[R] Radical Idea to improve MLS OT

No, no. I'm not saying they have no ancestry- but they are independent games/mature institutions now.

 

Uhhhhh....what?

In other news, newbies should not start threads.

And I thought the A-League played two 10's, not two 15's. But I could be wrong.

 

The infield fly rule exists because if it didn't, there would be a perverse incentive for infielders to not make defensive plays. This scenario would happen all the time without the infield fly rule: with less than two outs and a man on first, if a ball was popped up to an infielder, the runner on first is doubled up either way. If he breaks for second, the infielder catches the ball and flips it back to first for the double play. If he doesn't, the infielder intentionally drops the ball, throws to second to force out the runner, and then over to first to get the batter.

Without the infield fly rule, intentional poor play (failing to catch the ball) often has a greater reward than good play.

In order to avoid this, the infield fly rule states that with runners on the bases and less than two out, a pop fly in the infield is an automatic out whether it's caught or not.

Football, soccer and rugby all have rules against off-the-ball tackles. Without a pass interference rule, there's no motivation for the opposing defensive back to not pancake the wide reciever at the line of scrimmage as soon as the ball is snapped. Even if you altered the rule to allow defensive players to hit would-be receivers slightly before the catch, the net result would be far fewer passes caught.

Fighting is a major penalty, not a minor penalty. And there are certain ways of starting fights (deliberate attempts to injure, for example) which result in game misconduct penalties. In any case, there is a school of thought that says that NHL teams should not be penalized for fighting because fights often happen in retaliation for cheap shots on star players; the presence of revenge-seeking goons on the other team dissuade teams from engaging in too much cheap stuff.

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning, but then I'm not a hockey fan.

 

1) there was a draw in the NFL last year. After overtime, of course. And since it involved the Steelers, I got to watch the media wrestle (oops. sorry: rassle) with it. You had the usual "sister-kissing" analogies, of course, but most interesting was the ink spent handling coach Bill Cowher's comment, "we didn't lose." It basically underscored my appreciation of ties: it complicates things in a fun way. Was it a good draw, a bad draw? Are we happy with it? Should we be? And you know, while sometimes a team can go into a game thinking "a draw would be great," most times, you can't tell how "good" a draw is until afterwards. I mean, if you blow a 3-1 lead on the road and it finishes 3-3, chances are that draw you would've been happy with kinda pisses you off, now. So whether or not soccer fans in the US are more evolved and can handle draws doesn't matter: the sport has evolved so that draws are a part of the game.

2) A-League is 2 tens, though it seemed like 2 one-hours during last friday night's match (Pittsburgh at Montreal)

3) onto other topics: most baseball fans might not be able to tell you when the infield fly-rule was implemented, but they can tell you WHY it was implemented. The opposite is true of the DH rule.

4) Rule changes that would make me stop watching soccer in the US: no offside, bigger goals, mandatory midget/dwarf goalkeepers, and 9-a-side overtimes.

 

Yes. But this is not something the NFL is "moving towards". There have been several ties in the NFL since overtime was instituted in 1974 (and your Steelers were in the first one, against Denver if memory serves). The point was, this is not a new thing in the NFL. And NFL teams actually try to win in overtime.

I don't agree. Ostensibly it's because no one pays to watch a pitcher hit (but no one pays to watch Mark Bellhorn hit, either), but also because the National League was kicking the hell out of the American League in terms of popularity by 1973, and the AL wanted a gimmick.

 

How about something a little less draconian. Both teams drop a player in OT (no sliding scale, no use of hands).

And/or the team that accrued the most fouls in regulation drops a player.

If you did both, I think most OTs could produce a winner in relatively little time, and the goals would look and feel like genuine soccer goals, and whatever games remained tied, it's because there was little that could have reasonably been done about it, and you should be able to say the game deserved a tie.

And more importantly, at least one team, if not both, will almost always be dissatisfied with the result. If there's anything more alien to the whole aesthetic of sport than to have a result both teams are satisifed with, I don't know what it is.

 

1. The word is "abolition."
2. NASL had offside. They just had a line (35 yards, IIRC) that served as the halfway line serves in regular rules.

 

Are the fans who will be attracted to the lack of overtime the same ones who were going to come once we got rid of the shootout?

Even the five minute periods are better than nothing. Sorry to imply a result, but the overtime today was pretty exciting.

 

I've got it! I know how to solve all the over-time problems and MLS will never be plagued with those hideous and un-American draws again.

I call it "The Shootout"!

Here's how it works. If there's a draw after 90 minutes the first thing you do is hold a coin toss to determine which side is up first. Then you place ball 35 yards from goal. The goalkeeper defends his goal and there's one attacking player at the ball. Then the ref blows his whistle and the attacking player has 5 seconds to get a goal. Once the whistle sounds both the goalkeeper and the attacker can move and the 5 second countdown begins.

The shootout will end via one of the following:

1) The player scores.
2) Time Expires.
3) The ball goes out of bounds.
4) The ball touches the goalkeeper and does not directly go into the goal.
5) The goalkeeper fouls the attacking player. A PK will be awarded if this happens.
6) The player fouls the goalkeeper.

This repeats until one team gets an insurmountable lead or until there's a winner after 5 rounds. If the latter occurs then there'll be additional "sudden death" rounds to determine the winner.

Now THAT'S excitement! The stadiums will all be packed in eager anticipation of these shootouts. This will solve all of MLS's problems! It'll be great!

Hell, let's scrap those 90 boring minutes of glamourized kickball and just have the Shootout! The common fans will love it ...



pc4th - Here are the flaws in your logic. 1) Hardcore fans go to the games. Common fans don't. 2) Hardcore fans will shun MLS if they persist in gimmicks like the shootout and contrivances like OT of various sorts. Many already have shunned this league. It's foolish to alienate those of us who remain. Common fans won't be attracted to the league because of gimmicks like the shootout and contrivances like OT. They either get hooked on the soccer or they don't.

So basically the premises of your entire argument are deeply flawed. Fiddling with the rules and the procedures to determine the winner of a match do nothing to increase the popularity of MLS or soccer in the United States. That much has already been amply demonstrated by the history of this league and the demise of the NASL.

And if soccer played by conventional rules and regulations isn't to your liking then so be it. And if it's not to the liking of the common fans then, frankly, screw them. They don't go to the games anyway.

... ... ...

I can't believe I responded to this topic. I swore I wouldn't say anything more after those posts about the Laws of The Game ...

 

True, there have been some very radical ideas proposed here that one could easily say "go against the spirit of the game." But none of them is more alien and asenine than the commonly accepted "kicks from the penalty mark." I hate this aspect of the game and I especially hate that it has become so ingrained and accepted.

I very much like the suggestion that players with yellow cards should automatically be excluded from OT periods. And, any player that subbed in at any point for a yellow carded player should also be excluded. I also like the idea that the team with the most fouls should be forced to drop a man. But fouls come in different severity levels. So simply counting the number of fouls would not be a fair comparison.

I have heard that years ago the team with the most corner kicks was awarded the victory if the game was still tied after OT play. But players started finding ways to inflate the number of corner kicks.

I am a keeper myself. But I think OT would be more exciting if both teams had to pull their keepers and play 10 v 10 with no keepers. The OT would be 15 or 20 minutes with no golden or silver goals. And the team with the most OT goals would only be awarded 1 goal added to the official scoreline in addition to the ones scored during regulation.

 

I am not in favor of OT. I hope they drop it. But if it has to stay, then the only change I would like to see is for 2 additional subs. Some players may be "done" because they played on the assumption the game would end in 90 minutes plus stoppage.

Reasons to dump overtime:
(1) additional TV costs,
(2) some players might "hold back" some energy in the last 10 minutes of regulation because there might be an overtime,
(3) attempts to "Americanize" an international sport merely softens the criticism that the sport is "foreign". The correct counter should be that the sport is "international" not "foreign".
(4) players are vulnerable to injury in overtime
(5) many teams will bunker in during OT, producing boring play and very few winning goals.
(6) since there is no "elimination" as in the knock-out round of the WC, there is no compelling reason to have OT.
(7) there is no OT in the MLS playoff games in rounds 1 and 2. If there is a match tie after 2 games, I believe they go to a sudden death mini-game then to pks.

 

If you win one game and lose another you get 3 points in the standings. However if you were to tie them both you'd only get 2 points. This holds true in every first division league around the world that I know of.

Is it really true that "real football fans/leagues" feel that a tie is as acceptable as getting a decision?

 

I hated the Shootout. I've grown to like overtime.

 

Learn it.

Know it.

Live it.

 

There is extra time in every round of MLS playoffs under the format starting this year. In the first round, 30 minutes of extra time are played at the end of game 2 if the aggregate score is tied. The semifinals and final are single matches, and 30 minutes of extra time is used as a tiebreaker if needed. All extra time is golden goal, and PKs are used if no one scores.

 

More "common fans" than "hardcore fans" go to MLS games. Screw the hardcore fans. Most of them can't get off their sofa long enough to go to a game.

We listened to them. We got rid of the shootout. We made the clock count up. We let the ref keep the time. Did it help? No... they just found something else to bitch about. That's all they are anyway, little bitches sucking at the teat of some mystical Eurofantasyland where the least reserve team player would dominate in MLS. Let them have their FSW. I'll be at *MY* game, which allows teams to settle things like men, on the field, rather than like Europeans, where everyone goes home and pretends they're all equal.

Sachin

 

I hate eurosnobs as much as the next guy... but i have to hope (and am inclined to believe) that post was all sarcasm.

 

I don't think so.

And while I love the passion of hardcore fans (I wish every team had about 10,000 more of them), they would do better to not make so many demands while their numbers are so small (and not particularly seeming to grow much).

But that's also a function of the way sports is in America lately - those that don't have working-class appeal in any great numbers have become gentrified.

 

Please don't improve it. Just dump it. So far, there have been 18 ties and one golden goal this year. OT has worked 5.26% of the time.

PK's an abomination?!?! Look, they only come in to play if neither team has managed to score in 30 minutes of additional soccer. It's more exciting than a coin toss, and just as useful. Plus, there is (relative) certainty as to the maximum duration of a match.

True, PKs reduce a team sport to individual performances, but it's usually individuals that either win or lose games anyway. (Calling Mr. Berhalter...)

 

Not necessarily that we're stuck with it, rather it would be preferable, for the sake of increasing the appeal of the game to the most casual of fans (which is necessary for the survival of the league, I believe), that the possibility of a draw is greatly reduced from what it is in league conditions that do not break ties after regulation.