Check out mlsnet.com. No more overtime. Hurray! Stats proved it was a waste of extra time and posed injury possibilities. Only 3 subs. No more fake out switching of goalkeepers to get the extra substitution. Thank you coach Bradley. No more taking off of shirts. It will be interesting to see how Landon Donovan celebrates his goals.
All rules that allign MLS with the rest of the world. I like each of these rule changes except the shirt one. I've never been a fan of that rule thought it dampened creativity. Like Jim-May said last year, pull down the shorts. LOL
http://mlsnet.com/content/04/mls0323ot.html There's the link to the article. 6. SUSPENSIONS & NATIONAL TEAM CALL-UPS: Players suspended from MLS League matches (regular season or playoffs) who are called in for national team duty shall have their suspensions held in abeyance until they return to their MLS team. So if I understand this correctly, if someone is suspended for a game but would miss that game anyway for national team duty the suspension will be waiting for them when they get back. If that's true then I don't like this rule.
I disagree with you on this.... this makes it a true one game suspension.... no more 'cheap' red cards, knowing they won't be available for the next game because of the NT Callup, they won't commit foul knowing it won't hurt them..... This is a GREAT change!
Cue Wizardscharter about OT... Considering that a lot of people leave after 90 minutes regardless of the score, will people notice that there is no OT? I like the suspension rule as well.
I see your point but I don't think people go hey I'm playing for the nats next week so I'll just hack him down and get a red card. I also think it could unfairly penalise players on national teams more. If someone should get carded then play for their national team the suspension sort of becomes a 2 game suspension instead of one, but should a player who doesn't play for a national team get a red card for the same offence they only miss 1 game. Also what if a player gets a red card and then gets injured for a game, how come that counts as their suspension but missing for the national team doesn't?
I think the logic behind the rule is in what situation did you get your red card? If playing for your club in the league, you should miss a club league game. If playing for your club in a tournament, you should miss a club game in that same tournament. If playing for your national team, you should miss a national team game. And FIFA's point has always been that you would be "in" that squad -- listed amongst the subs but then replaced as an actual sub for bench purposes. A Newcastle United player [whose name escapes me at the moment] has missed playing in some UEFA Cup games for his suspension a year earlier in the UEFA Cup while playing for Leeds United [in which he clearly stamped on an opponent's head]. And since he has not been named among Newcastle subs for any of their UEFA Cup games thus far, his suspension has not been served. I don't think it is unfair at all.
Hi! I'm Dave. I'm working on my shyness. Taking my cue from McGinty... OK, so FIFA changes a rule stupidly. With a nod to the money grubbers in Switzerland: I can't touch the sillyness of the injury comment, so moving on. "Waste of time"? Ridiculous. What complete and total garbage! The actual facts: OT started in 2000. Since, there have been 173 OT sessions (including 1 MLS CUP final for God's sake...) and 2 other "mini-games" in the playoffs. Both mini-games were decisive in avoiding penalty kicks. In other words, the most important of all game were decided, as meant to be, on the field. Worth noting is that in addition, both home teams' fans attending those mini-games left happy. But I suppose you would rather have the pk lottery...never mind. I could give you about 1000 words just on that. I'll move on. Who said, "Never let the facts stand in the way of a popular opinion."? More to the point of the unmittigated absurdity of unfairly branding OT as "a waste of extra time" are the facts: 46 of the 173 OT games were decided by a game ending goal! Over 1 in 4. That's 1 in every 4 ties. You say, "Nothing happens in OT." We now know that's completely false, so let's look at the possibility of less happening...seems reasonable. I did the math, the scoring rate in OT, although marginally lower (.3 goals/90 min), isn't statisticly different than within regulation. It would stand to reason that with evenly matched professional teams, blowouts would be eliminated. Also, Most ties are 0-0 and 1-1. Consequently scoring should dip a bit on balance, as in theory it's simply more difficult. And then there's this: OT was even more effective in elimination of the fan and marketing scourge of all soccer, the attendance killing, mind-numbingly boring scoreless draw. Of OTs following the 38 regulation goalless draws, 17 featured an actual goal. That's 44 percent if you are scoring at home. That's also 158% over the OT goal rate of all games. As my Norweigan Great-Grandmother would say, "Uff da!". The MLS Cup Final is 1 for 1 in these situations as well, BTW. There is no question that OT not only decides games, but has an unparallelled effectiveness in eliminating the scorless draw on the field! The only thing in the history of soccer more effective at doing this was the SO, but that's another thread. Put another way, that's 17 goalless draws and a pk session for the silver mercifully avoided. Put yet another way, now MLS fans will be treated to 3-5 additional scoreless draws each year, less highlights, less scoring for any and all fantasy leagues, pks ]deciding an already f'ed-up "playoffs", and shorter games with less action and less overall soccer. You'll pardon me if I'm something less than elated. Further, nothing short of a Championship in team sports is better than a walk-off score. Nothing. Everyone wants a dramatic finish, jubilant celebration contrasted by abject despair, sudden death, building tension, hand-wringing, great theater, drama. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! You know, an actual third bleeping act!?! OT is in no capacity "a waste of extra time". I would suggest you open your mind a bit and let in copious amounts of O2. Another suggestion would be to wean yourself from adopting everything you read on message boards or parroting universal absolutes learned in some other fishbowl - especially as this is an election year. We now return to your regularly scheduled thread.
I'm good with all the other rules changes. I'm with Kuhn' that the shirt thing seems silly. They should be more concerned with calling offsides and cards as the book dictates, but whatever. I really like the increased points for cards. As a neutral, it's good to watch a more flowing game not unlike Gretzky-era NHL. As a KC-fan, it's worth noting that KC is among the least carded teams the last few years. Now is MLS would just enforce the diving card and further make that a 6-point/loss of left nad offense. The way I figure it, if you lack the male definfing organs to play the game on your feet, you don't need them. I understand that might be a less popular view slightly to the right of Il Duce, but I'm unconventional. Bringing us to suspensions continued through Nat call-ups... A very good change, IMO for reasons mentioned.
Wizardscharter, So, according to your stats, 75% of all overtime games still ended in a tie. Is that correct? So, what's the problem? If fans are so bored, why play another 10 minutes if it will still end in a draw? I didn't say nothing happens in overtime. I have seen some very exciting overtime matches -- and most of those still ended in a tie. As for exciting finishes -- see them all the time in the EPL on FSW. Time running out, with no overtime, home team presses to win game. Visitors counter attack to try and break the tie. Home team scores in injury time! OR Visitors score in last few seconds to steal the points! That is just as exciting as any overtime with sudden death. And in my mind, more fair to both teams. What are the stats on home teams winning those overtimes -- just out of curiosity? The rule applies to regular season games. FIFA has rules for matches in which a winner must be decided. Yes, it is the pk shootout thing. I much prefer the overtime for those types of games. But I can live with the pk for those types of matches. This rule will not in and of itself produce more ties. If teams want fewer ties, then they should play more attacking soccer instead of the highly defensive soccer we seem to see so much of the time in the MLS. Go for the win and they will win over fans even if they lose some of those matches. Besides, many soccer fans see the value in a good hard fought 1-1 draw. Both teams played well and deserved some result from their efforts. Even a 0-0 match can be exciting. So, we agree to disagree.
the ot thing has been discussed pretty much to death ever since 2000. personally, i don't mind losing it, at least the way it was set up in years past. however, if they worked it like the nhl, i'd be all for the 10 extra minutes. in other words, reward the teams for the draw with 1 point apiece, then let them go at each other for 10 more minutes to see if anyone can get the extra point. you'd have nothing to lose, so there'd be no bunkering in ot, and it'd be end to end action. this has been brought up by some posters on here before, but i thought it might be relevant to discuss it again.
The view of nothing ever happening in OT is more than a bit revisionist. Fan's aren't bored during OT. Even during "boring" games. OT was the possible redemption of a bad game. There isn't a person on this board that would give 26% of your salary, descretionary time, or even most anything basicly worthless. Don't tell me 26% isn't worth anything. For those that havn't seen many MLS games, don't have the SO package, or paid little attention there's this: The most intense minutes of an MLS game are the last 10 minutes, even with OT in place. The pace usually peaks in the final minutes of a close game. OTs existance had no bearing on that. None. If there was any "boring OT" it came during the heat of summer in interdivisional, read: non-rivalry, games. The arguement there isn't "ban OT", but more accurately, "switch to a August-May season". Moreover, why is a required higher level of fitness a bad thing? Single points will still be viewed by teams as acceptable in situations. Whatever percieved bunker attitude will neither disappear or dissipate due to a lack of OT. Games will not be increasingly exciting, only exactly as they were last year - just shorter and with more ties. Early season games will have the same high tendency to end in a tie. We all wll get more scoreless draws, less highlights, less scoring in the fantasy leagues, less soccer, and a higher probability of pks deciding playoffs in what is already a league predicated on parity. To Hartley's comment of 75% of the games are not decided within 10 minutes so scrap OT. First, it's 73.6%, but whatever. Again, by the same logic, why bother to play the actual game? Most of them are scoreless after 10 minutes. Most of the time nobody is scoring. Nothing happens often in soccer, so let's just watch basketball. This isn't just a localized decision to appease the men who make up MLS, although this is how the decision was in fact made. MLS talked to personel in all positions. That's not so much evidence of doing things "right" as it is evidence of a rigidity in thinking. Human's resist change. Humans conform. Humans have great capacity of doing things they even know are detrimental rather than choose to do something else. This isn't that, but I'm just pointing out that a vote to conform is neither a shock or proof of ordained validation. This decision has a wider-reaching effect than people think. It's extremely shortsighted to think that meshing with the world's rules in an absolute good thing here in our corner of the woods. No where in the world are there as vastly varied and numerous choices for not only sports, but entertainment in general. If you clear your mind for a moment and brainstorm your own list of very entertaining things, what you will find is that all of those things have an expectation to them; an expectation to you personally of something tangeble. It will be something like an excited feeling, an unknown, or a bit of you don't know what will happen. If you are denied the back end experience built up by your expectation (and you have not experienced it before so there is no recall) you will not be likely to attempt to repeat your experience. This goes for anything on your list. Guys, we are all at the games every chance we have. This is relevant to the other x million people that are not. Most MLS fans don't tailgate with anyone. Most don't attend every game. Blah, blah. Most are just people out for the night. My point is they can do anything they want to. Why bother with a 0-0 game? Why come again to see a listless tie? Sure a tie can be entertaining, so can defensive games, a hospital stay, and a lecture on whatever; that's hardly the point. Most often ties are some measure less entertaining than something with the peaks and valleys inherant to a game featuring a decisive score. Over 161 MLS games, you're delusional if you think it makes no difference. Everyone here has had a conversation with someone where a 0-0 or 1-1 score was mentioned. I don't have to mention the inevitable derisive reply do I? I'd love to hear a position on why people will now flock to MLS stadia to see games without OT. They will in small unmeasurable increments however, choose something else on their own personal list the next time. Sit outside the Cauldron for a game or two and watch people while you are watching a game. Inevitably you will see two guys acting as they would across the street (at the "K") having a beer and enjoying the night away from everything. If nothing happens in their minds, they DON'T return. I'm not saying every game is this situation. I'm not saying 6-5 would be better overall soccer. At the same time, why restrict scoring? Why incourage 0-0 ties? Why eliminate 10 minutes of what is normally not "bunker soccer"? Why constrict what is ultimatly the point in all competiton; that being acheivement of separation between two entities? There is no "win" in this decision.
There may not be people flocking to see the games because OT is gone, but they certainly weren't coming out in droves with the rule in place. I think moving to be in compliance with FIFA rules is a good thing. The fact MLS was using different rules was confusing to a new fan.
MLS isn't EPL. This isn't England, Brazil, Thailand, or South Africa. It's past time to stop comparing and accept this fact. Home teams are 35-13-1*. (I missed 2 previously, so actually more games were decided due to OT) *LA scored the Cup OT winner on a neutral field. If you are insinuating an unfairness, it would be wise to consider that road teams are forced more often to play for a point, home teams should be lifted in any "crunch time" by their fans, home teams win more often as a rule, and all teams play the equivalent number of games home and road. There is no "unfairness". Glad you can live with it - you have no choice. Yes, there will be more ties. FYI, there were 36 last year, 29 the year before, 28 in '01. Ties were going up anyway and will continue until MLS expands creating disparity. Leagues under parity (read:no relegation) see that parity creates closer scores. A closer score in soccer is a tie. The book sites will feature lower odds on MLS draws this season almost unquestionably. MLS took this diturbing (to me anyway) fire, and threw gas on it. Cue the threads on "What MLS needs to increase excitement". Um, hmm, OT would help...
Is that why so many of them leave before OT even starts? Less scoring in fantasy leagues! OMG, call Garber, the end is nigh! Is that a valid argument for anything? Come on you can do better than that! As for highlights, highlights are not always about goals. 0-0 draws are not always boring. Did you see Celtic - Barcelona yesterday? Actually it is a good thing to “mesh” with the rest of the world. You don’t want acceptance and credibility as a league, fine. But it is the responsibility of those in charge of MLS to gain respectability and credibility from the rest of the footballing world. You disagree with that, but that is the reality. Time to stop being xenophobic. Why does the elimination of OT directly correlate to more 0-0 draws? That’s called increasing people’s knowledge of the game. Dave, if you don’t like draws, support another sport. In league play, draws are an acceptable option. They are not the worst of three evils as you seem to suggest. That may well be a cultural thing, but a draw is an option when you watch the game. It was with OT and it is without OT. Time to accept it. This is more about 0-0 games, not OT. I don’t see the connection. Moreover your fear of 0-0 draws is what is driving your argument not the elimination of OT. Are you sure? That seems to be exactly what you are saying and is the crux of your argument. Kemper Arena has that, go for it.
Yes I did and it was fantastic. Dangerous too as I watched it at work on my computer. It was so good I watched it again last night on FSW. 0-0 draws can be exciting, unfortunatly they're often not.
Yes, a very good match, was watching it, the Liverpool and Newcastle game all at the same time at a bar last night.
fogive the spelling If leaving, it's probably because they didn't know about OT. That can viewed many ways including: People simply acting as they always have elsewhere. It does show a lack of adjustment to local culture. Even if a few people left out of sheer boredom (something curable in 26% of "boring" games - or more as apparently no scoring can be exciting also), the overwhelming majority certainly didn't agree and stayed to cheer. So, why is a few leaving a reason to disband with OT? As a fan, it's a small something. I like going through my mfls teams just that llittle bit more when there is more stuff to process. Of course I would. I'd guess you probably do also. A little latitute please, it was part of a list. To that end, I didn't see you rip the other 5-6 things. Surely you would have if you thought them unreasonable. No and I agree they are not always boring. Most times they are. It's easy to take the extreme anomole to make a point. In all cases, MLS 0-0 draws (which is what we are talking about) are not anywhere approaching the UEFA CL Quarterfinal quality you referenced. The most exciting 0-0 draw will still be exciting. It will still always be a lesser game than that same game with a walk-off game winner. Fair doesn't enter into it, that's a different conversation. I didn't know MLS had a credibility problem that impacts the league or its' fans negatively. Regardless, how does dropping OT magicly elliminate it and send flocks of people through the turnstyles? Xenophobic is a little overstating the case, no? If "respectability and credibility from the rest of the footballing world" was the reason then fine. Just don't tell me no OT is good for fans, makes the game more entertaining, or that I'm afraid of a foreign concept. As if a tie should be condsidered a "foreign" idea. Seems to me that those foreign to the US that condemn OT are closer to meeting the definition of xenophobe. [rant]It's interesting that the same widlely held foreign view of Americans as being unwilling to accept any other political view of a situation is basicly the same thing I get railed on by everyone on regarding my slightly diferent views of soccer. It wouldn't chap my ass so much if I didn't know for a lead pipe lock that everyone railing on me likes celebrating goals just as (#@*&^$'ing much as I do![/rant] Over 4 years of MLS OT there were 17 goalless draws that directly became 1-0 scorelines due to having a goal scored in OT. There is no question more 0-0 draws will result. As a purchaser of the Direct Kick package and a regular attending fan, it makes a difference not only to my personal enjoyment, but to my ability to bring those who are not already attending every week. Reality isn't the basis here, it's the perception of reality. No OT hampers the perception of the people who are not essentially like you or I. I've posted as much many times. Are you kidding? I fully understand the need for accepting draws in soccer. Of course you must accept draws, that's the basis of why first-to-5 is brilliant in theory. I fail to understand how encouraging ties is anything but detremental. Again, FIFA seems to agree with me here, in that a win is now 3 points. Hardly. A game with more scoring isn't absolutely a better level of soccer. My arguement, reduced unfairly to a point, would be that no scoring is less exciting. Further, not having OT will increase the number of un- or less eventful games. Now, I've to answer your fair points and the unfair ones, so please help me with this. It's well and good that I'm made to defend my thoughts. Still, not many times do I get answers on why the opposing view is right, just why I'm wrong. I just get called xenophobic, American, ignorant, stupid, not a true fan (which you would think would be ridiculous considering the venue, even moreso from those that know me), etc. I get comments like; go watch indoor - which is on par with, if you don't like it then leave the country. Or haven't you seen the glorious example of what the game can be as displayed by these 2 teams in this one instance that has no resemblance or bearing to the 150 game MLS season? C'mon, certainly we all can do better than that. So why is it that the absence of OT better for the MLS game? Why is the world's view of MLS suddenly made different by MLS dropping OT? If improved, what are the tangible benefits to MLS and it's fans? Simply, why is no OT a better thing for fans both new and regular? Whew.