Should regular season OT be eliminated?

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by Hattrix, Sep 1, 2002.

  1. MLS3

    MLS3 Member

    Feb 7, 2000
    Pac NW
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm kinda neutral on this topic...I mean the OT is very exciting, crowd loves the game winning goal...who wouldn't like that...but if they keep it make it longer, its kinda too short...or just get rid of it all together, like another person said, 90 minutes is long enough to decide who the winner should be...
     
  2. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I like the OT. It gives another 10 minutes of soccer or a game winning goal. Why is this bad!!
     
  3. bright

    bright Member

    Dec 28, 2000
    Central District
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There should be 10 minutes of OT, no matter what the score is at the end of regulation. ;)

    - Paul
     
  4. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    My feelings exactly. The idea that OT makes the league a joke is so far off base as to not be worthy of resopnse (though we all did). The shootout, though interesting, was a poke in the eye to soccer purists. OT is at worst a minor irritant. I actually see the DH as a much more radical change.

    On the other hand, I see no good reason to have OT.
     
  5. Hattrix

    Hattrix Member

    Sep 1, 2002
    Chicago
    OT is ugly

    Yeah, I really think MLS would be screwing up if it institututed a Designated Hitter.

    I like the idea that there should be ten minutes of sudden death in every game regardless of the score in regulation time. Kinda like when the coach announces "next goal wins" in practice, and the team that has been kicking ass gets all pissed.

    I'm a soccer purist. I was insulted when Argentina tried to retire number ten; I find a clock that counts down disgusting, and being forced to watch a soccer game through all those hideous pointy ball lines makes me angry.

    On the other hand, I do approve of the rule changes that eliminated the pass back to the keeper's hands, limit him to handling the ball for six seconds, and the change from even-is-off to even-is-on (and I agree with Paul Gardner of World Soccer that it would be nice to see some linesmen interpret the rule in this new way). These rules were changed to generate more goals and make the game more exciting for the fans. This is really the point of OT, isn't it? But it was also the point of the shootout, too, which anyone who understands the game should despise.

    Aside for those who would like to see the shootout return: It's major flaw was the huge potential for injuries to the keeper and the teams five best players. From a revenue perspective, doing away with the shootout allows those better players to stay healthy longer, hence drawing more fans in the long term.

    Raising the cross bar a couple of feet would also generate more goals, but do the detriment of the sport.

    The opening line of "Run Lola Run" is this: "The ball is round. The game lasts ninety minutes. That is fact. Everything else is opinion." Now I know it's not fair to quote a German film for the absolutes on soccer, but the fact is that the game is 90 minutes long. It's an opinion that it should be 100 minutes long. And my opinion is that that opinion is silly.

    My major problem with OT is that I think it detracts from the level of play in the closing minutes of the second half. A team pushing for a win has no need to pressure hard in the 90th minute, since they'll get ten more.

    A super exhausted team has little incentive to tie the game up, since they will then have to work ten minutes longer to keep the tie.

    Eliminating the back pass forces defenders to have better ball handling skills, improving the quality of the game. Instituting OT allows forwards to be worse at finising, so it takes away from the beauty of the sport.
     
  6. bright

    bright Member

    Dec 28, 2000
    Central District
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What if my team is losing by two goals during regulation, but they pull within one goal by the end of regulation? Wouldn't it be SO EXCITING if they could then have a chance to tie it up with a Golden Goal in OT?

    I actually don't mind OT all that much. It is a little annoying itch compared to the leperous rash that was the Shootout!

    - Paul
     
  7. ax319

    ax319 New Member

    Jul 7, 2002
    Im all for OT i think ties suck, but 10 minutes is just too short, i say keep playing till someone scores a goal even if it takes all night
     
  8. mlsfan31

    mlsfan31 Member

    Nov 1, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was watching Liverpool vs. Newcastle on FSW. It was a 2-0 game till the eighty-first minute then Newcastle makes it 2-1. At the eighty-sixth minute Newcastle ties it up. Now at this point it is a great game and getting better, the stadium is about to explode and both teams are playing great. Should we (A) end in a whimpering tie or (B) try for a climactic OT golden goal.
    This game was setting it self for a great finish cause both teams were playing for blood. And it ended in a quiet finish.
    I will now quote the EPL announcer “ I wish this was a cup match then we could have gone to OT”.
    OT is great stuff learn to like it.
     
  9. Nobby

    Nobby New Member

    Feb 18, 2002
    Kirkland, WA
    While the new OT rule is an improvement over the shoot-out, it still seems like an unnecessary and pandering appendage to the game. I go to see a game to see an exposition of skill and a result. Draws are as much a result as a win or a loss. Austerity is an admirable quality.
     

Share This Page