|
|
On January 20 2017 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:that looks so much worse than regular penalties  of which I don't understand the hate for, at all, anyway. There's no issue with penalty shootouts, the issue is people thinking they're necessarily gonna crowd a 'worthy champion' in a best of 1 (or even best of 2), and not regarding knockout tournaments as primarily entertainment.
People hate it because they consider it random and mostly dependent on luck and nerves.
It is completely different to the rest of the game, because it revolves around individual performance and the teamplay and depth goes out of the window.
However there is no viable solution to fixing it, you cannot just play infinite overtime like they do in hockey without and different sub rules.
The only idea I would like enough to at least try is to reduce the players over time. Like extras start with 10v10 and every 10/5 minutes 1 more player goes off and you can still do pens after 7v7 hasn't resolved it. And i still don't think that this system would work/be better than it is now.
|
On January 20 2017 01:19 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:that looks so much worse than regular penalties of which I don't understand the hate for, at all, anyway. There's no issue with penalty shootouts, the issue is people thinking they're necessarily gonna crowd a 'worthy champion' in a best of 1 (or even best of 2), and not regarding knockout tournaments as primarily entertainment. People hate it because they consider it random and mostly dependent on luck and nerves. It is completely different to the rest of the game, because it revolves around individual performance and the teamplay and depth goes out of the window. However there is no viable solution to fixing it, you cannot just play infinite overtime like they do in hockey without and different sub rules. The only idea I would like enough to at least try is to reduce the players over time. Like extras start with 10v10 and every 10/5 minutes 1 more player goes off and you can still do pens after 7v7 hasn't resolved it. And i still don't think that this system would work/be better than it is now.
No. Continue on until 1v1. It'd be epic :D
More epic than watching a center back try to dribble around a keeper.
|
On January 20 2017 01:19 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:that looks so much worse than regular penalties of which I don't understand the hate for, at all, anyway. There's no issue with penalty shootouts, the issue is people thinking they're necessarily gonna crowd a 'worthy champion' in a best of 1 (or even best of 2), and not regarding knockout tournaments as primarily entertainment. People hate it because they consider it random and mostly dependent on luck and nerves. It is completely different to the rest of the game, because it revolves around individual performance and the teamplay and depth goes out of the window. However there is no viable solution to fixing it, you cannot just play infinite overtime like they do in hockey without and different sub rules. The only idea I would like enough to at least try is to reduce the players over time. Like extras start with 10v10 and every 10/5 minutes 1 more player goes off and you can still do pens after 7v7 hasn't resolved it. And i still don't think that this system would work/be better than it is now.
why not take it further and just take turns on half the field, that way less running.
each team takes turns on offense, you can either go with the offensive turn ends on a shot or a clear or even a set amount of time, say 3 minutes and the time stops after a shot/clear or defensive team possession, and whoever has more goals wins. of course its not gonna be 10v10 anymore, maybe like 5v5?
|
Norway28739 Posts
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
|
On January 20 2017 02:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
While thats true the idea behind a league system is that it attempts to eliminate randomness. Thats what I like about a leagues. If you have the most points after 38 weeks or whatever, no one can argue that you were not the best team that year. So yes randomness within the individual games is great, but it would suck if teams were winning leagues randomly.
Thats why sometimes the CL or Euro or WC winner (or even a team placing really well) makes you go "meh" because the knockout and any given Sunday element is more prevalent. I think the problem people have with pens is that the element of randomness is basically at its peak in that scenario.
Yes Liverpool losing the sort of game you described is also random but its just one data point so it can get covered by extended periods of success. But the thing with pens is they are normally resorted in scenarios where you are doing it "for all the marbles" so to speak. Thats where the heightened scrutiny comes from.
Im ok with it. I cant think of a better idea, and all other ideas are convoluted as fuck.
|
I can't take seriously Portugal eurocup with them being #3 of a 4 team group. Knockup tournaments are so luck based that it is hilarious.
|
Norway28739 Posts
On January 20 2017 05:00 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 02:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
While thats true the idea behind a league system is that it attempts to eliminate randomness. Thats what I like about a leagues. If you have the most points after 38 weeks or whatever, no one can argue that you were not the best team that year. So yes randomness within the individual games is great, but it would suck if teams were winning leagues randomly. Thats why sometimes the CL or Euro or WC winner (or even a team placing really well) makes you go "meh" because the knockout and any given Sunday element is more prevalent. I think the problem people have with pens is that the element of randomness is basically at its peak in that scenario. Yes Liverpool losing the sort of game you described is also random but its just one data point so it can get covered by extended periods of success. But the thing with pens is they are normally resorted in scenarios where you are doing it "for all the marbles" so to speak. Thats where the heightened scrutiny comes from. Im ok with it. I cant think of a better idea, and all other ideas are convoluted as fuck.
Yeah I basically think that as long as we want a knockout format we just need to accept some randomness. Club football is the highest level, and then the best teams are rewarded through winning the leagues and consistently performing well in the CL, then EC/WC is the most entertaining but it doesn't necessarily display the best football or end up with the worthiest winner. I'm okay with this. 
|
I find it ridiculous that these FIFA folks or legends spend so much effort trying to change what is fundamentally fine (offside, 32 team tournament etc) instead of fixing what's wrong atm (bad ref decisions/offside calls). Its almost as if they're throwing random ideas just so they can be elected.
|
On January 20 2017 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:00 Rebs wrote:On January 20 2017 02:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
While thats true the idea behind a league system is that it attempts to eliminate randomness. Thats what I like about a leagues. If you have the most points after 38 weeks or whatever, no one can argue that you were not the best team that year. So yes randomness within the individual games is great, but it would suck if teams were winning leagues randomly. Thats why sometimes the CL or Euro or WC winner (or even a team placing really well) makes you go "meh" because the knockout and any given Sunday element is more prevalent. I think the problem people have with pens is that the element of randomness is basically at its peak in that scenario. Yes Liverpool losing the sort of game you described is also random but its just one data point so it can get covered by extended periods of success. But the thing with pens is they are normally resorted in scenarios where you are doing it "for all the marbles" so to speak. Thats where the heightened scrutiny comes from. Im ok with it. I cant think of a better idea, and all other ideas are convoluted as fuck. Yeah I basically think that as long as we want a knockout format we just need to accept some randomness. Club football is the highest level, and then the best teams are rewarded through winning the leagues and consistently performing well in the CL, then EC/WC is the most entertaining but it doesn't necessarily display the best football or end up with the worthiest winner. I'm okay with this.
CL is just as unpredictable as EC/WC. The two legs format makes it a bit more rewarding for the better teams, but you can still draw the toughest opponents round after round. I'm okay with it too, I would just change two things: no "2 clubs from the same country can't face each other" for the ro16; and full draw from the group phase (including knockout phase), like the EC/WC. I don't really have a valid reason for the 2nd one, just that it doesn't feel right currently. Even the Copa del Rey is like this now, while a few years ago you had the whole draw from the ro16. I like imagining future match-ups, and I feel like it's better to say "Madrid got Napoli because Chelsea fucked up the previous round" rather than "Madrid got lucky with Napoli again, ugh".
|
On January 20 2017 16:31 WillyWanker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 20 2017 05:00 Rebs wrote:On January 20 2017 02:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
While thats true the idea behind a league system is that it attempts to eliminate randomness. Thats what I like about a leagues. If you have the most points after 38 weeks or whatever, no one can argue that you were not the best team that year. So yes randomness within the individual games is great, but it would suck if teams were winning leagues randomly. Thats why sometimes the CL or Euro or WC winner (or even a team placing really well) makes you go "meh" because the knockout and any given Sunday element is more prevalent. I think the problem people have with pens is that the element of randomness is basically at its peak in that scenario. Yes Liverpool losing the sort of game you described is also random but its just one data point so it can get covered by extended periods of success. But the thing with pens is they are normally resorted in scenarios where you are doing it "for all the marbles" so to speak. Thats where the heightened scrutiny comes from. Im ok with it. I cant think of a better idea, and all other ideas are convoluted as fuck. Yeah I basically think that as long as we want a knockout format we just need to accept some randomness. Club football is the highest level, and then the best teams are rewarded through winning the leagues and consistently performing well in the CL, then EC/WC is the most entertaining but it doesn't necessarily display the best football or end up with the worthiest winner. I'm okay with this. CL is just as unpredictable as EC/WC. The two legs format makes it a bit more rewarding for the better teams, but you can still draw the toughest opponents round after round. I'm okay with it too, I would just change two things: no "2 clubs from the same country can't face each other" for the ro16; and full draw from the group phase (including knockout phase), like the EC/WC. I don't really have a valid reason for the 2nd one, just that it doesn't feel right currently. Even the Copa del Rey is like this now, while a few years ago you had the whole draw from the ro16. I like imagining future match-ups, and I feel like it's better to say "Madrid got Napoli because Chelsea fucked up the previous round" rather than "Madrid got lucky with Napoli again, ugh".
No. Madrid got Napoli, because they (probably deliberately) came second. They have a history of trying to game the system (Ramos' yellow card springs to mind).
|
On January 20 2017 11:34 DucK- wrote:
I find it ridiculous that these FIFA folks or legends spend so much effort trying to change what is fundamentally fine (offside, 32 team tournament etc) instead of fixing what's wrong atm (bad ref decisions/offside calls). Its almost as if they're throwing random ideas just so they can be elected.
Welcome to 21st century. I hate that behaviour. They want any change. Doesnt matter if a good or a bad one, but essential a change. Especially politicians and lawyers (only when they have power to change laws). They all enjoy with passion that they have changed something.
|
On January 20 2017 17:10 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 11:34 DucK- wrote:
I find it ridiculous that these FIFA folks or legends spend so much effort trying to change what is fundamentally fine (offside, 32 team tournament etc) instead of fixing what's wrong atm (bad ref decisions/offside calls). Its almost as if they're throwing random ideas just so they can be elected. Welcome to 21st century. I hate that behaviour. They want any change. Doesnt matter if a good or a bad one, but essential a change. Especially politicians and lawyers (only when they have power to change laws). They all enjoy with passion that they have changed something.
FIFA must be almost as bad as all that "everything was always fine, change is bad, wuhuhu" crowd.
Sure, you can talk a lot about how things are working on the financial side and its consequences (e.g. 48 team WC), but if we just talk about the rules of the game, I have seen way more complaints in the past that changes are coming too slow instead of too quick.
- goal line technology <<< most people complained why they didn't start with this earlier and instead had introduced those useless goal line refs...
- video ref <<< people may bitch about implementation, but the general need for it is widely accepted
- rule changes right before the EC <<< yeah, there were some funny ones, but most of those were really not bad and had good reason
- timed sendoffs for tactical fouls <<< given the state of modern football where players are trained from youngest age to do those tactical fouls, finding a new approach was absolutely needed and the idea isn't exactly new as it was voiced quite often....
- new penalty shootouts <<< after the changes to the WC thinking about making tiebreakers more interesting was logical... people may not necessarily like it, but I see where they come from here again...
And well... there is a reason why those new ideas are TESTED... There can be seen how they work, how they can be improved etc. And then a decision can be made.
|
On January 20 2017 17:10 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 11:34 DucK- wrote:
I find it ridiculous that these FIFA folks or legends spend so much effort trying to change what is fundamentally fine (offside, 32 team tournament etc) instead of fixing what's wrong atm (bad ref decisions/offside calls). Its almost as if they're throwing random ideas just so they can be elected. Welcome to 21st century. I hate that behaviour. They want any change. Doesnt matter if a good or a bad one, but essential a change. Especially politicians and lawyers (only when they have power to change laws). They all enjoy with passion that they have changed something.
Where do you come from? People in my country always want the status quo and DID NOT get the notice that we live in the 21st century and DO NEED change more often than not.
|
On January 20 2017 16:31 WillyWanker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 20 2017 05:00 Rebs wrote:On January 20 2017 02:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But the randomness of football is such a big part of why it's the number one spectator sport. Pep's Barcelona being so good at controlling the game that they partially succeeded in removing randomness lead to people (myself included) thinking that watching them was boring. Penalty shootouts are less random than Liverpool losing 0-2 vs Burnley despite having 80-20 possession and 26-3 shots in their favor. Whenever a team won a game with one goal and the other had a shot in the post, the result had significant random factor to it. (If you wanna argue that it doesn't then penalty shootouts don't, either.)
I mean, not really arguing against you, I know you're just explaining a pov, but I just think that randomness is actually pretty awesome. If you look at a sport like handball, where there are so many more situations that the inherent randomness largely evens itself out, you almost never get upsets, and the possibility of upsets is a requirement for excitement.
While thats true the idea behind a league system is that it attempts to eliminate randomness. Thats what I like about a leagues. If you have the most points after 38 weeks or whatever, no one can argue that you were not the best team that year. So yes randomness within the individual games is great, but it would suck if teams were winning leagues randomly. Thats why sometimes the CL or Euro or WC winner (or even a team placing really well) makes you go "meh" because the knockout and any given Sunday element is more prevalent. I think the problem people have with pens is that the element of randomness is basically at its peak in that scenario. Yes Liverpool losing the sort of game you described is also random but its just one data point so it can get covered by extended periods of success. But the thing with pens is they are normally resorted in scenarios where you are doing it "for all the marbles" so to speak. Thats where the heightened scrutiny comes from. Im ok with it. I cant think of a better idea, and all other ideas are convoluted as fuck. Yeah I basically think that as long as we want a knockout format we just need to accept some randomness. Club football is the highest level, and then the best teams are rewarded through winning the leagues and consistently performing well in the CL, then EC/WC is the most entertaining but it doesn't necessarily display the best football or end up with the worthiest winner. I'm okay with this. CL is just as unpredictable as EC/WC. The two legs format makes it a bit more rewarding for the better teams, but you can still draw the toughest opponents round after round. I'm okay with it too, I would just change two things: no "2 clubs from the same country can't face each other" for the ro16; and full draw from the group phase (including knockout phase), like the EC/WC. I don't really have a valid reason for the 2nd one, just that it doesn't feel right currently. Even the Copa del Rey is like this now, while a few years ago you had the whole draw from the ro16. I like imagining future match-ups, and I feel like it's better to say "Madrid got Napoli because Chelsea fucked up the previous round" rather than "Madrid got lucky with Napoli again, ugh".
Just as unpredictable? We've had a Bayern, Real Madrid, Barcelona semi finals a couple of times in a row. I actually find that pretty boring :/.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 20 2017 17:22 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 17:10 Dingodile wrote:On January 20 2017 11:34 DucK- wrote:
I find it ridiculous that these FIFA folks or legends spend so much effort trying to change what is fundamentally fine (offside, 32 team tournament etc) instead of fixing what's wrong atm (bad ref decisions/offside calls). Its almost as if they're throwing random ideas just so they can be elected. Welcome to 21st century. I hate that behaviour. They want any change. Doesnt matter if a good or a bad one, but essential a change. Especially politicians and lawyers (only when they have power to change laws). They all enjoy with passion that they have changed something. FIFA must be almost as bad as all that "everything was always fine, change is bad, wuhuhu" crowd. Sure, you can talk a lot about how things are working on the financial side and its consequences (e.g. 48 team WC), but if we just talk about the rules of the game, I have seen way more complaints in the past that changes are coming too slow instead of too quick. - goal line technology <<< most people complained why they didn't start with this earlier and instead had introduced those useless goal line refs... - video ref <<< people may bitch about implementation, but the general need for it is widely accepted - rule changes right before the EC <<< yeah, there were some funny ones, but most of those were really not bad and had good reason - timed sendoffs for tactical fouls <<< given the state of modern football where players are trained from youngest age to do those tactical fouls, finding a new approach was absolutely needed and the idea isn't exactly new as it was voiced quite often.... - new penalty shootouts <<< after the changes to the WC thinking about making tiebreakers more interesting was logical... people may not necessarily like it, but I see where they come from here again... And well... there is a reason why those new ideas are TESTED... There can be seen how they work, how they can be improved etc. And then a decision can be made.
Goal line technology was because FIFA and UEFA were run by morons is to why we got that so slowly. It also wanst until England got fucked by Germany and said officials who were blind that FIFA had no choice to implement it. They also STILL made a woefully long decisions to get it into the game in which English FA decided to implement it in the domestic league before FIFA approved it.
Video technology ref thing is good and will be very useful but that still needs to iron out all the creases to be perfected. We need to know if the Ref or 3rd official is gonna look at said screen. We need to know what you can asked to be checked and we need to know how many chances u get. Aka in cricket u get 3 chances at a decisions and u keep a chance if u appeal and get it right. That's in the longer format and it is 1 in the 1 day format so who knows.
Penalty shoot outs and timed send offs change the game WAY TO MUCH to the fact it aint football anymore. We do not need a new penalty shoot out idea imo at all, if after 120 minutes no team has won then a penalty shoot out is deservedly a right way to sort it out. Tactical fouls are punished with a sending off not a sin bin or you will see 10x more tactical fouls due to not being scared off a red card ever again.
The stuff Van Basten has been spewing about the changes are awful and very sponsor friendly. 90 minutes split into 4 quarters for example. Why does he want that? Hmm i know maybe because FIFA can sell advertising space every 20 minutes for 5 minutes just like amazing American sports. When i watch football i don't want to watch more adverts than football!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ovjDkAy.jpg)
Is what im on about if you not seen
|
No extra time is also terrible. Just gives even more incentive to waste time rolling around on the ground acting injured.
E: in fact, why is this presented by the technical development officer and not the commercial development officer? Getting rid of offside might be interesting. Orange cards have potential. The rest is terrible.
|
|
|
On January 20 2017 18:36 Pandemona wrote:Didn't football start with no offside rule and you literally turn it into striker sits on edge of opponent box for 90 minutes? xD Same with in 70s when you could freely pass the ball back to the keeper and he picks it up, encourages time wasting. But yeah it's very annoying. I wish they would just talk about Video Ref and funding more grass roots and not pretending they doing something productive. All this points to for me still is there is Sponsors and money that controls our game
Yes. Football without offside was stupid (presumably, it was introduced a long long time ago), but the game has changed in many ways, and it's worth experimenting whether the rule is still necessary.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
True can't say it is a bad idea without seeing what it would be like now. But isn't there a debate for just changing offside rule again or just clarifying it to be easier?
Offside - You are offside if you are ahead of the last defending by ANY part of your body when the ball is played, whether you are near the ball or not.
Just a flat rule like that so no interfering with goal keeper view or "not being active" etcetc? Linesman then just flag all the time or something i don't know. However the rule now is like 15 mini rules and stuff.
|
On January 20 2017 18:27 Acrofales wrote:
No extra time is also terrible. Just gives even more incentive to waste time rolling around on the ground acting injured.
now we see what happens when people get their information of single pictures instead of reading what was really said...
1) I'm not even sure you realized he was talking about the additional 30 minutes extra time used as tiebreaker, not about stoppage/injury time.
2) the reasoning for the change is again in the new WC groupstage and it was even left open if only applied there or in all games.
As there is the need (or the wish) to end all games decisively even during group stages, teams had complained that the burden going into the later rounds with more time played would be too high when you somehow got stone wall teams in your group. So to level the field for later knockout rounds and not stretch group stage games even longer, this change was suggested.
3) In fact, to make pretending your death less useful, van Basten actually suggested to stop the clock during the last 10 minutes for any dead ball situation.  So dying may still be useful to get your mates some breath... But you can't run down the clock near the end.
Oh and why was the team captain rule left out of the picture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
