A crazy reform for football
in [World Football]
|
From: FF on 3 Aug 2010 18:46 On Aug 3, 5:10 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > 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. I'd like to add, for getting rid of tie-breaking PKs there's an old and very good proposal that says that if in the end the score is equal, the last team that had the lead goes through. This way only games ending 0 - 0 would have PKs. I would go further and throw cards into the mix. If 0 - 0 after 120 mins, deciding factors would be, in order: direct reds / double yellows / yellows / first red / first yellow (the idea being to punish the ones who started it deserve to go home). It should be a great incentive against getting cards. Then only games ending 0 - 0 and with no card whatsoever would result in PKs, hopefully these would be rare enough.
From: Apteryx on 3 Aug 2010 19:31 milivella 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. Some teams would be encouraged to adopt even more defensive tactics if they believed they could win a 12 hour game through superior fitness. Apteryx
From: milivella on 4 Aug 2010 09:28 Insane Ranter: > In the far distance future, > > "Welcome back to the game ladies and gentlemen. Its currently on day > 183 of Italy vs. France..." As long as they are 1,820-1,819, it's OK. But yes, they will still be 0-0... -- Cheers milivella
From: milivella on 4 Aug 2010 09:47 Apteryx: > milivella 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. > > Some teams would be encouraged to adopt even more defensive tactics if > they believed they could win a 12 hour game through superior fitness. This is an interesting take, and probably a stronger counter-argument than Mark's one. (I wanna thank Elko too for his feedback!) I'm about to reply, but first let me write down a disclaimer (that I should have written this in the original post): I like football as it is. I don't feel like it needs any change. Just, I see that many people, even here, complain about cheating and about defensive anti- football, so I asked myself: is there a simple way to solve these problems? It's an hypothetical question, and I don't think that talking about eventual reforms can do any harm to our beloved sport. Now it looks like the answer is "no, there is no _simple_ way to solve these problems". At least, I'm about to add a clause to my proposal, making it less simple. I don't like it, but again I want to check whether the idea can be saved somehow or not. So: someone could park the bus for 12 hours and then use their fitness to score 2 goals... What if the point allocation is something like: - You win a number of points that is proportional to the time you use to gain the 2-goal lead: e.g. winning in 10 minutes is 2 points, in 50 is 1.5, in 90 is 1, etc. - After e.g. 180 minutes, if no team has won, both teams lose 1 point. So drawing is worse than losing (?!). Anyway, the general solution that I see to the two problems of cheating and ugly football is... more goals. But of course one should find a way to have more goals without losing all the good things that we have now. -- Cheers milivella
From: Bob on 4 Aug 2010 11:15
anders t wrote: > Quoting Bob in rec.sport.soccer: > >> Park the bus would be less attractive if antiplay was sanctioned more >> heavily. Curtailing anti-play may require the use of video both >> during and after the game. > > But there is no way defensive play can be sanctioned. You can't (as > in must not) forbid teams to defend. I am talking about foul play that almost always occur when teams park the bus. |