But, remarkably enough, the Japanese think they won and the Americans think they lost. How can that be? 
Because after the match ended in a draw, they had a penalty shoot out.
Do you think that wasn’t part of the match? The players certainly didn’t talk about there having been any damn draw.
Ha!
So let me get this straight. Us ignorant Americans are all obsessed with winning and losing, and can’t wrap our heads around the concept of a tie. Meanwhile, Europeans are much more in tune with ties and accept them no problem. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, the 2011 Women’s World Cup winners aren’t “Japan and the United States”, but rather just “Japan.” And it’s only just one country because they held an impromptu, soccer-esque skills competition for 10 minutes after the championship game ended in a perfectly acceptable tie.
I think your condescencion is pointing at the wrong culture. You need resolution so badly that you tack on a friggin’ skills competition to award a championship, and that’s the best idea you’ve come up with since flipping a damn coin? It is to laugh. Here in America we keep playing the game until a winner is determined, and we’re the simpletons who just don’t get it?
Again I say: Ha!
A tie would not have helped the criticism. Americans outshot the Japanese by 2 to 1. They had lots of better chances. So some would have criticized them anyway.
A tie would have worked for me. Co champs with trophies all around.
What was determined was the champion of the World Cup. Advancement absolutely occurred, and a very important advancement it was. In this case, Japan advanced to holding the Cup on the podium.
Once again, this is quite simple. It goes like this: In the knock-out stages of a football tournament, when a game ends in a draw, there needs to be a way to determine who advances even though the game itself has already ended in a draw.
The knock-out round could be the quarter-finals, semi-finals, or even the final. It works the same in any of those situations. Whichever round, it must be determined which of the two drawn teams will advance. Different methods have been tried over the years; drawing of lots or a coin-flip; a replay of the match; and now it is a penalty-kick shootout.
If the final ends in a draw, there is still the final advancement to be determined. That is: the advancement to being the champions of the tournament.
So yes. Somebody did indeed advance to something. Something very important.
Incidentally, I never said or implied that the “event” was done, I only pointed out that the regular game had ended without a tournament-deciding result. In anything but a tournament, that’s no problem. Each side takes a point and goes home.
But tournaments are different once you’re in the elimination rounds. The “event” was to decide a World Cup champion and that had not been determined by the end of regular gameplay. So they settled it with a separate competition–the taking of kicks from the penalty mark.
Japan made more of these kicks, so as per FIFA rules, they won the World Cup.
I know you are not comfortable with this, but maybe you can just accept it as the way things work in that particular sport.
A few data points on this
http://help.uefa.com/display/4/kb/article.aspx?aid=2942&n=1&docid=1021540&tab=search
I initially would have considered it obvious that penalty kicks were part of the match itself, but some quick googling shows it may not be as simple as that. I still think that for all intents and purposes, everybody considers penalties to be part of the same game and there is no real benefit to pretending otherwise.
You are very wrong on ‘everyone’. This thread being a good example.
There are many better ideas, they just haven’t been adopted. This is FIFA we are talking a bit, a sporting organisation so ridiculous they’d rather have teams knocked out of a tournament than let a referee be able to check a video replay to see if a goal is valid. Sanity will never be something I will expect from them.
Regarding playing on and on, firstly none of the major US sports sees the majority of the players on the field for the entirely of the game. Secondly, compared to football, three of the four major US sports are really quite short anyway. Thirdly, I come from a culture that’ll happily play a game for five days and if no one wins they just call it draw. Which is kind of the polar opposite to what you’re claiming.
People who were impressed by Alex Morgan should take a look at her goal from Sunday.
Hands off, she’s mine.
Jesus, that was shocking defending. First three defenders get sucked towards the first ball into the box from the free kick. Then as its cleared you have the last defender make no effort to get away from the line and so plays everybody onside. At the same time the other defenders do push forward, leaving Morgan totally free right inside the box. As the ball finally drops to Morgan inside the box, you basically have three defenders in a triangle around her, all 3/4 yards away, all ball watching, and none of them pressurizing a forward right in front of their goal.
Watch the Boston defender who cleared the first ball. For some reason she immediately drifts to her left and out of the box, leaving a big gap. The right full back initially tracked Morgan to the goal line, but didnt finish the job and stick with her as she dropped into this gap, giving Morgan all the time she needed. And the number 20 is basically like a headless chicken the whole play, following the ball as it bounced back and forth over her head, seemingly giving no heed to any positional sense.
And now I notice how the ball went back into Morgan, it basically bounced from a header right down the centre of the box. This video gets worse the more I watch it. (better stop watching it then)
If there wasn’t a draw, there wouldn’t have been a shoot out.
But why have a shoot out at all if soccer fans are so comfortable with ties? What you guys are effectively saying is that Japan didn’t win a soccer tournament, they won a shoot out tournament. (And only two teams participated.)
There’s a disconnect there. Either you’re comfortable with ties and call it a tie, or you’re like us Americans and force there to be a winner. You don’t get to force there to be a winner – through a skills competition, no less – and then look down your nose at the American mentality of not liking ties.
The international sporting community might be OK with ties, but in an event where the ultimate goal is to crown a champion, you have to have a method for resolving ties. What happens if there’s a tie in the semifinals? Crown the winner of the other semifinal? Allow a 3 team final? Clearly not. So if you’re going to have a method for advancing after a draw, you have to stick with it through all the knockout rounds. Allowing a draw in the finals after having several knockout rounds where ties were prohibited would make even less sense than having the penalties to begin with.
Then why allow ties in Group Play? :dubious:
Really?
Because group stages are mini-leagues, which by their nature allow a method to determine who should advance (Points scored, just like every other league). Ties can be accommodated in a league where they cant in a single knockout game.
This is a stupid argument, but that bit seems simple to me.
No we are not.
What we are saying is that the final ended in a draw so to decide the overall tournament winner they had a shootout.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll say it again. If penalties are part of the match proper, why do goals scored in the shootout not count towards a player’s tally for the tournament?
This argument is assanine! Soccer (and hockey) are the ONLY team sports with ties allowed, (NHL did away with them, using the shootout, i.e. penalty shots) Even then, ties are rare. NHL playoffs get it right-play to a REAL winner. The level of interest in the US in soccer and hockey should not be a shock. Being Irish, your confusion over why Americans hate ties is unsurprising.