caring on. Reward the players who play until there is a whistle, not the ones who roll around on the ground faking injuries until the official recognizes them. The officials need to lead the charge and FIFA needs to direct the officials to take this stance. How many legitimate injuries have there been in this year's World Cup? Not that many. How many times have players rolled around on the ground like their legs have been broken, only to be on their feet running a minute later? It's ridiculous. It's stupid. It's spilling over into the NBA. Have some integrity and pride. Don't cheat your way to victories, beat the other team straight up. If you can't, go home and practice and beat them next time!

Bulls? Pistons? It's a no-brainer!

Ben Wallace is going to leave the title-contending Detroit Pistons to add defense and rebounding to the youthful Chicago Bulls. In Detroit, Wallace was a great defender and rebounder surrounded by four solid offensive players: Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, and Rasheed Wallace. All four of those guys can shoot the ball from 3-pt range. Hamilton is a great shooter off screens. Billups, Prince, and Wallace can all take advantage of mismatches in the post. Antonio McDyess is a solid offensive threat off the bench. Ben Wallace can not shoot. He can't shoot jumpers, turnarounds, FT's, 3's; you name it, Wallace will brick it. He isn't a good post-up player. He's not a formidable offensive option. That is perfect when you are surrounded by offensive weapons.

If Wallace is moving to the Bulls to play the same role he held with the Pistons, then take the extra money and move to the "Windy City." However, rumors are swirling that Wallace wants to be a bigger part of the offense. If that is why he is leaving, good luck. The Bulls might not have a go to low post scorer. But, that doesn't mean they should look for Wallace to fill that role. If they wanted someone to fill that void, they should have drafted LaMarcus Aldridge and kept him, rather than dealing him for Tyrus Thomas. The Bulls should take a step up this coming year with the development of their young players and the addition of Wallace ... assuming Scott Skiles hasn't sold his soul to get the 'fro into Chicago. Wallace should defend, rebound, and pick up easy baskets off dribble penetration, transition, and offensive boards. If Wallace thinks he's Shaq, he really has lost his mind.

Wishing for un-"flop"-able officials

If there's a theme to this blog, it's that the fairness of sports is threatened by human intervention. Officiating of all sorts has the potential to intervene in the natural flow of play and taint the outcome. But officials are not the only ones. Sometimes, especially in baseball, the fans change the game. And sometimes, it's the players themselves.

We haven't talked about the World Cup here on There's a Catch. But we've been watching it. In this morning's (in the United States) match between England and Portugal, England's young striker Wayne Rooney was sent off in the sixty-second minute after stepping on the groin of a Portuguese player who had fallen to the ground next to him. After the game, the ABC analysts (Alexi Lalas, Julie Foudy, and Eric Wynalda), debated the red card that left England short a player for the last hour of the game.

Regardless of why the referee fished the red card from his pocket, I think there can be no doubt that Rooney deserved the fate he suffered. He made an idiotic play, and it simply cannot be acceptable to attack another player's person. English fans may blame the ref for their beloved team's exit from the World Cup, but only by allowing themselves to be deluded by passion.

Soccer has another kind of player manipulation, though, which it shares with basketball. "Flopping" seems the most popular name for it, though "acting" might be better. Basketball suffers from poor enforcement of the rules about offensive fouls, or "charging". Players have come to believe, probably not in error, that the only way to "draw a charge" is to firmly plant their feet and fall on their backsides.

(Another, more insidious, form of flopping sometimes occurs. In the 2005 NBA playoffs, Paul Pierce shoved Jamaal Tinsley after Tinsley had slapped him upside the head a couple times. Tinsley hit the floor without any effort to break his fall with a backwards step—a practice no doubt perfected through years of "drawing charges"—and Pierce was hit with a second technical foul as a result. You may remember this play because of the bizarre rule that was then invoked to replace Pierce for his free throws. Justice in this case would probably have seen Tinsley removed from the league for an unforgivable lack of sportsmanship, but alas!)

Soccer has created a similar problem. Players seem to think they won't get the calls they think they deserve without exaggerating their injuries—falling to the ground, rolling around, writhing, etc. The referee isn't always fooled—yesterday, for example, one gave a yellow card to an Argentine player who tried to draw a foul in the penalty box late against Germany. But often he is deceived into either inventing a foul or increasing its severity.

In France's recent victory over Spain, Thierry Henry manufactured a foul late in the second half. This led to a free kick that Zinedine Zidane punched into the box, leading to a goal that put his side up 2-1 and won them their date with Brazil. The Cup as a whole is no doubt riddled with such injustices.