Ideas for replacing shoot outs

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by counterattack


As usual the English stand up for dead tradition, even though the tradition is barely 2 decades old.

Look, Eurotrash, the idea of this thread, if you go back to page one and bother to read it, was not to defend the undefensable Penality Shoot Out, but to come up with an alternative. And, like all the other Limeys, you would rather wallow in pitty and pain than think of something new and worthy.

Well, in other posts I have been attacked for not coming up with a worthy alternative. Though I do not think it is my place in this thread to be imaginative, just to point out all you Eurotrash who are not, I will give it a try. . .

As you probably do not know, football was once played before the year 1980. Back in the day, before even your father was born, a typical line up for a match was, and I am not making this up you can look it up
1
2
3
5
I am not kidding, you can look it up. What you see is correct. 1 Goalie, 2 Defenders, 3 Midies, and 5, count 'em
5 forwards. No wonder an typical match score was 4-2, 3-5, or 6-2. That is what they mean when they say that football became more defensive. It was that they turned the line up on its head, and made the back way more important than the front.

Well, here is my solution. Play the first 90+ stoppage, any way you want. But in games where there must be a victor, require and strictly enforce the 2-3-5 formation.
No golden goal. No overtime over 30 minutes. Than, if there is still a tie, which would be a rather rare occurance, then play a second match 3 days hence.

My solution is pure football, has no gimicks, and is way more respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen.

If we are going to play this game then ok....

An American trying to patronise me over football. Its laughable. You say football goes back before i was born...never...jesus i thought football was invented for my ammusement on the day i was born....

As for you saying i am clinging on to "tradition" when did i once say dont change the game because that is how it has always been. huh?...answer..never....

I think penalties are the only feasable(sp?) and practical solution to draws after 120 mins.

You say they MUST employ a strict 2-3-5 formation. that is the most comical iea going, even the paintball idea was far superior. How could you possibly enforse such a rule?..answer you couldnt. The game has changed from the old style of 5 up top. If a team played that today they would get beat by 10 goals each time as they would jus pass around the defenders.

4-4-2 has always been the best formation as ong as you have the correct players to play it. (eg) wingers etc....

And you say "respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen. "

If we are going to play that "eurotrash" bollocks. All i have to say is i come from the home of football, while you come from the home of obesaty.....

I really think that counterattack has never played the game himself that is why he comes up with such stupid comments.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by Slash/ED
3 days hence is a master stroke in a world cup when you're in the semis and the final is in two days time, but if we had any sense we would have built a time machine by now. Exactly. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Sepp Blatter lacks the forsight and initiative to create a time machine.

[Doctor Stamen]

I believe Paintball is still the way forward.

[Boro_lad]

i highly recommend painballing on inner city sunday league games. Imagine the fun of 22 hard nuts taking paintballs and screaming like bitches....too much fun to imagine.

it hurts when u get shot...i took one on my jaw...sneaky buger sneaked under my mask...theres me with 4 stitches.... got the b@stard back like...i hit him with my gun...lol

[counterattack]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boro_lad
[B]


>As for you saying i am clinging on to "tradition" when did i once say dont change the game because that is how it has always been. huh?...answer..never....

I think penalties are the only feasable(sp?) and practical solution to draws after 120 mins.<

IF THAT ISN'T CLINGING TO THE WAY THINGS ARE, I WILL BE HORNSWAGLED!

>You say they MUST employ a strict 2-3-5 formation. that is the most comical iea going, even the paintball idea was far superior. How could you possibly enforse such a rule?..<

Just so you know, the easy way to enforce this formation is to make the forwards from each team wear those awful warm up vests on the pitch. AND to require that they never stray into their own defensive half of the pitch. That's right, each side must have 5 forwards who can not go past the mid field stripe to defend. They have to stay in the attacking end of the pitch!!
AND,(isn't this fun?) IF THEY ARE CAUGHT ON THE DEFENSIVE SIDE OF THE PITCH, A DEFENDER TEAM MATE IS RED CARDED!!.
In fact, we could put small light weight electronic singnaling devises that would automatically tell the referee if any forward crosses the mid field stripe to help defend. If one does, there goes a defender!
So, the strategy would be when would a team commit the middies and the defender to attack? Afterall, there will always be 5 forwards on the ready against 5 middies and defenders, plus the goalie. All it would take is one middie and one defender and the ratio is 7 on 6. But, in the back, a counterattack would only encounter 2 middies and 2 defenders WITH 5 FORWARDS ALREADY IN THE ATTACKING HALF!!. This unique game decider would reward speed, ball control, passing, and finishing. And, it actually has historical reference going back to the origins of ancient foot ball games.

>If we are going to play that "eurotrash" bollocks. All i have to say is i come from the home of football, while you come from the home of obesaty.....<

That tired hash of the English "inventing football" is right up there with Americans who claim to have invented democracy. The English may have invented lousy food, bad teeth and buggery on the high seas, but they did not invent field games of teams chasing and kicking a ball. They were just the first to think they actually should be organized. Many argue it has been all downhill since then.

[Slash/ED]

Bottom line, I think it's fair to say (And this is a good thing) You're ***************ty ideas will never ever EVER EVER come into play no matter what nation you slag off on this fourm and we can all sleep easier knowing that. If putting 5 strikers against 2 defenders is fairer then one player against one goalkeeper from 12 yards out then we can all just give up.

[Bauser]

Nothing's like a good old Yanktrash v Eurotrash debate...

[usscouse]

Originally posted by counterattack
[l]

No golden goal. No overtime over 30 minutes. Than, if there is still a tie, which would be a rather rare occurance, then play a second match 3 days hence.[/i]

My solution is pure football, has no gimicks, and is way more respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen.
This REALLY is really a brilliant idea…!!!!

It’s too bad you’re such a moron and have no respect for the game or it’s history.
If you did you would know that the reason for the penalty shoot out was TO GET AWAY FROM THIS…your outdated version of how you would end a tied game.

If you ever took the time to read before you posted, you foul mouthed bag of snot, you’d have read a post that informed you of this.

So once more just for you….
Try and concentrate between sniffs at the contact cement.

Games WERE played 90 minutes and then replayed a couple of days later, and a couple of days after that until they had a winner.
Liverpool and FC Cologne played 5 and a half hours of football and finally had to end the tie (A European Cup qtr final) with A COIN TOSS.
Now isn’t that a fun way to end a match….?

With teams playing a season that requires as many as 65 matches, time and the resulting injuries over the season prohibits this.

Even here in the US, consider the time it would take and distances the teams would travel to complete a two, three or four game tie.

Your puerile comments on how the game was played and the fantastic scores the came up with is just totally bogus.

I played in the 1-2-3-5 days and the coaches knew how to drop the centerhalf back as sweep and play the inside forwards deep.

You really don’t understand the game at all do you.???
You don’t know how to think for yourself and come up with a real original idea.
You probably DO know how to play with yourself…WANKER.

[Boro_lad]

[B][QUOTE]


>
Just so you know, the easy way to enforce this formation is to make the forwards from each team wear those awful warm up vests on the pitch. AND to require that they never stray into their own defensive half of the pitch. That's right, each side must have 5 forwards who can not go past the mid field stripe to defend. They have to stay in the attacking end of the pitch!!
AND,(isn't this fun?) IF THEY ARE CAUGHT ON THE DEFENSIVE SIDE OF THE PITCH, A DEFENDER TEAM MATE IS RED CARDED!!.
In fact, we could put small light weight electronic singnaling devises that would automatically tell the referee if any forward crosses the mid field stripe to help defend. If one does, there goes a defender!
So, the strategy would be when would a team commit the middies and the defender to attack? Afterall, there will always be 5 forwards on the ready against 5 middies and defenders, plus the goalie. All it would take is one middie and one defender and the ratio is 7 on 6. But, in the back, a counterattack would only encounter 2 middies and 2 defenders WITH 5 FORWARDS ALREADY IN THE ATTACKING HALF!!. This unique game decider would reward speed, ball control, passing, and finishing. And, it actually has historical reference going back to the origins of ancient foot ball games. [B][QUOTE]

he says he does not want to ruin football blah blah....

Yet by enforsing you stupid rule it would end up like a netball match or something. You are talking about a total disregard for all laws of the game. Not only is this the most stupid and unplayable idea (even paintballing is a better idea) it is a suggestion which cwould change the way football is played, which you say you want to preserve thae game how it used to be played......i never remember players wearing special bibs, not being able to defend, mangers being told to change all thier tactics.

You obviously have never watched, played or supported football, otherwise you would see how stupid you sound.....

[Boro_lad]

never in the history of football has any player been restricted to noe part of the patch (bar keeper)

[Doctor Stamen]

Originally posted by counterattack
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boro_lad
[B]
>As for you saying i am clinging on to "tradition" when did i once say dont change the game because that is how it has always been. huh?...answer..never....

I think penalties are the only feasable(sp?) and practical solution to draws after 120 mins.<

IF THAT ISN'T CLINGING TO THE WAY THINGS ARE, I WILL BE HORNSWAGLED!



Hold on for a second, you've accused Boro_Lad, and any other British/European people of being too ready to hang on to 'tradition' by supporting, or being resigned to penalty shootouts, yet in previous posts you have denied that shootouts, which you are opposed to, are 'traditional'. That is contradictory and illogical to put it politely. Basing your whole conception of Europeans being obsessed with 'tradition', by citing support for something you have said isn't 'traditional' is flawed to say the least.

Your constant suggestions that your 2-3-5 idea is, and I quote "...is way more respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen," suggests that it is you who is the more likely to be backward-looking, and obsessed with 'tradition'. As for the red carding of defenders, what happens if all the defenders are red-carded for one reason or another ?. You'd have 5 forwards at either end of the pitch against 1 goalkeeper, and 3 tired midfielders forced to run back from the 1/2 way line every time the opposition get the ball.

As for the idea that full, replays are re-instated, that's just silly. As USScouse has hinted, the players could be playing for weeks, in a calendar that is already full of club and national games.

Now then, the challenge, if you are capable, is to state why I have misunderstood your ideas without silly insults, name calling and generally being rude. I doubt you can do this.

[counterattack]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen


Now then, the challenge, if you are capable, is to state why I have misunderstood your ideas without silly insults, name calling and generally being rude. I doubt you can do this.

My pleasure,

You have completely misunderstood every aspect of this thread. Go back to the first posting, and you will read that the whole point to this thread was to come up with interesting and creative alternatives to the Penalty Shoot Out. The underlying reason being that Penalty Shoot Out as a way to determine a winner in matches where there must be a winner, is a second rate way to find a winner. So, the challenge was to think "outside the box" and come up with some nifty ways, even outrageous ways, to find a winner. For some reason, you and many or your countrymen seem uterly unable to grasp this concept.

Instead of one insightful, foolish, ridiculous, amazing, and impossible suggestion after another, we get a bunch of EPLites blathering, over and over again, how everything is just okay as it is, and not a damn thing should change. I could get more imagination out of a pile of plywood than the postings from, mostly English, in this thread.

And, would it ever cross your minds to offer an alternative to the Penalty Shoot Out? Just for gits and shiggles? Just as a flight of fancy? A moonbeam? A mote of dust floating in air on a warm summer's day? OH, HELL NO! You and your mates would rather trudge in lock step to the present FIFA fules, like the masses of workers in Fritz Lang's Metropolis, than proffer even the simplest alternative.

I have tried every race baiting slur, and derogtatory remark allowed on these boards to dislodge you and yours from their myopia. I have failed, utterly. A thermonuclear devise couldn't dislodge your creativity and your imagination.

So, trundle off to you new EPL season, sweat over relegation, and sing lustily while multimillionaires on the pitch calculate their overnight earnings on the foreign currancy exchanges. I have tried my best, and there are better threads than this mess that I need to read.

[Boro_lad]

the simple answer to whty none has thought of a better idea than penalties is somply because there arn't any. Face the facts and stop bleeting....

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by counterattack


So, trundle off to you new EPL season, sweat over relegation, and sing lustily while multimillionaires on the pitch calculate their overnight earnings on the foreign currancy exchanges. I have tried my best, and there are better threads than this mess that I need to read.

Well as long as you trundle off to your mighty 10 club MLS and sweat over which team isn't going to the playoffs.

And anyway, I get what you're saying about simply voicing options in order to do away with penalties.

Did you want a thread consisting pointlessly of paintball ideas or did you want people to come up with ideas that might work?
If so, then it's been done - to death. We, being to some degree, tethered by reality have come to the conclusion that this was a vaguely sensible thread asking for better alternatives to PKs. We have also come to the conclusion (over many years and not just on this board) that there aren't many other better ways when we take all eventualities into consideration.

If the topic was 'ways to solve the ozone layer problem', would you be insisting that the conversation should be diverted away from serious suggestions like reducing pollution etc., and steering us towards coming up with designs for several giant umbrellas that will shield the earth from deadly UV rays?
The idea has no legs (much like many of yours), what's the point in discussing it or even coming up with worse?
It's not a question of whether we're stayed, it's a question of whether there's a point in dicussing needless changes to the game that would result in players having to play more, increase the potential for getting injured and plenty of other negatives.
They've been explained to you.
And despite the tone of your posts, I can tell you're not stupid person - and this puzzles me even more.
Do you have a job? If it requires brainstorming, I pity your colleagues.

[burning247]

Wow I leave this thread for a couple of days and see what happens, lol. Well after reading some comments about players getting hurt to my idea (play till someone scores, play all night if you have to), I really never thought of that. And you are right, we already had a crappy WC because players were still recovering from their leagues. So lets see, I really would like to think if a team was forced to score to win, they would really really try and the stronger team and the team with better stamina would prevail. But then I'd have people saying, thats not football or something. So I hate to say this, but maybe penalty kicks are the only reasonable way of settling a game. Sad, but I guess you have to take care of business in regulation, even though I think it really depends on the game.....

You could have 2 teams that were so closely matched and they just needed a little extra time to decide the winner. Then you could have some team like Germany who would just bunker in and wait for a shootout. and since we can't make exceptions for each game, we do penalties

As for the little argument between the American and Britt. Counterattack- your comments make us Americans look like we don't know what we're talking about. The game was played differently in the old days, times have changed. Don't piss on the English, they do know what we're talking about. Being part English, I love the England national team and I've seen all their terrible penalty losses (mostly to those scum Germans), so thats why I oppose the idea so much, but hey reality sucks sometimes.

[Doctor Stamen]

Originally posted by counterattack

I have tried every race baiting slur, and derogtatory remark allowed on these boards to dislodge you and yours from their myopia. I have failed, utterly. A thermonuclear devise couldn't dislodge your creativity and your imagination.

So, trundle off to you new EPL season, sweat over relegation, and sing lustily while multimillionaires on the pitch calculate their overnight earnings on the foreign currancy exchanges. I have tried my best, and there are better threads than this mess that I need to read.

No, you haven't been trying to encourage creativity at all. All you have done is come up with some ideas (well done for that), and insulted virtually every person who has disagreed with you. I admit, I haven't got my thinking cap on about the topic in the title, but no suggestions are better than the load of sh_t ones you came up with.

I happen to think that penalties are more viable than a corner count, a replay, ongoing extra time etc. that are the usual suggestions. However, that is not to say I, or anyone else should be insulted by some faceless collection of letters with an attitude problem just because I disagree with you, and haven't really thought about the question at hand. And you accuse me (and others) of leading this thread astray, when it is you who is throwing insults at the European contributors in the hope of getting a reaction.

If there are better threads on this board, trundle off to them. Better still, trundle off to a different website you rude so-and-so.

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen


No, you haven't been trying to encourage creativity at all. All you have done is come up with some ideas (well done for that), and insulted virtually every person who has disagreed with you. I admit, I haven't got my thinking cap on about the topic in the title, but no suggestions are better than the load of sh_t ones you came up with.

I happen to think that penalties are more viable than a corner count, a replay, ongoing extra time etc. that are the usual suggestions. However, that is not to say I, or anyone else should be insulted by some faceless collection of letters with an attitude problem just because I disagree with you, and haven't really thought about the question at hand. And you accuse me (and others) of leading this thread astray, when it is you who is throwing insults at the European contributors in the hope of getting a reaction.

If there are better threads on this board, trundle off to them. Better still, trundle off to a different website you rude so-and-so.

just what the doctor ordered

no pun intended :D

[Preston McMurry]

I prefer knife fights to shootouts ...

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by Preston McMurry
I prefer knife fights to shootouts ...

well thats great...good for you...

someone call a doctor we got a phsyco run for your lives!!!!