or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2014 FIFA World Cup Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 FIFA World Cup Thread - Page 37

post #649 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


Yeah ... You just don't want anybody to lose like that. I don't mind guys getting shots blocked but I hate seeing them miss the net. I would never be able to fathom the pressure on those guys in that situation.

yea, chile got close on both shots...

 

earlier shot crossbar during game time...

 

and last penalty shot...

 

but it was not to be...

post #650 of 1211
Heartbreaking for Jara and Chile.
post #651 of 1211

God what a game. I feel so bad for Chile. They played like champs. 

 

Incredible, incredible game.

post #652 of 1211

Since we have the worst record in international football at these shoot outs, and have crashed more times than I care to remember in such situations, I've had cause to give this area plenty of thought since 1990!!! (we did beat Spain once in 1996 when Rafal Nadal's brother or cousin missed)

 

The compassionate conclusion I came to was to take the penalties after 90 minutes, and then play extra time. At least that way the individuals who miss after 90 minutes have the chance to atone in the next 30. One team will be forced to attack for the last 10-15 minutes as well potentially making for a better spectacle, as far too often the final 5-10 mins at least petered out into a paralysis of fear as teams settle for the shoot out as being preferable to making a game costing error. The chances are that opportunity will present itself as well during the extra time period and the chronology of events will now ensure that missed chances from open play also become the subject of discussion and legend, as much as the missed spot kick that occurs half and hour or so later

 

In 1990 Chris Waddle hit the bar (like Chile did) in the semi against Germany. Had that dipped in, England would have met Argentina in the final, and likely won given that Argentina had managed to get four players suspended by then. Come to think of it they succeeded in getting two sent off in the final as well against a country with whom they have no history (heaven knows how many they'd have got sent off against us!).

 

Instead though, our semi went to penalties and Waddle is remembered as the person who took the fifth spot kick and blazed it over the bar, not the person who came within half the width of a cross bar of taking England to a victory

post #653 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post

Since we have the worst record in international football at these shoot outs, and have crashed more times than I care to remember in such situations, I've had cause to give this area plenty of thought since 1990!!! (we did beat Spain once in 1996 when Rafal Nadal's brother or cousin missed)

The compassionate conclusion I came to was to take the penalties after 90 minutes, and then play extra time. At least that way the individuals who miss after 90 minutes have the chance to atone in the next 30. One team will be forced to attack for the last 10-15 minutes as well potentially making for a better spectacle, as far too often the final 5-10 mins at least petered out into a paralysis of fear as teams settle for the shoot out as being preferable to making a game costing error. The chances are that opportunity will present itself as well during the extra time period and the chronology of events will now ensure that missed chances from open play also become the subject of discussion and legend, as much as the missed spot kick that occurs half and hour or so later

In 1990 Chris Waddle hit the bar (like Chile did) in the semi against Germany. Had that dipped in, England would have met Argentina in the final, and likely won given that Argentina had managed to get four players suspended by then. Come to think of it they succeeded in getting two sent off in the final as well against a country with whom they have no history (heaven knows how many they'd have got sent off against us!).

Instead though, our semi went to penalties and Waddle is remembered as the person who took the fifth spot kick and blazed it over the bar, not the person who came within half the width of a cross bar of taking England to a victory
Thinking outside the box there ... And I like it! Not quite sure I'd want that, but it's an interesting idea. Of course they could still be level (trying to use the correct "football" vernacular here ;)) after the extra time, so that idea would only potentially cause strategy to change for extra time and lengthen the game unnecessarily.

Rooting for Columbia in this one right now.
post #654 of 1211
Wow, was that pretty.
post #655 of 1211

I'm curious if we ask football players what determines initial direction of ball flight - path or where foot is facing?

 

For curvature, I'm pretty sure they'll answer that the amount of curve is the differential between path of kick and where foot is pointing.

 

For football, ball flight rules seems so obvious. Or is comparing a rubber ball and a foot vs a hard ball and a metal head two totally different things?

post #656 of 1211
JAMES! What a player
post #657 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


Thinking outside the box there ... And I like it! Not quite sure I'd want that, but it's an interesting idea. Of course they could still be level (trying to use the correct "football" vernacular here ;)) after the extra time, so that idea would only potentially cause strategy to change for extra time and lengthen the game unnecessarily.

Rooting for Columbia in this one right now.

 

It wouldn't cause the game to lengthen, but it would alter strategy. You could argue of course that one team having lost the penalty shoot-out is now incentivised on pain of exclusion to attack for everything they're worth. Equally you could argue that the team that won the penalty stage is now incentivised to waste time

 

They did experiment with something called the 'golden goal' (known in schoolground football as 'next goal wins') but this tended to make team ultra cautious in extra time, made the 30 mins particularly defensive and drab with the penalty for error being instant elimination

 

Good to see you supporting Colombia here though. Football has its bad guys and few are worse than Uruguay who have been involved in some of the very worst and most distasteful games in its history. 'The Battle of Santigo' from 1962 is probably the most notorious, albeit that features another of the more niggly nasty teams as well (the Italians). Thrown in Argentina and you've probably got the worst triumphrate in history in terms of persistent offenders

post #658 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

I'm curious if we ask football players what determines initial direction of ball flight - path or where foot is facing?

 

For curvature, I'm pretty sure they'll answer that the amount of curve is the differential between path of kick and where foot is pointing.

 

For football, ball flight rules seems so obvious. Or is comparing a rubber ball and a foot vs a hard ball and a metal head two totally different things?

Two totally different things.  It has WAY more to do with which part of the ball you hit than just path and foot angle.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post
 

It wouldn't cause the game to lengthen ...

Of course it would.  The extra 20 minutes (or whatever) it takes for the shootout would always be included, even when somebody scores in extra time.  Additionally, some games would still be level after the shootout and the extra time, in which case the games will be even longer still.

 

Obviously not all of them would lengthen, but certainly some of them would.

post #659 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

I'm curious if we ask football players what determines initial direction of ball flight - path or where foot is facing?

 

For curvature, I'm pretty sure they'll answer that the amount of curve is the differential between path of kick and where foot is pointing.

 

For football, ball flight rules seems so obvious. Or is comparing a rubber ball and a foot vs a hard ball and a metal head two totally different things?

 

I'm not completely sure I fully understand the precise nature of the question, but different sports balls perform differently in flight for a whole host of reasons with all sorts of different parameters at play. 

 

The contact through the plain is clearly an obvious one, as are the two materials concerned (think table tennis here) as you can get a perfectly sphereical light ball to perform very differently dependent on the surface of your bat, and the plain in which you strike the ball

 

The one that has drawn scientists in with the most frequency is the cricket ball, which will swing quite alarmingly in the air because of the way its stitched (2 hemispheres) as opposed to a baseball which doesn't alter its trajectory with anything like as much oscilation. The cricket ball depends on turbulance built up by a smooth and roughened side, which a bowler is permited to manage. You can't degrade one side intentionally, but you can allow it to deteriorate with wear, whilst repairing the other side. As a ball gets older therefore the two sides move through the air at different speeds in line with aero friction (well they don't, but they would if they could!) this causes it to swing.

 

The thing most likely to make a football deviate is the weight of the ball, wind conditions (sounds obvious and it is) and the angle that a ball is struck at.

 

About 25 years ago some work was done with new types of boots too pioneered by an Australian and Liverpool player called Craig Johnson, and a German legend called Karl Heinz Ruminegee. Their work was more in line with manufacturing a synthetic part of the boot (think of it as a sweet spot) that caused a different type of contact to be made in accordance with the materials used to manufacture footballs

 

Every world cup FIFA bring out a different (almost always lighter) ball. Almost every world cup we're told its the best one ever designed, and almost every world cup we get an avalanche of complaints from goalkeepers and defenders that its become unreadable. I say almost, because this is about the first world cup I can remember in ages when the ball hasn't been the subject of debate. I think some of the original thinking was to encourage long range shooting and spectacular goals. The problem is the balls became so light and volatile that they became very difficult to control. Far from providing a spectacle the opposite effect was achieved as players were spraying them around all over the place

post #660 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

Of course it would.  The extra 20 minutes (or whatever) it takes for the shootout would always be included, even when somebody scores in extra time.  Additionally, some games would still be level after the shootout and the extra time, in which case the games will be even longer still.

 

 

Yep, of course it would. For some reason I got myself trapped into thinking that all games that go into extra time end up in penalties!!!

 

I'm not sure I understand the additional bit though. The shoot out after 90 minutes decides the outcome of a drawn game that lasts the full 120 minutes. The overall duration is no different to playing extra time and penalties, as opposed to penalties and extra time. It's just doing them a different way round. No reason why starting a round of golf on the 10th hole is any longer to starting one on the 1st provided you're plating all 18

post #661 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post

Yep, of course it would. For some reason I got myself trapped into thinking that all games that go into extra time end up in penalties!!!

I'm not sure I understand the additional bit though. The shoot out after 90 minutes decides the outcome of a drawn game that lasts the full 120 minutes. The overall duration is no different to playing extra time and penalties, as opposed to penalties and extra time. It's just doing them a different way round. No reason why starting a round of golf on the 10th hole is any longer to starting one on the 1st provided you're plating all 18
Because if the game was still tied after penalties and then extra time then you'd have to do penalties again. That's all I meant.
post #662 of 1211

That's not what I'm proposing though

 

Sequentially it would run;

 

90 minutes game's drawn

penalties taken

team A beats team B on penalties and will now be declared the winner unless team B can win in extra team

30 minutes of extra time played and the game is still a draw. Upon the final whistle, team A is declared the winner having won the penalty shoot out earlier

 

There is no second round of penalties

post #663 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post

That's not what I'm proposing though

Sequentially it would run;

90 minutes game's drawn
penalties taken
team A beats team B on penalties and will now be declared the winner unless team B can win in extra team
30 minutes of extra time played and the game is still a draw. Upon the final whistle, team A is declared the winner having won the penalty shoot out earlier

There is no second round of penalties
Ah, I see. Cool. :). It's different, but I like experimentation.
post #664 of 1211

The issue of how to settle the drawn game has been rumbling on ever since 1976 when Czechoslovakia beat West Germany in the 1976 European Championship final

 

I think to some extent the current structure mirrors the tie break in tennis in so much as the better player wins more times than they lose, but the truncated format in both does undoubtedly level things up. Penalties are frequently described in the media (particularly the English media) as being "lotteries" (you see England keep losing them!). I'm not convinced they are lotteries. The better team will usually prevail but there is an enhanced chance that the weaker team can win. The tie break thing again. Might you not argue that the weaker has earned the right to take their chance in this leveller though? It reached a bit of a nadir in 2004 when Greece won a European Championship based largely round 'parking the team bus' across the goal and then playing for penalties, and it was definitely being used as a damaging strategy. Modern training methods ensured that teams were stronger and fitter. Players were getting bigger and faster. Yet the dimensions of the pitch weren't changing. A well drilled team of 11 athletes who could run all day became very difficult to breakdown provided they kept their discipline. Weaker teams could set themselves up with the primary objective of not conceding and then playing on the break. If that failed, they'd take their chance in a penalty shoot out

 

One of the arguments against the shoot out that you hear most frequently is that it heaps an unreasonable burden on an indvidual. Well tennis (and golf for that matter), are indvidual sports. Tie breaks or extra holes are in keeping with the sport. Football however is a team sport. Should the entire team be required to take a penalty then?

 

Other suggestions is that a player is withdrawn sequentially throughout the extra time period until goals start getting scored (never been a fan of this one)

 

There was an American invention a few years back which had merit, and that concerned starting a player on the half way line, and giving them something like 7 secs to advance towards the goal and try and score. In some respects it would make for a better spectacle and it is better test of skill than striking a dead ball as it brings many more facets of the game into the elimination task. I liked it. But it was only a matter of time before it got hit with controversy concerning the timing out element, as we'd be dealing in hundreths of a second, and that's before we get mired in when a whole ball has crossed a line

 

Might two attackers against a defender and a goalkeeper be a fairer test of the footballers skill?

 

The advantage of my proposal (and I've never heard FIFA consider it - it's my own idea, but I'd be amazed if someone somwhere in the world hasn't thought of it years ago) is that it aleviates the pressure from the indvidual and any recriminations that might follow. A penlty miss at the 90 minute stage can still be mitigated in the extra time period. It might make for a better spectacle too as the team playing in the knowledge that they'll lose unless they fail to score, will be forced to commit to all out attack. You could of course argue that the team which knows they'll win will indulge in ever more extravagant time wasting. I'm sure they would. But then it's up to the referee to clamp down on that

 

In the FA Cup we used to have replays. There is a bit of me that wonders how practical that might be these days with squads of 23 players. Why not test the squad strength? We've certainly had games cancelled before for all sorts of reasons and replayed 24 hours later. England's qualifying game against Poland was cancelled on the Tuesday in 2012 because of heavy rain. It was played the next day. I can;t think of an incident in a major tournament where its happened, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't

 

If anyone has got any ideas though, it would be interesting to see what you come up with

 

Basically we want something that's a fair test and rewards the rightful team, but which can be brought to final conclusion inside half an hour max I'd suggest

post #665 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post
 

The issue of how to settle the drawn game has been rumbling on ever since 1976 when Czechoslovakia beat West Germany in the 1976 European Championship final

 

I think to some extent the current structure mirrors the tie break in tennis in so much as the better player wins more times than they lose, but the truncated format in both does undoubtedly level things up. Penalties are frequently described in the media (particularly the English media) as being "lotteries" (you see England keep losing them!). I'm not convinced they are lotteries. The better team will usually prevail but there is an enhanced chance that the weaker team can win. The tie break thing again. Might you not argue that the weaker has earned the right to take their chance in this leveller though? It reached a bit of a nadir in 2004 when Greece won a European Championship based largely round 'parking the team bus' across the goal and then playing for penalties, and it was definitely being used as a damaging strategy. Modern training methods ensured that teams were stronger and fitter. Players were getting bigger and faster. Yet the dimensions of the pitch weren't changing. A well drilled team of 11 athletes who could run all day became very difficult to breakdown provided they kept their discipline. Weaker teams could set themselves up with the primary objective of not conceding and then playing on the break. If that failed, they'd take their chance in a penalty shoot out

 

One of the arguments against the shoot out that you hear most frequently is that it heaps an unreasonable burden on an indvidual. Well tennis (and golf for that matter), are indvidual sports. Tie breaks or extra holes are in keeping with the sport. Football however is a team sport. Should the entire team be required to take a penalty then?

 

Other suggestions is that a player is withdrawn sequentially throughout the extra time period until goals start getting scored (never been a fan of this one)

 

There was an American invention a few years back which had merit, and that concerned starting a player on the half way line, and giving them something like 7 secs to advance towards the goal and try and score. In some respects it would make for a better spectacle and it is better test of skill than striking a dead ball as it brings many more facets of the game into the elimination task. I liked it. But it was only a matter of time before it got hit with controversy concerning the timing out element, as we'd be dealing in hundreths of a second, and that's before we get mired in when a whole ball has crossed a line

 

Might two attackers against a defender and a goalkeeper be a fairer test of the footballers skill?

 

The advantage of my proposal (and I've never heard FIFA consider it - it's my own idea, but I'd be amazed if someone somwhere in the world hasn't thought of it years ago) is that it aleviates the pressure from the indvidual and any recriminations that might follow. A penlty miss at the 90 minute stage can still be mitigated in the extra time period. It might make for a better spectacle too as the team playing in the knowledge that they'll lose unless they fail to score, will be forced to commit to all out attack. You could of course argue that the team which knows they'll win will indulge in ever more extravagant time wasting. I'm sure they would. But then it's up to the referee to clamp down on that

 

In the FA Cup we used to have replays. There is a bit of me that wonders how practical that might be these days with squads of 23 players. Why not test the squad strength? We've certainly had games cancelled before for all sorts of reasons and replayed 24 hours later. England's qualifying game against Poland was cancelled on the Tuesday in 2012 because of heavy rain. It was played the next day. I can;t think of an incident in a major tournament where its happened, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't

 

If anyone has got any ideas though, it would be interesting to see what you come up with

 

Basically we want something that's a fair test and rewards the rightful team, but which can be brought to final conclusion inside half an hour max I'd suggest

Man, you know a lot about soccer.:beer:

 

I think replays are the only totally "fair" test, except those are obviously not feasible in such a short tournament, or else the final might occur in October. :-P

 

Penalties aren't ideal, but they're not the worst thing ever.  Like I said previously, they do not lack in drama.  It just breaks your heart for the team that loses ... especially when the last guy doesn't even get his shot on goal.

 

And, now that Colombia has (whoops, sorry ... "have") advanced - if they haven't already, they should dedicate this run to Andres Escobar - and we don't play until Tuesday ......   Gooooo Mexico!!!!!!!  (I like the Netherlands a lot, but gotta give all of my extra love to the other CONCACAF boys)

post #666 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post
 

The issue of how to settle the drawn game has been rumbling on ever since 1976 when Czechoslovakia beat West Germany in the 1976 European Championship final

 

I think to some extent the current structure mirrors the tie break in tennis in so much as the better player wins more times than they lose, but the truncated format in both does undoubtedly level things up. Penalties are frequently described in the media (particularly the English media) as being "lotteries" (you see England keep losing them!). I'm not convinced they are lotteries. The better team will usually prevail but there is an enhanced chance that the weaker team can win. The tie break thing again. Might you not argue that the weaker has earned the right to take their chance in this leveller though? It reached a bit of a nadir in 2004 when Greece won a European Championship based largely round 'parking the team bus' across the goal and then playing for penalties, and it was definitely being used as a damaging strategy. Modern training methods ensured that teams were stronger and fitter. Players were getting bigger and faster. Yet the dimensions of the pitch weren't changing. A well drilled team of 11 athletes who could run all day became very difficult to breakdown provided they kept their discipline. Weaker teams could set themselves up with the primary objective of not conceding and then playing on the break. If that failed, they'd take their chance in a penalty shoot out

 

One of the arguments against the shoot out that you hear most frequently is that it heaps an unreasonable burden on an indvidual. Well tennis (and golf for that matter), are indvidual sports. Tie breaks or extra holes are in keeping with the sport. Football however is a team sport. Should the entire team be required to take a penalty then?

 

Other suggestions is that a player is withdrawn sequentially throughout the extra time period until goals start getting scored (never been a fan of this one)

 

There was an American invention a few years back which had merit, and that concerned starting a player on the half way line, and giving them something like 7 secs to advance towards the goal and try and score. In some respects it would make for a better spectacle and it is better test of skill than striking a dead ball as it brings many more facets of the game into the elimination task. I liked it. But it was only a matter of time before it got hit with controversy concerning the timing out element, as we'd be dealing in hundreths of a second, and that's before we get mired in when a whole ball has crossed a line

 

Might two attackers against a defender and a goalkeeper be a fairer test of the footballers skill?

 

The advantage of my proposal (and I've never heard FIFA consider it - it's my own idea, but I'd be amazed if someone somwhere in the world hasn't thought of it years ago) is that it aleviates the pressure from the indvidual and any recriminations that might follow. A penlty miss at the 90 minute stage can still be mitigated in the extra time period. It might make for a better spectacle too as the team playing in the knowledge that they'll lose unless they fail to score, will be forced to commit to all out attack. You could of course argue that the team which knows they'll win will indulge in ever more extravagant time wasting. I'm sure they would. But then it's up to the referee to clamp down on that

 

In the FA Cup we used to have replays. There is a bit of me that wonders how practical that might be these days with squads of 23 players. Why not test the squad strength? We've certainly had games cancelled before for all sorts of reasons and replayed 24 hours later. England's qualifying game against Poland was cancelled on the Tuesday in 2012 because of heavy rain. It was played the next day. I can;t think of an incident in a major tournament where its happened, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't

 

If anyone has got any ideas though, it would be interesting to see what you come up with

 

Basically we want something that's a fair test and rewards the rightful team, but which can be brought to final conclusion inside half an hour max I'd suggest

In my opinion the team with the better goalie has the advantage in penalties. I do not like them because after spending 120 minutes playing the game you go to an individual challenge.

 

My proposal is go back to the golden goal with a twist. The twist is to allow 3 more substitutes to come on. So the extra time has no clock so it will go on forever until a team scores. This removes guys parking a bus, because if you park you can only lose. You must try to win the game. Guys will get tired, but both teams have that difficulty. In my set up I am trying to force a winner.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2014 FIFA World Cup Thread