Wow. If you want a really artificial competition, that’s the way to go about it.
The tally of many ‘failed’ corners can be indicative of a team which deserves a goal, or at least of a team which has made the most attacking play. A team which has few corners might end up with nothing, but also might end up with a lucky goal. Your system would be likely to reward the latter.
Actually, let me amend that to “modified corner kick scoring percentage.” If neither team scored on any corner kicks, then whomever had the fewest chances would be considered to have the better percentage. This could end up being unique enough to do away with lots altogether.
The conclusion of the set piece would have to be a concrete determination, and despite my strong desire to be snarky on this point, I concede that it could not be done with the clock; the timekeeping ref needs to be watching the action, not his watch. I guess loss of possession, whatever that would mean, would be the only way to “end” the try.
I don’t understand a couple of the concepts here. “Deserves a goal”? What does that mean? Also, what is a “lucky” goal?
I’m not saying that those concepts don’t exist; I just don’t understand what they mean. Can you give an example?
Time for a big fat WTF??? In an equal situation, corners won are a good gauge of each team’s abilities. Fewer chances = no attack. Fewer chances = defensive play.
A team deserves a goal (keep the quote marks even if I’m omitting them!) through persistence. Keeping a constant attack for five, perhaps ten minutes is draining. The end result might be a single corner, from which they score.
The alternative is attacking against a disorganised defense, where it’s easier to force corners.
The big problem about any system which does anything other than count balls-in-net is just that. If you change what you’re counting, you change the game. You may not realise at the time, but you’ll change the way teams work.
Well, you’ve presented a well-reasoned rebuttal, but I still say that most soccer fans in the world (including Americans) are pretty irritated with all the “We should change the game in this and that ridiculous way to score more goals” they hear from Americans, and probably have learned to respond to proposed rule changes crassly. Maybe the idea is that they know that if they write a treatise on the nature of the game to dissect the differences each individual rule would cause in the sport, then the same guy would come back and say “Well, what about this and that rule change?” and then they’d go through the cycle again. I think there’s a “Shut the fuck up and learn the game already, and quit pestering me” mentality. At least, that’s the feeling I get when I open a thread (or hear a talk radio show etc) about why Americans don’t like soccer (which is a flawed argument in the first place) and it’s full of suggestions about how to increase scoring by implementing all kinds of ridiculous changes to pander to Americans who may or may not become interested with all that anyway.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like discussing soccer rules with you, because I highly respect you as a knowledgeable sports fan (I can’t come close to you on the NFL, although I think of myself as having an above-average understanding of the game) and I know that you’re not some fucker trying to bend the world’s game around your finger, but rather you’re intellectually curious about how the game works and how it would work differently and how to solve perceived problems in the game. In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I think most of your ideas for the game are overblown. However, I enjoy watching you work it over in your head. I think a lot of other people are reacting to the “let’s make every game a 5-4 result” mentality they hear so often from our corner of the Earth, and probably don’t have the energy or the patience to discuss the use of corner kicks as tiebreakers with you after simultaneously defending the game under relentless attack and explaining why it wouldn’t be a good idea to double the goals’ width, allow fielders to use their hands, not let goalies use their hands, and otherwise thoroughly rework the game in another thread. I do feel that way sometimes; after I hear some ridiculous explanation of what’s wrong with soccer and why it needs to be changed, what would normally be an interesting thought experiment might inch closer towards an irritating nuisance. That’s the best I can give you.
I think it’s an interesting idea, but like some other interesting ideas it takes the focus off of goal scoring and into things that are intimately related but still subject to other forces, and the team better at set pieces and with the fewest corner kick attempts could advance whether or not they’re actually the better team. Also, picture this scenario: it’s the last group-stage game between the team currently in #2 and the team in #3, and if #3 wins by two goals they’ll be tied in every way. Team #3 is up 2-0 with three minutes to go and #2 knows that it’d be easier to dilute #3’s corner kick percentage than to score a goal. So Team #2 takes the ball and kicks the ball out of bounds on their end (while Team 3 frantically attempts to stop them and stay onside), and then lines defenders end to end in the goalmouth, knowing that winning possession back isn’t important, they just need to knock the ball out of the goal and then have a defender kick it out of bounds again, giving Team 3 corner kick after corner kick. Team 3 wins 2-0 and Team 2 advances.
Agreed 100%. Think of my soccer questions (including the questions dressed up as suggestions) like a child asking why the sky is blue.
Full stop, my idea blows chunks. The opposing team has pretty much full control over how many corner kicks you get if they want you to have them, yes? That makes my idea blindingly stupid.
And let me say again that I really appreciate and in fact enjoy that–that you’re learning the game through asking hypotheticals and saying “OK, how would this work?” I think it’s a great way to figure out how the game works.
Well, I’m not going to tell you it doesn’t blow chunks, but there are leagues (youth etc.) that count corner kicks in tiebreakers or use them as overtime periods.
Basically, if the ball goes out of bounds on the side (longitudinal), it’s like basketball–you’ve seen the throw-in, you know how it works. (Interesting factoid: it’s required that the ball goes behind your head before you throw it back forward, otherwise the other team gets the ball and throws it in. A now-retired American female star–Joy Fawcett, I think? I should remember, she played for San Diego’s team in the WUSA and I had season tickets–used to do an upside-down throw-in where she would put the ball on the ground, do a running jump/handstand on the ball and then throw the ball in while falling on her ass. It was legal somehow–I guess she let the ball go behind her head before throwing it or something–and it was a great tactic because it went “up” instead of “down”.)
But if the ball goes out of bounds to the left or right of the goal, it’s a corner kick if it last touched the defense, or a goal kick (goalie kicks it in from his penalty box) if it last touched the offense. That’s why it’d be really easy to give the other team corner kicks–as long as the defense or the goalie can knock the ball out, the corner kicks will keep coming.
FWIW, the defense actually does intentionally give corner kicks when they recover possession but it’s too risky to try to go forward–the defender will kick the ball out and give up a corner kick rather than risking coughing it up to an odd-man rush, to use an Americanism. And on corner kicks, sometimes the goalie will slap the ball over the crossbar to give up another corner kick instead of risking a juicy rebound.
Sorry, I completely missed this post. This is also a good point.