Reason #456 to hate soccer
in [UK Football]
|
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 21 Jun 2010 21:21 In article <d96c0351-d4e9-482a-9072-9c4843ca0e0f(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, "deemsbill(a)aol.com" <deemsbill(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 4:53�pm, Peter Lawrence <hummb...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On 6/21/10 12:29 PM, stephenj wrote: > > > > > Jefferson N. Glapski 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.) > > To be fair, soccer games could last FOREVER if they played until > someone scored. Not if the team is playing the US. The US is Matador Central. -- Remove blown from email address to reply.
From: Jefferson N. Glapski on 22 Jun 2010 01:26 On 10-06-21 12:26 PM, Thomas R. Kettler wrote: > In article<hvo9iv$mhs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > "Kyle T. Jones"<KBfoMe(a)realdomain.net> wrote: > >> xyzzy wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 10:39 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. >>>> >>>> --Tedward >>> >>> No less random than a shoot-out (IMO) >> >> Settling the most important soccer games in the world with a shoot-out >> at the end absolutely sucks. >> >> However, it's still better than flipping a coin. >> >> Cheers. > > Is it worse than the way the NCAA decides BCS Championship Games with > alternating possessions from the opponent's 25-yard line negating many > things a defense can do? Yes. One's an altered competition. One eliminates competition entirely (a presupposition of anything considered a sport) with a random event.
From: Jefferson N. Glapski on 22 Jun 2010 01:27 On 10-06-21 01:27 PM, stephenj wrote: > The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy wrote: >> "stephenj" <sjaros3(a)cox.net> wrote >> >>>> If the US draws 0-0 and England draws 2-2, the advancing team >>>> will be the winner of a RANDOM draw. >>> >>> to be fair, in our football, playoff tiebreakers (and we're basically >>> talking about making the playoffs here) can boil down to a coin flip >>> as well. >>> >>> it's just that it is more likely here in the WC, because a 3-game >>> schedule creates fewer opportunities than a 16-game scchedule for >>> statistical distinctions (e.g., record within division, conference, >>> etc.) before it boils down to that. >> >> Well then maybe the problem is the dumbass 3-game schedule. >> Maybe even amature college baseball has an answer. > > it's a problem in theory, but when's the last time a team advanced in > the WC because of a random draw? 2010
From: Jefferson N. Glapski on 22 Jun 2010 01:28 On 10-06-21 02:03 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? There's more action between plays in football, with substitutions, huddling and lining up at the LOS than occurs during "action" that occurs in a soccer game.
From: Jefferson N. Glapski on 22 Jun 2010 01:29
On 10-06-21 02:53 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > On 6/21/10 12:29 PM, stephenj wrote: >> Jefferson N. Glapski 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. |