By Adrian Musolino
March 31st 2009 @ 6:11am
View The Roar's top football writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Related coverage
Should penalties decide football matches?
It is an age-old question and one I pondered with a friend while reflecting on that night in November 2005 and the impact a penalty shoot out had on the development of the game in this country. One thing’s for sure had we lost that shoot out, there would have been a far greater amount [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(115)
Savvas Tzionis said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
One simple answer would be to get rid of (or minimalise) knock out competitions.
For instance in the World Cup you would have the following scenario….
First stage
32 teams into 8 groups. (48 games)
But only the first placed teams go through into 2 groups of 4. (12 games)
And at the end of thiis 2nd stage, only the 2 winners to go straight to the final. (1 game)
This way, the finalists end up playing just as many games as they do under the current system (7 games). We don’t want the teams having to play anymore. There is always the chance of burnout.
Alternatively, we could have the 2 top placed teams in each group going into a semi-final.
In the end, you get nearly just as many games as the current system (62 v 64 or if you include semi finals, the same!!!).
All teams still get to play a minimum of 3 games.
Only the best teams survive until the 2nd stage
The group matches are cut-throat because only the 1st place team goes through. Teams must win. Draws are of less value than under the current system.
No penalty shoot outs!!!! Except for the Final. Unless they schedule a replay to lessen the chances of a penalty shoot-out.
Drawbacks
There will invariably be some dead rubbers in the 3rd round of each stage. But it is the World Cup and each nation should have enough self-respect to put in 100%.
Many more fans will leave the country after the first stage because the majority of teams will have departed. (But those remaining can more easily organize there time because they have 3 guaranteed games)
Brett McKay said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Savvas, maybe we could do away with the shoot-out and just toss a coin
(please don’t take that as a cheap shot, just my wierd take on irony…)
Adrian, I’m in the “great theatre” category, with regard to the shoot-out, and I have to admit to disappointment when rugby decided not to go ahead with the idea of using a drop-goal shoot-out to decide matches, and likewise when cricket dropped the T20 “bowl-off”.
If after a set period of time a match is deadlocked, and a result is required, then the individual skills under pressure must hold up. It’s great to watch…
dasilva said | March 31st 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
I think that there should be a penalty shootout except the world cup final. The showpiece event shouldn’t be decided by penalties. In the final have the team playing after 120 minutes with golden goal and they should play on indefinitely. It would be an epic scenario.
Chop said | March 31st 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I don’t like penalty shootouts and never have, even after being on both sides of the outcome. I think they should play another 10 mins each way and if there’s no result another 5 minutes each way with a player dropping off every two minutes until it’s 7 on 7 or a golden goal is scored.
It would be just as exciting as a penalty shootout, imagine the extra strategy in who to take off when, coaches could keep substitutes until the sudden death extra time.
Millster said | March 31st 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
I like the way Savvas is thinking in terms of minimising their use. However when it is unavoidable I also am in line with this column in thinking that they are a traditional aspect of football, and also that there is no other way.
Remember of course that penalties do not happen after 90 minutes ever. They only happen after a further 15 + 15 of extra time, so one cannot argue that other avenues for getting a result are not routinely explored (especially given that extra time is often played on tired legs and therefore with openings and errors and opportunities to score).
For me as long as they exist within a broader culture of 2-legged ties, of group stages and leagues (with victory decided over a series of games) and suchlike, then ok I have no problems with accepting them.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Millster, that is part of my rationale. Penalties are to a large extent unavoidable.
Why have we come to this point?The history of knock out tournaments until the 1970’s revealed very few draws. The World Cup had its first penalty shoot out in 1982!!! Yet, there were numerous situations where WC matches could easily have gone into countless replay’s.
I also remember the 1979 season of the English football where Arsenal and Liverpool had to replay an FA Cup match FOUR TIMES!!!
Personally, I think viewers of the World Game had it much better in the past when team’s played to win.
My disdain for penalty shoot outs is such that I go to have my early morning shower when a game reaches this point!!
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
I hate penalty shoot outs. I think it’s demeaning to the game. That the world champsionship has been decided twice by penalities out of the last four occasions (i.e. 50%), I find to be an absolute abomination.
That the beautiful game can be reduced to such a cheap circus to decide a champion is incredible.
Penalty shoot outs are not traditional.
The World Cup finals first required a penalty shoot out in 1982 (not all that long ago), i.e. they had gone 52 years without them).
That was for the memorable France vs West Germany semi final – perhaps one of the all time great games.
I watched this game live, and I confess that the shoot out was rivetting, but:
1. it was the first one I had ever seen; and
2. when the more deserving team (France) actually bowed out – it immediately taught me something I have never forgotten – penalties are not a great way of determining who the more worthy team is.
Australian Football worked out the very best way of minimising draws over 110 years ago.
That’s really at the heart of the problem for the beautiful game – and until the whole world wakes up to it – we will need artifiicial means, little side circus acts post the game proper, to separate teams – totally unacceptable!!
jaymz said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
i love the shoot outs personally, its like the saying goes “there is no better way to win a game, but there is also no worse way to loose on penalties”.
Dan said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Gotta say Pippinu has a pretty good point there… regardless of whether or not “it makes good theatre”, if ultimately it fails to reflect who was the better team, then surely it can’t be seen as either fair and thus shouldn’t be on the biggest stage.
Millster said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Pip – I would never go so far as to call an aspect of a major sport “a circus” or “demeaning”. I think everyone would prefer major games to be won by other means, of course, but they are football’s way of deciding when there is no other.
I also challenge the idea of there being a “more deserving” team when the penatly shoot out occurs. What’s to say that a team which has had more posession or more time in attack is more deserving than one which has “held the fort” for 120 minutes? They are different game plans, and aethetically one dominates the other sure enough, but who is to say which is the more deserving if both are so well executed that there is no normal-time winner?
Finally the reference to AFL was unwise and irrelevent. Its scoring system and game-play is very distant from that of football. And without meaning disrespect I think its true to say that behinds in AFL are more often subject to ridicule from outside the immediate AFL community than they are subject of consideration as a valid addition to any other sport’s scoring philosophy.
Millster said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Again, Dan, I think the issue of “better team” is highly questionable when it comes to penalties anyway.
I think anyone who knows a bit about the game sees a fixture decided on penalties quite differently in value to one decided in regular play. eg. Had France won the penalty shootout in Germany 06 rather than Italy, sure it would have been a glorious moment for Les Bleus, but one that after the euphoria subsided would not have been seen by French fans as ‘on the same level’ as the 3-0 demolition of Brazil in 1998.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Millster
I dislike the concept of penalties in determining championships – especially the World Cup – the very pinnacle of world sport – that someone can win the most important contest in world sport via a little side activity after the final whistle of the game proper is demeaning to the game.
Rather than someone winning the cup by legitimate means, it becomes a means of handing the cup to someone because, well, we have to hand it to someone!
You yourself have argued in the last line why we should avoid handing out the WC in such a manner – it’s less legitimate – it is of lesser value!
You are correct that the concept of behinds are ridiculed by many – but I see it as the flip side of the coin to having a side activity after the game itself to determine a winner – how anyone can argue the latter is better is beyond me.
Australian Football introduced the concept of behinds at a time when it was as low scoring, perhaps more so, than Associaion Football – and the forefathers of the game understood even then that it was preferable to limit draws (not eliminate them entirely, but just limit their quantum).
We have a situation where we probably no longer need behinds (but they are now a set part of the game); conversely, Association Football’s scoring rate has diminished even further the last half century alone – to the extent where we better get used to seeing the World Championship being decided two out of three occasions by penalties.
If anyone thinks that’s healthy – good luck to you!
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Interestingly, playing FM, whenever there’s a prospect of a penalty shoot-out, I groan!! I will generally go out all attack to either win the game or lose it – I don’t want to sit through a penalty shoot out!! (if it happens, I’ll up and go do something else for 10 minutes, and return and see what happened).
If all managers had this philosophy of going for broke in ET – we’d probably have far fewer penalty shoot outs.
But the opposite is true.
Check the stats from the 1970s and the 1980s, and far, far more goals used to be scored in ET than occurs these days.
The reason? Many managers are happy to go for the 50/50 charade of a shoot out, than actually take a risk in winning the game in ET.
It’s an abslute blight on the game, and it’s likely to get worse.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Pip – What does this mean? “Australian Football worked out the very best way of minimising draws over 110 years ago.”
You don’t need to bring another code with a completely different scoring system into this discussion.
Considering you have seen so much football, why then do you still need to view the game through an AFL prism.
The world does not need waking up… you should wake up to yourself.
You also need to remember the more desreving team can lose in 90 minutes. That’s the beauty of football.
In regards to the France – Germany game in ‘82.
Schumacher gave one of the greatest shirtfronts in sporting history, leaving Patrick Battiston with damaged veterbrae and a few missing teeth. No red card, no foul. Pretty amazing.
The Germans still had to come back from 3 – 1 down in extra time to take the game to penalties.
Check out the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3byTNRoxujo
In regards to penalty shootouts – Adrian, you asked the question and you correctly answered it yourself.
Brian said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Its hard to argue with the theatre of the shoot-out. Having also taken penalties (at a very low suburban level of course) I can say there is nothing as nerve-racking in the sporting environment. I honestly never got hot-headed or nervous playing amatuer soccer except on the rare occassion of penalties when you have the time to realise that all the efforts and sacrifices made on the day are down to you. Its a unique and beautiful thing which happens in few other sports (A No 11 surviving the last over perhaps). I can only imagine the thoughts of a John Aloisi as he steps up to take a kick that shapes his entire career, and even possibly his life.
Having said all that my problem with penalties is that they are not enuogh of a russion roulette. The Germans are experts and too often I have felt they are happy to play for them. I think taking players off is worthwhile provided teams don’t become experts at that and start playing for it. You need to be careful you don’t have a final where a young team plays the 2nd half for a 0-0 waiting for the 7 on 7 fitness bonanza. If that works ok than a team winning on fitness is better than the penalty shoot-out setup
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Art
I don’t need to check out the vid – the game is seered into my memory banks.
I like to explore concepts, apply different ideas across different codes (I stick to soccer and aussie rules because they are the two I know best).
When the VFL broke away from the VFA in 1896 – only goals used to count towards the final score, and it was common to have nil-all, on-all and two-all results (as it is today in the World Game).
From 1897 onwards, they decided to introduce behinds into the scoring system, with the value of one point (compared to six points for a goal) – and thus to this day, you’ll probably find an average of around one drawn game per annum (I’ve known rare instances of three drawn games in one season, conversely we can go two or three years without a drawn game).
In 110 grand finals played, there have only ever been two draws.
Now it’s very easy to ridicule the concept of giving a point for a near-miss, but it has achieved what the forefathers intended, to reduce the quantum of draws, meaning also that the most important games each year are determined on the field of play – and I will argue always that that is preferable to determining the winner outside of the field of play.
Now – I admit that there are times when we have to conclude that the game is what it is, and that’s just the way it will always be.
But I would not say that is the case with the penalty shoot out at all because in fact it has virtually no tradition in the game – so it’s impossible for anyone to argue that it is part and parcel of the game – it is not.
Therefore, it’s quite ok to explore different ideas for breaking a deadlock while actually playing the game.
The late Johnny Warren was no fan of the shoot out either, and I am aware that he too had previously advocated the concept of reducing numbers with each successive period of ET (and there would be a multitude of variations on this concept).
StiflersMom said | March 31st 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
I’d prefer to lose to a penalty shoot out then have some nut case interupt proceedings and the Aussie teams fluency by running on to the pitch and destroying the nets.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Art and Pip -
ARt, Pip, as he has explained, in comparing the Australian Football scenario circa 1897 IS INFACT comparing very similar scoring systems.
You need to separate AFL 2009 from VFL/VFA 1897. Do that as a sporting academic exercise, rather than a code vs code modern pub argument.
The context is simple, and was an issue for Rugby too.
If NOT enough goals are scored. Such that too often there’s a draw and too often there’s a nil all draw, then – what do you do??
Alternative scoring mechanisms or post match ’shoot out/play off’ and in amongsth that any combination of pre match seedings (in tournaments? FIFA WC could use this) and extra time.
Rugby used to only award points for goals. Try’s were NOT a point scoring mechanism. They then effectively allowed a count back if goals level based on trys, and then trys got a real time point value and now we have the situation where trys are actually worth more than a goal and in RL a goal is effectively just a consolation (the conversion) or a last resort (field goal). This shows the danger of unregulated change or – - – was it agenda driven change to become MORE distinct from soccer????
Aust Football – had actually for a period tallied the ‘behinds’ but NOT used them in determining a winner (ball behind the goal post and inside the kick off posts – - i.e. similarly marked kick off area to soccer – - back in those days).
It then came to pass that the behinds got added in real time (but at 1/6th the value of a goal). This is significant. It allows the prospect of kicking more goals and still losing. I could easily see an argument win that the most goals should always win and only count back the behinds should goals be level to determine a winner. This I reckon would be a required notion for soccer.
So – I’d suggest, only split level scores on count back :
The rugby equivalent in soccer might be to suggest that the team with the most ‘trys’ (shots on goal) should win on count back.
The AFL equivalent in soccer might be to suggest that the team with the most ‘corners’ earned in side the kick off area would win on count back.
Again – this is looking at it all from the perspective of somewhere around 1890-1900. All games have change a tad since then (other than soccer, oh – - except for the passive off side and the penalty shoot out!!!)
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Pip- you might not need to see the link.
Btut to everyone else who has not seen it before, you will marvel at the one of the greatest refereeing blunder’s in history.
So thanks for bringing that game up.
In regards to your obsession with cross-pollinating codes. I am glad its just limited to your imagination.
So what, if the VFL introduced behind post 110 years ago in their own local code.
It seems to me as if you don’t like draws more than anything else and if you don’t like draws,
how on earth can you like and appreciate football?
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
I hate penalties, especially after listening to Roma loose out to Arsenal
Personally I would rather there be no penalties at all. The teams keep playing until someone scores a golden goal. If this then buggers your team out for the next round, tuff, you should have played with more attacking intent in the first place. This would then reward teams who go out to score goals. If it does go to extra time then why would you set up to just defend. In the context of the tournament it would be a disaster to hold out for two hours hoping to get one on the counter attack (Unless, I guess if a team only wants to make it to the next round). If a team scores early in extra time then it won’t be such a drain on them for the next game, hence rewarding them for the ability to score.
I don’t hold that penalties hold any more drama then golden goal. I also don’t expect this to ever be implemented because counties that don’t want to push forward will whinge like they have done before to make it easier for them to compete.
I would rather the system be set up to reward teams who can score goals in normal time. The suggestion of Dropping a player ever 5 mins would be a good compromise.
Albert Ross said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Art
>>You don’t need to bring another code with a completely different scoring system into this discussion.
Pip has a need to do that… he doesn’t actually like football. He only pretends to then then having created a straw man, knocks it down.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Michael C – I will answer your question for you.
“If NOT enough goals are scored. Such that too often there’s a draw and too often there’s a nil all draw, then – what do you do??”
NOTHING!!
This thread has nothing to do with scoring systems.
Its to do with penaly shoot outs. In which I am an advocate.
Now go away to AFL land and take Pip with you, unless you can make a comment without having to bring AFL into it.
Brian Munich said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
The most common alternative to penalty shootouts appears to be the “last man standing” scenario where players are progressively dragged from the field until there’s a score. I’m a little bemused as to why FIFA has never to my knowledge trialled this in under-age tournaments.
I can see only two reasons FIFA wouldn’t give this a go. They might consider the prospect of an abnormal number of players on a full-sized pitch (eg. 6 against 6) somehow devalues or detracts from the purity of the game. Or from a commercial perspective maybe they figure that an undefined end to the game provides less certainty for TV schedules. I wouldn’t actually buy that – penalty shootouts are uncertain although maybe slightly better defined in length.
I haven’t heard any decent alternative apart from this, and suspect that the shootout has become entrenched as an unsatisfactory but now maybe permanent part of the game. The Steaua Bucharest – Barcelona European Cup final in 1986 was the worst example I could remember of a team (Steaua) in fear of its opposition (Barca) and playing for a 0-0 draw for the entire 120 minutes and receiving its “reward” during the shootout.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire -
it has everything to do with scoring systems. The use of penalties to decide a result in a knock out match is entirely an issue because about 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 soccer matches ends in a draw. The number of goals invariably is not great. The negative (defensive) nature of the game can encourage some teams to back their chances in a penalty shoot out rather than validly trying to win the game in regular time.
Now – where here does it say that only ardent fans of soccer can comment on penalty shoot outs??
Your inability to talk conceptually with relation to examples from other codes is a shame. Sadly, all too many soccer folk are myopically restricted in a single sport silo mentality.
This probably means that you’ll be able to rehash this particular article about this time every year as discussion filler – - as, it’s probably seen as a never will be settled issue but allows for much naval gazing in the mean time.
Fluff.
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
TV schedules would seem to be the over riding reason why penalties continue to be used.
Brian said | March 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Rellum the problem with your suggestion is that it further disadvantages teams that get a tough draw. Taking 2006 as an example its unfair for Germany and Argentina to play for 300 minutes and the winner to take on Italy who beat Ukraine.
On a side note one thing that has always bewildered me is why teams don’t take penalties after drawing a friendly international? Surely the practice in front of a crowd would be handy for the players come WC time, the fans at the stadium get to see a winner, and the supporters of the losing team forget it about it a week later anyway. Even the club coaches couldn’t complain about the extra few minutes a shoot-out consumes.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Rellum
I think you’re right about the TV schedules.
As recently as 1982, FIFA actually had a replay date set into the WC scheduling in case of a draw, i.e. only 28 years ago, a penalty shoot out WAS NOT the preferred means of breaking a deadlock in the most important game on the calendar.
Replays of WC games were common in the 1930s, and maybe even in the 50s (although ET had already been used to separate a WC winner as far back as either 1934 or 1938), i.e. before the importance of TV emerged.
To those who are saying that we are discussing the concept of penalty shoot-outs and not the propensity of draws in the world game – are you guys for real??
If anyone here thinks the two aren’t tightly connected, then I think you are living in some sort of la la land. One most surely follows the other like night follows day, and this is one instance where we definitely know from whence one comes.
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I agree with you Brian. I guess my point is that the penalty shoot out provides a safety net for teams to scared o attack.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Rellum -
agreed.
Brian -
on your point – re the number of minutes played – - the 2006 FIFA WC held interesting stats on actual play time – - with the average ‘actual play time’ being 55 mins (from 90) in the 48 first round matches of the tournament. THe mininum was match 48, Ukraine over Tunisia, 1:0, with 47 mins actual playing time. The maximum was 69 mins.
The example here, even BEFORE you factor in extra time, unlimited golden goal extra time and or penalty shoot outs – you’ve already got a situation relative to time accounting during matches where by in those 3 first round pool games of FIFA WC 2006, that Brazil and Japan were averaging 61 mins of actual playing time. Compared to Ghana & Paraguay at 51 mins each.
For interest, Australia were at 60 mins. So, the ball was ‘alive’ for a pretty good ratio of Socceroos matches.
When you talk about the impact over a tournament, even before you factor in the knock out games in the group of 16, you already have teams who have perhaps successfully wasted half an hour of match time compared to their opposition. It may not sound like much, but, when this carries into the group of 16 and extra time factors enter into it as well. I just reckon, and I wonder where FIFA was thinking about going with this ‘actual play time’ stat – - but, there might be thoughts to greater accountability about a minimum duration of actual play time, and that, might actually play a role in making it harder for teams to just attempt to kill the contest and play for a penalty shoot out?????
Dan said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
have to say I don’t know why Art is getting so upset with Pip… he brings a perfectly valid point that he keeps avoiding: that penalty shoot outs are NOT a traditional aspect of the game and therefore are fair game to be tampered with. Has anyone ever considered simply removing the goalies after ET? Or even perhaps once it hits extra time. Surely that would be less damaging to the essence of the sport than removing virtually the whole team from the field for what is essentially a raffle result. In any case it seems as though FIFA has little imagination on the subject and the very fact that penalty shoot outs were the best they could do suggests simply getting a result was all they cared about.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Brian – this is why I am an advocate of shoot-outs.
Football’s beauty is in its cruelty. Its the human condition writ large on the playing field.
For example, a team can dominate a game and lose to a lucky goal.
The same can apply to a drawn game thats goes to penalties.
Barca with their star studded line up had 120 minutes to win the final against a weaker side Steaua, but they didn’t.
Another example, a team is reduced to 10 men in a final. They play for half the game with 10 men.
A penalty shoot out should at least be the recognition for holding out a team that had a numerical advantage.
Finally, in terms of theatre nothing beats it. I was there when we qualified for the WC in 2005 and nothing in my sporting life came close to the drama that unfolded in that shoot out. And if we had lost, I would still be an advocate of penalty shoot outs. Because, as I said before life can be cruel sometimes.
Penalty shoot outs are here to stay.
They are an epilogue to a great drama and in it we will find the victor and the vanquished.
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Michael C,
I believe that the ‘actual play time’ is used to determine the injury time added to the end of each half. The goal is to have roughly 60 mins of the ball in play.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Art
very eloquent words indeed.
For 2006 we could have flipped a coin behind the shelter sheds and I would have been wrapt that we were going to the world cup – that’s the bit we were truly celebrating.
I wonder how people will feel if there comes a time when one WC final after the other is decided on penalties? (which is where we are rapidly heading)
I might one day turn to the bloke next to me and ask: can you remind me what this game is about again? When did penalties become the pinnacle of the game? The sole determinant of who was good at it and who wasn’t? Should we shorten the name of the game to: Pens?
Dan said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Art,
Going by your logic there, wouldn’t it be better to ditch the penalty shoot-out in favour of a simple coin flip? That would be truly unfair and thus mirror “the cruelty of the human condition” as you put it.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Rellum -
any idea if there’s much actual ’science’ in that time accounting or not? It often seems just a tad arbitary? Does the ref have a dual function watch, i.e. with 45 mins countdown plus one that is time on/time off count of ‘play time’ elapsed?? Or does he refer to anyone else?
Dan -
one thing that penalty shoot outs provide is ‘the moment’ for the purpose of TV news coverage. That one shot by John Aloisi is ‘his’ career defining ‘moment’. Be it fair or not. It does make good succinct news product.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
MC
I agree with what you’re saying about the ease with which the “moment” is forever captured.
And yet, the most important part of Australia’s qualification back in late 2005 was the 210 odd minutes that we played Uruguay.
And this is precisely where I am coming from – the rewards should rest with who performs best on the field during the actual game – all this talk about “theater” serves to reduce the importance of the actual game – the bit we’re meant to be watching, enjoying and appreciating. The game people, the game!!
On the quite separate question of refs and time keeping, a 442 colleague of mine recently wrote about the modern tendency to reduce all injury time in games to an automatic one minute for the first half and three minutes for the 2nd half.
He argues that an unwritten rule has developed out of nowhere that has become the “1 + 3″ rule.
Has anyone else noticed this development? I admit that I haven’t at all.
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
I think most refs have two watches. Well I have notice they do recently.
That stat is what they are supposed to use to adjudicate on injury time. And I believe that the fourth official is supposed to have a say in final injury time number as well. In reality it seems that most games have 1-3 minutes of injury time in the first half and 3-5 in the second so who knows how they really come up with it. I have rarely seen a game with more injury time in the first half than the second.
Back on topic, I would love to see at least the World Cup final be a play until there is a winner. It is the pinnacle of the sport. Savvas has some good idea’s. I worries me that the current 32 team format is becoming entrenched.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Rellum -
thankyou very much for answer my questions – given that I’m still pretty well a soccer novice and more interested from the perspective of the ‘football family’ of codes than the ‘love of the game’.
You’re patience and good manners are noted!! (back to work now!!)
Albert Ross said | March 31st 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Did the GAA come up with minor scores for GF and Hurling before or after the VFL/AFL?
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
“the rewards should rest with who performs best on the field during the actual game” Pip proclaims
How do you define that?
Imagine if Millwall and Man U were locked 0-0 in the FA Cup Final after 120 minutes.
In that game Man U had 25 shots on goal to Milwall’s 5.
The minnow, could not score but they heroically held the giants to a draw. So who performed best there Pip?
Do we give Man U the trophy simply because they had more of the play and more shots for goal?
In the old days there would have been a replay, but this is not feasible now.
And in modern football tornaments like the WC and Euro even more so.
Now here is a history lesson.
In Euro 1968. For the first and only time a match was decided on a coin toss (the semi-final against the Soviet Union) and the final went to a replay, after the match against Yugoslavia finished 1-1. Italy won the replay 2-0.
The penalty shoot out was introduced in Euro 1976. Czechoslovakia beat West Germany in the final with Antonín Panenka’s famous chipped shot.
Check out the famous goal – what a way to beat the Germans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1Hr96IenI
Dan – my logic says that there is 120 minutes of football for everyone to enjoy.
But if we need a result, a penalty shoot out is better than a flip of the coin.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Art
how do we define the best on the field?
If we want to talk about tradition – then the traditional way, right back to 1863, is to determine the winner by whoever scores more goals.
The logical extension of that is to come up with a means that enables teams to do that on the field, somehow, without resorting to a secondary activity (and to me, that’s what the shoot out represents, a secondary, subordinate, inferior competition/game).
Millster said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Art I think is right. The whole point about getting to a penalty shootout is that there HASN’T been a better team on the day. Sure one team may have attacked more and the other defended, but if the scores are even, neither of these is better.
Actually I think far too many sports are focused on producing a winner at all costs when teams are in fact more or less even. If a team wins an AFL match by one point out of 200-odd scored in total throughout the game, surely that’s idiotic and the real result in everyone’s heart should be that the teams were even…
Also lets not go too far in assuming the penalty shoot-out to be a coin toss or something automatic. I challenge any of you to line up the ball on the dot, take a breath, and in front of 100000 live fans and perhaps 2 billion watching on TV score against a Buffon, and Oliver Khan or suchlike. I agree that its a totally different contest to open play. But it is a contest nontheless and involves a mountain of skill and psychology on the parts of both the shooters and the goalies involved.
But bottom line for me is its part of the game and that’s just it. Just as the line-out in rugby may be bizarre and questionable to some, the centre bounce in AFL to others, and the LBW rule in cricket to others again, so is the penalty shoot-out one of the quirks of football.
Oh, one final thought. Lets also differentiate between a dour 120 minute defensive nil-all draw and then a penalty shoot-out after an exciting score draw. Who would deny Liverpool’s UCL win over AC Milan when they clawed their way back from 3-0 down at half time to a position where they could win the championship on penalties… (at a far lesser but similarly exciting/tragic level for the fans involved, many would remember the similar situation in the 99/00 NSL grand final between Wollongong Wolves and Perth Glory)
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
AR -
in the traditional form of Gaelic football, they have the x- bar with 3 pts for an ‘under’ and 1 pt for an ‘over’.
In the INternational Rules variant, there’s 6 pts for an ‘under’, 3 for an ‘over’ and 1 for a ‘behind’.
So, the ‘minor’ score scenario of overs vs the major score the ‘under’, I assume that goes back at least to the 1887 codification.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Millster -
too true re the quirks of the game. If they were all the same, then, why bother. THat’s the interesting thing across Rugby U, Rugby L, Aust Footy and Soccer – all approached the same conceptual problem and came away with a different work around.
Nothing REALLY is to say which is the better, more logical, fairer etc.
btw – I’ve always said, I’d rather lose an Aust Footy game by 5 goals or more than by 1 pt. That said, I can certainly relate to the soccer sentiment of nothing better than winning on penalties and nothing worse than losing in said fashion.
Albert Ross said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Did the VFL/AFL borrow the idea of minor scores from GAA?
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
I don’t need to define whose is best on field, Pip.
I asked you a question based on your flawed logic and you could not answer it.
I will repeat the question.
Imagine if Millwall and Man U were locked 0-0 in the FA Cup Final after 120 minutes.
In that game Man U had 25 shots on goal to Milwall’s 5.
The minnow, could not score but they heroically held the giants to a draw. So who performed best there Pip?
Do we give Man U the trophy simply because they had more of the play and more shots for goal?
In your black and white world, Pip, the best on field has to pick up the trophy.
How many times do you need to be told – the best team does not always win in football. Even in 90 minutes.
Now, if you can’t get your head around such a simple concept you should stick to AFL.
Plus I did not bring up tradition, you are the one is stuck in the 19th century with all the other AFL luddites who can’t accept the game of football has become the world game.
AlI I did was mention the coin tossing incident and the introduction of shoot outs.
I am sure some people would appeciate the info.
Now if you saw the video, you could appreciate the skill, nerve and technique to pull off such a shot to win the first ever final decided by a shoot out.
Michael C said | March 31st 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
AR -
that’s actually a good question.
if you don’t mind, I was planning either an article specifically on ‘behinds in AFL, not Cappers’, or ‘Minor scoring for major results’,
we can discuss more fully then.
cheers
Rellum said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Michael C
No probs
Just to play devils advocate, here is a radical idea.
If two teams can’t be separated after normal time (or extra time) then both teams should be eliminated.
The notion behind this idea is that if you can’t beat your opposition then why should you proceed in the competition. Now I don’t personally think this should happen, and it would make it near impossible to sell it as a sporting spectacle, but on pure sporting terms why should a team progress if it can’t win.
The whole thing is basically impossible to fix with the current tournament setup. I would love FIFA to at least try the removal of players during extra time in the upcoming U20 world cup to see if it would work.
dasilva said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Art
What’s pip arguing is the best on field is the team that score the most goals on the day. Not whose dominating etc.
Therefore if the team is deadlock at 120 minutes. There must be a system that involves scoring more goals in open play to break the deadlock and not reduce to penalty shootouts.
Having golden goals after 120 minutes playing indefinitely is probably the answer to your question. If Millwall score a goal against the run of play in one of very few chances they have in the match after being dominated possession wise then they deserve to win. If they won due to a penalty shootout then they do not deserve to win.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Art
for 60 years the WC did not need the artifice of a shoot-out to determine its world champion (i.e. a team was able to do what the game requires of the winning team to achieve on the field of play), and now we have needed it two times out of the last four WCs.
If that trend continues, then the WC becomes diminished as a consequence (as Millster has said, the victor by means of a shoot-out will always be viewed in a lesser light than that who achieved it within the field of play).
If people think that is a healthy development, good luck to them.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Das
thank you – that is precisely what I am trying to say!!
Albert Ross said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
>>In your black and white world, Pip,
I rather think it’s “old dark navy Blues” actually
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
neither
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Yes – it’s this increasing trend that is the real issue in my mind.
As I said, back in 1982 I was rivetted by the pen shoot out between France and W Germany – but:
1. it was the first one I had ever seen; and
2. it came off the back of the most incredible game you’d ever want to see – so at the end of it, with both players and spectators exhausted (me having been up for about 3 hours since 4 am), it seemed the most humane way to go about it.
My problem these days is that:
1. they are far, far too frequent (and thus, have become an absolute bore as a consequence); and, most importantly
2. hardly anyone tries to win in ET anymore – check the stats – hardly anyone scores in ET these days!!
Now – if we had a situation where teams were actually trying to win the game (like France and W Germany tried to do), you’d think: ok, fair enough, last resort…
But we don’t have that at all – virtually everyone plays for penalties these days – and the actual game is nearly always forgettable.
That’s perhaps my biggest beef about penalties.
In the modern era it has effectively diminished the game – at times almost made the game secondary.
I put it to you that the game itself should not be secondary – it’s actually about the game first and foremost.
Pippinu said | March 31st 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
I’ve become quite accustomed to people throwing around the ol”: “yeh, but you’re not a true football fan” line as there main argument.
It seems a strange thing to say of someone who writes for 442.
But anyway – in this context, it’s actually a perverse argument – to suggest that someone may not be into penalties because they are not a true football fan??!! Surely the opposite can only be true!!
Consider:
In 1994, when the WC was hosted in a country that didn’t give a damn about the game, one thing a large slice of the population was a bit keen on was this idea of penalty shoot outs.
In other words, rather than being an event fit for the afficionado of the game – it’s the exact opposite! It satisfies those who know little about the game, the theatre goers, those after cheap thrills – it most certainly has nothing to do with the traditions of the game!!
Tifosi said | March 31st 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Penalties are great theatre but i agree it doesnt do much for the game. Watched Australia beat uruguay live at ANZ stadium, great moment, would have sucked if Australia lost though.
Unfortunately the low scoring nature of football means that sometimes penalties are required. You cant play forever and TV deals dictate the need to have a definite start/finish time.
Unless you do something radical like give 3 points for a goal scored outside the box 2 for a normal goal and say 1 for hitting the post, it will always lead to situations where penalties might be required.
My biggest problem is when teams actively seek out the penalty shoot-out knowing its the safer option.
TahDan said | March 31st 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Art,
“Dan – my logic says that there is 120 minutes of football for everyone to enjoy.
But if we need a result, a penalty shoot out is better than a flip of the coin.”
You still haven’t explained to me why alternative options are inferior to the shoot-out. As I said, what’s wrong with removing the goalies once it hits extra time? Surely that would force more people to the back and open the field up more for attack.
Midfielder said | March 31st 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Tifosi
LOL there the AFL rules…
Back on topic with the various media deals mean most games need a finishing point… nand remember when the playersw finish playing in the WC most go straigh back to their own clubs and start pre season games.. A fact not well understood is the players would play in the WC often give up the only holiday to play in it.
Tifosi said | March 31st 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
All the other football codes have more than one way of scoring points. I think gaelic football has a scoring structure where you get 3 points for scoring a goal and 1 for a goal over the cross bar. Maybe football needs to have that sort of scoring. If still tied at full time you could have Golden point so to speak.
Personally though i like the scoring in football. Too much scoring leads to blowouts ( Carlton v Richmond anyone?) and little interest in the game. Football at least has that closeness in it.
Close contests are what makes games great, who could forget the Sydney Swans v West coast grand finals, great drama.
But unless you make the scoring easy enough so that goals are easy to come by, football will always have the need for some sort of tiebreaker. Maybe make the goals twice as big!!!!!!!!!!
dasilva said | March 31st 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
I think penalties are a necessary evil.
TV scheduling requires a set time and therefore need to know when the match is finish. Also tough schedule for players may make extending the match beyond 120 minutes too difficult for the players.
However the world cup final needs to be an exception as a penalty shootout determining the show piece event is a joke. There’s no way TV company would refuse to show the world cup final if it goes too long. There’s no way the players will complain and I’m quite sure they would be willing to fight indefinitely to win the world cup. Having the match go to golden goals and have the match go on indefinitely for the world cup final is a good idea.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
Pip – the fact that you write for 442 is a reflection of football journalism in this country.
If you thought the A-League was behind other leagues in regards to football quality,
we are not much better when it comes to football journalism.
You even needed Dasilva to come and save you when you were floundering.
“Das thank you – that is precisely what I am trying to say!!”
That’s embarassing.
And you certainly don’t read my posts. I even gave you a very brief history of the development of the penalty shootout and a link so you can appreciate the winning shot. Penalty shoot outs have been around for over 30 years.
It has nothing to do with USA 94 and where FIFA decides to play the WC finals, so why bring it up?
And since you like using the World Cups to make your points (probably because it is only football you watch)
I will try and apply your astute observation, ” virtually everyone plays for penalties these days – and the actual game is nearly always forgettable”, to the 2006 World Cup and see how it stands up.
World Cup 2006 – The following games went to extra time.
Round of 16
8 games – 2 went to Extra time.
Argentina – Mexico 2 – 1 Fantastic game – Wrong Pip
Switzerland – Ukraine 0 – 0 (Swiss won on penalties) The two worst teams to qualify for the round of 16. Terrible game.
That’s one for Pip but the game should have gone straight to penalties and spared us the preceding 120 minutes.
Quarterfinals
4 games – 2 went to extra time.
Germany 1 – Argentina 1 – (Gernans win on penalties) Fantastic game – Wrong Pip.
England 0 – Portugal 0 – (Portugal win on penalties) Dramatic, incident filled game. Ronaldo gets Rooney sent off. Loads of chances. Wrong Pip
Semi-finals
2 games – 1 went to extra time.
Germany 0 – Italy 2 – Italy win one of the most enthralling world cup matches ever by scoring 2 goals in the last 2 minutes of Extra Time. Wrong Pip.
Final and 3rd place playoff.
2 games – only the final went to extra time
Italy beat France on penalties – was the game forgettable? I don’t think so. Wrong Pip.
So there you have it all you stats freaks. 6 out of 16 knockout games went to extra time.
Of the 6, Pip’s observation ” virtually everyone plays for penalties these days – and the actual game is nearly always forgettable”, applied to only one game. I guess that leaves your observation in a shambolic heap.
You may write for 442 Pip, but that does not mean you know your football.
I suggest 442 ask Millster to write for you guys as he writes well and understands the game.
Gee, I would even consider writing for 442 if I was asked politely : )
Midfielder said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Art
Pip is a blogger for 442 and posts articles much the same as on the Roar…. I will also defend Pip through I am sure he does not need my help… But he comes from Melbourne and knows a lot about the positive side of AFl and has been raised in the AFL culture… He is caught between the game he loves … and the game and culture he understands and enjoys… also he has an unhealthy belief in all things Melbourne … like that all the refs where picking on MVFC even Obie One (Frank Lowy seeing you are new to the site) was involved in getting at MVFC.
But he does like throwing the odd comment in there … but that’s just Pip .. remember you can take the boy out of Melbourne … but …. so read his comments with this tag and you will appreciate every now and then he has something of quality (last time June 1963 )
Art as I said earlier and I think we agree that with time and media deals its a logical solution…. also agree that how you pick best on park is hard if not impossible…
Finally the great thing about football and football alone in world sport is on a given day with the right breaks, and everyone getting behind the ball … a pub team can beat a professional team we have all seen them…. I have played in a number… its the greatness of our game that if you have an off day then you can loose to a park team… that is what will make the FA style cup when it comes in Australia so great everyone has a chance to win Woy Woy pub V MVFC … Woy Woy pub has a chance.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Tah Dan – if we remove the goalies, it’s not football.
Football has had penalty shoot outs for 30 years because they don’t have the time anymore to replay games.
They even recently dabbled with golden and silver goals in extra time, but you still end up with penalties after 120 minutes and that did not last long as it was not popular and unsatisfactory. I don’t think any other alternative is workable, especially in regards to maintaining the essence of the game during match conditions.
So now, its back 120 min plus penalties if scores are still level.
Lets keep it this way for a while,
I am in no hurry to see it changed and I would think most of the world would agree with me : )
Midfielder said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
Milly & Das
You may be interested in this link http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php?s=mariners it’s the NBN link about the Mariners … BTW second story is about some new people we are looking at and trialing …. back to my point and sorry Adrain to go off topic …
The link has the Mariners history as reported by NBN and little net adds … Milly was telling us about this about 12 months ago that FTA TV networks are pod casting much of what they do into things like the above link..
Would love you feedback Milly & Das as to what you think of it not so much the link itself but the future directions … again sorry Adrain but I would also appreciate you comments as well as this is very interesting … well at least I find it so…
dasilva said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
I was pretty disappointed that they got rid of golden and silver goals.
sure the fans of the teams didn’t like it when they lost as they didn’t have time to come back from the match and coaches hated it but it hell better then the match going to penalties and I thought it was more entertaining option for the neutrals and I could imagine the tension that just one goal would finish the team off.
Art
I didn’t save Pip. I just wrote that cause I didn’t believe you understand his point he was making. It was just a mere extrapolation of his general point “If we want to talk about tradition – then the traditional way, right back to 1863, is to determine the winner by whoever scores more goals.”
Midfielder said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Art
Good point on the Gold & Silver goals… IMO they should keep playing until someone scores and just change sides of the ground every 15 minutes.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Midfielder – I am from Melbourne. I grew up watching the Bombers at Windy Hill. I still go to a few games every year.
I even played AFL in the EDFL when I was a kid as centreman. I think I should know what AFL culture is and ts place in Melbourne. I also support MVFC, a member since year 1. My passion even takes me to few away games every season.
All these facts mean nothing when it comes to having a debate about any matter. If you are going to make silly statements.
Then you need to come up with facts to support your statement. If you can’t, then don’t make them. You lose credibility.
Anyway, he can defend himself, he’s a big boy : )
In regards to your suggestion that they change side until someone scores. I appreciate your opinion but I don’t think its workable in a tournament situation as players need to get up for the next game and it will detrimental to the quality of competition. The players are punished enough for playing extra time in the first place.
Kurt said | March 31st 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
I think one of the key problems in modern sport is the lack of genuine physical danger to the participants. Therefore I propose the following approach to resolving the penalty shoot out conundrum:
If scores are level after regulation and extra time, players are randomly selected one by one for progressively more brutal forms of physical punishment. We start with beatings, then stonings, followed finally by a sniper who picks off players from the stands.
Eventually the sheer terror of the players at their horrific fate leads one to make a mistake thus allowing a goal to be scored. You can imagine the significant incentive this creates in the minds of the players to score during the game proper, plus the inevitable winnowing of defensive minded teams leads to the development of a more attacking and exciting game overall.
Dan said | March 31st 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Art,
“if we remove the goalies, it’s not football.”
Really? Removing the goalies means it’s “not football”. You’d think that if that were the case removing 85% of the players from the pitch would also render the game “not football”. 30 years is not a tradition in sporting times either, it’s a trend. Especially when one considers the game has been codified for near 150 years now.
Art Sapphire said | March 31st 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Dan – please read these sentences again in particular what I have highlighted.
Football has had penalty shoot outs for 30 years because “they don’t have the time anymore to replay games”.
I don’t think any other alternative is workable, especially in regards to maintaining the “essence” of the game during
“match conditions.” Do you understand the concept of match conditions?
What is this obsession with the 19th century with people on this thread.
In your eyes Dan, the change to the backpass rule for goalkeepers, which is a more recent innovation than the penalty shoot out, is also a trend.
dasilva said | April 1st 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
“I don’t think its workable in a tournament situation as players need to get up for the next game and it will detrimental to the quality of competition. The players are punished enough for playing extra time in the first place”
I agree
But sure they can make an exception only in the World Cup final. In fact that’s what Sepp Blatter was planning to do and was hinting of an extended golden goal extra time removing players after a couple of minutes solely for the Final only. However for some reasons that seem to fall out of the radar after suggestion from Sepp Blatter himself (like many other good suggestion like forcing players to stay out of the pitch for 5 minutes if they have an “injuries” etc).
The players will not have to get up for the next game for a long while as it will be the last game of the season. I’m quite sure the players are willing to tough it out to win the world cup. TV company may complain about it but the world cup final is a big enough event for the complaint to be fairly insignificant.
dasilva said | April 1st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Midfielder
I’m not to sure what to make of the vodcast. Do they broadcast those video on news on television as well? It seems to me if that was the only media attention was through vodcast I think it shows that they think that people interested in the mariners are more likely to be small fringe group rather then the mainstream audience. Internet news is good if you are interested in a topic and actively seeking out news for a topic (that’s why most football fans in Australia rely on the internet as jesse fink wrote about) but less good for spreading out information to the mainstream audience.
Pippinu said | April 1st 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Art
If we remove the goalies, that’s not football – fair enough.
But I have been arguing that penalty shoot outs are not football either.
I’m in favour of the world champion being decided on the basis of the actual game – and not a side activity that has become entrenched in the modern era simply because it appeals to theatre goers.
I agree 100% with Das – it’s a joke that we would hand out the most prestigious trophy in world sport (by a considerable margin) on the basis of an activity conducted OUTSIDE OF THE GAME ITSELF.
Some might think that’s the most natural thing in the world – and I think it’s the exact opposite!
Also – it’s logical that we use the WC as a reference point because that is the game’s showpiece, and it is here where the idiocy of the penalty shoot out is emphasised, for two reasons:
1. the trend from 1930 to the modern era, and from 1982 in particular, stands out quite starkly (and it is this trend that the game should be trying to reverse); and
2. as mentioned – the world champion should be determined on the basis of playing the game itself, and not a secondary activity – that diminishes the presitge of the trophy itself.
Personally, six of 16 games is verging on too many going to ET (once again, it’s the trend over the last 24 years that is the real issue).
I agree that Italy v W Germany and Argentina v Mexico (that one especially) were excellent games.
I have serious doubts, though, about Portugal v England and the final itself – where I think this lack of motivation for scoring in ET was quite evident.
And I repeat again that that is one of my major beefs about the whole penalty shoot out business is that it becomes quite common for teams to hang on for penalties (and take 50/50 pot luck), than take a chance and try and score during ET. This trend is evident and observable and should be discouraged.
In fact, once we move away from the WC, the trend to not try and score during ET becomes even more evident and observable.
Both you and Millster only need ask and I can ask the online editor whether he would be happy to replace me with either of you – the job should always go to the best person.
Midfielder said | April 1st 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Das
No its a collection of items they run on FTA TV but collected in one area under a common heading.
Albert Ross said | April 1st 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Jeez a post from Pip in a football thread and not one mention of AFL… is this a record?
Pippinu said | April 1st 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
This is the future:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article5993260.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
Fergie’s comments on developments in game strategies is worth a look (he says it’s new to him, but I would have thought that when Ronaldo is on song – that’s precisely what Man Utd do).
Michael C said | April 1st 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
re Tifosi and Das
Das – what’s the history of these Gold and Silver goals??
Tifosi -
I’ve commented before that MY main problem with soccer (and for that matter those who stake a claim as the 1 true ‘football’) is that a goal is ANYTHING at all that get’s over the line into the onion bag. There’s no ‘definition’ of a goal. No technical definition that protects the value of a true strike vs anything else.
The AFL example is that the rules of the game provide a specific value to a kick, either via only a clean kick can be ‘marked’, and ONLY a clean kick by the attacking team can score a goal.
I do like the nab cup super goal – - and that’s very much like the 3 pointer in basketball.
Part of the logic of the 3 pointer in basketball is to break up the defence from simply suffocating the key area.
I agree in soccer – 3 pts for a goal outside a certain ‘marked zone’, 2 points for a regular goal and 1 point for anything deflected other than off an attackers head or below the knee of an attacker.
HOwever, I see the dilemma if ‘own goals’ are only worth 1, that you’d still just park the proverbial bus in front of goals. Soccer is a bit of a hard nut on this front.
I still reckon though, some form of varied scoring plus potential count back on ’short’ corners should goals be level at full time – - that way, you’d have the excitement of teams NOT being able to just score and then defend to the death because the danger would be that should they concede – they risk not a draw, but a loss – - – key being, soccer presently, like netball, accumulates scores in 1s. It’s binary. 0 or 1. You don’t get a change of ‘leader’ with scores. Other sports offer this, although, again, the goal only stable of sports including hockey etc don’t.
Pippinu said | April 1st 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
I favour trying to get a result actually playing the game, with minimal changes (the one player off every 15 minutes idea is certainly worth playing around with, perhaps coupled with the capacity to utilise more than three subs after 90 minutes – maybe extending the use of subs is all that is needed, giving managers the capacity to spring a surprise, afterall, we are talking about breaking deadlocks)
Count backs of things like corners introduces its own problems, such as encouraging teams to win soft corners, making bee lines to the corner flags etc – it’s already an unsavoury part of the game and it’s something that should not be encouraged further.
Similarly, radical changes with the scoring are never going to fly (not to mention that a screamer from 30 m is not necessarily better than a goal that ultimately allows a tap in from one metre – even though the modern audience appears to think otherwise).
This is why – allow me to use the NAB cup as an illustration.
While I don’t mind the concept of the super goal, I hate seeing the additional number in the scoring, because all our lives we are tuned to seeing the pattern gg-bb-ppp, etc – and changing it just messes around with your mind.
The same would go with a world wide audience very much tuned into the current and age old simplicity of the score line – anything radically different would not be acceptable, full stop.
So whatever happens, it has to be utilising what we have as much as is possible, without introducing incentives to do things that are even more perverse than playing out time for a 50/50 shot at glory.
Reducing numbers on the field, extending subs after 90 minutes, etc, these are all ideas that are worth exploring which do not interfere too drastically with the game itself.
It should all be about producing a winner from actually playing the game. I don’t think too many people would disagree with that basic starting point.
Art Sapphire said | April 1st 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Pip – its quite evident that we disagree on this issue.
That’s fine, I don’t have a problem with that or with anyone who disagrees with me.
Why else would I want to post things on this site.
The problem I have is that you view the world through AFL tinted glasses, but you claim to be a football writer.
Everyone who comes on to this forum can quite clearly see this.
What you have, Pip, is called an AFL Oedipal complex.
You try to wean yourself off mother’s milk to embrace football, but its so hard that you end up becoming the “self hating football fan” always in mother’s shadow.
Good on you for writing MVFC posts on 442. I don’t want you to be replaced.
You have a passion for MVFC and you have been given the opportunity to express it in a creative way. Fantastic.
But, if you want to be seen as a respected football writer whose opinions matter then try taking off the AFL glasses off.
Otherwise, you will just be seen as a passionate MVFC fan who can put a few sentences together.
If you still need help after taking the glasses off, I recommend a visit to Dr Freud’s clinic in Vienna.
They might have no idea what AFL is over there but they will now how to treat the problem. : )
Michael C said | April 1st 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Pip -
the thing I look at is the Rugby codes where they just present the total score, made up of tries, conversion goals, field goals and penalty goals. That’s potentially 4 columns. But, they don’t go in for that. It’s the total score that counts.
We Aust Footy folk can get a little too focus on the G.B.P break down quarter by quarter (although, it can give a pretty quick guide to the flow of the game).
re soccer – reducing players, a bit like converting a Rugby Super 14 game to a 7s game to break the dead lock. I know not a direct jump from 15 to 7. But, in soccer, you already got to a reduced side arrangement of 6. i.e. the 5 penalty takes plus the goalie – - fair enough, if still level you keep going until a result is achieved. So, revert directly to a 5 on 5 plus goalies?
Allow interchange during this reduced numbers period??
re the corners count back – perhaps introduce like hockey, a ’short corner’, and have these only for ‘close’ corner generation events such as inside the bounds of the kick off square, or perhaps ONLY if deflected off the goalie do you get a short corner and add 1 to the potential count back tally.
It’d make the goalie even more crucial and perhaps encourage greater attempts to take the ball cleanly rather than just deflecting to concede a ‘long corner’.
Millster said | April 1st 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Art – with a wry grin to your suggestion that I’d wrtie for 442 I think that would be silly as you’d soon get bored with my incessant worship of Paris Saint Germain. At least as a humble blogger I can get cut down here whereas with a colum of my own… watch out! For the record I think Pip does a mighty fine job and while we have our points of disagreement, and I also think like all Melbournites he is sadly misguided, I like his writing.
I do agree with the general point that some of the most active writers here seem to inject AFL into each and every conversation. I see far less ‘interference’ in unrelated topics from supporters of either of the Rugby codes.
Millster said | April 1st 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Middy – on the NBN example I think this is a topic in itself and one of great interest. Far to big to hijack this thread with but if you start a fresh discussion yes I’ll contribute.
Millster said | April 1st 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
On the main topic can I suggest that the away-goals rule in 2-legged ties (a format that I think is the best devised in any sport anywhere on the planet) is a form of what MC is calling “varied scoring” to address this issue. Sure it doesn’t do so completely, but it again lessens the chance of penalties.
As an aside to MC it also lessens the incidence of the “binary” scoring that you descibe as, in a situation where the away goal is in play, one goal can often be the difference between leading the tie and losing it. Iran 1997 anyone?
Art Sapphire said | April 1st 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Millster to think that all Melburnians are misguided is a misguided observation : )
There are Melburnians who have grown up, left the AFL household and are capable of independent living and thought.
They still have a knowledge of the AFL and might even attend a few games, but they aware of its place in the grand scheme of things. They might be hard to find, but the do exist.
As a Melburnian I have had to put up with so many headcases that I should have beome a shrink.
Oedipal AFL complexes, AFL Inferiorty complexes, AFL Superiority complexes, Soccer Envy etc. etc. The list is endless.
Don’t know if PSG can win the title this season , but is an exciting race in France. Hopefully, someone can finally knock Lyon off its perch.
In regards to the topic. People can argue until the cows come home, but as I have said many times.
It is the best way to resolve a deadlock after the game has been COMPLETED and we HAVE to find a winner.
Its better than flipping a coin. E.G 1968 Euro Championship.
It has nothing to do with trends, scoring systems, statistics and any other silly constructs that are conjured up in the fevered imaginations.
At least you, a few other people on this thread and the majority of the world’s football community understand this.
Case closed. Go Socceroos!!
Pippinu said | April 1st 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Art
you are making a fair few assumptions about my background there (as to whether I went from one or the other).
Furthermore, you in return suffer from the “new fan’s” malaise of thinking you must detest everything else to be a “true” soccer fan. Try and show a bit more love.
I know both games intimately, so yes, I enjoy injecting observations tinged with Australian Football into all soccer discussions. I find it helps give a unique perspective – I prefer that to following the crowd. I try and steer clear of the usual soccer cliches: box to box; keeping/losing your shape; and all those other hackneyed descriptors that amateurs and professionals alike use over and over and over without respite.
However, I find that by injecting some lingo from Australian Football, I can utilise new, fresh, vibrant descriptors, like referring to Holman as a defensive forward (a very apt descriptor). One can either rebel at the fact that I’ve pinched an Australian Football term, or expand on the discussion as to why Holman should or should not be chosen for the Socceroos – the choice is entirely up to the poster.
Do you prefer that everyone saw things in identical terms and used predictable language?
Interestingly, with this particular issue, it has done the rounds from the UN all the way back to the pub, and back again, for a couple of decades. In no way can it be said that we are attacking the very fabric of the game by arguing against the use of pens or vice versa.
As you can see, even the “true” soccer fan does not necessarily agree with you and thinks along similar lines to myself (a traitor to the cause, willing to bring in references from that detestable game played at the arse end of the world).
Your main beef with me appears to be that I may have mentioned Australian Football once or twice. Why should that matter? Look at the strength of the argument and or the clarity of the observation made, rather than the source of the analogies I may use to illustrate a particular point.
Afterall, you, me, and maybe a dozen other people are reading – it’s not as if we have to be overly concerned about the world rejecting our credentials!
It’s just a sports blog – we’re hardly in line for a Pulitzer Prize!
past player said | April 1st 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
There is no solution to this age old drama of deciding a final – be it as it may there must be a winner on the day.
A cup final, I believe should be decided on the day and the penalty situation, although not perfect is in my opion the fairest.
The excitement generated from these shoot outs is unreal.
Yes the players are put under the utmost pressure but so are the fans – how good is that!
Forget replays and decide on the day.
Captain Random said | April 1st 2009 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
Going back to the golden goal rule, I never liked it.
What the managers were supposed to think when playing golden goal extra time: “If we score, we’re through. Let’s attack!”
What they actually thought: “If we concede, we’re out. PARK THE BUS!!!!!!”
The idea of an extra sub for extra time makes sense: longer game, more substitutions. And I agree that TV scheduling and crowded fixture lists mean that a winner has to be found on the day. However, there should be an exception for the WC Final, and possibly even for games such as the Champions League Final. It’s not like the players have more important things to do in the week after the game.
Michael C said | April 2nd 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Pip -
I checked out your link above and, I know there was the look back at soccer 20 odd years ago, and there were parallels of London to Melbourne for example, – - – but, the present ‘look’ forward was looking about ten years out of date.
Under a headline of “Football 2000”, it looked forward to the millennium and asked: what if the tired First Division was replaced by an exciting super league powered by TV money? What if stadiums were gleaming and family-friendly? How about English matches being the equal of those in Spain?
Apart from the Spain bit, we can compared directly to Melbourne and the VFL. NOT so much the NRL – partially but not entirely.
when you see current day predictions like : Other developments Roxburgh imagines include the technological: “Computer analysis of player performance, like Prozone, is available simultaneously. You will see managers on the touchline with hand-held devices, reading their data before going into the dressing room at half-time.”
I simply think “They AREN’T doing that already??” What the ‘f’ are they doing??
and on Sports Science :
“Premier League players have to be sprinters and marathon runners at the same time,” is how Professor Tom Reilly of Liverpool John Moores University describes it. Reilly was a pioneer of sports science in the 1970s. “Thirty years ago a football team would be representative of the general population. Now players are on average taller, more muscled, more linear in body shape and have body fat levels of under 10% when the average male’s is 17%.
“Because of greater monitoring and more power training from a young age, players will become even more exceptional. With some running 13-14km during games, I used to think football was getting close to the maximum in workrate terms but recent studies suggest there’s still some leeway for even higher intensity.”
Yup, again, they’re about 10 years out of date on this front too.
Perhaps some soccer folk DO spend too much time looking intraspectively within the code. And not enough time having a look outside.
anyway, an interesting read, and knowing how many AFL coaches over the years who have toured England and the US – - right now, mostly they’d comment re the soccer world illustrated up there “Nothing there for us just at the moment”. The Brit coaches might be doing a few study tours to the NFL and College circuit perhaps?
Michael C said | April 2nd 2009 @ 5:31am | Report comment
Pip -
also interesting that The Premier League uncovered the article in preparing a submission it will make tomorrow to Andy Burnham, the culture, media and sport secretary. It is being asked to justify itself on a number of issues, from competitive balance between teams, to fit and proper persons testing of club owners.
So, it IS considered a serious enough issue the distortion of the ’sport’ of anybody from anywhere coming in with an open cheque book and distorting the ‘competitive balance between teams’, and seemingly only concern for the colour of the money rather than the ‘proper’ test of persons owning a club.
I like one of the reader comments : Ahh, you mean the days when players were not overpaid jessies, when the average working man could afford a season ticket, when clubs fans actually came from the area, when you could actually pronounce the players names & the players had a little more affinity with the fans. Yeah, dark days?
Captain Random said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
“Ahh, you mean the days when players were not overpaid jessies, when the average working man could afford a season ticket, when clubs fans actually came from the area, when you could actually pronounce the players names & the players had a little more affinity with the fans. Yeah, dark days?”
Not criticising you Michael C, but the flip side to this is that nobody would ever take their kids to the game for fear that they’d end up in hospital (or worse). With events such as the Millwall riot at Luton, and various stadium disasters, it’s pretty clear (at least to me) that English soccer is a lot better off now.
Michael C said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Captain Random -
from my point of view – it illustrates that some issues have been exactly the same whether occurring in Soccer in London or footy in Melbourne.
It’s just the number of zeroes on the end of the contracts that varies.
Personally I’m all for safe and comfortable venues that most anyone who wants to CAN get to.
Ironically, some people put down the AFL as still predominantly Melbourne centric suburban competition, however, ground rationalisation has killed that element off – - and yet, the EPL, still has a suburban/town centric competition with still too many smallish local venues etc etc.
Anyway, that’s another topic altogether and Perhaps Pip should do an article on that article. It’s always interesting looking at predictions from ‘then’ vs the outcomes of ‘now’.
Redb said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Art Sapphire,
I find you post about oepidal complex hypocritical (in light your misguided and incorrect article on the AFL Ad campaign against soccer). I suggest you either suffer the the oppiste of this complex if born and bred in Melbourne or simply put up with AFL until your native football code developed further here which means you also suffer the alledged complex having just returned to what you know anyway and that is hardly enlightened.
Ohh and I like penalties.
Redb
Redb said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
err.. that should be oedipal.
Millster said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Captain Random – after the awesome awesome awesome Euro 2000 final in Rotterdam I have absolutely nothing bad to say about Golden Goals (as long as they keep coming off French boots of course!)
Art Sapphire said | April 2nd 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Pip – My main beef with you is not the fact that you lace your comments with tiresome AFL references.
Its that when you make big statements you don’t back it up with facts. Considering your knowledge of football is so “intimate” you should have no problem supporting your arguments.
Furthermore, just because you think you know the game does not mean you understand the game. I have the same issue with other football commentators in this country. This is why I made general comment about the lack of quality in regards to football writing. Ofcourse, this is a purely subjective viewpoint made on the basis of my own personal observations. In return, people are free to think what they will of my opinions.
In closing, I will reply to your naive comment .
“you in return suffer from the “new fan’s” malaise of thinking you must detest everything else to be a “true” soccer fan. Try and show a bit more love.”
How do you justify that statement?
I don’t detest the AFL, I am just aware of its place in the grand scheme of things.
As I said earlier. I grew up watching the Bombers at Windy Hill. I still go to a few games every year.
I even played AFL in the EDFL when I was a kid as a centreman.
But, at the same time I went to hundreds of NSL games. The first WC final I watched on TV was in 78.
Pip, you are not the only one who grew up with two codes. So, I don’t need to show any love.
Unlike you, I don’t ask to be shown any love.
You are not alone Pip
Art Sapphire said | April 2nd 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Redb – The post was a bit of mischief to stir the pot. It did the job to get discussion going.
And to tell you the truth, even though you are an AFL diehard, I reckon you have a better understanding of football than some of the so called football heads on this forum : )
Pippinu said | April 2nd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Art
still smacks of the “I’m a truer fan than you” malaise.
You will have many opportunities to show it in the coming months.
I will read your posts with extra interest now that you have placed yourself on such a grand pedestal.
I will need a fair bit of convincing that you’re not just another wanna-be ultra, yearning for acceptance from your cohorts across the globe, willing to spurn your own culture in doing so, dreaming of being able to walk into a favela, unkempt and barefoot, and hoping that you will be accepted as one of them…
Art Sapphire said | April 2nd 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Pip – touring favelas trying to find the next Rivaldo can be tiring.
So while I am recuperating on my grand pedestal, I will make sure that I get a chance to share my football wisdom with the Roar community.
What is culture Pip? Culture is never fixed, its fluid. Therefore, I am not spurning any culture.
Otherwise, we’d still be wearing animal skins, clubbing animal for sport and grunting at the missus.
Actually, come to think of it, I know a few people like that. So you might have a point there : )
Pippinu said | April 2nd 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Does that mean you really are a wanna-be ultra??
TahDan said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Wow! This has turned into something akin to a sociology tutorial
. Should we start discussing globalisation next? and whether or not it can accurately be viewed through the lens of cultural imperialism?
In any case, Art is right, culture is not fixed. Nevertheless context and time still plays a part in discussions such as these. I find a lot of soccer fans in Australia, especially those who have grown up seeing their sport derided as a game for “wogs, poofers and sheilas” (as the saying was), are now joyfully getting their own back now on the heels of the game’s recent surge in popularity by hopping on the “world game” pedestal; a position from which all other sports are viewed and derided as being irrelevant and indicative insular arrogance due to their limited international scope. The fact that soccer is the only true world sport, is constantly brought up as evidence that being a fan is reflective of some how being “part of the world”. This is of course not the case with everyone, but it does seem to be the common knee-jerk reaction from soccer fans who confront anyone who either deride their game or (in the more sensitive cases), suggests that it should be more like their own preferred football code (this is even more common if you’ve ever heard a discussion with an Americans and Europeans discussing sport). This is certainly understandable and is in that sense a classic “counter culture” position, but nevertheless all it ends up doing is entrenching both camps further.
Not singling you out as doing this art, as I think you’re more open minded than that, but some of your responses are certainly tinged with this attitude.
Millster said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Pip – careful re “willing to spurn your own culture in doing so”
Firstly it may not be his own culture – and by that to be clear I’m not suggesting Australian culture but rather AFL culture (which is quite different and NOT a default part of Australian culture)
Second he didn’t seem to be spurning it, to me he just seems to have a globally rather than locally/parochially calibrated view of the relative importance of things.
TahDan – interesting, most of all because the paradox in Australia has been that following the “world’s game” has been the counter-culture here, and following domestic fringe codes has been the mainstream. As a country we’ve been 180 degrees skewiff for a century in terms of what you right and have just started what I think is a 2-3 decade process of doing the big and long-overdue U turn.
Art Sapphire said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
TahDan – you raise some interesting points. Somethings to contemplate.
Good on you for bringing up cultural imperialism because this can be applied to sport many levels.
It will need to be addressed a later time and maybe in a new post.
I have a mixed futsal game beckoning. I will then back on the pedestal that Pip built to do some thinking.
TahDan said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Millster,
Yes, that’s precisely what I was getting at. Being a soccer fan in countries like Australia, NZ, the United States etc is very much a counter culture position. Sport is a bit like religion though, once set in it can be very hard to change. The benefit that the soccer fans in Australia have over the next few generations is that we are an immigrant nation, with people arriving every year that will grow up without the sporting baggage of the established culture (of course this will cut both ways, with some having no allegiances and others being already established by their parents as soccer fans).
But of course, when it comes down to it these are just games and despite the passions that are so often raised on forums such as these Australia will always be a unique land in its ability to support numerous codes of football, which is quite a rare phenomenon in the world and something we should be thankful for.
Pippinu said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Some good posts there TahDan, a good perspective on the Australian context.
Michael C said | April 2nd 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
re all the above and Arts comment I don’t detest the AFL, I am just aware of its place in the grand scheme of things.
Can I just say – I’ve always viewed it like the Australian Move/Music industries, I’ll focus on music for this purpose.
The local performers/artists are faced with a barrage, a bombardment of international ‘cultural imperialism’, and yet, have managed to hold on and do okay – - however, there’s those who seek to head off OS to ‘break’ the US or UK market, and there’s those quite content with being big locally and not really giving a stuff what anyone in New York thinks of them and their music/art.
We know well enough that popular culture in terms of the biggest selling bands seems to justify a claim to greatness. ONce upon a time Milli Vanilli, Bros, Vanilla Ice etc were the biggest selling acts going around. So, we know that claims based on that basis are fraught with danger.
I would have thought that most the ‘intellectuals’ on theRoar would have a real soft spot for localised music culture (i.e. find the Luka Blooms et al or Ireland in your travels, or the Mick Thomas’ et al of Australia etc). Without the true culturally distinct balladeers, story tellers – - then, we may as well give in to the global commercialised nature of mass produced music.
NOw = to ever imagine that you can glean all you need to know about music and it’s many layers and cultural significance and the stories and learnings and teachings available – to assume you can glean it all from the Stock,Aitken, Waterman stable of the 80s/90s for example – is absolute folly.
WHy then do some folk assume that the world of soccer is fully self containing of all sporting wisdom that can or should be known/applied?
We know from the business world, that the large global corporations can get burdened by their size. Sure, they have the distribution networks, as to the global music labels. But, they have the overheads and requirements to churn out ‘product for product sake’.
It’s the smaller, regional or national based independants that offer variety, flexability, more pro-active structuring and decision making not burdened by multi national politics/antagonisms.
So, I find it ironic that many from the AFL ‘world’ have travelled the ‘real’ world and studied the NFL, the EPL, the NBA from both an on and off field perspective. Surely, surely common sense would suggest that it would be sensible for soccer folk to leverage off the capacity for an independant like the AFL to pick and choose the best of worlds practice and see how it’s applied. Lack of global size does not invalidate the AFL as a potential bastion of worlds best practice.
and TrueDan -
it’s oh so easy just to fall in line with the rest of the world. I think people like Pip and I get annoyed when there appear those who choose to hate and hope for the downfall of the AFL – rather than recognise it as a unique and valuable component of the Australian landscape that (like or not) is worth celebrating. Whether 50% or 60% of people engage in it is not the issue. How many Australians each year traverse the Harbour bridge or gaze up at Uluru or live in swim Bondi Beach or by a multi parks pass on the GC. It doesn’t have to be 100% blanket coverage. I’m not sure why some folk believe it is difficient if it isn’t or demand that it must to be valid.
TahDan said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
Micheal C,
You make some good points there. Indeed, I am of one mind with you in thinking that soccer’s massive size is simultaneously its greatest strength and most debilitating weakness; being able to move the game all over the world and command the greatest audience, yet also finding it nigh on impossible to affect changes in rules so as to evolve their game in any meaningful way (for instance the lack of video assistance) due to all the conflicting voices within its oversized governing body.
And you’re right; the local should most certainly not be brushed aside in favour of the global. Variety is the spice of life after all, which again goes back to what Australia offers to a sports fan: choice.
jimbo said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
Back on topic – Yes Penalties definitely!
I used to hate them, but after the Johnny Aloisi penalty kick – it was a memorable and fitting way to end one of the most exciting nights of football this country has ever seen.
A game of chances and a truly wonderful way to break the Curse of the Socceroos after 32 years of frustration and being on the wrong side of lady luck.
dasilva said | April 2nd 2009 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire
“Its that when you make big statements you don’t back it up with facts.”
Now that you mention it.
I’m truly interested in you coming back to my article (FIFA eligibility) and back up some of your criticism of my comments.
I find a lot of it as playing the man not the ball and I’m truly am curious to what’s your actual objection about what I’m saying and why it is a load of rubbish.
Art Sapphire said | April 3rd 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
dasilva – please refer to my response to your request on the other thread as it does not belong on this thread.
Michael C said | April 3rd 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
btw – TahDan
sorry for the ‘TrueDan’,
goalfeast said | April 14th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Why don’t they do away with the offside rule during extra time. it opens up the field of play as opposed to being restricted to where ever the defenders line is. It would let players use the whole elngth of the field and create spaces in the middle. Sure you might get route one football, but that happens now, so nothing different really. They don’t have an offisde rule in hockey and you don’t see blowout scores there either.
You will still have players fatigued as they are now. personally I don’t see any negattives to it.
Ian Jessup said | April 14th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
cut the cr*p and play drop-offs: 7.5 minutes with 9 players per team then 7.5 minutes with 7 players per team.
It’s very exciting, the crowds love it and you HAVE to try to score.
colin said | July 4th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
ill tell you what should NOT decide football matches and thats the away goals rule. stupid rule and it clearly gives the upper hand to the return team
Phillip, Melb. said | December 9th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
A simple solution to avoiding a dreaded penalty shoot-out, is to not allow goal keepers to handle the ball in extra time. Keepers literally become another defender, and it keeps to the fundamentals of the game of not handling the ball. The incentive to go for goal is far greater than the impulse to play for penalties.. something like this is worthy of a trial I imagine, they could tweak this concept of course eg. the only time keepers can’t handle the ball in extra time is on corners.
AlexMilic said | December 14th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
why shou8ldnt they? penalties are a part of football and they always will be. they should bring back golden goal