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.
And I really want to know why this is a valid argument against anything that really matters. Is there really no room in international sport for variation? Or is this a veiled argument to conceal the fact that the fact that it seems so red, white and blue seems to offend the sensibilities of Eurosnobs bothers insecure American soccer fans?
Re: Re: OT Rule in MLS not sure if you are calling me either one of those, but I have no problem with things in sports having American flavor...I mean my favorite sport is American football--something that no one else in the world plays (and they're missing out!) My argument is that it seems more fair to award a side with a point if they tie at the end of regulation (something the rest of the world does), and I guess I'm more of a "purest" for the sport and that's why I brought up the "rest of the world" argument. but again, it's not like the rest of the world is always right (i.e. the war)
Re: Re: Re: OT Rule in MLS I'm a Democrat. The world should always persuade America to give pause for its decisions over important matters. The concept of overtime in MLS, in the grand scheme of things, is not important. If it is a marketing gimmick, then it's a marketing gimmick, and if at least has a chance to put fans in the stands, and if it doesn't turn people away, then I have no problem with that. When it comes to things like, say, killing, then we can't be gung-ho about it. When it comes to things like, say, overtime, who cares what anyone else thinks?
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT Rule in MLS I completely agree that soccer rules are completely trivial compared to such big issues as war. No one ever said anything about being "gung-ho" about killing anyone. Though I am not one, I don't think being Democrat means one is automatically "gung-ho" for the idea of allowing the world influence America's sovereignty and decisions. But I'm not here to talk about politics and the war comment wasn't meant to be a dividing point, just an example of a principle. So, no more polictics, just soccer.
They need to get rid of overtime. There is no reason for it, we don't like it, simple. The rest of the soccer playing world doesn't use it in league play. Get rid of it!
I like it! I like seeing 10 more minutes of soccer ... plain and simple. I think golden goals are damn exciting. It's such a minor variation of the world game that I don't think it matters if the rest of the world plays that way or not. I mean it's not the shootout ... it's still the exact same game. What I HATE about it is ... they stop after 5 mintues and switch sides. That p's me off. It interrupts the flow. Sometimes change it good. Like the 4v4 in the NHL ... VERY different ... but I think most people dig it. That's my two cents.
9 v 9 in overtime would open up enough space to create some exciting chances, 10 v 10 wouldn't create enough of a difference. I don't know, that might do the trick, and I like both arguments. 10 more minutes of soccer is great! Switching sides after 5 minutes is ridiculous and in general, the idea of overtime is silly when the rest of the soccer world basically abhors the idea. But if it gets butts in the seats because of a dramatic overtime winner (Marcelo's winner vs. Chicago during July 4 game in 2000 comes to mind), then I am all for it.
I'll admit that I don't mind the extra 10 minutes of overtime in regular-season games. The arguments regarding "earning a draw in regulation" or "rest of the world" don't mean a thing to me. It is worth mentioning that I was at a Kentucky Derby party throughout the day on Saturday, and of the folks assembled only two of us settled down to watch the Rapids match. Nobody really cared too much about watching the game, except for the final 10 minutes -- everyone crammed into the living room to watch because the home team had a chance to take it to overtime. More than a few people mentioned that they "didn't know soccer had overtime" and that they had been "turned off by soccer because of all the ties." In other words, a lot of people gained interest because of the potential for overtime. For me, the only argument against overtime that makes sense is what a caller mentioned on MLS Wrap (the first time I've heard this within a mainstream media outlet): that with limited rosters, overtime is simply an extra 10 minutes to risk players' health. Realistically, I wouldn't care if they played it either way. Just so long as the Shootout never returns.
OT creates losers OT is an unnecessary extra inclusion creating LOSERS. A draw is a good result. For an away side it is an excellent one. After playing 90 minutes of "equal" football on a given day the teams are "equal" and do not require an artificially created LOSER. It is bad policy for MLS but it is devastating for youth matches. No one deserves to be a LOSER by fiat.
Re: OT creates losers Holy crap, it's the return of WJMarx. And he sounds like he's been coaching youth soccer in New Hampshire. I won't argue the credibility of earning a draw in 90 minutes. But to claim that overtime "artificially creates a loser" is sheer idiocy. By that argument, the officials' discretion of the amount of injury time to add equally creates an "artificial loser." How many times have you seen 2 minutes awarded when 5 or 6 was warranted? Or far too much extra time awarded and a lucky goal awarding a win to the team that was thoroughly outplayed? Every team enters every game on equal footing with a clear idea of the task ahead. If a team wants to play for a draw, then they simply need to prepare to do so for 100 minutes instead of 90. Oh, the horror. Let's be honest: American sports fans are not happy with tie games. Period. This includes the majority of people that are soccer fans -- and by that I don't mean purists, I mean people that likely grew up playing and still harbor a love for the game. MLS is not designed to be a weak stepchild of foreign leagues, to satiate expatriates. If MLS is going to grow in popularity in America, it's going to need to address the interest of American sports fans. So long as the modifications are as minor as a 10-minute overtime, I don't see what the big stink is. Draws work so well in leagues overseas because for the most part, they go a long way towards the goals of surviving relegation or qualifying for international cup competition. MLS has neither. In the grand scheme of things however, this is really a moot point. Professional sports are entirely about winners and losers. "Artificial" or not, you only hoist a championship trophy by winning.
Here's my $.02: Ties are lame. I hate watching a team play for a draw, and I'm glad to see teams that play bunkerball get beaten. (By this, I am referring to KC's game last week.) I watch international leagues on occassion, but not particularly often. I like American soccer. For whatever reason, I don't mind watching foreign basketball players in the NBA, like Tony Parker, Steve Nash, Pela Stojakovic, etc., but in soccer, I am much more interested in Americans. I like watching the fusion of styles in the game here. I like some of the unique aspects of the game in MLS. This includes aspects like OT (which I wish would be one 15 minute period) as well as the parity that exists as a result of the cap. If you don't like the overtime, then don't watch it. After all, that is a part of what ended the shootout. (Thank goodness.) But don't convince yourself that people don't like overtime, because many (most, it seems to me) do.
I would prefer it went the way of the shootout. Barring that, make it one 10-minute period (or 15 even) - no changing ends. There is no flow in the current OT.