4 ms·

This has always bothered me about soccer. 90+ minutes of somewhat complex team play, positioning, footwork, and endurance… and at the end of it the winner is de

This has always bothered me about soccer. 90+ minutes of somewhat complex team play, positioning, footwork, and endurance… and at the end of it the winner is decided by penalty kicks, which feel like an entirely different game.

Tarsul 5y ago
the problem with soccer is that good ideas to improve the game (e.g. make the time stop like in Basketball: Always when the ball is in play the clock ticks, when the ball is outside stop the clock. This would mean less players on the ground running out the clock with fake injuries) are not implemented due to how the leagues are organized (UEFA/FIFA etc.). Whereas in the NBA every year they change the rules, e.g. the best rule change came a couple years ago where they put the shot clock reset of an offensive rebound to 14 seconds instead of 24 seconds - faster gameplay. Everyone wins. Would also love different overtime ideas played out in soccer, e.g. put players out of the game. When it's 8 vs 8 maybe that leads to more goals in overtime or something... also, there was a time/place where penalties were shot differently (with running with the ball like in hockey), so there exist opportunities to change but as far as I see it there's an unwillingness.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  The issue that I see with all the tie break resolutions is that you end up deciding the outcome of the game, based on something other than playing the game. Rapid chess isn’t classical chess. It’s a different game, with different strategies, and players are rated differently between the two formats. 8v8 soccer would be similar in this respect. This is simply the nature of games where you need a decisive advantage to turn a draw into a victory. In high level chess you need a decisive material advantage to win, and in soccer, a game where both teams scoring 0 points isn’t uncommon, you also need a somewhat decisive advantage to win. But these are also both games that are very simple and well balanced. I think they’re better without additional complications, and the best solution is simply to extend play. In the 1984 chess championship I mentioned, the match was abandoned by the organisers. Karpov and Kasparov were both happy to continue playing for another 5 months if that’s what was required.
  - awb 5y ago
    > The issue that I see with all the tie break resolutions is that you end up deciding the outcome of the game, based on something other than playing the game. I think that’s the point. You had your chance to win the game and it took too long, so now you play a shorter, modified version of the game to determine a winner. The same criticism could be leveled at 8v8 soccer that “it’s not soccer”. Your team depth matters less and your stars matter more. It would create injuries to “extend play”, not to mention creating boring 2 or 3 hour long 1-0 matches.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  Golden goals and silver goals have all been tried, to disappointing effect. The Champions League still uses two-legged ties. Where's the unwillingness? 'the problem with soccer' implies that there's a fundamental problem preventing it from working rather than the reality of it being the most successful sport in the world, regardless of what fans of American sports enjoy and in spite of corrupt leadership and perverse financial incentives.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
Used to be a coin toss but penalty kicks are nicer to watch. But yes penalties are a completely different game. That's completely assumed however. You can't really expect player to keep going after 120 minutes and you need a way to decide which team goes through.
- toolslive 5y ago
  actually, a coin toss is a better idea as I guess it's something none of the teams wants, encouraging them to press harder and take more risks. Actually they tried all kinds of things: golden goal, silver goal, replays (FA cup, fe)
tzs 5y ago
I'd like to see such tiebreaks, in both soccer and chess, moved to before the game (soccer) or match (chess) instead of after. The effect is to give one side draw odds in the regular game or match. The other side, knowing that a tie means a loss for them, will have to play more aggressively for the win. This should lead to more decisive games.
- glangdale 5y ago
  Balancing the one side playing aggressively for the win is the fact that the other side can "aggressively" seek a draw. The "if-we-draw-I-win" side is now way more motivated towards seeking out drawish positions.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Than maybe if there are more teams in the competition we might count draws as looses of both teams to make draws completely unattractive.
bluedino 5y ago
American football, play the whole game, coin toss for the ball, if the first team gets a touchdown the second team doesn't even get the ball
thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
That's very much the minority of soccer games. If those are all you've seen, catering to you is less important than catering to the billions of active fans.

Tarsul 5y ago

the problem with soccer is that good ideas to improve the game (e.g. make the time stop like in Basketball: Always when the ball is in play the clock ticks, when the ball is outside stop the clock. This would mean less players on the ground running out the clock with fake injuries) are not implemented due to how the leagues are organized (UEFA/FIFA etc.). Whereas in the NBA every year they change the rules, e.g. the best rule change came a couple years ago where they put the shot clock reset of an offensive rebound to 14 seconds instead of 24 seconds - faster gameplay. Everyone wins. Would also love different overtime ideas played out in soccer, e.g. put players out of the game. When it's 8 vs 8 maybe that leads to more goals in overtime or something... also, there was a time/place where penalties were shot differently (with running with the ball like in hockey), so there exist opportunities to change but as far as I see it there's an unwillingness.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
The issue that I see with all the tie break resolutions is that you end up deciding the outcome of the game, based on something other than playing the game. Rapid chess isn’t classical chess. It’s a different game, with different strategies, and players are rated differently between the two formats. 8v8 soccer would be similar in this respect. This is simply the nature of games where you need a decisive advantage to turn a draw into a victory. In high level chess you need a decisive material advantage to win, and in soccer, a game where both teams scoring 0 points isn’t uncommon, you also need a somewhat decisive advantage to win. But these are also both games that are very simple and well balanced. I think they’re better without additional complications, and the best solution is simply to extend play. In the 1984 chess championship I mentioned, the match was abandoned by the organisers. Karpov and Kasparov were both happy to continue playing for another 5 months if that’s what was required.
- awb 5y ago
  > The issue that I see with all the tie break resolutions is that you end up deciding the outcome of the game, based on something other than playing the game. I think that’s the point. You had your chance to win the game and it took too long, so now you play a shorter, modified version of the game to determine a winner. The same criticism could be leveled at 8v8 soccer that “it’s not soccer”. Your team depth matters less and your stars matter more. It would create injuries to “extend play”, not to mention creating boring 2 or 3 hour long 1-0 matches.
thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
Golden goals and silver goals have all been tried, to disappointing effect. The Champions League still uses two-legged ties. Where's the unwillingness? 'the problem with soccer' implies that there's a fundamental problem preventing it from working rather than the reality of it being the most successful sport in the world, regardless of what fans of American sports enjoy and in spite of corrupt leadership and perverse financial incentives.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

Used to be a coin toss but penalty kicks are nicer to watch. But yes penalties are a completely different game. That's completely assumed however. You can't really expect player to keep going after 120 minutes and you need a way to decide which team goes through.

toolslive 5y ago
actually, a coin toss is a better idea as I guess it's something none of the teams wants, encouraging them to press harder and take more risks. Actually they tried all kinds of things: golden goal, silver goal, replays (FA cup, fe)

tzs 5y ago

I'd like to see such tiebreaks, in both soccer and chess, moved to before the game (soccer) or match (chess) instead of after. The effect is to give one side draw odds in the regular game or match. The other side, knowing that a tie means a loss for them, will have to play more aggressively for the win. This should lead to more decisive games.

glangdale 5y ago
Balancing the one side playing aggressively for the win is the fact that the other side can "aggressively" seek a draw. The "if-we-draw-I-win" side is now way more motivated towards seeking out drawish positions.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Than maybe if there are more teams in the competition we might count draws as looses of both teams to make draws completely unattractive.

bluedino 5y ago

American football, play the whole game, coin toss for the ball, if the first team gets a touchdown the second team doesn't even get the ball

thrwyoilarticle 5y ago

That's very much the minority of soccer games. If those are all you've seen, catering to you is less important than catering to the billions of active fans.