These the result of watching the Women’s World Cup among some interested folks who admit to not knowing a great deal about the sport:
What would be the effect of a rule that said a match whose score was level at the end of play would be decided not by penalty kicks, but by shots-on-goal achieved during the match?
Suppose the USWNT faced the USMNT. How many of the latter (goalkeeper excepted) would need to be sent off the field to make the match approximately even.
I expect this is right - but a strategy of wasting scoring opportunities to bump up shots-on-goal is unlikely to be optimal.
I think the largest problem with this is, who determines what is a “shot on goal”? It comes down to somebody’s judgment. “That was a shot!” “No, it was an errant pass.” Even something that is “decided on the pitch,” like the team with the fewest fouls called, would result in controversy, with just about every call, or non-call, being questioned.
The next problem is, what happens if those are tied as well?
Teams wouldn’t do it in the 90 minutes of regulation, but if it was extra time and things were winding down, you would start to see some farcical stuff.
England and Germany tied 0-0, extra time about to end, both sides exhausted:
English keeper booms ball downfield with all his might (a “shot on goal”), German keeper collects the ball, promptly kicks it right back downfield (another “shot on goal”), English keeper picks ball up and promptly booms it back down. Etc. etc.
Or, you would something equally farcical: Say England and Germany are tied 60-60 on ‘shots on goal’ as extra time is winding down. Now with just a few seconds or minutes remaining, the Germans get cheeky and intentionally pass the ball among themselves, wasting time, but then right before the keeper blows the whistle, the Germans boom a deep kick downfield in the direction of the English goal. The ref blows the whistle before the English are able to kick the ball back. That’s it! Germany edges England 61-60 on shots on goal!
Keep in mind that a shot is not always a shot on goal. To be the latter, it has to at least be destined for the goal, absent something/someone getting in the way.
As for question #2, it’s hard to say. Probably the USWNT could hold their own against the USMNT if the men were down two players. That would allow the women to budget an extra offensive player and an extra midfielder to narrow the space within which the men would have to play. It’s hard to say, though; the lack of two men on the field might allow for a more open game, which would be a dream for the men. In a 10 on 11 game, I’d put money on the men’s team every time.
It seems to be widely reported that world-level women’s teams occasionally practice against good high-school-level boys teams, to which they often lose. If so, it seems a lot more than two men would have to sit down to make things even.
An average shot is worth something like a tenth of a goal. I expect if the game is late and it’s still tied, then yeah, forfeiting a good attempt at goal for a lead in the tiebreaker, is probably the right thing to do.
The men could win as long as they have enough guys to have a decent bunker, probably 8, maybe 7? Force low probability shots, then have a fast counter.
High school age teams, not high school level teams.
The most widely reported match you might have seen was against a FC Dallas youth team. The full USWNT would win most high school state tournaments, although I imagine the big school divisions, especially in Texas and California wouldn’t go well for them.
Is questioning the rules of the game and suggesting new ones a common practice amongst US sports fans in general? Or just for soccer? because I’ve noticed that everytime we can international involving US teams, the rule changers come out here in force!
And imagine the thrilling climax to the World Cup Final, as a panel of adjudicators pore endlessly over 90 minutes of replay footage, while the stadium full of fans wait patiently rioting.
Of course, they could rule on shots on goal etc as the match progresses, but the whole idea is fraught with problems.
Also, I don’t see why shots on goal are something that should be inherently worth rewarding, any more than a basketball team heaving balls in the direction of the basket or baseball batter taking swings at pitches is worth rewarding. It should be about quality, not quantity.
It’s general, but soccer touches a particular raw nerve in that it’s “the sport everybody else* insists in liking best”, so a bit of both. And this is a forum where our American posters know they’ll find people who do like that sport best, making it a good place to ask.
There are plenty of discussions about the rule changes in the NFL and MLB, and to some extent the NBA and NHL. What constitutes a legal catch in football is a never ending point of soreness. Every year there are rule changes and/or changes in emphasis that impact the game, so people are constantly looking to suggest additional changes or tweeks.
In baseball it’s more about changing rules to make the game go faster. Also lately the hot topic is doing something to restrict the defense from shifting so dramatically.
It’s a common topic of discussion because there are frequent rules changes in the big 4 USA sports. I don’t tally follow the NBA so I can’t speak for that, but certainly there are rule changes and debates for baseball, American football (both college and pro) and ice hockey at the NHL level.
Yes, American sports fans often discuss tweaking the rules of any sport they follow. Ask a group of baseball fans about the designated hitter, but be aware that the ensuing discussion may get heated.
Instead of shots on goal as a tiebreaker, how about number of corner kicks awarded? Corner kicks are unambiguous, and this would reward aggressive play.
This one always crops in these debates. You’d up with ludicrous situations where teams are desperately trying to manufacture corners rather than score goals.
If anything, I’d say to give the tiebreaker to the team with the fewer shots on goal (i.e., who had a higher proportion of them be successful).
I am baffled by the penalty kick - it favours the shooter about 4 to 1. Why not move it back just a meter or so and give the goalie a chance?