Bring back the golden goal!

[C. Barnowe]

Upon brief reflection...

I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. Sure Italy were tired, but there's no denying they played for
penalties. France too was exhausted and kept up the attack. I would have
preferred to see attacking, or at least motivated counterattacking, Italian
soccer in the ET of the World Cup Final.

So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

[s***@yahoo.com]

It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...

Best,

SMT

[Ice Cream Man]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...

sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the negatives
of golden goal?

--
John

[C. Barnowe]

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

The primary problem: we wouldn't get to see talented teams sit back on
defense awaiting penalty kicks.

A secondary problem: just think of all the programming that might be
preempted by re-implementing sudden death. Soap opera and infomercial
producers deserve better.

[ruud]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

There are none. The golden goal was superb. It was by far the best way
of ending a match and it should never have been replaced.

It was replaced because TV networks didn't like it, they prefer the
90/120/PK.

It was replaced because the "wrong" teams were scoring the golden
goals.

It was replaced because too many people can't deal with the
uncertainty. People like the 90/120/PK thing because it's structured.
They can't handle the uncertainty of when a goal might be scored and
when the game will end.

That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

Post by C. Barnowe
The primary problem: we wouldn't get to see talented teams sit back on
defense awaiting penalty kicks.
A secondary problem: just think of all the programming that might be
preempted by re-implementing sudden death. Soap opera and infomercial
producers deserve better.

Absolutely. It should never have been replaced. It was a pissweak
decision and absolutely the wrong decision.

[C. Barnowe]

Post by ruud
That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

You weren't Jesse Ventura's PR officer by any chance were you ruud? :)

[ruud]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by ruud
That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

You weren't Jesse Ventura's PR officer by any chance were you ruud? :)

Governer of Minnesota or something? Why he's a bit extreme is he?

[Mark V.]

Post by ruud

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by ruud
That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

You weren't Jesse Ventura's PR officer by any chance were you ruud? :)

Governer of Minnesota or something? Why he's a bit extreme is he?

He was actually a maverick. Many on the right rather liked him because
he was a strong figure and a libertarian.... until he made them shudder
with his opinion that "organized religion is fa sham and crutch for the
weak-minded."

[ruud]

Post by Mark V.

Post by ruud

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by ruud
That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

You weren't Jesse Ventura's PR officer by any chance were you ruud? :)

Governer of Minnesota or something? Why he's a bit extreme is he?

He was actually a maverick. Many on the right rather liked him because
he was a strong figure and a libertarian.... until he made them shudder
with his opinion that "organized religion is fa sham and crutch for the
weak-minded."

Yeah well most Libertarians are nutters. It goes without saying.
Eventually they're going to say something idiotic. Seems he was no
different.
--
"It's not rocket surgery"!!!
--
Overheard as a football coach berates his losing players.

[C. Barnowe]

Post by ruud

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by ruud
That doesn't make it the wrong way to end a game. It was easily the
best. Just too many people couldn't handle it mentally. They couldn't
wrap their pissweak brains around the uncertainty.

You weren't Jesse Ventura's PR officer by any chance were you ruud? :)

Governer of Minnesota or something? Why he's a bit extreme is he?

Peace, brother :) I just found the brain comment funny and a little like
"The Body's" infamous remarks about organized religion. Google them for a
laugh!

[ruud]

Post by C. Barnowe
Peace, brother :) I just found the brain comment funny and a little like
"The Body's" infamous remarks about organized religion. Google them for a
laugh!

Sorry i don't find anything libertarians say funny. They're dangerous.

[James Farrar]

Post by ruud

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

There are none. The golden goal was superb. It was by far the best way
of ending a match and it should never have been replaced.
It was replaced because TV networks didn't like it, they prefer the
90/120/PK.

That and teams were focussing on not letting a goal in, and taking
their chances with the shootout.

I'd go with half an hour extra-time as is, followed by unlimited
sudden death, with the teams changing ends every 15 minutes.

[Lléo]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

The primary problem: we wouldn't get to see talented teams sit back on
defense awaiting penalty kicks.

Or we would. That's what happened most of the times, both teams sitting back
to avoid conceding the fatal goal.

On paper it looks pretty, as we're supposed to have two teams going for it,
tension reaching high peaks when the ball went near the penalty area and all
that. In practice, very few games decided by the Golden Goal went on this
way.

WC'70 Italy-Germany, WC'82 Germany-France, WC'86 France-Brasil, two of these
games wouldn't have been what they were with the golden goal. The second and
third of them weren't any less of a classic just because pks decided the
winner. It's just that, under any rule, we'll have good games and we'll have
poor games. There's no way to go around it.

The only change I'd make to the current system would be to allow one extra
substitution in extra time.

--
Lléo

[C. Barnowe]

Post by Lléo
The only change I'd make to the current system would be to allow one
extra substitution in extra time.

Interesting. And I agree with you.

[Ice Cream Man]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by Lléo
The only change I'd make to the current system would be to allow one
extra substitution in extra time.

Interesting. And I agree with you.

it seems an obvious improvement. has it ever been seriously considered by
FIFA?

--
John

[Anto]

Post by Lléo
Or we would. That's what happened most of the times, both teams sitting back
to avoid conceding the fatal goal.
On paper it looks pretty, as we're supposed to have two teams going for it,
tension reaching high peaks when the ball went near the penalty area and all
that. In practice, very few games decided by the Golden Goal went on this
way.

Exactly - my memory of it was that it made teams MORE defensive, rather
than less. With some exceptions of course.

It would mean we would not have seen Del Piero's goal against Germany
as well, for example.

[MH]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

The primary problem: we wouldn't get to see talented teams sit back on
defense awaiting penalty kicks.

yes we would. Golden goal rules meant the game ended when a goal was
scored, but they weren't the same as sudden death in ice hockey (play
until someone scores even if it takes all night). The game still ended
with penalties if it was level after 120 minutes.
The golden goal was in operation (I think) from 1998 to 2002, then we
had the silver goal for 2004. In 1998, 3 games still went to penalties,
and only one Extra time game was settled by a goal (France -Paraguay).
In 2000, we still had one game go to penalties (two extra time wins, I
think). In 2002, 2 games went to penalties, three were won by golden
goals. Those statistics are not much different than extra time before
the golden goal era. And the extra time sessions were more boring IMHO

Post by C. Barnowe
A secondary problem: just think of all the programming that might be
preempted by re-implementing sudden death.

Golden goal never meant play until a goal is scored, no matter when.

Soap opera and infomercial

Post by C. Barnowe
producers deserve better.

[Dave Seaman]

Post by MH

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by Ice Cream Man
sorry to ask since it's been discussed to death, but what are the
negatives of golden goal?

The primary problem: we wouldn't get to see talented teams sit back on
defense awaiting penalty kicks.

yes we would. Golden goal rules meant the game ended when a goal was
scored, but they weren't the same as sudden death in ice hockey (play
until someone scores even if it takes all night). The game still ended
with penalties if it was level after 120 minutes.
The golden goal was in operation (I think) from 1998 to 2002, then we
had the silver goal for 2004. In 1998, 3 games still went to penalties,
and only one Extra time game was settled by a goal (France -Paraguay).
In 2000, we still had one game go to penalties (two extra time wins, I
think). In 2002, 2 games went to penalties, three were won by golden
goals. Those statistics are not much different than extra time before
the golden goal era. And the extra time sessions were more boring IMHO

Post by C. Barnowe
A secondary problem: just think of all the programming that might be
preempted by re-implementing sudden death.

Golden goal never meant play until a goal is scored, no matter when.

Except in an NCAA championship game back in the 80's when Indiana needed 8
overtimes to score the winning goal.

[Marcovaldo]

<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...


How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

[C. Barnowe]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

I'm sorry, you're too late...this has all been discussed to death, and
after all this isn't rec.sport.soccer.beat.a.dead.horse.

Heck with it. I like your idea better than PK's themselves, but the same
cynical ET motivation is available. Besides, if corners were used, what
happens if the ball stays in play? You'd have to whistle play dead. Boy
would that infuriate people.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

I'm sorry, you're too late...this has all been discussed to death, and
after all this isn't rec.sport.soccer.beat.a.dead.horse.
Heck with it. I like your idea better than PK's themselves, but the same
cynical ET motivation is available. Besides, if corners were used, what
happens if the ball stays in play? You'd have to whistle play dead. Boy
would that infuriate people.

You could give the offense a maximum of a minute, with the try ending
if the defense obtains possession (via goal kick, free kick, throw-in)
or the ball crosses the midfield line.
Different strategies could be tried--go for the goal right away, or
pass the ball around for most of the minute, looking for a good
opportunity.

Steve

[Marcovaldo]

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

I'm sorry, you're too late...this has all been discussed to death, and
after all this isn't rec.sport.soccer.beat.a.dead.horse.
Heck with it. I like your idea better than PK's themselves, but the same
cynical ET motivation is available. Besides, if corners were used, what
happens if the ball stays in play? You'd have to whistle play dead. Boy
would that infuriate people.

Use the free kick, then. If the shot is unsuccessful, then the other team
gets a turn. Keep alternating until one team pulls two goals ahead of the
other.

[Marcovaldo]

Post by Marcovaldo

Post by C. Barnowe

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

I'm sorry, you're too late...this has all been discussed to death, and
after all this isn't rec.sport.soccer.beat.a.dead.horse.
Heck with it. I like your idea better than PK's themselves, but the same
cynical ET motivation is available. Besides, if corners were used, what
happens if the ball stays in play? You'd have to whistle play dead. Boy
would that infuriate people.

Use the free kick, then. If the shot is unsuccessful, then the other team
gets a turn. Keep alternating until one team pulls two goals ahead of the
other.

Scratch that last one. Do it like this: Team A goes first. Alternate free
kicks until one team scores. If Team B scores, it wins (since both teams
will have had the same number of tries). If Team A scores, then Team B gets
one more chance to tie and keep playing.

[Jason Maxwell]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
How about, instead of penalty kicks, we use corner kicks or free kicks?

MLS style shootout

Jason

[Erdal Paksoy]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...

Well, I'll step into this one, because, like you said, pretty much nobody likes PKs. I know I will regret it.

One problem with the FIFA golden goal was that there were still PKs in the end, so you could still hold out for 30 more minutes if
you lacked the confidence and/or stamina to go forward. So it probably would not have changed last night's game.

Golden goal would have a bigger effect if they kept playing until someone scored. I admit I hate to think how long last night's
final would have lasted in that case. Then again, perhaps Italy would have had to push forward more as well, and we might have
gotten a goal at some point.

Then there is the counter-argument of overexhaustion. Judging by how hard the 120' against Germany were on Italy, I hate to think
what would happen if a team showed up for the final having played 200+ minutes in their 1/2 final game. OK then, perhaps you keep
the PKs for all games, except for the final of a tournament. With no more games looming, I actually would not mind if they played on
until someone scored (or died trying?). That might solve the biggest problem, since I think PKs are especially annoying in the WC
final.

Another aspect of this is that, assuming that some way is found to increase scoring in the game (without changing its integrity -
don't ask how, I don't know) from say 2.5 to 3.5 goals per game, the probability of a goal in OT would also increase.

Anyway, I am not really convinced of this argument either. In fact, over the years, I have accepted that PKs are part of the game.
Besides, Germany have proven over and over that it is not a complete lottery.

Erdal

[UC]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...
Best,
SMT

It's simple. If you eliminate offsides (and find some other way to
eleiminate cherry picking) then there will be more scores, and fewer
ties. The reason there are so many ties is that there are so few
scores!

[Art Weingardner]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
It's been discussed to death here and at every barber shop, café and
pub in the world. Nobody liked the golden goal. Nobody likes PKs very
much either, but there you are. If 120 minutes aren't enough, and you
need a winner...

i liked the sudden death. it's easy not to do away with most of the
PK's. use round-robbin where only the group winner's advance. then
only the final could be subject to PK's. for the final they play until
a goal is scored - i don't care how long it takes..

[MH]

Post by C. Barnowe
Upon brief reflection...
I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. Sure Italy were tired, but there's no denying they played for
penalties.

Why would they ? They haven't got a wonderful record as PK winners.
Lost in 1980 (third place match), lost in 1990 (SF) lost in 1994 (final)
lost in 1998 (QF); only won in 2000 (against the hopeless Dutch).


France too was exhausted and kept up the attack. I would have

Post by C. Barnowe
preferred to see attacking, or at least motivated counterattacking, Italian
soccer in the ET of the World Cup Final.

As I recall, the golden goal made teams even more cautious in extra
time, as the consequences of making a mistake were graver.

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal.

No thanks !


Do anyone really think penalty kicks are

Post by C. Barnowe
the way to end matches at the World Cup level?

No, but we've discussed this ad nauseam on this NG already.

Come now...discuss :)

[C. Barnowe]

Post by MH
Why would they ? They haven't got a wonderful record as PK winners.
Lost in 1980 (third place match), lost in 1990 (SF) lost in 1994
(final) lost in 1998 (QF); only won in 2000 (against the hopeless
Dutch).

This logic held in the Germany match...Italy were definitely trying to
avoid PK's there. This wasn't the case in the final; you just didn't see
the same attacking football from them in ET. Instead they crowded their
box. Maybe they figured France were running out of good penalty takers?
Not the worst match I've seen but disappointing. Another poster has argued
teams also played conservatively under sudden death rules. Somewhat
true,but I'd say less so. There's no motivation to score quite like
knowing you'll be playing until it happens! To the aggressor go the
spoils, in that system.

I'll draw an indignant Azzurri partisan out of the woodwork yet :)

[Benny]

Subject : Bring back the golden goal!
This logic held in the Germany match...Italy were definitely trying to
avoid PK's there. This wasn't the case in the final; you just didn't see
the same attacking football from them in ET. Instead they crowded their
box. Maybe they figured France were running out of good penalty takers?

Or they were tired.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml

[JK]

My ideal solution FOR THE FINAL MATCH ONLY would be 30 minutes extra
time and 15 minutes golden goal periods thereafter until they drop.

For all the other matches PKs after ET will do. You have to have
something left for the last match.

Post by C. Barnowe
Upon brief reflection...
I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. Sure Italy were tired, but there's no denying they played for
penalties. France too was exhausted and kept up the attack. I would have
preferred to see attacking, or at least motivated counterattacking, Italian
soccer in the ET of the World Cup Final.
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

[Alessandro Riolo]

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal.

Vade retro!
I can't think of nothing as bad as that ..

[v***@hotpop.com]

Sometime you have to give credit to one side instead of always slamming
the other. In the 2nd half and extra time, France was not letting
Italy breath when they got the ball. You can tell by all those long
air ball plays that Italy tried that they couldn't get anything going
on the ground. What the hell did you expect them to do? France played
an amazing defensive game too and just leave it at that. Italy the
whole tournament were trying for goals except for when they were down a
man.

Golden goal is a good idea but it's still not enough, you can keep on
playing for hours and hours and it is very possible that no one will
score. These guys are not machines. They cannot run up and down the
field for so long and sometimes in hot and humid weather to boot. Why
don't you try it for yourself and see.

FIFA needs to get off their ass(or arse as some would say) and instead
of just making the big bucks from the WC, do something about this. It
is ok to experiment with new ideas and see if they work instead of
assuming that nothing will work.

Vince

[Anto]

Post by v***@hotpop.com
Golden goal is a good idea but it's still not enough, you can keep on
playing for hours and hours and it is very possible that no one will
score. These guys are not machines. They cannot run up and down the
field for so long and sometimes in hot and humid weather to boot. Why
don't you try it for yourself and see.

You are aware that the Golden Goal rule was tried and considered to be
a failure as it made sides play more defensively in extra-time, not
less.

[ruud]

Post by Anto

Post by v***@hotpop.com
Golden goal is a good idea but it's still not enough, you can keep on
playing for hours and hours and it is very possible that no one will
score. These guys are not machines. They cannot run up and down the
field for so long and sometimes in hot and humid weather to boot. Why
don't you try it for yourself and see.

You are aware that the Golden Goal rule was tried and considered to be
a failure as it made sides play more defensively in extra-time, not
less.

Absolutely untrue, absolute bullshit if you don't mind me being blunt.
It made Italy and Sweden play more defensively. I didn't see Senegal
or South Korea playing more defensively.

As I said before, the "wrong" teams won with golden goals and the
Europeans lost because the europeans played more defensively. The
golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

The golden goal was wonderful, the tension was incredible, it was
great to watch, and it promoted attacking football. That's why it was
done away with. We can't have the staid european teams losing can we?
The attacking African and Asian teams should be the ones losing. At
least that's the way FIFA and UEFA saw it.

That the golden goal was taken away is an absolute disgrace.

[ruud]

Post by ruud

Post by Anto

Post by v***@hotpop.com
Golden goal is a good idea but it's still not enough, you can keep on
playing for hours and hours and it is very possible that no one will
score. These guys are not machines. They cannot run up and down the
field for so long and sometimes in hot and humid weather to boot. Why
don't you try it for yourself and see.

You are aware that the Golden Goal rule was tried and considered to be
a failure as it made sides play more defensively in extra-time, not
less.

Absolutely untrue, absolute bullshit if you don't mind me being blunt.
It made Italy and Sweden play more defensively. I didn't see Senegal
or South Korea playing more defensively.
As I said before, the "wrong" teams won with golden goals and the
Europeans lost because the europeans played more defensively. The
golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.
The golden goal was wonderful, the tension was incredible, it was
great to watch, and it promoted attacking football. That's why it was
done away with. We can't have the staid european teams losing can we?
The attacking African and Asian teams should be the ones losing. At
least that's the way FIFA and UEFA saw it.
That the golden goal was taken away is an absolute disgrace.

BTW I'm not criticising your point, I know the majority of posters are
against the golden goal. I think it's a psychological thing. After
golden goal is scored it's a massive emotional hit for both the
winners and the losers. If someone scores a goal in the current extra
time, usually there's a chance to respond ... "It's not over yet" etc.

But I loved it. I'm not into drugs or anything, but it was a big hit.
Some people just don't like the downside, whether it's the depression
of losing or the massive letdown ... "Oh, the game's over, oh shit,
what a downer" etc.

But from a pure footballing perspective it was brilliant. Even if
there is no golden goal, you can still have your penalty kicks if you
want them. But if someone scores the game is over. It made the tension
incredible. I loved it, obviously a lot of people can't handle the
actual tension of the golden goal ET period, or the massive letdown
(good or bad) if a goal is actually scored.

But from a football perspective I can't see how anyone can be against
it. Yeah, I know it's been done to death and I know I should
understand why golden goal is bad, but I still don't get how anyone
could be against it. Either from an emotional or a footballing
perspective.

[Anto]

Post by ruud
BTW I'm not criticising your point, I know the majority of posters are
against the golden goal. I think it's a psychological thing. After
golden goal is scored it's a massive emotional hit for both the
winners and the losers. If someone scores a goal in the current extra
time, usually there's a chance to respond ... "It's not over yet" etc.

No worries, I could be convinced either way - I tended to assume that
the conventional history that sides go MORE defensive was correct.

Another thing I heard is that it would also favour the team with the
first kick off if they score immediately a la Holland Germany 1974.

Post by ruud
But I loved it. I'm not into drugs or anything, but it was a big hit.
Some people just don't like the downside, whether it's the depression
of losing or the massive letdown ... "Oh, the game's over, oh shit,
what a downer" etc.

I felt slighty disappointed when Italy beat Germany because I was
actually looking forward to PKs. Then I thought about it and realised
how stupid that actually was.

Post by ruud
But from a pure footballing perspective it was brilliant. Even if
there is no golden goal, you can still have your penalty kicks if you
want them. But if someone scores the game is over. It made the tension
incredible. I loved it, obviously a lot of people can't handle the
actual tension of the golden goal ET period, or the massive letdown
(good or bad) if a goal is actually scored.
But from a football perspective I can't see how anyone can be against
it. Yeah, I know it's been done to death and I know I should
understand why golden goal is bad, but I still don't get how anyone
could be against it. Either from an emotional or a footballing
perspective.

Yeah, you almost have me convinced again!

It is entirely possible also that regardless of the actual stats of who
won more often in GGs that Uefa perceived it to be disadvantageous to
them and so lobbied against it.

[Elko Tchernev]

Post by ruud

Post by ruud

Post by Anto

Post by v***@hotpop.com
Golden goal is a good idea but it's still not enough, you can keep on
playing for hours and hours and it is very possible that no one will
score. These guys are not machines. They cannot run up and down the
field for so long and sometimes in hot and humid weather to boot. Why
don't you try it for yourself and see.

You are aware that the Golden Goal rule was tried and considered to be
a failure as it made sides play more defensively in extra-time, not
less.

Absolutely untrue, absolute bullshit if you don't mind me being blunt.
It made Italy and Sweden play more defensively. I didn't see Senegal
or South Korea playing more defensively.
As I said before, the "wrong" teams won with golden goals and the
Europeans lost because the europeans played more defensively. The
golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.
The golden goal was wonderful, the tension was incredible, it was
great to watch, and it promoted attacking football. That's why it was
done away with. We can't have the staid european teams losing can we?
The attacking African and Asian teams should be the ones losing. At
least that's the way FIFA and UEFA saw it.
That the golden goal was taken away is an absolute disgrace.

BTW I'm not criticising your point, I know the majority of posters are
against the golden goal. I think it's a psychological thing. After
golden goal is scored it's a massive emotional hit for both the
winners and the losers. If someone scores a goal in the current extra
time, usually there's a chance to respond ... "It's not over yet" etc.
But I loved it. I'm not into drugs or anything, but it was a big hit.
Some people just don't like the downside, whether it's the depression
of losing or the massive letdown ... "Oh, the game's over, oh shit,
what a downer" etc.
But from a pure footballing perspective it was brilliant. Even if
there is no golden goal, you can still have your penalty kicks if you
want them. But if someone scores the game is over. It made the tension
incredible. I loved it, obviously a lot of people can't handle the
actual tension of the golden goal ET period, or the massive letdown
(good or bad) if a goal is actually scored.
But from a football perspective I can't see how anyone can be against
it. Yeah, I know it's been done to death and I know I should
understand why golden goal is bad, but I still don't get how anyone
could be against it. Either from an emotional or a footballing
perspective.

I agree with most of what you say, except the football perspective.
(You are right about the emotional part - I absolutely /hated/ the
suspense, even when I was not rooting for any of the teams).
Why you are wrong about the football part - because of the concept
of fairness and equal conditions. For these reasons teams change field
sides at half-time. Not only can the pitch conditions be different in
the two ends of the stadium, but the linesmen are different too, and
both teams must have equal access to their blunders (or fairness).
That's why the silver goal too is worse than two extra-times (because if
you have a blind linesman that allows offside goals, it is only fair
that both teams have access to him). And it is one of the reasons why
penalty shoot-outs take place at /one/ of the goals only, not at both.
Another fairness point (that is currently not considered by
anybody) is the concept of "chance to react". (It is totally the
opposite of "sudden death"). What I personally would like to see, is a
guaranteed period of say, 5 minutes, that a team gets after an
outcome-changing goal, so they can react. For example, if the score was
1-1, and a goal is scored in the 89th minute, the game cannot end before
the 94th minute. If the down team manages to equalize inside that time,
another 5 minutes are tacked on from that moment, and so on. (If the up
team scores, nothing happens, as the outcome is the same). But I don't
think such a rule would be ever considered, although it is the fairest,
IMHO.

[Anto]

Post by ruud
Absolutely untrue, absolute bullshit if you don't mind me being blunt.
It made Italy and Sweden play more defensively. I didn't see Senegal
or South Korea playing more defensively.
As I said before, the "wrong" teams won with golden goals and the
Europeans lost because the europeans played more defensively. The
golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

This is the common interpretation but it could just be the myth that
FIFA wants to propagate, for sure.

Let's have a look at it.

All Golden Goals (sticking to men's senior international football) -
you can see the full listing including womens and youth football here
http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/eu/fifa/do/gben.pdf

28.06.1998
France - Paraguay
1-0
Laurent BLANC, 113'
FIFA World Cup 1998 - Round of 16

Ooops - one to Europe there.

16.06.2002
Sweden - Senegal
1-2
Henri CAMARA, 104'
FIFA World Cup 2002 - Round of 16

One to Africa over Europe.

18.06.2002
Korea Republic - Italy
2-1
Jung Hwan AHN, 117'
FIFA World Cup 2002 - Round of 16

One to Asia over Europe.

22.06.2002
Senegal - Turkey
0-1
Ilhan MANSIZ, 94'
FIFA World Cup 2002 - Quarterfinal

One to Europe over Africa.

So even if you want to just look at Korea/Japan 2002 - we have Europe
losing twice on GGs, but winning once. If you count WC 98 than we have
Europe beating South America on GG once. So in all World Cups where
the GG applied, Europe comes out 2:2 against non-European sides.

I note in two Uefa cups GGs featured too - surely those dour European
sides would have gone to PKs?

30.06.1996
Czech Republic - Germany
1-2
Oliver BIERHOFF, 95'
EURO 1996 - Final

02.07.2000
France - Italy
2-1
David TREZEGUET, 103'
EURO 2000 - Final

Discuss.

[James Farrar]

The golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

To quote you, bullshit.

[ruud]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:30 +0100, James Farrar

Post by James Farrar

The golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

To quote you, bullshit.

Well ... ok thanks for your input. But I've looked through the thread
and I can't see your persuasive argument in favour of doing away with
the golden goal. As I said, I'm in the minority, and I'm prepared for
you to tell me how the golden goal was a blight on the game and how it
should have been done away with.

But both you and I know you can't do it. You're not capable. Not
because you're an idiot (you're not), but because there is not a
single argument that can support the golden goal being done away with
and you're not capable of coming up with one.

But I'm still prepared to read your analysis and be convinced. So ..
let's have it then.

[James Farrar]

Post by ruud
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:30 +0100, James Farrar

Post by James Farrar

The golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

To quote you, bullshit.

Well ... ok thanks for your input. But I've looked through the thread

In which you will have found that European teams were 2-2 in golden
goal play at World Cups against teams from other confederations.

Post by ruud
and I can't see your persuasive argument in favour of doing away with
the golden goal. As I said, I'm in the minority, and I'm prepared for
you to tell me how the golden goal was a blight on the game and how it
should have been done away with.

Games in World Cups decided on penalties and in extra-time/golden
goal:

90 4 pen, 4 ET
94 3 pen, 1 ET
98 3 pen, 1 GG
02 2 pen, 3 GG

European Championships, after the move to 16 teams:

96 4 pen, 1 GG
00 1 pen, 2 GG

Initially, at least, GG had no effect in winning more games in extra
time. Did teams learn, or was it an aberration?

Certainly, I remember teams in GG playing primarily not to concede a
goal where they hadn't in the 90 minutes.

[ruud]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:27:13 +0100, James Farrar

Post by James Farrar

Post by ruud
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:30 +0100, James Farrar

Post by James Farrar

The golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

To quote you, bullshit.

Well ... ok thanks for your input. But I've looked through the thread

In which you will have found that European teams were 2-2 in golden
goal play at World Cups against teams from other confederations.

Post by ruud
and I can't see your persuasive argument in favour of doing away with
the golden goal. As I said, I'm in the minority, and I'm prepared for
you to tell me how the golden goal was a blight on the game and how it
should have been done away with.

Games in World Cups decided on penalties and in extra-time/golden
90 4 pen, 4 ET
94 3 pen, 1 ET
98 3 pen, 1 GG
02 2 pen, 3 GG
96 4 pen, 1 GG
00 1 pen, 2 GG
Initially, at least, GG had no effect in winning more games in extra
time. Did teams learn, or was it an aberration?
Certainly, I remember teams in GG playing primarily not to concede a
goal where they hadn't in the 90 minutes.

Fair enough. My experience of it is mostly the 02 World cup. The games
involving Sweden/Senegal/Italy/Korea were both won by the team who
were doing most of the attacking during the golden goal period. I
thought it was fantastic, I know I'm in the minority.

[anders t]

Post by ruud
Fair enough. My experience of it is mostly the 02 World cup. The games
involving Sweden/Senegal/Italy/Korea were both won by the team who
were doing most of the attacking during the golden goal period.

I don't recall Senegal being more offensive than Sweden in OT. I remember
the Swedish sloppy loss of ball on our left flank leading to the counter
attack that ended the game as somewhat against the flow of the game. And
Svensson was a decimeter from scoring the most beautiful goal of the
tournament. I'm not at all saying I recall Sweden dominated in the OT,
though.

[Erdal Paksoy]

Post by anders t

Post by ruud
Fair enough. My experience of it is mostly the 02 World cup. The games
involving Sweden/Senegal/Italy/Korea were both won by the team who
were doing most of the attacking during the golden goal period.

I don't recall Senegal being more offensive than Sweden in OT. I remember
the Swedish sloppy loss of ball on our left flank leading to the counter
attack that ended the game as somewhat against the flow of the game. And
Svensson was a decimeter from scoring the most beautiful goal of the
tournament. I'm not at all saying I recall Sweden dominated in the OT,
though.

Yes, that was one of the best games of the tournament. Sweden was unlucky to lose.
Senegal would have been too. They ended up losing another close one in the next
round.

Erdal

[MH]

Post by James Farrar

Post by ruud
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:30 +0100, James Farrar

Post by James Farrar

The golden goal was done away with because european teams were losing.

To quote you, bullshit.

Well ... ok thanks for your input. But I've looked through the thread

In which you will have found that European teams were 2-2 in golden
goal play at World Cups against teams from other confederations.

Post by ruud
and I can't see your persuasive argument in favour of doing away with
the golden goal. As I said, I'm in the minority, and I'm prepared for
you to tell me how the golden goal was a blight on the game and how it
should have been done away with.

Games in World Cups decided on penalties and in extra-time/golden

Certainly there was never any evidence that the golden goal encourage
teams to go for broke. My recollection is also that there were more
boring ET after the introductions of the GG, as teams were more afraid
of losing than ever (no chance to come back, like Germany in 1982, or
the brilliant Italy - Germany in 1970)

Post by James Farrar
90 4 pen, 4 ET
94 3 pen, 1 ET
98 3 pen, 1 GG
02 2 pen, 3 GG
96 4 pen, 1 GG

This was the first tournament with the GG, and it looked like a
disaster. 5 out of 7 knockout phase games went to extra time,
and four went to penalties.

Post by James Farrar
00 1 pen, 2 GG
Initially, at least, GG had no effect in winning more games in extra
time. Did teams learn, or was it an aberration?
Certainly, I remember teams in GG playing primarily not to concede a
goal where they hadn't in the 90 minutes.

Also, and I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, the golden goal
rule puts even more pressure on the referees at a crucial time. Calling
a penalty one minute into extra time is a lot easier to do if you know
the defending team has 29 minutes to respond.

Finally, ice hockey uses sudden death overtime to decide matches in the
playoffs (they also use a bizarre form of it in the regular season these
days), and in many cases the play is very cautious (even though there
are no penalties to wait for - they play until someone scores in the
playoffs (regular season they now have stupid shoot-out)) -- I have
always been wondering if things wouldn't improve if it WEREN'T sudden
death.

[AlanS]

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

Stop beating a dead horse already. Soccer is 90% luck anyway. PK's are
no worse than a golden goal in that respect. It takes skill to score
or save on a PK. And yes, defending is part of the game. Good offense
or good defense, doesn't matter - whatever gets the job done is fine.

[Victoria Barrett]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:13:03 -0500, "C. Barnowe" <***@shite.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

I have read some of this thread, and though it is true that hockey
players go until there is a winner, no matter how many overtimes it
takes, they also have the benefit of skates.

Guys, it's just not possible to run on the power of your own legs,
with a ball at your feet, or attempting to strip the ball off the foot
of others, forever.

10 men are charged with running for 45 mins at a time, and whilst
there are pauses, there are no "lines" which can rest like in hockey.

I know PKs suck, and I myself don't like them as a definition for a
World Cup, but I just don't see any other suggestion as doable.

Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.

And we have yet another 15 mins of execrable football in a Final,
because the stakes are so much higher.

Golden goal, and silver goal...no thanks for me, I'm afraid.

[s***@home.com]

Post by Victoria Barrett
<snip>

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

I have read some of this thread, and though it is true that hockey
players go until there is a winner, no matter how many overtimes it
takes, they also have the benefit of skates.
Guys, it's just not possible to run on the power of your own legs,
with a ball at your feet, or attempting to strip the ball off the foot
of others, forever.
10 men are charged with running for 45 mins at a time, and whilst
there are pauses, there are no "lines" which can rest like in hockey.
I know PKs suck, and I myself don't like them as a definition for a
World Cup, but I just don't see any other suggestion as doable.

It is a completey different.. In hockey you are constantly fighting
fatigue from your first shift onwards ... As a consequence of the
intensity and speed hockey is played at , the average shift is 45
seconds . the longer the game goes especiailly into single overtime ,
let alone double overtime it is absolutely excrutiating. ....
YOu are at Mac Level for 45 seconds every 3 min ..

YOu are comparing the fastes team sport in the world with soccer???
doesn't equate/

[Victoria Barrett]

Post by s***@home.com
It is a completey different.. In hockey you are constantly fighting
fatigue from your first shift onwards ... As a consequence of the
intensity and speed hockey is played at , the average shift is 45
seconds . the longer the game goes especiailly into single overtime ,
let alone double overtime it is absolutely excrutiating. ....
YOu are at Mac Level for 45 seconds every 3 min ..

This is true. I didn't mean to suggest that their legs don't turn to
jelly, or that they do not get as fatigued as footballers, but...

Was football EVER played on and on and on (like boxing matches used to
be, in the time of Sullivan and Corbett)?

The awkwardly phrased point I am trying to make is that since the very
beginning, rules-makers and footballers realised that the human body
could only take so much in soccer.

Else there wouldn't have been replays.

Post by s***@home.com
YOu are comparing the fastes team sport in the world with soccer???
doesn't equate/

I was not actually. Just chiming in to what others were saying. :)

[James Farrar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:19:40 -0400, Victoria Barrett

Post by Victoria Barrett

Post by s***@home.com
It is a completey different.. In hockey you are constantly fighting
fatigue from your first shift onwards ... As a consequence of the
intensity and speed hockey is played at , the average shift is 45
seconds . the longer the game goes especiailly into single overtime ,
let alone double overtime it is absolutely excrutiating. ....
YOu are at Mac Level for 45 seconds every 3 min ..

This is true. I didn't mean to suggest that their legs don't turn to
jelly, or that they do not get as fatigued as footballers, but...
Was football EVER played on and on and on (like boxing matches used to
be, in the time of Sullivan and Corbett)?

Yes.

"# The longest ever football match took place at Edgeley Park in 1946,
when Stockport County played Doncaster Rovers F.C. in the Division
Three (North) Cup. The game ended 2-2 after 90 minutes, and after 30
minutes of extra time there was still no winner, and it was decided
that the match should carry on until there was a winner. Some stories
tell of supporters leaving the match, going home for tea, and
returning to find the game still being played. After 203 minutes of
football, the referee blew his whistle to signify the end of the game
at around 7pm [due to poor visibility]. A toss of a coin decided that
a replay of the game would be held at Doncaster's ground, Belle Vue,
which Rovers won 4-0."

[v***@hotpop.com]

Post by s***@home.com
It is a completey different.. In hockey you are constantly fighting
fatigue from your first shift onwards ... As a consequence of the
intensity and speed hockey is played at , the average shift is 45
seconds . the longer the game goes especiailly into single overtime ,
let alone double overtime it is absolutely excrutiating. ....
YOu are at Mac Level for 45 seconds every 3 min ..
YOu are comparing the fastes team sport in the world with soccer???
doesn't equate/

I like both sports and I can tell you it doesn't equate in a way you
don't realize. When you are playing outside in the heat and humidity,
that takes an excrutiating toll on your body. Hockey is played inside
an arena(protected from the sun) that is air conditioned. Don't
oversimplify things.

Vince

[MMcc]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:39:47 -0400, Victoria Barrett

Post by Victoria Barrett
<snip>

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

I have read some of this thread, and though it is true that hockey
players go until there is a winner, no matter how many overtimes it
takes, they also have the benefit of skates.
Guys, it's just not possible to run on the power of your own legs,
with a ball at your feet, or attempting to strip the ball off the foot
of others, forever.
10 men are charged with running for 45 mins at a time, and whilst
there are pauses, there are no "lines" which can rest like in hockey.
I know PKs suck, and I myself don't like them as a definition for a
World Cup, but I just don't see any other suggestion as doable.
Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.
And we have yet another 15 mins of execrable football in a Final,
because the stakes are so much higher.
Golden goal, and silver goal...no thanks for me, I'm afraid.

I can't believe no one is suggesting a replay.

That was the time honoured way of settling finals in the past. You can
make a case that during mid season a replay is a scheduling headache,
but for the last game in a WC, then coming back the next wednesday is
only going to cut into a player's vacation time at the very worst.

If I remember correctly they even used play-offs in earlier WCs for
tie breakers, instead of GD etc.

[Victoria Barrett]

Post by MMcc
I can't believe no one is suggesting a replay.

LOL! I just mentioned that, in my recent reply.

Post by MMcc
That was the time honoured way of settling finals in the past. You can
make a case that during mid season a replay is a scheduling headache,
but for the last game in a WC, then coming back the next wednesday is
only going to cut into a player's vacation time at the very worst.
If I remember correctly they even used play-offs in earlier WCs for
tie breakers, instead of GD etc.

Yes. And remember that Brazil only needed a draw versus Uruguay, to
win their World Cup in 1950.

However, given modern-day realities, having a replay of a Final is
just not doable.

One has to be practical, as well as romantical about the sport. ;)

[James Farrar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:22:39 -0400, Victoria Barrett

Post by Victoria Barrett
However, given modern-day realities, having a replay of a Final is
just not doable.

I don't see why.

Set the stadium aside for the Wednesday evening; set up a ticket
office in a portakabin in the biggest open space in the city where the
game will be played, and get the fans to go and queue. Sure the
sponsors and corporate hospitality wouldn't get a look-in, but they
get the other 64 games; let the 65th be for the fans.

The best atmospheres for Wimbledon have always been when they've
needed to use the middle Sunday, and they have a damn sight less than
72 hours to sort out the ticketing and getting fans aware of the
event.

[MH]

Post by Victoria Barrett

Post by MMcc
I can't believe no one is suggesting a replay.

LOL! I just mentioned that, in my recent reply.

Post by MMcc
That was the time honoured way of settling finals in the past. You can
make a case that during mid season a replay is a scheduling headache,
but for the last game in a WC, then coming back the next wednesday is
only going to cut into a player's vacation time at the very worst.
If I remember correctly they even used play-offs in earlier WCs for
tie breakers, instead of GD etc.

Replays and tie breakers were used as late as 1958. What I don't know
is what the provisions were for breaking a tie after extra time in 1962
-1978 as the situation never arose until 1982.

Post by Victoria Barrett
Yes. And remember that Brazil only needed a draw versus Uruguay, to
win their World Cup in 1950.
However, given modern-day realities, having a replay of a Final is
just not doable.
One has to be practical, as well as romantical about the sport. ;)

[Futbolmetrix]

Replays and tie breakers were used as late as 1958. What I don't know is
what the provisions were for breaking a tie after extra time in 1962 -1978
as the situation never arose until 1982.

I'm fairly sure that it was coin toss in 1970. Italy advanced to the 1968
final on a coin toss. (Too bad Canada wasn't in the WC those years at the
time :-)

Penalty kicks were introduced in the early 1970s, but I think that the 1974
and 1978 finals would have been replayed had they ended in a draw after 120
minutes, with PKs possibly used only to decide the replay. The final in 1982
would have been replayed had it ended in a draw.

I don't remember about 1986 and 1990, but I suspect that a replay was
scheduled for the final, and 1994 was the first time where there was no
replay planned.

Daniele

[anders t]

Post by Futbolmetrix

Replays and tie breakers were used as late as 1958. What I don't know is
what the provisions were for breaking a tie after extra time in 1962 -1978
as the situation never arose until 1982.

I'm fairly sure that it was coin toss in 1970. Italy advanced to the 1968
final on a coin toss. (Too bad Canada wasn't in the WC those years at the
time :-)
Penalty kicks were introduced in the early 1970s, but I think that the 1974
and 1978 finals would have been replayed had they ended in a draw after 120
minutes, with PKs possibly used only to decide the replay. The final in 1982
would have been replayed had it ended in a draw.
I don't remember about 1986 and 1990, but I suspect that a replay was
scheduled for the final, and 1994 was the first time where there was no
replay planned.

Btw...

In the WCQ 1962 Sweden was the "victim" of a totally unnecessary replay
rule.

Group 1

SWE-BEL 2:0 (2:0)
BEL-SUI 2:4 (1:2)
SUI-BEL 2:1 (2:0)
SWE-SUI 4:0 (2:0)
BEL-SWE 0:2 (0:0)
SUI-SWE 3:2 (1:1) (the winning goal scored @ 81'...)

1.SWE> 4 6 3 0 1 10- 3
2.SUI> 4 6 3 0 1 9- 9
3.BEL 4 0 0 0 4 3-10

The replay:
SUI-SWE 2:1 (0:1)
0-1 Brodd 20
1-1 Schneiter 65
2-1 Antenen 76

[source: rsssf]

The Swizz practically apologized afterwards.

[MH]

Post by Futbolmetrix

Replays and tie breakers were used as late as 1958. What I don't know is
what the provisions were for breaking a tie after extra time in 1962 -1978
as the situation never arose until 1982.

I'm fairly sure that it was coin toss in 1970. Italy advanced to the 1968
final on a coin toss.

True, but won the Championship on a replay

I also note that a replay was used in the QF in 1972 - a third match and
not away goals.

(Too bad Canada wasn't in the WC those years at the

Post by Futbolmetrix
time :-)
Penalty kicks were introduced in the early 1970s, but I think that the 1974
and 1978 finals would have been replayed had they ended in a draw after 120
minutes, with PKs possibly used only to decide the replay.

However, the 1976 Euro was decided on penalties, so there is at least a
possibility that the 1974 and 1978 WC might have been too.

The final in 1982

Post by Futbolmetrix
would have been replayed had it ended in a draw.
I don't remember about 1986 and 1990, but I suspect that a replay was
scheduled for the final,

Don't think so in 1990, as I clearly remember the commentators going on
about hoping this match did not end on penalties, like the 2 semifinals.
Conspiracy theorists even suggest Codesal had explicit instructions not
to let it go to penalties.

and 1994 was the first time where there was no

Post by Futbolmetrix
replay planned.
Daniele

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by MMcc
I can't believe no one is suggesting a replay.

Logistics nightmare.

Post by MMcc
That was the time honoured way of settling finals in the past. You can
make a case that during mid season a replay is a scheduling headache,
but for the last game in a WC, then coming back the next wednesday is
only going to cut into a player's vacation time at the very worst.

Player's vacations, sure.

Now try "60k extra tickets, a big part of them juggling hotel and plane
reservations..."

[JK]

Post by Victoria Barrett
Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.

Nope. I'm saying that you keep the current system for every game EXCEPT
THE FINAL of the WC (and Euro, Copa, CAF, etc.). In the final you play
30 minutes of extra time and then 15 minute sudden death until someone
scores. No penalty kicks.

I would also allow one extra sub for the 30 minutes of extra time and
one for each golden goal period. (But no one can re-enter a game.)
Makes for some interesting coaching dilemmas!

The ONLY downside I can see is that it could encourage even more diving
in the box once we get to sudden-death, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Post by Victoria Barrett
And we have yet another 15 mins of execrable football in a Final,
because the stakes are so much higher.
Golden goal, and silver goal...no thanks for me, I'm afraid.

[Lléo]

Post by JK

Post by Victoria Barrett
Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.

Nope. I'm saying that you keep the current system for every game EXCEPT
THE FINAL of the WC (and Euro, Copa, CAF, etc.). In the final you play 30
minutes of extra time and then 15 minute sudden death until someone
scores. No penalty kicks.
I would also allow one extra sub for the 30 minutes of extra time and one
for each golden goal period. (But no one can re-enter a game.) Makes for
some interesting coaching dilemmas!
The ONLY downside I can see is that it could encourage even more diving in
the box once we get to sudden-death, but I'm willing to take that risk.

The other being that the quality of the play unavoidably goes down as the
teams grow increasingly worn off. Awarding the "more fit" (or resistant)
team is not necessarily more fair than awarding the pk shootout winner. If a
team has its main playes coming from recent injuries, that team is likely to
suffer more than the other.

For example, Italy in 1994 final had Baggio playing injured and Baresi
coming from a surgery. The "play 'till they drop" method would clearly be
unfair to them, as they're not to blame for having had injuries. In that
sense, a team is unlucky as it could be by, say, missing a penalty. A deep
roster does not necessarily cover this problem, as some players are not easy
to replace.

I tend agree with you, though, on the extra substitution. Although it takes
away a coaching dillema during normal time (since, as it is now, the coach
has to consider whether he uses up his three substitutions in the 90 minutes
or keeps one for extra time), the tradeoff, in theory, is worth it - either
a rested forward to run up against tired defenses, or a rested defender to
join the resistance if a team is undergoing a blitz. However it's worth
noting, though, whether in practice this would actually work as we intend it
to. For example, take a coach that saves a substitution for extra time -
when he uses it, does it impact the play in the way we're imagining it? The
answer might be "not always".

For the final, I'd settle for a replay. Only one, though. If they're still
tied after 120 mins of replay, either share the title or bring on the
penalties. I believe that there is enough of football in the pk shootout to
render it a valid tiebreaker, but it should apply to title-deciding games
only as a very last resort.

--
Lléo

[JK]

Post by Lléo

Post by JK

Post by Victoria Barrett
Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.

Nope. I'm saying that you keep the current system for every game EXCEPT
THE FINAL of the WC (and Euro, Copa, CAF, etc.). In the final you play 30
minutes of extra time and then 15 minute sudden death until someone
scores. No penalty kicks.
I would also allow one extra sub for the 30 minutes of extra time and one
for each golden goal period. (But no one can re-enter a game.) Makes for
some interesting coaching dilemmas!
The ONLY downside I can see is that it could encourage even more diving in
the box once we get to sudden-death, but I'm willing to take that risk.

The other being that the quality of the play unavoidably goes down as the
teams grow increasingly worn off.

Probably true, but the teams in question have no one to blame but
themselves. And I'd still rather see a championship decided by the two
best teams playing sloppy soccer than by a bunch of well-taken PKs.
(And BTW, both teams took their kicks well on Sunday, even Trez was
probably an inch from scoring.)

Awarding the "more fit" (or resistant)

Post by Lléo
team is not necessarily more fair than awarding the pk shootout winner.

I would definitely disagree on that. This way it's at least settled on
the field. ANY system will be imperfect and favor SOMEBODY for some
reason, I just think this would be the least objectionable.

If a

Post by Lléo
team has its main playes coming from recent injuries, that team is likely to
suffer more than the other.
For example, Italy in 1994 final had Baggio playing injured and Baresi
coming from a surgery. The "play 'till they drop" method would clearly be
unfair to them, as they're not to blame for having had injuries.

True, but what can you do? You could also argue they already took a
greater risk by fielding them from the opening whistle. (I was pretty
surprised Baresi played to tell you the truth. Fortunately, he played
great.)

In that

Post by Lléo
sense, a team is unlucky as it could be by, say, missing a penalty. A deep
roster does not necessarily cover this problem, as some players are not easy
to replace.
I tend agree with you, though, on the extra substitution. Although it takes
away a coaching dillema during normal time (since, as it is now, the coach
has to consider whether he uses up his three substitutions in the 90 minutes
or keeps one for extra time), the tradeoff, in theory, is worth it - either
a rested forward to run up against tired defenses, or a rested defender to
join the resistance if a team is undergoing a blitz. However it's worth
noting, though, whether in practice this would actually work as we intend it
to. For example, take a coach that saves a substitution for extra time -
when he uses it, does it impact the play in the way we're imagining it? The
answer might be "not always".

Exactly.

Post by Lléo
For the final, I'd settle for a replay.

Everyone would, but I believe it's completely impractical at the WC
level. You can keep people in the stadium an extra hour or two if you
have to, but you can't bring them all back a week later.

Only one, though. If they're still

Post by Lléo
tied after 120 mins of replay, either share the title or bring on the
penalties. I believe that there is enough of football in the pk shootout to
render it a valid tiebreaker, but it should apply to title-deciding games
only as a very last resort.
--
Lléo

[Sydney Diego]

Post by Victoria Barrett
<snip>

Post by C. Barnowe
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

I have read some of this thread, and though it is true that hockey
players go until there is a winner, no matter how many overtimes it
takes, they also have the benefit of skates.
Guys, it's just not possible to run on the power of your own legs,
with a ball at your feet, or attempting to strip the ball off the foot
of others, forever.
10 men are charged with running for 45 mins at a time, and whilst
there are pauses, there are no "lines" which can rest like in hockey.
I know PKs suck, and I myself don't like them as a definition for a
World Cup, but I just don't see any other suggestion as doable.
Even though John Knapp suggested an extra EXTRA time and then go to
PKs, which may be reasonable, that still won't prevent a manager and
his players to play for PKs.
And we have yet another 15 mins of execrable football in a Final,
because the stakes are so much higher.
Golden goal, and silver goal...no thanks for me, I'm afraid.

They could always do like the NFL, and in the event of a tie award the
game to the first team who's not quite good enough to score a touchdown
(goal), but who can travel 65% of the way down the field then kick the
ball the rest of the way (field goal), in other words, the team who
wins the coin toss...........

[elyeagels32]

Post by C. Barnowe
Upon brief reflection...
I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. Sure Italy were tired, but there's no denying they played for
penalties. France too was exhausted and kept up the attack. I would have
preferred to see attacking, or at least motivated counterattacking, Italian
soccer in the ET of the World Cup Final.
So...bring back the golden goal. Do anyone really think penalty kicks are
the way to end matches at the World Cup level? Come now...discuss :)

i know how you feal but i dont like golden goal so it a bit of a
confusion for me but i think
you should do corners insted how it would work would be the attacking
team would chose
5 players and corner taker but the corner taker would have to change
each time so would the player in the box and you get 5 corners each and
you take it in turns to take the corners
but the defending team chose 5 players and their gollie at the end of
the 120mins and they have to clear the ball to the half way line but
the attacking team has to get th ball in the goal.


by elyeagels32

[Anto]

Post by elyeagels32
i know how you feal but i dont like golden goal so it a bit of a
confusion for me but i think
you should do corners insted how it would work would be the attacking
team would chose
5 players and corner taker but the corner taker would have to change
each time so would the player in the box and you get 5 corners each and
you take it in turns to take the corners
but the defending team chose 5 players and their gollie at the end of
the 120mins and they have to clear the ball to the half way line but
the attacking team has to get th ball in the goal.
by elyeagels32

Favours taller teams.

[Bruce Scott TOK]

Post by C. Barnowe
Upon brief reflection...
I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. [...]

I don't blame Italy for that this time... they were simply not able to
run anymore.

[v***@hotpop.com]

Post by Bruce Scott TOK

Post by C. Barnowe
Upon brief reflection...
I enjoy watching ET as much as the next fan. However, Italy yesterday
demonstrated the problem with FIFA's ET system in this Cup...namely by
refusing to play for the win even after France was missing Zidane, Ribery
and Henry. [...]

I don't blame Italy for that this time... they were simply not able to
run anymore.

Everyone sees things differently, France were not allowing Italy to get
anything started because a defender was on the Italian ball carrier in
an instant and then others closed off all the passing lanes. Italy
could not get any flow going because the French were quick to disrupt
it. Did you see how many long air balls Italy shot toward their front
men in the hopes of them getting it? They just couldn't get anything
done in the 2nd half because of France and not their unwillingness to
score. France couldn't score because Italy's defense was excellent and
that's why you got PKs. Neither side is going to give the other a free
goal so we need to stop complaining about good defenses.

Golden goal plus reduce each side to 6 men or so(not including
goaltender). I don't know what the right number is, that's why you
have to experiment and see what works. However, FIFA will not try
anything more creative that GG it's seems. At least you are still
playing soccer no matter what the nay sayers may claim. I don't know
what sport PK is, but it's not soccer.

Vince

[Marc Adler]

Post by v***@hotpop.com
Golden goal plus reduce each side to 6 men or so(not including
goaltender).

Why not just remove the goalie? You don't have to do a Golden Goal.
Every five minutes, remove another man from each team, starting with
defense. Someone is bound to score pretty quickly.

Marc

[Marc Adler]

Post by Marc Adler
Why not just remove the goalie? You don't have to do a Golden Goal.
Every five minutes, remove another man from each team, starting with
defense. Someone is bound to score pretty quickly.

Actually, scratch that. Here's an idea that everyone will think is fair
and which will promote fair play at the same time.

If the two teams are tied after ET, the team with fewer cards wins. You
could tally the cards by assigning points to them: say, one for yellow,
two for red.

The only drawback would be an onslaught of diving, but since FIFA will
eventually institute video replay for referees (this is the 21st
century, after all), that can be taken care of, too.

Marc