Re-read that sentence a few times.
Almost every fan I know would change games being decided on penalties. The reason major tournaments moved to penalties is nothing to do with tiredness, it is to do with logistics preventing the possibility of a replay.
As I said, fans want an end to penalties, as long as someone could come up with a sensible alternative. There is no opposition to change that would make the game better. But fans who know the game don’t want to see 6-4 games every week.
Baseball fans in general like seeing home runs. It would make the sport immeasurably worse, however, if they moved in the walls 50 or 100 feet to get more dingers.
They didn’t need to move the fences in for baseball! Just ask Bonds, McGuire, Rodriguez, Canseco, Sosa, etc. 
That reminds me. I remember watching my hometown hockey team play, out of sheer San Jose boosterism, in the Western Semis against Dallas a couple years back. It ended up being one of those “famous” multiple overtime games that tested the NHL record for the longest game ever. It was “destined” to be considered “legendary”.
It was a farce. I saw hockey players skating around, having already played the equivalent of two games on one night, back to back, lunging themselves at the puck, deep into the early morning. That the Sharks saw their season end that night, in something that barely resembled “hockey”, was insult upon injury.
The only proper way to solve these ties are replays. Football (soccer) had them for decades, but, like everything else in sports, TV started to call the shots, and ruined it. Now we have the athletic equivalent of a coin flip to decide who moves on in single elimination tournaments.
-Piker
I attended a 3 OT NHL playoff game in 2002 (Carolina vs. Detroit) and I didn’t find the play to be bad in the 3rd OT despite the players being tired. But maybe I was half asleep myself, game ended around 2 AM.
I’ve seen Carolina play a lot of OT games in the playoffs and I think every game was decided in the first or 2nd OT except the one noted above.
If TV really called the shots in the NHL they would use a shootout even in the playoffs.
That’s a crap argument. An American football team up 14-0 “with a few minutes to go basically makes it a really really steep uphill climb for any team”, too. Sunday’s game between Buffalo and Tennessee ended with a score of 21-18. Remove the PATs and field goals* and the final score was 3 touchdowns to 1. The last game between the Patriots and the Eagles? 3-1. Atlanta and Detroit? 3-3. Gee, sounds like soccer scores.
This is a subject that comes up at least once a year and it’s invariably started by someone who neither understands nor appreciates football for what it is. There truly is more to the game than the final score, I promise you.
*aka “We weren’t good enough to score a real touchdown so we’ll just kick it instead.” Can you imagine what real football would be like if they awarded an extra goal for every 5 missed shots on goal? Oy.
The NFL is super popular in the US but they don’t have a problem with rule changes to make the game better. In fact they probably make too many changes.
BTW, a FG is not points awarded for missing a touchdown. It’s just an alternate way to score.
Yep, but I’m not starting threads about how stupid it is that a sport would allow a team a chance to earn half-credit on a field goal because they weren’t good enough to score a real goal. That’s just stupid! If they’re not good enough to score a real goal they shouldn’t get credit for it! There shouldn’t be ANY points for second place! That’s …well, it’s practically un-American! I don’t understand why it’s allowed! They should change it! There aren’t any other sports that have such a stupid rule!
And why don’t I start threads like that? Because arguments based on a lack of knowledge of how a game developed, how it’s played, and how a sport flows would make me sound like an idiot.
Continuing to argue for an abolition to field goals in American football despite the fact that devotees of the sport are quite happy with the way the game is now, thanks, would make me sound like an arrogant bitch.
Overall, I’m absolutely fine with football/soccer just the way it is. However, for curiosity’s sake I would be very interested in seeing a a trial where they had some kind of line beyond which offside wasn’t called. If I read DSYOUNGESQ correctly, the old NASL had something like that. Maybe they could try it with one of the various preseason tournaments that nobody really cares about.
I think in this case, you cannot compare baseball since it has very specialized positions and nobody can really move around freely. The pitcher’s in almost total control of the ball like 90% of the time whereas a soccer ball is all over the place.
Honestly, no, not when it results in no scoring or one score in 90 minutes of play. I would be happier with a more offense-oriented version of Soccer where scoring is easier and the defense is more difficult. So much of the Soccer that I see consists not of good defense but simply just keeping the ball away. I wish they wouldnt pass it back so much, it drives me crazy
If there is no score, how can you claim something worthwhile happened? Teams dont win unless they can get at least one ball in the net. Would you honestly love to watch a team for a season whose defense was so good that it yielded no goals, yet whose offense is so bad that they never score? I find that if the momentum does not result in one score, basket, run, or touchdown, then it is kind of wasted. On certain sports, its ok, like football and basketball, because scoring happens more often. On other sports its maddening.
As far as the underdog goes, wouldnt the fans prefer a win for them instead of a draw? Why is the World Cup or any championship game decided by 5 penalty kicks to the goal instead of a tie(correct me on this if I’m wrong, I dont know all the rules for all the Soccer championship games)?
I’m not too fond of American Football either but one thing at a time! 
That’s a very odd way of looking at sports. I cannot honestly believe that the only things that you find worthwhile in any sport are the goal/run/point generating events. If so, I’m sorry, you’re missing out on a lot.
The World Cup is a knockout tournament, so obviously somebody has to win. Most professional matches take place in domestic leagues, which are round robin arrangements- a win gives you 3 points, a draw gives you 1.
You didn’t pay attention. If there is no score, NOBODY WON. Surely you have a favorite team and would like them to win, right?
I mean, I can get watching a low scoring game. But a non-scoring one? Then I just saw two teams try their hardest, and neither of them won. Why would that be fun, for the players or the spectators?
As for the rest, I like that in basketball, telling someone the score basically tells them how the game went. In baseball, they at least have the stats. I am unaware of anything like this in soccer.
No need to yell. Some games allow for draws more easily than others. There’s nothing in golf, for instance, that says that two guys can’t finish 72 holes in exactly the same score. In chess draws are frequent, in checkers all the more so. Soccer games end in draws more often than many, but they’re not unique in that respect.
Informed spectators understand that you can see two teams try their hardest, and neither comes away the winner. You can also see two teams turn up, both make no attempt to win, and neither comes away the loser. If you know the game then you know what you’ve just seen, or if you didn’t see the game you can read about it in the paper. Merely looking at the scoreline isn’t a substitute, unless it’s something freakish like Arsenal 6 Everton 1 that tells you that the Toffees just got a hiding.
Even that doesn’t tell you everything. A 3 - 2 scoreline might tell you that one side led all the way and the beaten side got a couple of consolation goals at the finish after being 3 - 0 down until the 88th minute. Or it might conceal something like one side being 2 - 0 down until, again, the 88th minute and then scoring twice to take the game into extra time, and then coming up with the winning goal - or the side that was originally winning got their third goal with the last kick of normal time when everyone was expecting extra time.
As to what you’re unaware of, that depends where you’re looking. In Brit papers it’s not unusual to see stats like time in possession, number of tackles made, passes completed, shots on and off targets, fouls committed, corners conceded and so on, as well as ratings out of 10 for each player along with a few sentences on why they’re getting the rating. But that’s served up as an aside along with the 1000-word report on the match itself.
De thread seemed to be moving towards the benefits vs negatives of scoring in a sport. I for one prefer the low scoring in Football. It is difficult to describe the feeling of your team scoring in an important game, partly because you know how important the one goal can be. Especially in international games (Holland in my case) everytime a goal is scored the whole coutry goes nuts for a couple of minutes. This in contrast to sports like Basketball where the first thing you do after scoring is rush back to defend.
Another sport I like, but which fails to get me as exited as with football, is tennis. I can really appreciate some of Federer’s shots but even the tightest games (Wimbledon the last couple of finals) don’t lead to the excitement and elation of a goal at the world cup.
4-on-4 would work better.
Well except for the game where Villa needed a draw to qualify for Europe the next season. Or another alternatively where they needed a draw to prevent being relegated. I’d happily take 0-0 in either of those situations.
Or when I saw them draw against Liverpool, when Liverpool were a fantastic team, and Villa were last ditch defending for 95% of the game and could have given up 7 or 8 goals.
None of those were fun for me in the slightest. I would have had so much more fun if the score had been 14-9 in each of those games.
Exactly - take the 1990 World Cup for example. England beat Cameroon 3-2 in the knock out stages. That was an incredibly exciting game. But it was no more exciting than the 1-0 win over Belgium the prior round. And I cannot remember any of the goals from the Cameroon game (a Lineker penalty I seem to have a vague recollection of…), but I will remember Platt smashing in a Gascoigne long ball in the last minute of extra time for the rest of my life…
Yes? But sometimes they tie? I don’t see what you’re getting at.
Can I ask you, what do you think happens for 90 minutes in a scoreless match? The ball sits in the middle of the field and both sides stare each other down?
I, for one, enjoy that my favorite sport cannot be reduced to numbers and statistics, and that actually watching the game tells you the story in a way that a lazy glance at a box score can never ever replicate.
Hell- just look at cricket. You can score 1,000+ runs in a test match and yet the sport has always been and will always be indescribably boring.