Well done Portugal.

tones said:
But whatever happened to, as the French call it, "le fairplay" and stiff upper lips and playing to the whistle and being gallant and sporting in defeat?
Click to expand...

<deleted post, due to it being crap>
 
GTM said:
It wasn't just the sun. Chris Moyles on Radio 1 was mentioning the refs website and also encouraging people to fill in the feedback section with their thoughts about the game.


GTM
Click to expand...

it was even on the early evening ITN news!!! :eek:
 
stumblin said:
The Sun is widely considered to be an entertainment rag, rather than a newspaper, and the intelligent contingent of our country take everything printed in it with a pinch of salt. Alas there are some amongst us who still believe "they wouldn't let them print it if it wasn't true". Hopefully the extreme lack of anything approaching intelligence is slowly removing them from the genepool.
Click to expand...

I always like to believe surely most of us don't take this stuff in the tabloits as genuine sentiment and in my eyes the Sun is only one of the many. Unfortunately, after every riot that follows a football game I lose a bit more faith.

Is this reason why the aftermath of suddenly removing a government in country eventhough it is corrupt to its core, is worst because it would let loose something even more unimaginable and more difficult to control?
 
tones said:
But isn't the lottery element part of the game? Does the better team always win? If the worse team flukes a goal and stays ahead, is it a worthy winner? Bad refereeing decisions will always be with us and that's part of the game -and lets' face it, it is only a game. Or do you espouse the Bill Shankly school of football philosophy? - "football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that".
Click to expand...

Well put. IMHO as well this is what makes certain games more interesting and extremely true in the case of this sport. On top of this when two teams or individuals are match in ability it also reveal a human nature call the inner believe.
 
oh god no.... err, errr, errrr mf are crap, oh god mf are crap. must keep telling myself mf are.... someone heeeeellllp. :D
cheers


julian
 
I really dispute that penalties are a lottery. It's yet another idea the English have fostered to excuse their pretty poor record on penalty taking. If you look at Germany's record on penalty shoot-outs, you'll find it's pretty good. 5/5 in major tournaments I think ;)

Penalty taking is definitely not a lottery. It's all about skill and psychology. If you shoot a penalty into the top left or right corner of the net there is absolutely no way the keeper will get it - ever. On the practise pitch, most players would be able to hit that area 99 times out of 100, so it all comes down to being able to focus and put the ball in the right spot. The Germans can do it, so can the Argentines and several other sides. England and Holland (last Saturday's game apart) seem unable to do it.

Michael.
 
they should have the penalty shoot out BEFORE the game IMHO.

Then at least everyone knows where they stand.
 
It's a pretty harsh way to lose a game and, whilst I maintain it's not a lottery at all, the skills required are completely different to those normally needed by a footie player, which doesn't make it an ideal way to decide games.

However, I don't know of any better alternatives that are similarly quick. Even the golden goal and silver goal rules (which were attempts to reduce the number of shoot outs) are being killed off as ineffective - allthough the silver goal rule is still in effect for Euro2004.

My personal suggestion would be that extra time should be played without the goal keepers but there's no guarantee that extra time still wouldn't end in a draw.

Another reasonably good suggestion is that after extra time, the team with the least number of bookings (or, if equal, number of fouls commited) wins the game but that would probably put too much of a spotlight on reffing decisions which are alread under too much scrutiny IMO.

Michael.
 
michaelab said:
Another reasonably good suggestion is that after extra time, the team with the least number of bookings (or, if equal, number of fouls commited) wins the game but that would probably put too much of a spotlight on reffing decisions which are alread under too much scrutiny IMO.

Michael.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea. Perhaps you could take into account the number of shots at the goal as well, to encourage a more attacking game.
 
I like penalties! Good bit of drama!

Perhaps not the fairest way to end a game. But I can't really think of a *sensible* alternative.

Getting the crowd involved, or possibly the managers arm wrestle?

IMO MOst shots wouldn't really work (jus defend deep and take long shots) . Nor would no keeper (10 men on the line). Reward for playing well over the game would be good, but too much room for problems.

Perhaps bring all the sub's on and get rid of the offside rule?
 
MO! said:
Perhaps not the fairest way to end a game. But I can't really think of a *sensible* alternative.

Getting the crowd involved, or possibly the managers arm wrestle?
Click to expand...
May be a points system in addition to goals whereby the team loose points for fowls, throws, corner, and so on. This will also result in more skillful play.

Making the goal posts wider and taller and relaxing the rules so that more goals can be scored will also help in creating a differential at the end of the game.
 
i know what... you could let the players pick up the ball with their hands and let them tackle each other a bit more roughly. then you could make the goal this sort of Y shape and make all the players wear padding and helmets so they don't damage their delicate selves. also allow lots of stoppages for advertising and 2 completely different teams per side depending on whether the opponents are attacking or defending. that way you should get lots of 'goals'.
cheers


julian
 
perhaps when htere is a draw - the team who has had the more chances at goal..? maybe just on target, or not..???
that would hopefully deter teams from trying to hang onto a 1-0 result by sitting back a lot...
 
How about awarding points on the basis of 1st goal - 2 pt; 2nd goal - 3 pts and so on ?? (1pt for first goal wouldn't work as you could win 2-1 and still "draw")
 
JackOTrades said:
... or we could get rid of the refs after the 90mins and let the players fight it out till there is just a few standing... last one standing wins! ;)

Jack
Click to expand...

Or maybe, to make it quicker, just the two centrebacks from each side - I fancy Sol Campbell and John Terry would do pretty well here.

Seriously though, I don't think there's anything wrong with penalties - it is about skill and nerve - if you are confident and can strike/place the ball well then you should score - look at Le Tissier's record: 49 from 50.

Matt.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top