From: Mirobaldo on
Il 05/08/2010 12:32, Abubakr ha scritto:
> On Aug 5, 8:11 pm, Mirobaldo<miroba...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Il 03/08/2010 16:06, milivella ha scritto:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Min 30 minutes of game.
>> Larger goal door.
>> More player can be substitute.
>> A substitution is not definitive.
>
> This just favours teams with depth in their squads and will only widen
> the gulf between big and small clubs.

This is possible, but I'm thinking of matches where the score still
remain on 0-0 for 3-4 hours...

Otherwise it's possible to end with 9-8 players on every team...
From: Insane Ranter on
On Aug 5, 6:07 pm, Mirobaldo <miroba...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Il 05/08/2010 12:32, Abubakr ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 8:11 pm, Mirobaldo<miroba...(a)yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> Il 03/08/2010 16:06, milivella ha scritto:
>
> >>> 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?
>
> >> Min 30 minutes of game.
> >> Larger goal door.
> >> More player can be substitute.
> >> A substitution is not definitive.
>
> > This just favours teams with depth in their squads and will only widen
> > the gulf between big and small clubs.
>
> This is possible, but I'm thinking of matches where the score still
> remain on 0-0 for 3-4 hours...
>
> Otherwise it's possible to end with 9-8 players on every team...

just make the field smaller =)
From: milivella on
Mirobaldo:

> Il 03/08/2010 16:06,milivellaha scritto:
>
> > 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?
>
> Min 30 minutes of game.
> Larger goal door.
> More player can be substitute.
> A substitution is not definitive.

# 1, 3 and 4 look like good patches to my proposal! Thanks.

"Larger goal door"... I don't know, it sounds a bit like cutting a
corner to me.

--
Cheers
milivella
From: milivella on
Neil Gerace:

> milivellawrote:
> > A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals.
>
> According to the creation myth of Australian Rules football, the first game had a rule that the first team to score two
> goals would win. The match lasted three afternoons and ended in a draw after only one goal had been scored.

Oh, I didn't know. Thanks for sharing this story, that admittedly puts
my proposal under a bad light! :)

--
Cheers
milivella
From: milivella on
Insane Ranter:

> What about making the field smaller by say 10yds to 20yds in length
> maybe more might even smaller number of players. If anything watching
> indoor, beach, or the smaller versions of the game we see more shots,
> more goals, more action. With a 80yd pitch you'd still be far enough
> that a shot from midfield is still kinda far to be taking but the
> transition from offense to defense would be much faster.
>
> And play 9v9 so you could play say 3-3-2 or 3-4-1 etc.

I'd really like to see how the game would be played.

--
Cheers
milivella