Sport Today

> > Unless you have a 7-match playoff to decide the winner, no other
> > system of deciding the winner can be considered fair.

> Hunh?  That's still not fair - just 'more fair'?  Why not just replay the
> match until someone wins?

> And, the TV rights are no joke.  It is harder than you think to reschedule
> these things.

> > And, the TV rights are no joke.  It is harder than you think to
reschedule
> > these things.

> How about golden goal AND shorten the number of players to 6 a side
> AND possibly allowing a substitute or two.  It shouldn't take long to
> get a goal scored under those circumstances.  At least you are still
> playing the game of soccer which has all of the elements of a game
> with 11 players a side.

> > > How about pressure on fans who are spending well over 100 (euros, UD$)
> per
> > > night to stay another 3-5 nights, for each of the other 7 teams that
> will
> > > have their schedules delayed?  It is also unfair on the teams that get
> > > shorted on rest.

> > > And, the TV rights are no joke.  It is harder than you think to
> reschedule
> > > these things.

> > How about golden goal AND shorten the number of players to 6 a side
> > AND possibly allowing a substitute or two.  It shouldn't take long to
> > get a goal scored under those circumstances.  At least you are still
> > playing the game of soccer which has all of the elements of a game
> > with 11 players a side.

> Remember the players hardly able to walk after 80 minutes in some matches?
> Imagine what happens in a 6v6 match, with fewer people covering the same
> ground.

> >I hate the golden goal too. I think there should be two 15
> >min. extra-time periods, then penalties if necessary. If a team scores
> >first, the other team still has a chance to fight back and score an
> >equalizer and even a winner. The other team can score again and put it away.
> >Golden goal is too harsh on the team that loses. I think they should have a
> >chance to fight back.

> They had their chance.  They had 90+ minutes to win the match, and they
> couldn't do it.

> I think they should play extra-time indefinitely, until someone scores.  Have
> rest breaks at the same intervals as during the match itself: 135 min, 180
> min, and so on.

> >I think first-goal in hockey works well for the same
> >reason that it is fair in soccer - that possession tends
> >to change rapidly enough that getting the first chance
> >doesn't give you a huge advantage, whereas in NFL, the
> >team that wins the coin toss wins a high percentage of
> >games by kicking a field goal after a single drive.  They
> >should play a set period of time instead.

> Actually, that's not how it usually works.  Every year somebody comes
> up with stats about how "fair" the NFL sudden death is, and the coin
> toss winner usually wins about 50-55% of the time.

> > But even in hockey and soccer, playing a full overtime
> >instead of golden goal would also work just as well at
> >deciding games, and I'd be perfectly happy to do it
> >that way.

> When I first started following soccer, they played a full overtime (no
> golden goal, or sudden death).  I didn't see stats, but apparently
> there were too many equalizers.

> Not necessarily. I hate the golden goal too. I think there should be two 15
> min. extra-time periods, then penalties if necessary. If a team scores
> first, the other team still has a chance to fight back and score an
> equalizer and even a winner. The other team can score again and put it away.
> Golden goal is too harsh on the team that loses. I think they should have a
> chance to fight back.

> > Remember the players hardly able to walk after 80 minutes in some matches?
> > Imagine what happens in a 6v6 match, with fewer people covering the same
> > ground.

> True. Play-til-someone-scores works in hockey because players can freely
> substitute, even while the puck is in play. For it to work in soccer, Law 3
> would have to be changed to allow unlimited substitution and re-entry.

> > > Remember the players hardly able to walk after 80 minutes in some matches?
> > > Imagine what happens in a 6v6 match, with fewer people covering the same
> > > ground.

> > True. Play-til-someone-scores works in hockey because players can freely
> > substitute, even while the puck is in play. For it to work in soccer, Law 3
> > would have to be changed to allow unlimited substitution and re-entry.

> Or perhaps to allow for more straight substitutions?  Not re-entry, but
> there are 12 men on the bench- why not allow each team an extra sub for
> every 15 minutes of extra time?  More fresh legs, mismatches, etc.