7 ms·

but after 120mins of play, somehow they have to make a decision.

amelius 4y ago
A better approach I've heard someone coin is: after 90 minutes, you start taking away one player from both teams, every 5 minutes.
- tobltobs 4y ago
  And if no more players are on the field and it is still a tie then what?
  - amelius 4y ago
    Use your imagination. Anyway, by that time, the number of red cards will probably have decided the outcome.
  - duxup 4y ago
    The odds of someone getting an open shot seems like it would make a goal all but inevitable.
  - michelb 4y ago
    Both coaches duel with pistols.
- smcl 4y ago
  I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win, having to tear apart your team every five minutes would be a very complex and niche tactical meta to master and will result in an incredibly slow paced game as lungs tire when teams get down to 7-8 players each. If teams are on even terms after 90 minutes, and cannot break the deadlock after 30 minutes of Extra Time then they're as evenly matched as possible and therefore deserve a way to win that doesn't break them physically. Whether or not they can handle it mentally is another matter [casts an eye towards England...] I can say that as a player I can stomach a loss on penalties, I wouldn't say that I enjoy taking them but I could handle it. I would absolutely detest the idea of playing Extra Time with my teammates disappearing every few minutes. Edit: hope it doesn’t sound like I was having a go at you for raising this proposal! On the contrary, I find it interesting when people want to tweak the game in creative ways and talk about it!
  - gspetr 4y ago
    >I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win And a series of static 1v1s is more accurate than a series of 10v10s, 9v9s and so on? People have criticized chess for pretty much the same thing wrt tie breakers for world championship, classic chess being decided by player's proficiency in a very different format and decision making. I'm not saying I support the diminishing player count, but perhaps penalties should be deferred until another (3rd total) added extra time in the final match only. Maybe give the teams 2 extra subs if it is still tied after 2nd AET.
    - smcl 4y ago
      Yeah I honestly think it is - some extra time to try to get an edge then a series of set pieces where ultimately if they’re evenly matched everyone, even the goalkeepers, could end up taking a pen. There’s no easy way to handle a situation like this, but utilising an already integral component of the game like penalties is probably the fairest solution, and it helps that it’s the one with the most excitement and drama for those watching. It could be much worse, before penalties a literal coin toss was used. If recall correctly teams made it thru to the European Cup (what the Champions League used to be called) final based on a coin toss
- duxup 4y ago
  I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too... Having said that in the US college hockey they do a 3 on 3 overtime. In contrast to a typical 5 v 5 game it is INTENSE. Crowd is on the edge of their seat and so on. Suddenly it's like some back yard / local ice rink where kids just get together to play style game. It's still the same game as far as the players go, but just more space and a great pass or move to shake a defender / goal keeper is huge. I don't know if that's the best route to go, but it really is exciting and I prefer it to shootouts by far.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Interesting! > I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too... Of course you should keep in mind that if you want the better team to win with a p-value of e.g. < 0.001, then you will have to play hundreds of games ...
    - duxup 4y ago
      Yeah more so in such a low scoring sport I imagine where rando outcomes are possible? It's a constant discussion I have where folks talk about a playoff is there to determine the best team but ... that's not really how it works. Having said that, I'd rather not see an endless "regular season" where we just tally up stats and everyone just goes home after playing a ho hum game and happy that they're statistical champs ... I like playoffs, it produces those extraordinary moments of greatness that we seem to want in sports.
      - coupdejarnac 4y ago
        This is the quintessential American take on soccer. It's ok if you're not a soccer fan. Soccer doesn't need to be like hockey or basketball, where teams can be dogshit for most of the season and still wind up as champions.
        duxup 4y ago
- nothrowaways 4y ago
  How do you decide that?
- Cyph0n 4y ago
  But they already do just that: you have a finite number of players, a finite number of subs, and each player has a finite amount of stamina.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  They could add an additional ball instead - every 5 minutes. Would be much funnier to watch.
  - squirtlebonflow 4y ago
    Every 5 seconds and no stopping time
  - amelius 4y ago
    You would need an extra referee per extra ball.
diego_sandoval 4y ago
In reality, they end up being like 140 mins. (45+5)+(45+10)+(15+15+5)
- smcl 4y ago
  Remember that additional 20 minutes is added because it's actually time they spent not playing. So in reality they're now playing a full 90 or 120 minutes after having in the past possibly played only 75 or 100.
  - Phemist 4y ago
    And even those 20 min of injury time are probably waaayyy less than the time the game was actually on hold for due to injuries or other shenanigans. Unfortunately TV time slots are so strict, that getting actual 90+30 min of game time cannot really be a thing anymore. Thus, strategies to waste time dominate, much to the frustration of everyone except the winning team
    - smcl 4y ago
      I think TV channels deliberately schedule optional shit after these kinds of games, the thinking being that the pundits can fill time to the next nearest half-hour slot begins then the schedule can resume
huhtenberg 4y ago
Just flip a coin. Will give enough incentive to try and win, but also be fair to both if there's a tie.
- webkike 4y ago
  Oh yeah, that would have been SO much better and less controversial than a shootout. What a great way to end 120 minutes of people pouring their heart out. A coin flip
  - huhtenberg 4y ago
    But teams are on par - so either crown them both or choose randomly. Penalties is just a more elaborate form of a coin flip, still largely random.
    - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
      People are not robots. Penalties do test the nerves of both teams. And besides, the feeling of fairness is more important than actual fairness in football. We don't watch it to get a perfectly stat driven understanding of the game, but because it's fun and emotional.
    - webkike 4y ago
      It is random, it’s definitely not as random as a coin flip
    - jogjayr 4y ago
      If penalties were truly random then teams wouldn't practice them. Goalkeepers wouldn't study their opponents' past penalties or use cheatsheets when facing kicks. There wouldn't be so much analysis and game theory poured into the perfect sequencing of kick-takers. It's true that penalties test fewer skills than a full-fledged game of football. But they are still a contest of skill, not a game of chance.
    - mk89 4y ago
      Penalties are not random at all. There is a reason why some teams suck big time on penalties while others nail them all the time (or almost always, depending on the generation, players, etc).
amadeuspagel 4y ago
instead, if it's a draw after 90 minutes, just played until someone scores a goal.
- dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
  They tried that, look up Golden Goal. Most people agreed it was a bad idea.
  - coupdejarnac 4y ago
    It's as if half of the people commenting here watched a soccer game for the first time today, lol. That's fine and all, but it's incredibly unlikely that a neophyte has all the solutions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kaibeezy 4y ago
They may as well have literally flipped a 70.3/29.7 weighted coin 10 times. I walked out of the pub in disgust.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Some goalkeepers are better. Some players are better. Both can be tired, or nervous. Each flip has a different weight. Anyway, people underestimate the amount of randomness in penalties.

A better approach I've heard someone coin is: after 90 minutes, you start taking away one player from both teams, every 5 minutes.

tobltobs 4y ago
And if no more players are on the field and it is still a tie then what?
- amelius 4y ago
  Use your imagination. Anyway, by that time, the number of red cards will probably have decided the outcome.
- duxup 4y ago
  The odds of someone getting an open shot seems like it would make a goal all but inevitable.
- michelb 4y ago
  Both coaches duel with pistols.
smcl 4y ago
I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win, having to tear apart your team every five minutes would be a very complex and niche tactical meta to master and will result in an incredibly slow paced game as lungs tire when teams get down to 7-8 players each. If teams are on even terms after 90 minutes, and cannot break the deadlock after 30 minutes of Extra Time then they're as evenly matched as possible and therefore deserve a way to win that doesn't break them physically. Whether or not they can handle it mentally is another matter [casts an eye towards England...] I can say that as a player I can stomach a loss on penalties, I wouldn't say that I enjoy taking them but I could handle it. I would absolutely detest the idea of playing Extra Time with my teammates disappearing every few minutes. Edit: hope it doesn’t sound like I was having a go at you for raising this proposal! On the contrary, I find it interesting when people want to tweak the game in creative ways and talk about it!
- gspetr 4y ago
  >I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win And a series of static 1v1s is more accurate than a series of 10v10s, 9v9s and so on? People have criticized chess for pretty much the same thing wrt tie breakers for world championship, classic chess being decided by player's proficiency in a very different format and decision making. I'm not saying I support the diminishing player count, but perhaps penalties should be deferred until another (3rd total) added extra time in the final match only. Maybe give the teams 2 extra subs if it is still tied after 2nd AET.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Yeah I honestly think it is - some extra time to try to get an edge then a series of set pieces where ultimately if they’re evenly matched everyone, even the goalkeepers, could end up taking a pen. There’s no easy way to handle a situation like this, but utilising an already integral component of the game like penalties is probably the fairest solution, and it helps that it’s the one with the most excitement and drama for those watching. It could be much worse, before penalties a literal coin toss was used. If recall correctly teams made it thru to the European Cup (what the Champions League used to be called) final based on a coin toss
duxup 4y ago
I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too... Having said that in the US college hockey they do a 3 on 3 overtime. In contrast to a typical 5 v 5 game it is INTENSE. Crowd is on the edge of their seat and so on. Suddenly it's like some back yard / local ice rink where kids just get together to play style game. It's still the same game as far as the players go, but just more space and a great pass or move to shake a defender / goal keeper is huge. I don't know if that's the best route to go, but it really is exciting and I prefer it to shootouts by far.
- amelius 4y ago
  Interesting! > I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too... Of course you should keep in mind that if you want the better team to win with a p-value of e.g. < 0.001, then you will have to play hundreds of games ...
  - duxup 4y ago
    Yeah more so in such a low scoring sport I imagine where rando outcomes are possible? It's a constant discussion I have where folks talk about a playoff is there to determine the best team but ... that's not really how it works. Having said that, I'd rather not see an endless "regular season" where we just tally up stats and everyone just goes home after playing a ho hum game and happy that they're statistical champs ... I like playoffs, it produces those extraordinary moments of greatness that we seem to want in sports.
    - coupdejarnac 4y ago
      This is the quintessential American take on soccer. It's ok if you're not a soccer fan. Soccer doesn't need to be like hockey or basketball, where teams can be dogshit for most of the season and still wind up as champions.
      - duxup 4y ago
nothrowaways 4y ago
How do you decide that?
Cyph0n 4y ago
But they already do just that: you have a finite number of players, a finite number of subs, and each player has a finite amount of stamina.
kgwgk 4y ago
They could add an additional ball instead - every 5 minutes. Would be much funnier to watch.
- squirtlebonflow 4y ago
  Every 5 seconds and no stopping time
- amelius 4y ago
  You would need an extra referee per extra ball.

diego_sandoval 4y ago

In reality, they end up being like 140 mins. (45+5)+(45+10)+(15+15+5)

smcl 4y ago
Remember that additional 20 minutes is added because it's actually time they spent not playing. So in reality they're now playing a full 90 or 120 minutes after having in the past possibly played only 75 or 100.
- Phemist 4y ago
  And even those 20 min of injury time are probably waaayyy less than the time the game was actually on hold for due to injuries or other shenanigans. Unfortunately TV time slots are so strict, that getting actual 90+30 min of game time cannot really be a thing anymore. Thus, strategies to waste time dominate, much to the frustration of everyone except the winning team
  - smcl 4y ago
    I think TV channels deliberately schedule optional shit after these kinds of games, the thinking being that the pundits can fill time to the next nearest half-hour slot begins then the schedule can resume

huhtenberg 4y ago

Just flip a coin. Will give enough incentive to try and win, but also be fair to both if there's a tie.

webkike 4y ago
Oh yeah, that would have been SO much better and less controversial than a shootout. What a great way to end 120 minutes of people pouring their heart out. A coin flip
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  But teams are on par - so either crown them both or choose randomly. Penalties is just a more elaborate form of a coin flip, still largely random.
  - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
    People are not robots. Penalties do test the nerves of both teams. And besides, the feeling of fairness is more important than actual fairness in football. We don't watch it to get a perfectly stat driven understanding of the game, but because it's fun and emotional.
  - webkike 4y ago
    It is random, it’s definitely not as random as a coin flip
  - jogjayr 4y ago
    If penalties were truly random then teams wouldn't practice them. Goalkeepers wouldn't study their opponents' past penalties or use cheatsheets when facing kicks. There wouldn't be so much analysis and game theory poured into the perfect sequencing of kick-takers. It's true that penalties test fewer skills than a full-fledged game of football. But they are still a contest of skill, not a game of chance.
  - mk89 4y ago
    Penalties are not random at all. There is a reason why some teams suck big time on penalties while others nail them all the time (or almost always, depending on the generation, players, etc).

amadeuspagel 4y ago

instead, if it's a draw after 90 minutes, just played until someone scores a goal.

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
They tried that, look up Golden Goal. Most people agreed it was a bad idea.
- coupdejarnac 4y ago
  It's as if half of the people commenting here watched a soccer game for the first time today, lol. That's fine and all, but it's incredibly unlikely that a neophyte has all the solutions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Kaibeezy 4y ago

They may as well have literally flipped a 70.3/29.7 weighted coin 10 times. I walked out of the pub in disgust.

gus_massa 4y ago
Some goalkeepers are better. Some players are better. Both can be tired, or nervous. Each flip has a different weight. Anyway, people underestimate the amount of randomness in penalties.