From: milivella on
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?

--
Cheers
milivella
From: Diabolik on

"milivella" <milivella(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84ec390c-ae22-4e9d-b6b4-e3a428c04e4b(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
>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 the contropiede can still prevail, which is defensive.


> - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could
> be considered bad by some)

Yeah. Upsets would still be there, like Volley ball and tennis. So the fun
would still be there.


> Cons:
> - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like
> volleyball and tennis live with it)

A football game might go on for a very long time.


> Your opinion?

I like the concept and I think it's worth a try.

A game independent of time sounds good, never looked at football in this
perspective before.

I think a lot of games might take a long time to score by 2 gols though, so
maybe with less players so more gols can be scored in less time.

Or maybe players are taken out at each defined intervals, so scoring can be
easier with time, and therefore reduce time of play.

From: Abubakr on
On Aug 4, 12:06 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)

This is a huge obstacle in football because the relative difficulty of
scoring compared to those other sports. I'm sure that there'd be no
point in leaving games tied otherwise nor breaking those with penalty
shootouts...

From: milivella on
Diabolik:

> "milivella" <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:84ec390c-ae22-4e9d-b6b4-e3a428c04e4b(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
>
> >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 the contropiede can still prevail, which is defensive.

Right. Let me restate: "Purely destructive tactics would be
meaningless."

> > - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could
> > be considered bad by some)
>
> Yeah. Upsets would still be there, like Volley ball and tennis. So the fun
> would still be there.

I'd really like to see some results!

> > Cons:
> > - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like
> > volleyball and tennis live with it)
>
> A football game might go on for a very long time.

Yep. Of course we are accustomed to matches played under different
rules and nothing can assure that things would remain similar under
new rules, but it's reasonable to expect loooong matches. Should there
be a way to favor more goals? Your solutions...

> I think a lot of games might take a long time to score by 2 gols though, so
> maybe with less players so more gols can be scored in less time.
>
> Or maybe players are taken out at each defined intervals, so scoring can be
> easier with time, and therefore reduce time of play.

....could work.

--
Cheers
milivella
From: Mark V. on
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. Think
about it. You'd be so fearful of losing in the first 20 minutes that
you'd take an especially conservative approach against stronger,
attack-minded teams. You'd park the bus and hope to get one on the
break. If you did, you'd stay bunkered down, fearful of losing your
hard-earned lead against a better team. Instead of attacking to get
the game over with, you'd be mindful of how much longer it *could*
last if your foe equalized, and hopeful that as the opponent tried
even harder to score you'd be able to pull a second one back even more
easily if they over-committed in the attack.