Been Olympic soccer lately, and it occurs to me the game would be a lot more high-scoring, and more exciting to watch, if there were no goalie. That little square outside the goal should remain clear of defenders unless attackers are there, or within a few feet of there. I’m not expert at either game, just thinking. I bet this idea has come up before, obviously without persuading anyone. Whaddya think?
Nah, the game would just devolve into everyone shooting as soon as they possess the ball/puck. It would be about as exciting as watching a guy practice kicking field goals for an hour.
On the other hand, basketball would benefit greatly from making the hoop larger and placing a goalie atop the net.
No, because you could still have players outside that little square defending from long shots. You’d have to be in the opposing sides’ turf to have a chance to make a shot. And there would be a lot more shooting, and a lot more scoring, too. Strategy would change. But hell, it’s a pretty damn dull sport from the scoring perspective as it is. It’s a rare thing that a team even gets a chance to make a real attempt at a scoring strike from what I’ve seen. Lotta room for improvement.
Give a short man something to do!
Soccer would be a lot less interesting if it was high-scoring, to fans of the game at least.
Considering soccer is the number one spectator sport in the world–by far–I don’t think a rule that radically alters it would in any way be justified.
If there were no goalies in soccer there would be no Hope Solo. So I can’t endose the OP.
See team handball in the Olympics. That is exactly what I thought of when I first saw it.
Maybe they just don’t know any better. Has anyone ever tried it?
“High scoring” and “exciting to watch” aren’t necessarily interchangeable, unless you’re only half paying attention to the game and don’t really care what’s happening unless somebody’s scoring.
If you’re only half paying attention to the game and don’t really care what’s happening unless somebody’s scoring, maybe it’s not the game for you. That’s fine - not everybody likes the same thing. But go find a game that does interest you instead of trying to change one that doesn’t.
These kinds of threads come up almost monthly here. The factual answer to this is that people have tried, informally, almost any variant of soccer you can think of.
To fans, though, the low scoring nature of soccer is a feature, not a bug - it’s what makes it exciting. The only people who suggest changes like this are people who don’t follow or like soccer in the first place.
It is a bad idea. It wouldn’t make the game “better” (whatever you think that may mean) but it would change it fundamentally. It would no longer be the same sport.
The opposition would shoot from the half way line on a regular basis unless the defenders permanently station a couple of men right on the six yard line. Actually, I think even if you put all of the defenders on that line the goal would still be a tempting target anywhere in the middle third.
For a basketball analogy it would be like a game of undefended 3 point throws from the halfway line.
Or MLB t-ball.
And then you’d have the referees constantly adjudicating if a defender moved into the box too early to try to intercept one of those long kicks. It would be like offsides calls on steroids.
Nobody has really tackled the hockey side of the question from the thread title, so I thought I’d have a go.
Although ice hockey is superficially similar to soccer in that both sports involve trying to place a relatively small object into a much larger net, the strategy and tactics of the games are nothing alike. I can’t speak for soccer here, but unless we’re all being whooshed, it’s clear that you aren’t familiar with ice hockey. You don’t need to gain the offensive zone in order to shoot. There are goals that have been scored across the entire length of the ice.
Scoring isn’t rare in hockey. Already, the average number of goals per game is much higher than soccer, being about 5 per game for the last couple of decades. The variance is relatively high, so high scoring games are not uncommon. This past season, nine goals were scored by one team in a game on 4 occasions and eight goals on 10 occasions, with one game being a 9-8 game.
This proposal would also remove one of the major strategic choices for a team down late in the game, namely pulling the goalie. Hockey teams already have the ability to play without a goalie, they choose not to because it is normally a poor strategic choice. The statistics I’ve seen indicate that teams score about once every 20 minutes when facing a goalie, but once every 3 minutes without a goalie. Be prepared for a football-like 21-17 final score on a regular basis.
Why isn’t this exciting? Because in hockey, it is possible to directly score a goal from any location on the ice (except behind the goals). A team that gains possession will instantly dump the puck toward the net. I can say this because it already happens in empty net situations. If the team misses the goal, the result will almost always be icing, which stops the game for about a minute. Fans already hate icing stoppages - imagining 100 such stoppages in a game would turn most fans off of the game and wouldn’t pick any new fans up.
At least in soccer, a viable case might be made that such a change would bring some new fans in (although it probably drive more out). In hockey, a fast-moving game would be brought to a virtual halt. A game lasts about 2 1/2 hours now (60 minutes of game time, about 34 minutes of intermission, the remaining hour is time with the clock stopped). I have to imagine that the game could easily last an hour or more longer without a goalie, since goals also lead to play stoppages.
I’ve always thought that soccer could use 2 balls
The Snarg Beings of the Planet Gnorp play a game which vaguely resembles soccer-except that there the field is 10,000 snazdrals (5,783 miles) long, there are 4,444 players per side, and a harkron (a goal) is scored about once every flazdap or three (which is roughly a period of time equal to about 11 days). Games themselves last for 5 flazdaps. But since many Snargs on the planet nonetheless love the sport, nobody is going to alter it in any way-why mess with tradition? Those few who dare suggest that perhaps it might be a better more exciting game if the field was shortened slightly and the number of players reduced a bit are roundly shouted down by the true believers (and then executed and eaten in the big post-tournament feast).
Take away the goalie’s ability to use his arms-easy, simple. Why should he be the only one allowed? [Well aside from Diego Maradona that is]
I suspected as much.
Well while I don’t follow soccer, I don’t dislike it. I like it better than basketball, for example. It reminds me of basketball, but the strategies are easier to see on the larger field. It’s fairly exciting when one team is down close to the other’s goal and they are trying to set up a winning shot. But an awful lot of soccer consists of dithering around in the middle of the field. I’m sure they’re trying to set up attacks when they do that, but visually, it’s just a lot of dithering around in the middle of the field.
This is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I had not considered icing, it would definitely fuck things up. I watch a lot of hockey when I play bar trivia, it’s a good spectator sport in the sense that it’s got a weird combination of being brutal, graceful and fast that works nicely. I just see those goalies with those enormous pads in front of those tiny nets and wonder how anybody scores at all. Often, they do not.
Yes, they’re trying to set up or defend attacks. For example, they may be passing the ball around to try and draw opposing players out of position, creating space for their own players to attack. Or one of any number of other tactics.
The point is that to fans of the game, this is all part of the excitement. Of course, tedious soccer games happen - I guess this is probably true of most sports - but the goals themselves are interesting because they don’t happen every 3 minutes.
It makes a lot more sense if you actually understand what they’re trying to do as they “dither around” in midfield. Not that I’m saying you should rush out now and learn everything there is to know about the game - there are plenty of other sports to enjoy. But that, and not blind resistance to change, is the reason why soccer fans would reject your idea.