There's nothing about manipulation in the LotG. The referee is the official timekeeper, full stop. He is the ONLY PERSON ON THE FIELD who has full knowledge of the time according to him (which accounts for stoppages that he decides are significant enough to warrant him stopping his watch). You're just pissed that the time on the scoreboard isn't the official time. Too bad. It's ALWAYS been merely a guide and has always been subservient to the referee (except in the non-compliant case of the NCAA). What the f*ck? So you want time outs? Because teams "can't really strategize a good execition (sic)" as it stands REGARDLESS of time. Instead, they are forced to assume that the referee can blow the whistle at any time in the neighborhood of how much stoppage he signaled to the 4th official, sometimes more. In other words, they have to actually PLAY as if the game could end at any time, instead of "strategizing". You're really making very little sense. You know that soccer does not allow time outs. So what the hell difference does it make that they can't "strategize" for a "clutch play"? A goal is a "clutch play". As long as it occurs before full time, who f*cking cares if they were allowed to "strategize" to score it or not?
Yes, the NCAA has it right, where in 90% of games, we're treated to one team desperately hoofing the ball forward for several minutes in an unsophisticated race against time followed by everyone literally standing around for the last 20-30 seconds when the team in the lead collects the ball and stands there and the team trailing suddenly accepts their fate. It's terribly forced and not very much fun to watch. The NCAA too often has timekeepers who forget to start or stop the clock, throwing everything into as much doubt as when the referee simply keeps the time. The referee too often is completely arbitrary about when he TELLS the timekeeper to start or stop the clock. The referee too often flat-out FORGETS to make the signal to stop when something semi-serious happens. Then there's the fuzzy area of when it's not immediately clear the clock has to stop, but subsequent events call for it. When is it correct for the referee to tell the timekeeper to push a button he may not be paying attention to?
Dude, that is what makes sports great and why we watch them. It isn't about fairness or politics man, IT'S A GAME. If I'm going to watch grown men play around on a field, I want to see a winner.
This whole "I want to see a winner" thing has to be the least backed up statement commonly heard around these parts. It is said so often, and yet nobody has ever given a reason why.
A draw is about politics? Why is a winner so very necessary? Why does one have to be manufactured from nothing if neither team was able to distinguish itself on the scoreboard?
Well, one advantage of a no-draw rule is that teams stop playing for draws, meaning they *don't really try to score.* That is the terrible aspect of draws--it encourages bunkering.
When I first got MSG network when cable tv came to my area (1982?), I remember watching weekly highlights of English soccer. I was shocked that they were playing in the middle of the winter
You can have teams playing to win and STILL draw. In fact, it happens pretty often. Defending is part of the game. Teams that bunker, though, aren't defending simply to keep the other team from scoring alone - they're also playing for a situation where they can hit the other team on the break. What's wrong with that, other than it doesn't tickle your fancy?
Yep, those penalty shootouts in the world cup guarantee that nobody plays for a draw any more. The truth is, unless MLS routinely adopts tactics last seen in Serie A in the 1980s, very few draws are a result of teams playing for a draw.
I remember years back reading an article in When Saturday Comes by an American fan of the game in the 1970s. He said English highlights would appear on cable channels sporadically, and one of the things that got him fascinated when he first saw the game wasn't just that the game he saw had a field completely covered in snow, but that the players were playing in shorts and short-sleeved shirts in that weather.
Just a difference in sporting culture, it's hard to give a more satisfactory answer than that. Soccer and Hockey are really the only two popular sports in the US where ties are a regular thing (and the NHL got rid of them), and as I pointed out in my first post ties didn't happen nearly as often in hockey as soccer. It's not that ties are bad or anything, they're just different and generally outside the standard sporting mentality of the United States.
Why? Because that's why I watch sports. To see two teams compete and the better team on that day win. DC United has 12 ties in 26 games. That is just the dumbest thing in the world. Why even watch? There's no winner.
Take it as no surprise that the NHL experienced a surge in popularity after they abandoned ties and went to shootouts.
You seem to have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that sometimes there WASN'T a better team. If you want to see the better team win and it doesn't happen, what's wrong with accepting that?
So why wasn't MLS wildly popular when it had the shootout? Why, in fact, did they abandon it under pressure from fans?
There's nothing wrong with accepting that every once in awhile. But accepting it 12 times in 26 games is just stupid. Booooooring.
Well, you support a boring team this year. I propose that you deal with it and not come whining here.
Actually, i do think MLS should bring back Over-time Golden Goal. It gave teams an incentive to Score a goal and win the game. If you want to know why FIFA,etc. banned this.....its actually pretty simple. Everytime a team lost from Golden-Goal the fans would complain, and yet everytime the same fans team won from Golden-goal they wouldent complain.........hypocritical just like the diving issue. But FIFA should have payed more attention to Diving than Golden-Goal......as Golden-Goal is a plus for this sport, were Diving is a clear negative.
The shootout was fun to watch, more interesting than penalties. The only issue with ties that I see is that their existence influences the way the game is played. Even at the highest level of the game, late stages Champions League, the last two years we've had all-star Manchester Utd and Chelsea playing for a 0-0 when they were away to Barcelona. Ugh.
It was a nearly pointless endeavor in which many teams bunkered so as to be assured of the point. I mean, 5 minutes each way. WOW! It's less contrived than a shootout, but not by a whole lot. One they didn't pursue nearly as much as they were "supposed" to. It just plain wasn't popular overall. But more importantly, it violated their own rules mandating that two halves of equal length should be played. It was inconsistent with the rest of the game.
Most of your fellow fans disagree. The shootout was an abortion. Is it really going to change all that much if each game had a shootout at the end? Really, it probably incentivizes further defensive play on the road, with the "weaker" team waiting for their chance in the crapshoot. The away goals rule has been a semi-effective nudge toward getting away teams to play a little, but considering how difficult it can be to win away, it should be no surprise that visitors will play a different game. Even if there must be a winnar!!! the visitors will play for the counter more often than not.
the things I found strange at first: - the player could go out of bounds as long as the ball didn't - in American football you can score by the ball touching the goal line but in soccer all of the ball must cross the line to score. - only one member of the officiating crew is actually in the field of play - stoppage time