Red Cards Are for Cheaters

[121Josey]

I'm liking this official. He say 17 ya'll.

 

[patdog]

Terrible official for such a big game. Guy has shown 14 yellow cards in his last 27 games called. He's in way over his head.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

And Chile wins the Communist Kickball Championship

Nil-Nil on aggregate, naturally.

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but penalties are honestly the worst way of ending a soccer match. So much of soccer is skill and PK's are just such a small part of the game. It's a crapshoot whether or not the better team wins.

I will concede though that's penalties are very exciting. That's about all I can say about it.

 

[MaroonNation]

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but penalties are honestly the worst way of ending a soccer match. So much of soccer is skill and PK's are just such a small part of the game. It's a crapshoot whether or not the better team wins.


I will concede though that's penalties are very exciting. That's about all I can say about it.

If I have to sit through a 3 hour game that has to be decided by PK's there is no "best team".

 

[HD6]

Try to imagine the SEC Title game settled by a field goal kicking contest.

 

[DerHntr]

Try to imagine the SEC Title game settled by a field goal kicking contest.

It would be like throwing Hail Mary's from the 40 yard line rather than field goals. Scoring TD's this way would be exciting but also anticlimactic, just like penalty kicks.

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

If I have to sit through a 3 hour game that has to be decided by PK's there is no "best team".

Not true. The nature of "the beautiful game" simply makes it that difficult to master. Tonight we watched the number 1 and 5 teams in the Fifa rankings take chance after chance to score and couldn't (for whatever reason- be it bad luck or great saves). That's just the game. It humbles even the greatest players.

A great anology would be golf in my opinion. Imagine two players tied after 72 holes. 4 days worth of golf. Would it be fair to simply decide the winner by giving each player 5, 5-foot putts and whoever sinks the most wins first? Absolutely not. There is so much more involved in golf than putting from 5 feet away (otherwise I would be pretty dang good). There is driving, hitting your irons, approach shots, long putts, hitting the ball out of the rough or a bunker. It would be totally unfair to decide 72 holes worth of golf like that.

In the same way, soccer is SO much more than scoring from the penalty spot more than the other team. There are runs, touches, headers, shots, saves, corners, free kicks, defense, passing, pace, etc. I could go on forever. It's an absolute travesty that they haven't found a better way to decide games than to shoot penalties.

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

Try to imagine the SEC Title game settled by a field goal kicking contest.

This is another great analogy

 

[JungRebel]

Well, what would be the better way that the they haven't figured out? This isn't a new sport, and if a tie isn't broken by the 120th minute then what else do we do that can end the game? I'm not saying there isn't a better option, but the possibility that we have the best option already does exist.

 

[Will James]

Well, what would be the better way that the they haven't figured out? This isn't a new sport, and if a tie isn't broken by the 120th minute then what else do we do that can end the game? I'm not saying there isn't a better option, but the possibility that we have the best option already does exist.

Play until a goal is scored. If it takes 200 minutes and they are stumbling around like a boxer in the last round so be it. You need water, take a break, play 11 on 10 for a while until you get some stamina back.

 

[missouridawg]

Some hockey leagues remove a player from each field at the end of each OT period. That would open the field some.

You could also expand the goal by a few feet on each side and the top to open up scoring as well.

 

[patdog]

Unfortunately, penalties is the best option. Back in the old, old days, if there was a draw, they just replayed the game a couple of days later. That's not really feasible with TV commitments and so many people travelling. And you can't really just play until someone scores a goal. After 120 minutes, players are all pretty much out on their feet after running close to 10 miles of wind sprints. PKs isn't a good option, but it's the best one we have.

 

[patdog]

If I have to sit through a 3 hour game that has to be decided by PK's there is no "best team".

No. But someone has to win the trophy. The game still goes down in the record books as a draw. Neither team won the game. But Chili won the Cup.

 

[CEO2044]

Not the same.

Significantly less subs allowed, less subs in general on the bench, significantly less running in football, etc., etc., etc.

 

[HD6]

It's not the same? Really? I had no idea! I would never have guessed that!

 

[aTotal360]

You unsophisticated bigots will never understand the "gentleman's" game. **

 

[121Josey]

You unsophisticated bigots will never understand the "gentleman's" game. **

I don't get rugby either.** (Nor RugB)

 

[Will James]

And you can't really just play until someone scores a goal.

Why

 

[aTotal360]

Get off my pitch!11!1!!!!!

 

[patdog]

I answered that question in literally the next sentence.

 

[121Josey]

I answered that question in literally the next sentence.

Then you literally undermined your point in literally the next sentence.

PKs isn't a good option, but it's the best one we have.

 

[patdog]

So, what's a better one? I've explained why continuing to play past 120 minutes isn't feasible and why replaying the match isn't feasible. I know you're trolling but tell us the better solution.

 

[dawgstudent]

I think you should continue to play until someone scores. Also, the first 2 periods of extra time should be sudden death.

 

[Col. Forbin]

Growing up we played full extra time, followed by 2 shorter halves of golden goal, then we went to PKs.

I personally liked the way the MLS used to do their shootouts when the league was fairly new. The shooter started at midfield and they got to dribble in. The keeper could come off of his line whenever he wanted to.

 

[rugbdawg]

To me, both rugby and soccer are much more fun to play than watch. Having said

that, Australian rules football is the most exciting game to watch. End of story. American football has become a pussified, PC game. Aussie rules football and rugby, not so much.

Don't believe me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aVhGGTZbHk

 

[patdog]

Also, the first 2 periods of extra time should be sudden death.

Completely agree with this. If one team scores, it's ridiculous to give the other team a chance to get an equalizing goal to send it to PKs. If you score in OT, it should be over.

 

[FlotownDawg]

Should we play until someone dies on the field?

With only three subs allowed, the players are exhausted after 120 minutes of non-stop running. There are no timeouts and you can't go to the sidelines for a few minutes to rest like other sports. The only way I can see it being feasible to play until someone scores would be to allow unlimited subs in extra time. That way you would have at least some fresh bodies on the field that might be able to attack instead of exhausted zombies too tired to run anymore.

 

[FlotownDawg]

They actually tried that for a few years (2002 World Cup and 2004 Euros were sudden death extra time) but found out that instead of encouraging attacking play, the rule actually encouraged both teams to sit back and defend, because they were afraid to attack and then give up a goal on the counter. The extra times were actually more boring with little attacking play. So they changed it back before the 2006 World Cup.

 

[dawgstudent]

I can see different OT rules dependent on the game.

If it's a championship - you play until someone scores. Previous rounds - I can see PK's.

I just hate seeing a championship decided by PK's.

 

[121Josey]

So, what's a better one? I've explained why continuing to play past 120 minutes isn't feasible and why replaying the match isn't feasible. I know you're trolling but tell us the better solution.

No, you've stated that PK is the best option. They don't even make ever player on the pitch make an attempt. Are we shooting FT's in basketball instead of double overtime?

I would suggest sending off players for a yellow card in extra-time, for starters.

 

[121Josey]

With only three subs allowed, the players are exhausted after 120 minutes of non-stop running. There are no timeouts and you can't go to the sidelines for a few minutes to rest like other sports. The only way I can see it being feasible to play until someone scores would be to allow unlimited subs in extra time. That way you would have at least some fresh bodies on the field that might be able to attack instead of exhausted zombies too tired to run anymore.

You lost me at "non-stop running". Then I was confused if you meant official timeouts or timeouts before every free-kick. Some sports, like football, just say on the ground to take a break. Soccer is too much of the "beautiful game" to do that.

 

[patdog]

I would suggest sending off players for a yellow card in extra-time, for starters.

This would accomplish next to nothing.

 

[121Josey]

This would accomplish next to nothing.

Less defense, motivation to attack, and fewer players on the pitch. But yeah, flipping a coin 10 times would be the only viable solution besides PK's.**

 

[patdog]

but found out that instead of encouraging attacking play, the rule actually encouraged both teams to sit back and defend, because they were afraid to attack and then give up a goal on the counter.

That's actually kind of a myth. 3 of the 5 games that went to extra time in the 2002 World Cup did not go to penalties. The 8 that went to extra time in the 2014 World Cup were split evenly with 4 going to penalties and 4 decided in extra time. Teams tend to get conservative in extra time either way.

 

[JungRebel]

And it would give too much power to officials.

 

[dickiedawg]

Restrict the goalkeeper from using his hands in extra time. That'll open it up.

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

I personally liked the way the MLS used to do their shootouts when the league was fairly new. The shooter started at midfield and they got to dribble in. The keeper could come off of his line whenever he wanted to.

Absolutely. I know this isn't a particularly popular method but it allows for a "shootout" style finish while actually incorporating other parts of soccer.

There are several other interesting ways to settle extra time. One I've read about is the 90th minute shootout. Instead of deciding the tiebreaker with a shootout at the end of extra time, decide the tiebreaker via shootout before extra time starts. That way one team knows they have to win in extra time or they lose.

Another interesting method has already kinda been mentioned. Play 10 minute golden goal extra time periods, but with each period that goes by remove one more player from both teams from the field. 1st extra time: 10v10, 2nd extra time: 9v9 and so on. The a argument for this is that it's still soccer and it would still be exciting to watch the strategy (Who do you keep on the field each extra time? What formations do you play? Etc.) also less players on the pitch means a more open pitch where players are more likely to score.

Ive also thought it makes no sense to not allow more than 3 subs the whole game once it goes into extra time. The whole reason they can't play longer is that they're tired as crap. Once you get into extra time, you should be able to sub as much as you want and sub back in. That itself would make the current format a lot better too.

 

[aTotal360]

The German coach smells what you're cooking!

[TWEET]743377464571928576[/TWEET]

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

Löw blow man