michaeltfc91 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The current extra time format with 30 minutes then penalties at the end has been very controversial, and several people want this to be changed. Here is my idea on how they could change it. - When a match goes to extra time (game is tied in a knock out round game / tied on aggregate), extra time should go back to the Golden Goal format. - Whichever team scores first wins the match plain and simple. - Instead of doing 2 halves of 15 minutes, then penalty shoot out, time is just continuously going and there is no shootout if tie is not broken. - Similar to hocey, in the playoffs. - There are no breaks / half time / time outs. Time continues to run. - Obviously this would create substantial amount of fatigue. To fix this, in extra time, teams can do unlimited substitutions. Therefore the 16/ 18 players that are dressed can all play. * Allows for coaches to make difficult decisions on how long to rest a star player and when to etc. * - No changes on the fly, subs need to be made after a whistle. - If a player gets 2 yellows or a red card, team plays with 10 men, he is sent off and team plays with a less man like normal. - Note: Game could go on forever, but after several hours teams will get tired and make mistakes or just go all out attack, therefore shouldn't be an issue. Any one agree / disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 My only problem with extra time as currently organized is the fact that in certain tournaments with two-legged matches, the away goals apply to goals scored in extra time. In other words, if two teams won their home matches 1-0, and then each scored a goal in extra time, the away team of the second leg would be the winner. This is unfair, because though they have scored additional away goals, they have had additional time to do so. This happened to my AZ Alkmaar in the UEFA Cup back in 2005(?), so I know that of which I speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 That's a faulty rule. I think the CCL doesn't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 quote:Originally posted by jonovision This is unfair, because though they have scored additional away goals, they have had additional time to do so. Yes but the other team had additional time at home so I think those factors offset perfectly. The rule I like best is what is used in the Carling Cup semifinals. Away-goals are not used as a tiebreaker until after extra-time. As for the golden-goal --> [xx(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I agree with one thing: allowing more substitutions in extra time. Mind you, your argument is flawed there as on one hand you argue that tiredness will eventually lead to a mistake, while you defend the one thing that would mitigate that, endless subs. My problem with extra time is that it is often not too exciting, players are tired and play is very cautious and speculative, so allowing for new blood on the pitch could solve that and add life. "Endless" extra time is okay as you propose but only for a final. For knockout rounds it is unfair, as teams in a tournament often half to play extra time in round of 16, quarters, semis, playing every 3-4 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I doubt we'll see removal of the shootout in our lifetimes. The game is to a large part essentially random as well. No instant replay, only 3 officials, weather, etc. A skills contest (a shootout) is a pretty lame way to end a tournament, but both sides knew in advance and had equal opportunity to prepare. The game is also to a large part cerebral, and it also say's attack or flip a coin. Then there is the issue of traffic control and security in a major urban area with often well over a hundred thousand people, many of whom require a major police presence. You need to know exactly what time and where they all will be. 3-4 days is also a lifetime of recovery. NHL players often play in 21 hours (including a change in cities), and if you are a 1st line defenseman pulling in half the game the physical stress on your body is as great or greater. That said I've always preferred a variation of the NHL approach: every couple of minutes another player comes off the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Fun topic. I don't really know. I never had a problem with the Golden Goal to be honest. Not especially. Take it or leave it. Kinda like the idea of additional subs for extra time (not unlimited please) but that would be a huge advantage to the teams with greater depth. Don't think that would make it unfair, just pointing out the odvious. Additional subs for extra time would sure help with adding a little more entertainment to the extra period. Away goals rule for extra time is bull**** as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise I could live with the current format (golden goal or not) and just allow an additional sub or two. You've got five on the bench and one is likely a keeper so you might as well use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Playing with no breaks, specially in cold weather, it may need some porta-potties on the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.T. Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The NHL maintains 20-minute periods even through overtime... And if we're getting creative, how about: - prevent strikers from entering their own half of the field (can stay in the centre circle to prevent offside) - eliminating offisides - Take corner kicks from the edge of the penalty area - No walls allowed for free kicks I don't think these would fly for national cups or major tournaments, but may be interesting for youth club tournaments and/or some of those 4-team exhibitions that are popular... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cheeta I don't really know. I never had a problem with the Golden Goal to be honest. Not especially. Take it or leave it. With the golden goal rule in effect some of the best matches ever played would never have occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The problem with the golden goal ( ie.: sudden death) is that teams became instinctively too conservative and just sat back, defended and did everything to limit mistakes. Consequently, players got cautious and the play got very boring. This is because nobody want to be the goat who costs his team/country a shot a glory. This is what happens in playoff hockey as well when you see those endless two to three periods of OT where teams are just slugging it out by chippping the puck and chipping the puck out all the time. eventually the game is decsided on a bad bounched or missed clearing attempt. In other words a mental mistake decsides it rather that skill or creativity. if you want proof as to why the current extra time is better than the golden goal, then dig up or take a look back the France versus west germany game from WC 82. It is regarded by many as the best soccer game ever. It stands out in my memory even to this day. What made that game so memorable? It was the drama resulting from the fact that there wasn't a golden goal or sudden death rule. Had the golden goal existed then, the game would have been long forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vic 3-4 days is also a lifetime of recovery. NHL players often play in 21 hours (including a change in cities), and if you are a 1st line defenseman pulling in half the game the physical stress on your body is as great or greater. IT's a different kind of physical stress though. It's like comparing physical stress of running a 400 meter sprint versus running a half-marathon. The former can compete again the next day, a marathon runner can't. The first think NHL players do after a game is go to the gym. I think that says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.