From: milivella on
Mark V.:

> On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals.
>
> > Pros:
> > - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive.
> > - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless.
>
> I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams.

First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because
playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is
less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a
fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0.

The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope
not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending
well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to
do it, but to score on the break, and more than once.

But, as I wrote, this is just a first weak attempt...

(I forgot to say it loud in my first reply: thanks for the feedback,
Mark!)

--
Cheers
milivella
From: FF on
On Aug 3, 10:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals.
>
> Pros:
> - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive.
> - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless.
> - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could
> be considered bad by some)
>
> Cons:
> - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like
> volleyball and tennis live with it)
>
> Your opinion?

It might work if Italy and Greece are banned forever from any Euro and
WCup. ;-)

Nah, no good. Only solution IMO, video refs, plus cleaning up of the
rules along the lines we've discussed before.
From: El Kot on
milivella wrote:
> Mark V.:
>> On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals.
>>> Pros:
>>> - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive.
>>> - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless.
>> I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams.
>
> First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because
> playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is
> less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a
> fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0.
>
> The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope
> not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending
> well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to
> do it, but to score on the break, and more than once.

I think there's something useful in your idea, but the way you
proposed it initially, it won't fly. The way I see it possible, is if it
is applied as a "knock-out" rule. For example, if one team manages to
get up to a 5 goal difference, the game is over. Otherwise, it is played
normally. If you want more change, we can tack on my 5-minutes
injury-time-management proposal, and get something closer to your
initial idea - a game that never ends, as long as the outcome keeps
changing every 5 minutes. :)

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: FF on
On Aug 3, 6:21 pm, El Kot <nono.black.e...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> milivella wrote:
> > Mark V.:
> >> On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals.
> >>> Pros:
> >>> - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive.
> >>> - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless.
> >> I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams.
>
> > First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because
> > playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is
> > less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a
> > fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0.
>
> > The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope
> > not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending
> > well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to
> > do it, but to score on the break, and more than once.
>
>    I think there's something useful in your idea, but the way you
> proposed it initially, it won't fly. The way I see it possible, is if it
> is applied as a "knock-out" rule. For example, if one team manages to
> get up to a 5 goal difference, the game is over. Otherwise, it is played
> normally.

5 goals ? Yes, I guess this would make a difference to a lot of games.
Especially in the final rounds of the WCup and Champs League.
From: Insane Ranter on
In the far distance future,

"Welcome back to the game ladies and gentlemen. Its currently on day
183 of Italy vs. France..."