A Modest Proposal (and a Gimmick) for the World Cup
Now that the United States has made it farther in the World Cup than since before the Second Great War to End All Wars* [*Note to Kulturblog editorial staff: please fact check this for me.], the Americans (middle-north region) find themselves in an enviable position of being a top seed by virtue of two ties and a 1-to-nil victory brought to us by Landon Donovan in the 91st minute of a 90-minute game** [**Check this one too. That can't possibly be right. Can it?] in “group play.”
Now we enter the elimination round, something that should be much more familiar to U.S. sports fans. Sixteen teams compete in a single elimination tournament for the cup. Think of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, starting in the Sweet Sixteen round. Or the way the NCAA Division I football championship should be decided in a perfect world.
Only there’s one catch: from here on out, games can no longer end in a tie. That sounds fine, and necessary—you can’t have an elimination game without the elimination—but the current solution is less than satisfactory. If an elimination game ends after 90 minutes (plus however much the officials decide to tack on at the end of the game) [Edit: plus 30 minutes of "extra time"], and neither team has a lead, they end the game with penalty shots. This is the equivalent of having an NBA playoff game decided by a free throw competition between Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen. In short, it stinks.
So here’s my idea. I’m just throwing it out there. Footsoccerball fans around the world can thank me later, each in his or her own way. The proposal: end the game in sudden death overtime, the first team to score wins. The gimmick: pull the goalies.
What, you have a better idea?
[***Better just fact check the whole thing. Thanks.]
Also, this.
Posted on June 24, 2010, in Sports. Bookmark the permalink. 31 Comments.
What soccer songs are there besides New Order’s “World In Motion” and Weezer’s new one?
Don’t they do that in international hockey now?
“Don’t they do that in international hockey now?”
I’m still trying to figure out World Cup footsoccerball, and now you ask me about international hockey? One sport at a time, please.
Soccer? What’s that?
USA advanced to the elimination round in 1994 and 2002.
The clock doesn’t stop for anything during the game but the ref keeps track of how long play stops. Then, after the clock hits 90 they go into “stoppage time” and keep going until there have been 90 minutes of play.
Shootouts are the most exciting part of soccer, if you ask me. They shouldn’t be elminated.
However, I do wish everyone would wear capes.
An American making fun of soccer! What a novel idea! And the author not knowing that elimination-round matches already have overtime in the event of ties makes it even better!
How much overtime before the shootout?
kuri- I can assure you that I was not making fun of soccer.
But yes, my ignorance is there exclusively for your amusement.
Also, to expose my ignorance even further, are you sure that there is overtime (beyond “stoppage time,” which I actually was aware of)? This is the first I’ve heard of it. (No surprise there.)
Wiki does mention “extra time” and “penalty shootouts,” but is vague on details.
A little bit of time getting friendly with Google reveals that the 2010 FIFA World Cup is not using the “golden goal” rule (i.e., sudden death) during elimination rounds. There will be extra time (overtime), but I still haven’t found out how long the “extra time” will be.
I’m hoping to set a new record for consecutive comments by the author of a post.
Brian,
There are two 15-minute overtime periods. They’re not sudden death, though.
Greg,
Sorry about the sarcasm, but your post is the 863rd “I’m an American! I don’t know about soccer!” thing I’ve read in 2010. It gets a little tiring.
Well, Americans aren’t really known for being original or subtle. Most of us come from the school of humor that believes if you tell a joke often enough, eventually it becomes funny.
Also, the word “vuvuzela” is funny. Vuvuzela.
kuri, we’re stuck figuring out the ins and out of North American sports. What are those Blue Lines in Hockey for? How do you score strikes and splits in Bowling? When is a catch a catch in the NFL? (That’s a rule that seems to change every year.) What IS the Infield Fly Rule anyway? The list goes on and on.
It’s a lot of effort to keep up on all these whimsical American sport rules; who in the USofA has time to figure out the specific rules of those gosh-derned un-amurican sports like soccer, cricket, and rugby…?
Greg,
I’d love sudden death. It killed me watching the 1994 world cup when Romania led Sweden in overtime and the game was not ended with their overtime goal. Instead, the game continued until the end of the overtime period, enough time for Sweden to equalize. And then Sweden won in penalty kicks. I felt Romania could have won it all in 1994. They had an excellent team, and they were defeating the South American teams in earlier play. They could have defeated Brazil (the eventual winner in 1994).
Others have commented, but I just wanted to add also, there are 45 minutes per half. The referee keeps track of stoppage (for injury mostly) and at the end adds how many minutes he feels are needed. Players only know this as the 45th minute of the half approaches. It’s vastly different than most American sports, mainly because there are no time outs. You cannot control the clock. The essential argument, if I understand football correctly, is that if you haven’t succeeded in scoring by the 90th minute, you’ve failed and managing the last minute or so won’t get you your needed goal. Football strategies take time to develop.
A shoot out seems much more fair than the NFL overtime, which basically is decided by a coin toss* and the likelihood that the best players on one of the teams don’t even take the field. At least a shootout boils things down to the core of the game — a dude trying to put the ball in the next while another dude tries to keep him from doing so.
Greg,
“Vuvuzela” is indeed funny.
Mudhead,
The rules of cricket are quite simple.
Football and football are vastly different games, from a strategy perspective. I don’t like sudden death in the NFL, but I think it’s much more fair in soccer, where either team has a chance to control the ball.
At least I understand how to play soccer, which I cannot say about football.
NFL Overtime isn’t decided by a coin toss. A team’s defense needs to stop an opposing offense if they want the ball back. Well-balanced teams have an advantage, and that’s the way it should be.
There may be no timeouts in soccer but from my amateur perspective on the recent USA/Algeria game the Algerians were trying to slow down the game and eat up time by flopping and taking cheap shots.
Between the kickoff and field goal range, the team’s defense is rarely allowed much room for error. I understand that having a “complete” team is important, but chance and the least important players on the team play too much of a factor in the current NFL overtime for it to be pointed too as a model of fairness, sport and excellence.
No, that’s pretty much standard procedure. I’ve seen so much flopping the last two weeks it’s ridiculous. The problem is that it works.
Everyone keeps talking about NFL OT. I actually really like the College OT rules. Use those!
The word “injury” in any discussion of footsoccerball should always be put in quotation marks
I’m now going to use the term “footsoccerball” at all times in reference to this overdone game as it fits perfectly. So thank you
I don’t agree with this. Footsoccerball is actually a pretty dangerous sport, very prone to concussions as well as the other sorts of knee-ankle-ACL injuries that you see in other contact sports.
True, but the percentage of actual injuries to faked/over dramatic injuries is about 4:1 in favor of the latter
Maybe so, but I watch too much basketball to get that worked up about “flopping.”
FWIW, if you made the field a bit smaller, ties would become almost non-existant – along with a number of “it’s boring to watch” comments. Not saying thats what they should do, just that they could.
I don’t think so. There are some smaller fields on which high-level soccer is occasionally played, and they do not result in more scoring. They result in less scoring. The reason is that defense is much easier on a smaller field, and while the offense has to do less running, the passing lanes are cut down and there is less space for the strikers to operate. So, on balance, defense wins out over offense on a smaller field.
Pingback: Do anti-wrinkle creams really work, or is it just an advertising ploy?