What if… the rules and regulations were not so rigid?
With practically every headline here a statement is connected, from which first a kind of credibility would have to be checked? At least it is probably the case that one would not have heard such a statement yet: “Huh, what does he mean? The set of rules is rigid? Isn’t it the same with Monopoly, fortunately?” Or whatever. In any case, the statement is: the set of rules in soccer is rigid. It hardly ever changes, and it doesn’t for decades.
Some sort of verifiability or verification would not be easy to provide, of course, since rigidity is, after all, merely considered “too high,” which conversely would suggest a lack of flexibility. In any case, one thing is certain: one does not change excessively readily, excessively frequently, and excessively rabidly or overturningly.
Since presumably the statement in this form was and is not yet a topic, one must supply “proofs” for it in the following remarks on the one hand, on the other hand possibly – as already happened elsewhere – historically and at the same time logically derive and well justify it. If one knows the causes, perhaps not so many obstacles would lie in the way of the acceptance of the statement?
Historically, it is simply the case that soccer has developed more and more into the number one sport – perhaps predominantly in Europe and South America, but Asia and Africa have also caught up enormously as far as this sport is concerned. Only North America is keeping a somewhat low profile – and good reasons for that too, as explained elsewhere. Again, there is no absolute claim in the statement, it is rather intuitively said so. However, it would be sufficient if it were number 1 on only one continent – in the example: Europe. That is undisputedly so?! Whereby there would be certain concerns that it is to be maintained in such a way….
A number 1 arises perhaps actually not simply in such a way and also not purely coincidentally. Whereby the chaos principle is already an also recognized one which has quite increased in followers over the last decades. Nevertheless, one assumes first of all that soccer is not a confused butterfly action – fly left or fly right: Handball or bowling become number 1? Let’s see, oh left, ok, then just soccer – but that there are understandable reasons for it.
A reason that is not seldom encountered – and thus also represented elsewhere – is that soccer is so wonderfully simple. Playing the ball with the foot does have its pitfalls, but this is exactly what makes it so appealing. In other words: you want to have a game that you can play easily, quickly and everywhere, but which still provides a certain incentive through a deliberately slightly increased level of difficulty.
To compare it briefly with handball: of course, if a ball catches your eye for the first time, you would first want to take it in your hand, analogous to a stone or a piece of candy. A kind of “general material science” as a preschool subject. One would take the ball in the hand and in the next moment perhaps – guided by an adult – begin to throw it to oneself. Sure. Tired – mat play or something, if the kids are bigger then. Nevertheless, the degree of difficulty in playing with the hand should not be so readily apparent and only appear when you actually go to a club and try out the acquired “skill” in competition. There, however, problems other than technical ones arise. Everyone will soon be able to catch and throw the ball.
In contrast to soccer, however, one might like to note that the difficulties that arise in handball in principle only show up when you play it in some kind of competition. With soccer, however, probably every little hobby kicker will have tried it once, while waiting for his buddies or just to pass the time, because there was no playmate, to hold the ball in the air only with his foot, playing it repeatedly with the most different parts of his body. How would you have to imagine this kind of skill development in handball? How often have you seen children throw balls against walls to catch the returners, compared to how often it is tried with the foot? This is far from talking about what sport they will later choose. Only this: intuitively it is much more likely to be done in such a way that it makes a demand on the skill, and there one would do it with a ball much more likely with the foot, even if all alone with it outside and independently of a later preference of the selected sport, which nevertheless partly results from it.
Whichever game one then uses for comparison and whether with a ball or as a team or individual sport: almost always one would have to do it with an arbitrarily
