73
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
73 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
33002 readers
1847 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Soccer: don't use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
I'm open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it's 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.
Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that's it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.
Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I'm not too sure, because I'm a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).
Cage match after full time is the only appropriate answer. Lower it right in the middle of the pitch. Indoor soccer with it smaller fields, walls has always been more fast-paced than outdoor, add in ceilings and a first-to-score or first to 3 would be a good sport on its own let alone as a final.
https://youtu.be/XG0aCa9-bLI
Ever watch the street soccer 1v1 deals where they're just trying to dribble past a defender?
That's a mini game I'd love to watch as a tie breaker!
MLS in America actually tried that many years ago (weird the phrase is even relevant to MLS, but here we are). On replays it actually looks quite reasonable, but being an Americanism, I don't think you'll get any support for it, which is a shame because penalty kicks are barely soccer at all.
That's basically the system hockey 🏑 uses, and it's pretty good. Personally, while I far prefer it to the current soccer shootouts, it still has the feeling of being a "minigame" to me; a little too divorced from the main game to be ideal.
Disagree - the most important skill in football ⚽ is scoring more goals than the opposition. I love penalty shootouts, they're incredibly tense, and they require nerves of steel and a lot of skill. People sometimes say they're a lottery, but that's nonsense IMO.
Also disagree on the stopped clock model. Football ⚽ is the most popular and widely played sport in the world, and it hasn't needed stopped clocks to get there. Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
There's far too much tinkering with the game as it is, what with VAR and miked up referees and such. The game was fine for decades, and loved by billions of people. I wish they'd just leave it alone.
"scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It's an argument from tradition. "We've always done it this way, so we should continue to do so" is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it's better, but explain the actual reasons it's better. "Because we always have" is not a valid argument.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don't communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads "90"), the ref says "actually we're doing another 12 minutes". The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
That's fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it's decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it's an argument from tradition, and that's a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don't feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I'd have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
Yes, but the rule set should be set up so you're more likely to win if you play better fundamentals. Penalties don't do that very well.
As I said, I don't know for certain what the best answer could be, but I proposed one solution I think would work really well. I'd love to hear alternatives.
Incredibly ironic considering how directly rude you're being to me, as a person. I criticised a bad argument by attacking the argument. I would appreciate a response in kind.
I'm happy to have a discussion. Genuinely, that's why I'm here. Why I've spent as much time writing about this.
But I care about having quality discussions. With people engaging in good faith rhetoric. I don't have any interest in dealing politely with obvious poor rhetoric. An argument from tradition is one of the worst examples of lazy, bad rhetoric.
Soccer's popularity is in spite of, not because of, its glaring flaws. It's because of a history colonialism and clever marketing. And because it's easy to play informally with a few mates. All you need is something vaguely ball-like, a bit of open space, and some basic way to mark goals. The same reasons for the world's second most-popular sport, which just needs a ball, a strong stick, and a few weaker sticks or other object that can stand vertically on the ground. This is neither an insult nor a complement to the sports, it just is.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss rule changes to improve sports. If you think "because it's always been done that way" is a reason not to improve a sport, I don't even know why you're here. But I don't want to make this about you, I want to be talking about the substance of the arguments. If you're willing to do that, I'd be happy to continue.