Utah State University
I couldn't agree more. I also think that the 'direct-elimination
bussiness' is doing more damage than good to the sport. Going
back to Spain 82's scheme would mean the same number of games
in the Tournament (52), but to get into the semis will require more
than a 'lucky shot'. A team could even lose a game and qualify.
Take Brazil as an example. In Italy 90 they lost against Argentina
in an extremely unlucky way. And that was it! No chance to recovery,
even though they were a much better team than Argentina.
In Spain 82, there was a group with Italy, Argentina and Brazil.
Italy defeated BOTH Argentina and Brazil to advance. It is
very unlikely to win 2 games at that level out of luck only. So
a team that had been struggling in the first round (remember they
advanced on goal difference over Cameroun) had to raise its level
to advance to the last stages.
In Italy 90, Argentina struggled the entire tournament and still
managed to qualify to the finals. With the system used in Spain,
I doubt they would have gotten to the semis playing as they did.
> Jack Teh
> Utah State University
| Marcello Visconti vis...@cs.orst.edu |
| Computer Science Department Oregon State University |
Most goals happen as a result of free kicks or corners or something like
I would not change the spirit of the game I would restore it !
I'll explain. The spirit of the game is attack not defense. Currently
defense is given a to great advantage over attack.
Rule changing should try to make things more even.
One major problem IMHO is playing time. Time should be "REAL" playing time,
that way we would stop faked injuries, ... that break the rithm of the game.
Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos ( INESC )
Email: fm...@inesc.inesc.pt Phone: +351 (1) 3100216 Fax: +351(1)525843
Adress: Rua Alves Redol No 9, sala 208 Apartado 10105
1017 Lisboa CODEX - Portugal
>Most goals happen as a result of free kicks or corners or something like
I agree, and it really is a shame.
>I'll explain. The spirit of the game is attack not defense. Currently
>defense is given a to great advantage over attack.
The ridiculous passing between the goalkeeper and defenders should be banned.
I believe there will be some changes to that. (Correct me if I'm wrong but
in the future that will happen).
>Rule changing should try to make things more even.
>One major problem IMHO is playing time. Time should be "REAL" playing time,
>that way we would stop faked injuries, ... that break the rithm of the game.
Perhaps some kind of sin bin would work (like in ice hockey). The player would
be given a penalty of let's say 5 minutes from a professional foul instead of
a yellow card.
>Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos ( INESC )
If you have any more suggestions concerning changes of rules, could you please
tell us some.
*DID* someone mention the word "rule changes" here!?! It's indeed been a
lifetime since we last debated the subject (actually over (gasp!) two months).
Anyway, if changing the rules really is so bad (and I'm far from convinced)
thCup competitions and tournaments where there are few games. It should
one point in the st
points (4+2) while the losements but should be great for longer series.
point, a 1-0 victory is good for three points. Naturally, this woul - it shouldd
>It is a lot easier to break the opponent's game than create the own game.
>In the most European major leagues there are one or two big clubs who have
>the largest following and therefore most money in their disposal. Big clubs
>get all the best players and that leaves the lesser teams no other choice
>but to concentrate on defence.
Agree almost completely. But the conclusion seems wrong. They could play the
game for the game . They would loose most of the time, so what ? The game
would be better, more public would see the games, in the long run they could
even become a large club. I think that good shows attract people at least as
much as good results. People attract publicity and money ... I realise
that this is a but naif but I also think small and big clubs must realise
that football is a "show" . If the show is boring ... well you know what
>The ridiculous passing between the goalkeeper and defenders should be banned.
>I believe there will be some changes to that. (Correct me if I'm wrong but
>in the future that will happen).
I hope so !
>Perhaps some kind of sin bin would work (like in ice hockey). The player would
>be given a penalty of let's say 5 minutes from a professional foul instead of
>a yellow card.
Could work. Although with 11 players one less is not much of disavantage ...
>If you have any more suggestions concerning changes of rules, could you please
>tell us some.
I think ties should be disallowed. No more ties means no more incentive to
defend 0-0. Of course if a teams scores, specially if it is a small team they
would immediatly defend the result . Only defend .
So I would also oblige teams to attack. Something like 5 minutes to shot at
the goal. After that the other team would get the ball.
I think football has a lot to learn from Basketball in that matter
( No anti-game playing ... )
Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos ( INESC )
You what?! Have you guys invented a new system of logic, or are you smoking
something you're not sharing with the rest of us? The league system plus
16 teams going through in the first stage of the World Cup encourages
sterile play, so your solution is... more leagues! The Irish in 90 progressed
by only drawing, and you want a team that _loses_ still to have a chance!...
>> Then these 12 teams will be divided into four groups with the
>>top team from each group move to the semi-final. The do-or-die second
>>round and quarter final did not produce exciting games as hoped. Instead
>>most team trying to defend and hope to squeeze through by penalty kick.
>>the format in 82 will not
>>permit such travesty to happend.
> In Spain 82, there was a group with Italy, Argentina and Brazil.
> Italy defeated BOTH Argentina and Brazil to advance. It is
> very unlikely to win 2 games at that level out of luck only. So
> a team that had been struggling in the first round (remember they
> advanced on goal difference over Cameroun) had to raise its level
> to advance to the last stages.
Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap. Italy qualified for the second stage of 82 by
drawing all 3 games, and should have lost to Cameroon but for a perfectly
good goal by Milla being ruled offside. They qualified for the semis by
kicking Maradona off the pitch (so when he retaliated he got sent off)
and a spawny Rossi hatrick based on defensive errors by Brazil when Italy
were getting pissed on... and in the final Germany (West as was) and Italy
spent the first hour kicking each other (Germany had had a lot of practice
having kicked the shit out the French in the semis, that Italy team was
naturally gifted at this sort of thing). So Italy's win in 82 was built on
negative play (defensive and fouling) and a massive slice of luck.
And as I recall, Spain-82 was a dreadful affair and as unmemorable as
Italia-90. The things that stand out are how Italy won, Germany/Austria
colluding to exclude Algeria, and Schumacher's assault-and-battery on
Battiston. None of the football matches. Yeah, great tournament that...
(But maybe I was too busy protesting about the British invasion of the
Malvinas to take much notice...)
> Take Brazil as an example. In Italy 90 they lost against Argentina
> in an extremely unlucky way. And that was it! No chance to recovery,
> even though they were a much better team than Argentina.
> In Italy 90, Argentina struggled the entire tournament and still
> managed to qualify to the finals. With the system used in Spain,
> I doubt they would have gotten to the semis playing as they did.
In Spain-82, in the groups of three, the winner of the first game became
odds-on to go through, the loser was effectively eliminated and had
nothing to play for except be a spoiler for the third team. So had
Italy-90 been the same format, Argentina's 1-0 win over Brazil would
have almost guaranteed getting to the semis: Brazil would have to lose
2-0 or more (yeah, highly liklely unless they threw it) to the other team
to require an Argentine win, a draw or Brazil win would require Argentina
only to draw. And as we saw, they were very good at that sort of thing...
The problem, and it's been discussed here often, is how to settle
drawn cup ties without going to penalties (note I said "cup ties" _not_
league matches) or counting corners or the yellow cards or the number
of back passes to the keeper or who scored first or any of the other
hundred and one other dickhead suggestions that have been made.
Now that Manchester United (and not Scunthorpe) have gone out of
the FA Cup on penalties maybe the FA will stop twatting about with
the rules and either come up with a decent solution or go back to
the only real solution: keep on replaying until someone wins over
90 (or 120) minutes, and in that time scores more goals than the other
team (that being the _only_ criterion used to decide who won).
Watch Bristol Rovers play at Anfield with 10 across the back next week...
Unfortunately this is less practical for the World and European Cups,
so a solution is still required to the conundrum: how do you get the
_essence_ of cup football, which is _sudden_death_, without letting
Argentina get away with what they did in Italy.
The answer, I suggest, is judicious rule changes. Basketball has changed -
look at the 30-second possession rule; even Rugby Union has changed, and
is changing. Only Football, run by reactionary and unimaginative people,
stays stuck in its time warp. You can change the rules and keep the spirit,
you know: at the moment there are a lot of people who are killing the
spirit with the existing rules. (At the professional level: go watch
some sunday league footy for some _real_ exciting footy!)
>> Jack Teh
Give me the Manager who's ready to play attacking football in spite of the
results. What the club board wants is success. The easiest way to produce
at least moderate results is to concentrate on defence.
>I think ties should be disallowed. No more ties means no more incentive to
>defend 0-0. Of course if a teams scores, specially if it is a small team they
>would immediatly defend the result . Only defend .
In case of a goalless draw neither of the teams would get any points. In many
major European leagues the away team is only looking for a draw. This way
we could avoid that.
>I think football has a lot to learn from Basketball in that matter
>( No anti-game playing ... )
Basketball is a very good sport indeed, but I still don't think the anti-game
playing could be eliminated from football the same way it has been eliminated
from basketball. FIFA is very conservative and so are most of the football
fans. Any drastic changes to the rules are not likely to happen in the near
future, unless people stop watching the game completely.
>Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos ( INESC )
>In case of a goalless draw neither of the teams would get any points. In many
>major European leagues the away team is only looking for a draw. This way
>we could avoid that.
I think this would be the easist thing to change; I think you're
right that it would eliminate the incentives for draws.
What do other people think? Would the FIFA consider something like
d============================d BOHEMIAN FOOTBALL CLUB
|g+++++++++++++++++++++++++++|g L.O.I. CHAMPIONS:
|+++c++++++++++++++++++++++++|+++c F.A.I.Cup Winners:
|+++++n++++++++++++++++++++++|+++++n League Cup:
|++++++n+++++++++++++++++++++|++++++n 1974/75,78/79 R-Up:1991/92.
|+++++++@unix1.tcd.ie++++++++|+++++++ Leinster Senior Cup: 29 times
I guess this change was once tried ,if not still in effect, in Bulgaria.
They noticed that many of the games started with a couple of goals ( one
for each team, of course) in the first 5-10 min. This was the way the teams
found to beat the new rule and to make the game as boring as it already was.
Other than this, it looks pretty encouraging to me.