Sport Today

I have noticed that most newspapers ads an extra goal to the score
for the team which wins a MLS shoot-out. For example, the
Wiz-Clash game ended 2-2 and the Wiz won the shoot-out. The San Jose Merc
and USA Today report the score as 3-2. I find this misleading since
I would reserve the scoreline 3-2 to mean 3-2 in regulation time.
Otherwise, how can you tell the difference? I'd suggest reporting
ties as e.g. 2-2 (8-7 on shoot-out). This is how ties broken on
penalty kicks are reported in Europe and I believe, everywhere except
the US. So who came up with this extra goal for the shootout winner?
Is this an official MLS rule, or is it just the media that is being
silly/ignorant?

Erik

It IS an official MLS rule.  An extra "goal" is "awarded" to
the shootout "winner", just like the NASL days.

So San Jose, which won its opener 1-0 but "lost" two shootout
sessions after two drawn games, now have a "-1" goal difference
instead of "+1".

Only in the MLS.

I can think of one way paying customers can send the MLS a message
regarding the shootout:  LEAVE THE STADIUM AFTER 90 MINUTES
and do NOT stay for the shootout.  That should make the suits
re-think their decision.

OT

I agree.  It is the same principle as in tennis.  When there is a tie
breaker in tennis, the tie is shown with the tie breaker score in
parathesis.

Dutch.

Indeed. One can only wonder in amazement at what these MLS rules guys were
smoking when they came up with some of this stuff! The net result of things
like this is that a large percentage of MLS tables are simply going to be
wrong (where wrong = not what MLS rules say). A quick check of my local
papers and a couple of media web sites has San Jose varyingly with 2, 3 or 4
goals against!

Another question:- does MLS use goal differential as a tiebreaker for teams
on equal points? If so, then this "phantom" extra goal is an uneven playing
field that gives an advantage to teams that have garnered more points
through shootouts. {I'm assuming that head-to-head competition can't be a
tiebreaker because they're playing an uneven schedule. On second thoughts, I
might take that back as these MLS guys seem to be pretty infallible at
coming up with brain dead rules, so perhaps they use head-to-head and not
goal difference? :-)}

I prefer not attending at all, although I must say I'm very tempted to go
along with a "no-shootouts" banner to San Jose. Unfortunately, I understand
that such behavior is deemed a capital offence by the stadium security
folks...

--

"Let's hope that Eric Cantona remembers it's the Tories' job to kick
 people in the teeth" -- Tony Blair

I talked to the MLS communications people Monday, and basically, they report
the phantom "goal" to the media (undoubtedly, so they won't have too
much to distract them from their impending trip to the media buffet.  I've
been to many press conferences and other press-only events and I swear some
of these yahoos are only in the business for the food.) but in the official
league standings, they don't count the phantom "goal."  So in the standings,
Sunday's SJ-KC game went down as +2 GF, +2 GA for each team.

In other words, the various media outlets have been wrong with their tables,
in which case the fault usually lies with SportsTicker and AP.

(Of course, I've got it right at the Unofficial Dallas Burn Fan Web Site, at
http://SportToday.org/~dustin/burn/ )

File that under wishful thinking.  Most of the fans that I've talked to like
the shootout, even some fanatical fans.  I can't say that I don't like them
either.  While it's not the way I'd like for the Burn to win or lose, they're
still exciting, entertaining stuff.
--
Thanx,                                | "Who should give a ***about the
Dustin R. Christmann                  | scholastics anyway?"
University of Texas '94               |             -- Anonymous Nebraska fan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A simple 15 minute sudden death would be better indeed. The Shoot out does
not belong in the game at all.

--
Ted Kalivoda
University Computing
Institute of Higher Education

I liked the idea of sudden death overtime and suggested it to
Commisioner Doug Logan, and the rules committee.  Funny, I did
receive several responses but never a good reason against OT.

Anyways, I think if MLS persists with the shootout, they should
award each team 1 point (as if it were a draw), and then let
each team's won-loss record reflect the result from the
shootout, and be the first tiebreaker. Then goal differential
would be the next tiebreaker for the table.  For example:

                W     L     Pts     GF     GA
Team A (shootout winner)     1     0     1     2     2
Team B (shootout loser)     0     1     1     2     2

I think a team should be rewarded for drawing a game in
regulation and at least earn a point, even if they lose the
shootout.  For MLS purposes, the winner of the shootout gets the
win, a better record, and a slightly higher chance in any
tiebreaker situation.

Just an idea....

James Hardern

Apparently.

I've been thrilled reading USA Today.  As an example, in today's edition, the New
England - DC United score was reported as "1-1, New England wins shootout".

Which means that Langdon is writing his own headers and articles, because as far as I
know, Courtemanche continues to give the team winning a shootout a goal.

We did all we could to stamp out the spectre of the NASL, but it's one damn stubborn
ghost.

Unfortunately, this will continue for the rest of the season, because Courtemanche
doesn't think it's a good idea to switch in the middle of the season.

Not that things would get any worse...

ERic

Let me see if I've got this right. MLS. in its wisdom, reports "phantom"
goals that don't exist to the media, but these phantom goals don't count in
the tables, and its the media's fault if they get their tables wrong?! Might
I suggest that if MLS wants the media to have accurate tables, it is *its*
responsibility to report the scores in a sensible fashion? Is this stuff
really that difficult to get right?

--

"Let's hope that Eric Cantona remembers it's the Tories' job to kick
 people in the teeth" -- Tony Blair

I only read US Today when it gets stuffed under my hotel room door
(like this weekend) and I did notice they were being sensible about
this. But even they employ the irritating US practice of putting the
name of the winning team first, thereby making it  impossible to
determine who was the home team (unless there is an acoompaying report
that mentions where the game was played). Why do this? Knowing who was
playing at home is interesting information (for example, I was unable
to determine which of Dallas and Tampa had their crowd fall to 14k
this weekend from the US Today scores).

Why not? The inevitable result of not switching is that some folks
will report the scores correctly, some won't. And some will get their
tables correct, some won't. Not a good reflection on MLS.

--

"Don't stop on green light" -- Sign at entrance to LA Freeway