Uh, what now? Goals not having an official time scored is a fundamental law of the game?
I was thinking along the lines of giving the timekeeper guy a pencil and piece of paper to jot down the time of each goal.
Didn’t realize it would fundamentally change the game…
Instead of sudden death, (golden goal,) the so-called silver goal is an overtime structured into two 15 minute periods. At the end of each 15 minute period, if one team is ahead, they win and the game ends.
Basically, to this American the golden goal reads as an NFL/NHL-style overtime of 30 minutes before resorting to a shootout, while the silver goal reads as two 15-minute NBA-style overtime periods before resorting to the shootout.
Also, to clarify, I’m not proposing anything having to do with deciding the outcome of any game. (And it’s only minor until your team gets eliminated by drawing lots. How much would that suck?)
I was proposing a more merit-based last level tiebreaker in group play to avoid drawing lots. Drawing a comparison between that and the overtime format of single-elimination rounds is unfair, IMO.
[US-centric rebuttal]One could not logically attack a tweak to the BCS by citing how much changing the NCAA overtime format fucked things up, for example.[/UScr]
The thing is, you have a good idea, but it just doesn’t work in the game. A fundamental part of the game is that only the ref really knows the time, and everything else is unofficial. Plus, stoppage time is not counted on goal reports, because otherwise you’d have no idea whether the goal scored in the 46th minute happened before or after the game–on the FIFA World Cup website’s game summary pages, you’ll see it scribed as “45’+” or “90’+”. Which brings up another point–different circumstances and different referees affect stoppage time in different ways, and the team that gets four minutes of stoppage time after each half during the 4-0 game against the laugher team can get a deal-breaking advantage against a team that was unaffected by injuries and other stoppage. That’s as bad as drawing lots, IMO. But that’s only once you get past the crucial point that there is no timekeeper and the “game clock” is on the ref’s wrist.
If a team scored a goal during the first 15 minutes of extra time, and the other team didn’t equalise in that time, they won. It was a rubbish compromise between people who didn’t like golden goals and people who didn’t like extra time, and incorporated the worst elements of both.
As has been said, the referee as sole and final arbiter of all timing issues is a fairly fundamental concept. Your mathematical formulae beg for something more accurate than ‘jotting down on a piece of paper’, because the stadium clock is ticking away during stoppages, while the ref is quietly totting up additional time as these occur. Whose timekeeping is your system following?
Oh yeah, stoppage time is a problem, no doubt.
I think I’m not remembering things properly. When a ref (or whomever it is) pulls out a yellow or red card, does he write stuff down? Like the player’s name or number or something? I could have sworn I’d seen a ref writing stuff during a game, but I could be wrong.
But even if they don’t, no doubt they could write stuff down. I’m really not getting this “there is no clock” point, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that it’s me that’s not getting what everybody else already knows.
So the “official clock” is the watch on the ref’s arm, and nobody knows what it is except the ref. I just don’t see how that’s a problem. Why can’t the ref jot down the time when each goal is scored? He is the only guy that knows the time, so have him track it. It happens what, like four times a game? How hard would that be, really? And doesn’t the game stop after a goal? As in, the ball and players get reset, right? So that takes time. While play is being reset, surely the ref can spare a couple seconds to look at his wrist and note the time.
Speaking of which, does the ref take that “wasted” reset time into account when assessing extra time? If so, then he’s already making a note of the time anyway. Probably not, but there doesn’t seem to be an obvious reason why he couldn’t.
My suggestion seems to be offensive in some way, as if I’m insulting the fabric of the game. I apologize if I’m coming across that way; I’m really not trying to do anything of the sort. I just happen to be fascinated by tiebreaking – but more specifically rankings in general – in the arena of sports. I’d love to poke around with the BCS algorithm as an intellectual exercise, for example, despite the fact that I can’t stand NCAA football. (Not that I can’t stand soccer, more that my enjoyment of a sport is unrelated to my interest in its ranking logic.)
I enjoyed the challenge of trying to craft a ranking system that fit “under” the game without impacting the actual gameplay at all. As apparent by several responses to this thread before I tossed my hat in the ring, a simple elegant solution is anything but intuitive. So it was a question that called out to me. I actually spent a fair amount of background pondering on it while doing other things.
But it’s clear that my input is grating to some, possibly because of my input in other recent soccer threads here. I guess it’s my own fault.
I do have ideas on how to correct for stoppage time, but I guess there’s no point. Time is obviously an ineffable aspect of the game despite there being an actual clock, so drawing lots is the ideal solution.
Yes. They could be drawing Disney-themed hentai for all I know, but I presume they’re just writing down that a certain player got shown whatever kind of card, and maybe noting the offense too–especially important at the World Cup because an accumulation of yellow cards across different games can lead to a suspension. One referee mixed up his notes or something in a recent game and didn’t send a guy off until he’d given him three yellow cards (you’re supposed to be out after two).
In our football, the time you play is precisely noted, down to the second, and stopped on a dime at exactly the right times so that everyone is sure that the teams get to play a very exact amount of time, no more, no less. In soccer, the facts that the clock (a) is not official except on the ref’s wrist and (b) doesn’t stop for the stoppages of play really fuck up any attempt to make the clock any more officially meaningful than it is now. A team could take a lead and be really slow about throwing the ball in from out of bounds etc. to subtly pad their time-ahead stat.
While I understand you and I hope the others do, there’s a perception (somewhat earned by us) in Europe that Americans want to fundamentally change the rules of the game to better suit an American crowd that supposedly wants a faster pace and higher scoring. We have broadcasters who don’t know what they’re talking about come on and say “Now if only soccer didn’t have this or that dumb rule, there’d be lots of goals and Americans would watch!” The whole idea is incredibly obnoxious and ignorant, of course, and I think you’re subconsciously getting lumped in with that crowd even though your suggestion is pretty innocent. I hope I’m not coming across as being offended, because I’m not. I’m no soccer genius–in fact, I found out after taking a quiz by the national refereeing agency or whatever that I don’t know the rules as well as I thought I did–and I remember when I had lots and lots of questions about things that seemed weird to me because they didn’t jibe with my experience with American sports. Rock on, dude, I’m just trying to explain why what seems like a good idea wouldn’t really work.
Actually, it’s pretty clear that you’ve been putting a lot of thinking into it and that you’re having fun with it. I enjoy that, personally, and I think it’s cool that you’re getting into it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but what I’m trying to do as I respond to you is to help you figure out the system you’re so intrigued with. Healthy curiosity about soccer is always a good thing.
FWIW I thought your suggestion was sound enough, although possibly a little too complicated for our football commentators and pundits, many of whom struggle with the advanced mathematics involved in calculating goal difference. The point about goals scored in injury time is unlikely to have any affect on what is already a tiebreaker of last resort that is unlikely to be used at all.
I also thought that the earlier suggestion, that of rewarding the team with the fewer yellow cards in the tournament, would work and would be simpler. I understand the objection that we shouldn’t change the fundamental object of the game from scoring goals to scoring goals + inducing yellow cards, but really, how likely is it that a team will adopt the difficult and risky strategy of trying to get opponents booked just on the off-chance that they might be level with them on all other counts at the end of the group stage? Only if they were actually playing the final game against a team that they were potentially tying with, and even then as long as the referee isn’t too gullible it’s still better than drawing lots.
That was in reply to Ellis Dee, of course.
I’ll concede that Ellis Dee is actually making a pretty good case for being able to use the times of goals. However, on further thought, this would be a quite fundamental change in the principle of the game. All current tournament scoring, including tie-break arrangements, operate on the basis that one and only one thing matters, which is the score at the final whistle. The whole pace of the game revolves around this, and the knowledge that, for example, conceding an early goal can be turned around either in two minutes or in eighty minutes, and the only thing that matters is whether it’s been turned around. Introducing timing elements, even if it’s only going to be used in a minority of cases, changes this.
Actually, it would mean that yellow cards become even more ridiculously important than they are now, meaning that teams that play a more physical game would be at an inherent disadvantage because they have to lay off in case they get a ref who calls close. In a tight group they couldn’t afford to even test it out, because the one yellow card that teaches them to ease up for that ref might be the one that kicks them out of the tourney.
I really think it’s best to keep it at goals versus goals. Drawing lots stinks, but sometimes you do what you gotta do.
That’s actually a pretty insightful response, borne out by the fact that the only numbers used in tiebreaking is goals. I have nothing to counter with.
I think I understand what I’m missing. As an NFL fan, I’m accustomed to comparing the paltry 16 game season with the marathon 80+ or 160+ game seasons of the other sports, thus considering the 16 game season as incredibly short.
In the NFL, all the tiebreakers on the likelihood level of World Cup lot drawing involve points, and points is the last thing NFL teams are concerned with. (Thus explaining all the punts and kicks on fourth down.) Notably, there simply is no running up of the score in the NFL, despite it being (an unlikely) tiebreaker.
But sixteen games is a marathon compared to the THREE game “season” that is the first round of World Cup play, meaning that tiebreaking scenarios are far more likely to tempt you into molding your style of play to manipulate them in your favor.
One need not look further than NCAA football, where the ten game season is so short that teams routinely run up the score to enhance their tiebreaking scores in the BCS formula. Considered bush league in the sixteen-game season of the pros, this is par for the course when the season is shortened to ten games.
But three games? Holy shit, all you’d do is try and manipulate the tiebreakers, expecially in a sport where ties are not uncommon. I think I finally get what you guys have been trying to explain. This last post by GorillaMan says it all, IMO. Imagine you score in the first minute, and then let up a score in the last. Game ends in a tie, but somehow you’ve earned massive “minutes ahead” tiebreaking credit despite the fact that the game was a draw?! That would be pretty fucked up.
(And I just noticed that head to head is indeed the primary tiebreaker, though it’s dressed up as “greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned” when breaking a tie between two teams, so all is right with the world.)
I’m forced to agree, though I haven’t completely given up quite yet. Let’s see, you’ve got 32 teams, and the first couple games shouldn’t be elimination matches? Hmmm…
Expect my miracle insight to bump this thread around 2009. hehheh.
Something that’s just come to mind…
In the Scottish Premiership in 2003, with about three games to go, Celtic and Rangers were equal on points, goal difference and goals scored. There was a very real possibility that they’d have drawn at the end of the season, in which case it’d have been decided by a play-off at Hampden Park. (In the end, Rangers won the league by a goal difference of 1) The English Premier League, and presumably other leagues, have a similar rule in place for such a scenario, although I don’t know of any case when it’s been needed.
The difference here is that this would be an end-of-season finale, rather than being in the middle of a hectic tournament such as the world cup.
Trying to follow the discussion on tie breakers etc gave me a headache, so I am just popping in here to say, “yay, England!” for winning against Ecaudor. And I got to see Beckham actually bend it-wow. We’re going to try to watch the next game, but ABC says it’s on ESPN at 2pm.
Soccer mom here, watching with her 3 kids who all play the game. Don’t know much about the game, but enjoy the nonstop action and the lack of timeouts and huddles and other boring bits of American football. Wish all sports had no commercials…
When the US began to take the game up more seriously there were some fears that if their influence became to great they would push for the game to be split up into quarters, allowing more adverts. I don’t know if it was just scaremongering or if there was really anything in it.
Unfortunately it’s not quite non-stop action any more as the players have taken up acting as a part time hobby.
England keep stumbling through each game and winning unimpressively. I’m pleased that Beckham managed to do one thing right, just seconds before he scored the radio commentators were calling for his head.
Perhaps it is so quaint custom to diss England continuely, since the American commentators were doing the same thing here. If I heard one more comment about how Eng couldn’t hope to play well in the heat, I was gonna scream.
I don’t get the ballets that occur when someone is “injured”–these little melodramas often have more than one act and involve all manner of facial grimacing, gesture and postures that would make a mime happy etc. Get up and get on with it, already (barring true injury, that is).
But American sports do the same thing–our football especially. You’d think they were all osteoporosis vicitims the way some NFL players carry on…
anyway, for the first time, ever, I got to watch an entire world cup game from start to finish-IN ENGLISH. It was very nice.
I’m rooting for England. (I’m a Cubs fan as well…). 
Bleh. That was godawful. We’re going to get shown up horribly by the first decent opposition we face. I’ve stuck a tenner on Spain to take the tournament, just to keep an interest past the quarters. Of course now they’ll probably go out to France but hey.
eleanorigby: it’s kind of custom to whinge about your own team over here, but by any realistic measure England have woefully underperformed in Germany. I’d say that at least we’ve finally settled on a formation that shows some promise, and Rooney showed sparks of why we were so desperate to bring him on tour, but certain players (I’m looking at you, Fatty “shoot on sight” Lampard) have just been poor, given their vaunted reputations. Granted, we always seem to manage to play down to the level of our opponents, making hard work of whoever is put in front of us, but if we’d been playing a team that could’ve made a single decent cross today, we’d be out.
Anyway, rant over. Do check out the Portugal/Holland match, it ought to be much more entertaining…
Soccer is even more enjoyable when you know the rules. I suggest this book, which is how I learned the game. I also had the benefit of the WUSA having a team in San Diego when I was getting into it–the WUSA was a women’s league which drew the best national-team players from around the world, and the level of play was incredible. Unfortunately the league folded, and all we have left is MLS, which by comparison is boring, underattended, underfunded and has a substandard level of play. Nevertheless, there are some decent MLS teams (relatively speaking) in Kansas City and Columbus, and Chicago has a nice new stadium but is doing pretty badly. Also, an MLS All-Star team will play against Chelsea, which I believe won the English championship this season, in that new park in Chicago on Aug 5. Don’t know where you live in the Midwest, but those are some things to look into if you want to get more into the game. There are some colleges around there with good soccer teams too, and whichever one is in Columbus apparently has a soccer tradition and got a new stadium for the MLS Columbus team before any of the other teams got new fields.
The thing is that England did play well below their standards in another game during this World Cup where the weather conditions were similar. They were obviously not conditioned for the heat and humidity, and they (I believe) tied Trinidad and Tobago which really didn’t belong on the same field. Also, England did not play well today, and even though they’ve had success in this World Cup they have been doing it in relatively lackluster form. They were exciting for the first time in the Sweden game, but melted down and gave up two equalizer goals. Beckham did put some amazing bend on his goal, but if the goalie had been better positioned (which he should have been) it would’ve been saved fairly easily. Ecuador lost because they seemed to have no interest in attacking and scoring, not necessarily because they were greatly outplayed.
Most American soccer fans, including most commentators, have a lot of respect for England. But England really has been lackluster in this tournament and that can’t be ignored.
It’s long been a truism in sports that if the ref will give you an inch you should take a yard. If you can draw the foul, do it. If you think they’re diving around and being melodramatic in this World Cup, you should’ve seen 2002! There were some players who should’ve received Academy Awards.
I’ve attended probably over one hundred soccer games–I know the rules. I am completely uninterested in the more arcane elements of shoot outs and tie breakers.
I am watching Nederlands and Portugal–which is turning out to be more of a fight than a soccer game. IMO, this is crappy soccer. England seems (to me) to have played a more controlled game than this fiasco going on now. Missed passes, slips, trips, slides–not playing positions and lots of altercations. How about we play some football? No-we have started a card collection, instead. :rolleyes:
Englad may well be able to play better–they’ll need to in the quarterfinals.
Can’t watch the other games on Monday–I hafta work (the nerve!)
Oops-forgot. I live near Chicago and we like to go to Fire games upon occasion. I wish I could get English commentated soccer here, but with basic cable, it’s all Spanish.
Another red card? WTH? This is such a weird game!
Enough with the writing around–play football!
You obviously saw both teams gameplans before the match, it was one long drawn-out punch-up… disgusting play on both sides.
I am really disappointed with Figo, I had such high regard for him until he decided to headbutt another player.
I hope that they will, but as a seasoned England fan I’m ready to be disappointed. I really hope that it will be, whatever the outcome, a sporting competition and not a brawl like tonight’s Holland v Portugal game.
Did you see Beckham vomiting, right after he scored? Judging from the replay they showed, in all it’s glory on ITV over here, he had eggs for breakfast… yuck!