h a l f b a k e r yNumber one on the no-fly list
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
For those matches where tying is not a valid result, penalties and/or an additional period of time are used to untie them. While the additional period is not always enough (the tie is not necessarily broken), the penalties system is quite random oriented or, at least, is not much related to the real
soccer skills.
My proposal is to use an additional period, after the 90 minutes, where every team must remove a player from the field every 5 minutes. So, it would start as 10 vs 10 match at the beginning, then 5 minutes afterwards 9 vs 9, then 8 vs 8 and so on. The removing of players is stopped once they are playing a one on one game. As less players in the field remain, the probabilities to score get increased. The match finishes once a team scores (aka golden goal).
As an additional advantage of this system, the show would be quite attractive because when players abandon the field more spaces are left.
Golden Goal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal
The term used when "the next goal" wins. [Jinbish, Jun 27 2008]
Tie Breaking II
Tie-Breaking_20II
The idea that [4whom] remembers... [Jinbish, Jun 27 2008]
Chess Boxing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
[DrBob, Jun 30 2008]
Mystery of Chess Boxing
http://en.wikipedia...ery_of_Chess_Boxing
[calum, Jun 30 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
How do you determine which player leaves? |
|
| |
The leaving players are of course determined by the team coaches. |
|
| |
I'm not going to 'bone the idea, but I actually like penalties. I think they are a superb test of skill and nerve under pressure. |
|
| |
Yes, I partially agree with you but I wish we had the opportunity to see what we feel when seeing players in a 5 vs 5 match situation. Skills, nerve, pressure and a good quota of heroism would be part of the cocktail. |
|
| |
[Jinbish] Sometimes even "Golden goal" does not resolve the situation. However, this idea has been proposed on this site. When I find the post I intend to mfd redundant. |
|
| |
Just give it to whoever scored the first
goal. |
|
| |
Found the idea that [4whom] was talking about. |
|
| |
(I know that the golden goal is not a proper tie-break, I was just linking because it was relevant). |
|
| |
couldn't players punch the ref till the first one fractures a jaw? |
|
| |
What's the problem of the randomness of the penalties? You state that it doesn't represent the skills of the teams. But those skills weren't different enough to untie the game for 2 whole hours! |
|
| |
Sorry Rulo I had to vote against. Don't forget I'm the author of one of the anti-social network ideas. |
|
| |
//As less players in the field remain, the probabilities to score get increased.// |
|
| |
An added twist - the coach of the opposing team gets to decide who goes off. |
|
| |
Er, so that'd be bye-bye to both goalkeepers to start with, then, [Ling]? |
|
| |
Depends on whether player = position or not. Is the goalkeeper the most influential player in every case? |
|
| |
If you remove a player from a soccer pitch, the goalie would definitely be by far the best player for the opposing coach to choose. The other team would then have to put one of their outfield players in goal and in general, outfield players do not make good goalies. |
|
| |
The team whose goalie was removed could bring on a substitute goalie in place of an outfield player, but they may well have already made their three substitutions by then. And even if they haven't, the opposing coach can just remove the substitute goalie as his next pick. |
|
| |
Definitely better to let the team's own coach decide who goes off (it's also better for situations where a player is semi-injured, but gamely continues to play until the next player-removal point - the opposing coach wouldn't bring that player off). |
|
| |
What a stupid idea. The players are tired and taking players away means the remaining ones need to travel more. It will not be a pretty sight, it results in a bad copy of counter play with the players running madly on their last legs. |
|
| |
You could also move the goals progressively closer together, and/or perhaps make them wider (although perhaps not taller). By the time they were the width of the pitch apart, the goals could also be full-width - then at the next pause play would rotate by 90 degrees. |
|
| |
Roll out a huge black-and-white squared sheet. Bring on the substitute(s), team physio, etc to make the numbers up to 16. |
|
| |
The two team managers then play chess using the teams as human pieces until the winner is decided. |
|
| |
This would make as least as much, if not more sense as playing football in the first place, and would be substantially more interesting. |
|
| |
It would also promote the appointment of chess grandmasters as football managers, leading not only to a more erudite and academic approach to the game, but also rather more articulacy in interviews. |
|
| |
Not as original an idea as you might think, 8th. Chess Boxing has been going for a few years now (linky), so you can pummel your opponent mentally and physically.
The idea of gradually reducing the number of players in a football match is not original either and has been suggested by a number of people over the years. I seem to recall Jimmy Hill suggesting it on the BBC at least twenty years ago.
Personally I have no problem with penalty shoot-outs. They are a test not only of a footballers basic skill but also their nerve. Those that can take the pressure win. Those that can't lose. There's nothing random about it. |
|
| |
Was it not [theleopard] that proposed a set of boxing gloves that also allowed one to move the chess pieces? I suppose we will find out soon enough. <watches link section in anticipation> |
|
| |
Take a secret ballot from the crowd and count the votes on big tables in the middle. |
|
| |
//Personally I have no problem with penalty shoot-outs. They are a test not only of a footballers basic skill but also their nerve. Those that can take the pressure win. Those that can't lose. There's nothing random about it.// |
|
| |
What [DrBob] said. Also a chance for the goalkeeper to be the hero. |
|
| |
The problem with penalty shootouts in my eyes is more the fact that often (but not always) the teams play cautiously in extra time to avoid losing rather than to try to win, and watching 30 minutes of both teams 'playing for penalties' can be fairly unexciting stuff. Not sure that the proposed idea would help though - tiredness would become too much of a factor, I think. |
|
| |
Here's a twist on this idea: remove two players *from one team only* for the first period of extra-time, so it's 11 v 9. Then, for the second period, bring back those players and remove two from the other team, so it's 9 v 11. That might force the teams to attack during the half when they have superior numbers, to make the most of their advantage? |
|
| |
After every 10 minutes, add another ball... |
|
| |
Chess Boxing - equally amazing, and yes
[4whom], quite the advocation for
convertible fingerless boxing gloves. |
|
| |
Hah hah ha, the extra ball idea has my vote. |
|
| |
That didn't take long....<Checks over shoulder> |
|
| |
For those of you, who like the randomness of the game: At the start of a game the ref throws a coin to decide which team gets the ball. Why not throw a coin to decide which team wins? |
|
| |
Penalties aren't a good why to untie matches, I agree with that. If someone likes to watch them, there are enough during the game. |
|
| |
I think a "fair" way to untie games would be to subtract points for red cards, since those are administered for "unfair play". At the end of a tied game the winner is the team with less red cards, since it played "fairer". Only if both sides tied in the area of "unfair play", then we start picking players off the field. |
|
| |
Another idea is having the team take an exam. The smarter team wins. |
|
| |
//Why not throw a coin to decide which team wins?//
That's exactly what they used to do. |
|
| |
//take an exam. The smarter team wins.// |
|
| |
Exams can be considered by some as a test of memory, rather than a test of 'smartness'. You really should have some form of continuous assessment... |
|
| |
Have the players answer an assignment that is set at the start of the tournament: |
|
| |
In 500 words or less, explain the mechanics of the offside rule. Include a definition of "active player". |
|
| |
Oooh, topical [Jinbish], topical. |
|
| |
Well, [theleopard], I see it as destiny that as Motty steps down from football commentary, I will be looking for employment... |
|
| |
If we must have a Scottish commentator
can you not replace the unfathomably
irritating Andy Gray? |
|
| |
I'd rather not. That would mean working alongside Richard Keys. The less said about that freakshow the better. |
|
| |
Yes, but Andy Gray is such a massive twat.
Things he is likely to say: (adopt coarse
Scottish accent) |
|
| |
"Now that's what a striker's got tae do,
time and again: Get the ball and then
score, and that's what he's dun here. He
gets the ball... there, and then scores.
Fantastic." |
|
| |
Why not just have the penalties and skip ninety minutes of boredom? |
|
| |
They could make it a kind of "Speed goalkicking", wherein the kicker has 10 soccer balls and 20 seconds to kick as many of them into the goal as possible with the goalie blocking. |
|
| |
5 players * 10 kicks = fast-paced action for a change! Plus there isn't that 50% random "should I guess left or right" dilemma for the goalkeeper. |
|
| |
They could suspend the offside rule during extra time. Goal hangers would usually get a goal or two before it went to penalties. |
|
| |
Journalists would be nastier ..... |
|
| |