From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name(a)youblunder.co.youghey> wrote

>> If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team
>> will be the winner of a RANDOM draw.
>>
>> The athleticism involved in a random draw is simply AM-ZING!
>> The good news is that the odds of England scoring twice is
>> near absolute zero.
>
> You know, every single time there's ever a major football tournament, be
> it the World Cup or the European Cup or whatever, someone comes along
> after the first two rounds of matches to point out that it might, given a
> certain set of results, come down to a flip of a coin. This is usually
> followed by anguished cries of 'WAKE UP FIFA!!!1!one!1anomaly!1" and the
> suchlike.
>
> Invariably, it never happens.
>
> The fact will always remain that whatever system you have for determining
> the winner, there will always be the possibility that two teams will fare
> exactly the same. That it never happens, even in the three-game system,
> shows how unlikely.

It never happens? Are you really sure about that?

--Tedward


From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE(a)PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote

>>>> Tiebreakers in a game consist of playing until someone wins.
>>>>
>>>> Reason #2132 why football, hockey, baseball or basketball is a sport,
>>>> while soccer isn't.
>>>
>>> well, they do that in the knockout rounds. Except unlike in our football
>>> or basketball or baseball, they resort to the bogus hockey method of a
>>> penalty shootout as a last resort. Sad ...
>>
>> Except that in NHL playoffs they don't use shootouts, they play overtime
>> periods until one team scores the tie-breaking goal. (The NHL only use
>> shootouts during the regular season, whereas soccer is more than happy
>> to end a regular season game in a draw.)
>
> Or roughly a third of World Cup games this year...
>
> And zero TV timeouts during NHL OT, too.

If you are drinking properly, this can be a problem.

--Tedward


From: The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy on
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE(a)PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote

>>> To be fair, soccer games could last FOREVER if they played until
>>> someone scored.
>>
>> ...particularly considering that after 90 minutes, the average player on
>> the pitch has run over 10 kilometres.
>
> Wow. 4 miles per hour. That's a very brisk WALK.

I can walk that and drink 4 beers per hour.

--Tedward


From: GregoryD on
On 6/21/2010 3:03 PM, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:
> In article
> <f266ebed-e302-4310-89b8-2cb3b7ff4925(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Tonawanda Kardex<tonawandakardex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 7:39 am, "The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy"<e...(a)o.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team
>>> will be the winner of a RANDOM draw.
>>>
>>> The athleticism involved in a random draw is simply AM-ZING!
>>> The good news is that the odds of England scoring twice is
>>> near absolute zero.
>>
>> If baseball is too fast for the rest of the world, no wonder soccer is
>> just the right speed.
>
> You do realize that the extent of activity in a football game is roughly
> 15 minutes, correct?

The percentage of plays in American football where there is a
possibility of a score on a play if the right things happen is extremely
high. Virtually the only plays that don't are kneeldowns at the end of
the half or the game.

The percentage of time spent on a soccer field playing soccer where
there's a chance of a goal being scored is about 2 minutes of game time,
and I'm probably being extremely generous here.

GregoryD
From: Antonio Veranos on
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:31:48 -0500, GregoryD wrote...

> The percentage of time spent on a soccer field playing soccer where
> there's a chance of a goal being scored is about 2 minutes of game time,
> and I'm probably being extremely generous here.

Bait.

--
A. Veranos

What color does a smurf go when you choke it?