I read a commentary about OT on dcunited.com and I agree with what the author was arguing. The thought that a team having been working hard for an hour an a half without stoppage (except for HT), and then if tied, facing the chances of not even gaining an important point by giving up a golden goal, seems unfair to say the least. Such is what DCU faced in Kansas City. After that game, Earnie Stewart seemed dismayed at the unique MLS OT rule, and I felt the same way. No one else in the world plays OT in regular season matches...a club should be rewarded for ending regulation with a draw. OT should be done away with...something should be done...even if they made a simlar rule to what the NHL has would be an improvement--if regulation ends in a draw, there is a short OT, but BOTH teams get a single point for the tie and if one team wins in the OT period they get an additional point, but the losing team does not lose the one point they earned for ending regulation in a tie. Either way, something needs to be done. "If MLS can cope with the idea of a tied match after 100 minutes, then it can do so after ninety. In most cases, these games produce no more goals, and do not make soccer overall any more exciting. Overtime for regular season games is just a fake marketing device borrowed from too many other US sports. It should be scrapped at the next available opportunity." I was just wondering what anyone else thinks of this rule.
NHL OT - loser gets one point and the winner gets a "bonus" point. MLS OT - winner gets 3. loser gets jack ************. Now, come the home stretch of the regular season, your team needs to win and hold the opposition down to 0 points, if necessary. NHL. A team has 84 points and the opposing team that night has 83. The team with 83 win in OT. Points become tied at 85 so it would be possible to win the game against the team you need to beat to make the playoffs, but miss the playoffs on tiebreaker. All because the LOSING team got a "consolation" point. Why should the losing team get something? Send them home. I personally prefer MLS's system over the NHL's. And i'd never thought i'd say this, but "the rest of the world" excuse is starting to get..dare I say it..worn out? I'm not saying we need to be unique, but to hear that excuse as many times as i've heard it it's starting to get stale. What SHOULD happen, IMO is this. And thank God for FSW, because IMO, they have a TON more respect for soccer than ESPN ever could. ESPN's good for soccer since it's more mainstream, but the purists need someone a little more knowlegeable than Ty Keough. Anyway... MLS Soccer Saturday starts at 4 PM. At 6 PM is a highlight show until 6:30 PM. If the MLS coverage is interrupted (golf, auto racing, whatever) the MLS game would kick off in the stadium at 4 PM and be played normally. When coverage of the previous program is finished, ESPN would show the kickoff and entire coverage of the MLS game even if it's on 20 minutes delay. All that would happen would be the interruption of a MLS highlight show. If the game gets done early, then they'd show a full 30 minute highlight show. Which could be done. ESPN just killed ExtraTime, because of the scheduling of the show. Mondays at 11 PM. Tuesdays at 2 AM. Tuesdays at 11 PM. Back to the OT rule. You may even get the networks to support it, since it guarantees the game has a more defined finish time, rather than a 10 minute time frame.
Well, sorry to step on any shoes with the "rest of the world" excuse. I guess my reason for bringing that up is because I'm more of a "purist" for the sport and conforming to how the game has been historically and normally played. But that wasn't really my point, but I will add that the "rest of the world" excuse was completely wrong when it came to the decision on the war, in my opinion(-->we were right, they were wrong ).
I don't know why, but Americans want a winner and loser to everything, or at least an attempt to resolve that tie. Look at every sport, we have overtime in all of them. Hell, baseball and basketball just keep going until they have a winner. I'd like to think eventually that we'll have a more international style game, but not anytime soon. And a more important question...what the heck are you doing in your room at 10:00 on the last Friday night of the year???
Apart from the good thoughts here, this is my not so good one: More soccer = more pleasure. I like the game, like watching it. Would be happy with 30 minute overtime because 90 minutes isn't enough for me. It's simple and thoroughly un-thought out, but it's the reaction I have when I know there's another 10 minutes coming.
I like overtime too. I really have no qualms about it, and in fact, i like the fact that the Crew attack the North goal for at least 5 minutes more. Also i really believe the maximum sum of points that both teams can get should be 3. With a winner in overtime the sum is 4 under your suggestion. Having a consolation point means that its actually advantageous for teams to go into overtime and then not care anymore - if they only need one point.
I remember a point in the 2001 season where we always seemed to be scoring at the North Goal, that seems not to be the case anymore, most the goals come at the south end it seems. Not really a pressing issue by any means, just an observation.
Well, FWIW, they've switched from attacking the north in the second half, to attacking it in the first half... it could be that most of our goals are scored in the second half regardless of the end we're attacking.
As I have always said, soccer should follow hockey and basketball's lead and play as many overtiimes as necessary until a winner is determined... ...and if half these guys drop on the field from exhaustion, so be it.
hahaha, dude, if you had the work load I did, you'd understand.....I had to do some project jonk on Friday night cuz I was out all night on Saturday night having fun. so it all comes to sacrifices.
I noticed last year too..and this year. I remember Columbus always chose to defend the North End the first period and end the game attacking the north goal. Personally, I like seeing the more intense action of the second half right in front of me....
i don't know if it is columbus choosing to defend the NE is second half or the other team not wanting to be down there the second half. there is a coin flip, right?
Yeah. I mean the rule book says there is, but I dont remember ever seeing a coin flip in MLS. It could be that the defending-sides are pre-determined in MLS and the flip determines who kicks off first. It could also be that Jon Busch would rather defend the North goal second.
I always just assumed the flip happend before the teams came out...but I guess there could just be a predetermination of which side is defended and who kicks off.