No, she woke up informed, unlike you.
Not having ever claimed to be informed, I will gladly admit that I have been informed by this thread, and what’s more, I’m not grumpy about it. Thanks to all who participated. Not having a goalie would probably not work at all well for soccer. It still bores me, but that’s my problem, not yours.
See ya.
There is, without a doubt, build-up between possessions. This isn’t even that dissimilar from a close NFL game where field position matters.
If one team is having 20-30 second (or longer) moves that end in missed shots or a bad final pass while the other team is having 10 second lumps down-field it’s clear which side is building the pressure, exposing weak spots in the defense, and generally controlling play.
I would also add that while NFL possessions as a whole are longer, the individual plays are quite a bit shorter than a soccer movement (what I would consider the equivalent of a play) - certainly no more than 20 seconds for even the longest of running plays with most being more like 7-8 seconds.
Imagine, if you will, the NFL without first downs - after every play the other team gets the ball for a play. Obviously the flow is broken up because of the play-clock and snapping, but even with such short “possessions” you would clearly be able to tell who was winning, right? There would be a steady build-up as one team built up successful plays while the other failed.
I know this thread is a little old, but yesterday’s xkcd is too perfect not to share here.
Don’t miss the mouseover text!
So, the ball, while being passed, is unpossessed? A pass can take a few seconds to reach its destination, especially if it’s a long cross.
Yeah, it counts as being “in individual posession” only while you can say “ok, Player X has it”. Depending on who you ask, if there’s four feet around it it’s “disputed” or counts as “in posession of the guy who received it”.
I mostly watch U.S. Div. I college soccer. 0-0 ties are usually the result of both teams packing the box, playing not to lose, which is boring to watch and feels like a waste of everybody’s time in the end. The biggest problem I have is when it goes into OT, it’s the same rules…no changes to attempt to break the tie. And in the tourneys when a winner must be decided, it comes down to a shootout where the goalies’ guesses as to where the shooter will kick pretty much determine the outcome…not unlike having a session of rock/paper/scissors for the win. My fix would be to remove a player from each team every 5 minutes in OT until someone wins, golden goal or otherwise.
I hate ties, but the idea of changing the game just because it isn’t “high scoring” is simply retarded.
You know, some of the greatest hockey players of all-time have been goalies: Jacques Plante, Glenn Hall, Terry Sawchuk, George Vezina, Ken Dryden, Patrick Roy, Martin Broudeur, Tony Esposito, Bernie Parent, Tom Barrasso, Grant Fuhr – I could sit here all day and name them. Plus, you get a cool mask that you can custom decorate.
Besides, without goalies, there’d be no Jason Vorhees.
(And right now the lockout is making me extremely cranky)
That time is included in the spot checking I did as well as the official stats compiled by the leagues linked to in previous posts.
Low-scoring is one thing, but a nil-nil tie after 90 min. of regulation and 20 min. of OT with no changes in play is extreme, I think is the point.
I didn’t say otherwise. Which is one reason I can’t stand soccer, and one reason I’m glad the NHL added the shootout. (Hopefully if they decide to do away with it, they’ll simply go to just OT until someone scores) Some people can’t stand shootouts, but I absolutely love them – nothing is more knucklebiting, “can’t look!”, exciting than a good shootout.
At the Euro 2012 championships. out of 31 games played, 2 went to penalties. Doesn’t sound too extreme to me.
Just answering the thread title question: hell no. And this is from someone who doesn’t like low-scoring sports. But having a last line of defense is vital when your scoring zone is so large, and you can score with just the ball (unlike American football).
I missed this one the first time around. Even though you mentioned that people have suggested it as a way to increase scoring, there have been suggestions that a larger rink could be safer. (There’s been a LOT of controversy about head injuries in the NHL, for those who don’t keep up with such things) It’s an interesting theory, and one that might be worth looking into.
Personally, I’ll sacrifice high-scoring for high action. That is, if we ever SEE any hockey this season. 
(At least, not in my area, they don’t show any of the AHL games on TV)