[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2014-June-30, 08:09, said:

I am curious, what proposed alternatives are you referring to?

Proposed alternatives that I know of:

• Continue playing for the "golden goal".
  
• Take one player away from each team and play for a golden goal. (If no score after n minutes take away another player.)
  
• Ice hockey (or field hockey) like shootouts: player gets the ball relatively far away from the goal and is supposed to score while continuously moving forward.
  
• Play a rematch.

My feelings are similar to gwnn's.

Rik

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2014-June-28, 23:43, said:

'They have good players but not a team' said like it is some great deep wisdom, never heard before.

Usually said by those who have to fill air time.My favorite, from American football, is "They have to move the ball down the field and put some points on the scoreboard". This idea has presumably not occurred to the quarterback or the audience.

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2014-June-30, 08:59, said:

My favorite, from American football, is "They have to move the ball down the field and put some points on the scoreboard". This idea has presumably not occurred to the quarterback or the audience.

From association football: "Now it starts raining. The spectators are getting wet".

I always turn the sound off when watching footie, but of course I can't do that when other people want to watch it as well. Apparently the idiotic commentary is an essential part of the experience.

[gwnn]

 billw55, on 2014-June-30, 08:09, said:

I am curious, what proposed alternatives are you referring to?

The most famous one is eliminating one player from each side every 5 minutes and see who scores first. They also tried one-on-one runs like in ice hockey but I don't see how nerves are not a part of that, too. "The side who had the most corners" is something I heard more than once too but I guess they were just trying to come up with something ridiculous on purpose.

[helene_t]

Remove the goalkeepers and then play 2x10 minutes more?

[gwnn]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-30, 09:10, said:

Remove the goalkeepers and then play 2x10 minutes more?

Why not remove the outfield players instead while we're having fun?

[Aberlour10]

 gwnn, on 2014-June-28, 23:43, said:

Penalty shootouts are fun and there is very real skill involved on both sides, not just nerves. .

how about penalties like in ice-hockey. player runs from the middle point, keeper must stay in the penalty box.

player and ball has to move only forwards, every foul on him = goal. would be funny to watch.

[ArtK78]

 gwnn, on 2014-June-30, 09:07, said:

The most famous one is eliminating one player from each side every 5 minutes and see who scores first. They also tried one-on-one runs like in ice hockey but I don't see how nerves are not a part of that, too. "The side who had the most corners" is something I heard more than once too but I guess they were just trying to come up with something ridiculous on purpose.

In local high school soccer, there are no shootouts. Indeed, if the game is tied at the end of two 15 minute overtime periods, the team with the most corner kicks is the winner.

[gwnn]

 Aberlour10, on 2014-June-30, 09:44, said:

how about penalties like in ice-hockey. player runs from the middle point, keeper must stay in the penalty box.

player and ball has to move only forwards, every foul on him = goal. would be funny to watch.

I'm not a big fan but the few of them I saw were fun to watch, but not really more fun or as spectacular as the good old penalty shootout. I saw them once in the TIM triangle friendly tournament and one other time. Like I said above, though, would it really eliminate the perceived luck factor or nerves? I don't see how. Similarly, how does it address the criticism that it does not reflect "real skill"? Actually penalties come up more frequently than real one-on-ones (where the defenders are hopelessly far away). I remember Raul in 2000 (vs Valencia) or Fernando Torres vs Barcelona in 2012 but it doesn't really come up in real football. Neither does 9 against 9. Just step up and put the ball in the top corner, don't complain about the lottery.

[Fluffy]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-30, 09:03, said:

From association football: "Now it starts raining. The spectators are getting wet".

I always turn the sound off when watching footie, but of course I can't do that when other people want to watch it as well. Apparently the idiotic commentary is an essential part of the experience.

This one happens so often in spannish ones: It would be good to score now (or before the half ends)

[billw55]

Ah, some of those ideas I had heard before, and some not. Among them, a hockey-style shootout doesn't really seem all that different from the current shootout; and reducing number of players does not seem terrible. Removing keepers is something I have heard proposed for local youth soccer, along with (I'm not making this up) putting two balls in play.

Most corners seems pretty weird. Refs would have to track this now?

[cherdano]

How about a penalty shootout with penalties taken from the edge of the 18-yard box?

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2014-July-01, 09:31, said:

How about a penalty shootout with penalties taken from the edge of the 18-yard box?

I've thought this, or 2 from the penalty spot, 2 from the edge of the box (possibly one slightly left of centre, one slightly right), 2 from the middle of the D.

[barmar]

Pet peeve: thread drift.

Could we take this ongoing discussion of penalty kicks to the World Cup thread, or start a new thread specific to it?

[mike777]

Pet peeve

That so many of us in the USA who watch or play little to no soccer are fully ready and prepared to tell the rest of the world how to change and improve their game.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2014-July-02, 10:43, said:

Pet peeve: thread drift.

Could we take this ongoing discussion of penalty kicks to the World Cup thread, or start a new thread specific to it?

I'd rather have "soccer" fans derail a pet peeve thread by talking about the world cup, instead of seeing US posters derail a thread about the world cup by discussing rule changes. Would you consider it on topic if a thread about the Bermuda Bowl gets taken over by suggestions that in order to simplify the game for spectators, we should only allow 3 rounds of bidding?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-July-02, 10:43, said:

Pet peeve: thread drift.

People who complain about thread drift.

No, I'm not citing you, here, barmar.

In many bridge threads, after the question or issue in the OP has been thoroughly played out, discussion may move on to a related or tangential matter. Sometimes posters will then complain that the thread has drifted and end there, without even offering a new insight or neglected aspect of the OP topic.

[Antrax]

Gimmick posters, especially on Facebook. One recent fad here was a character basically named "boring Joe" that posted a lot of "everyday" crap about some fictitious office job and friends. Because it's ironic people followed that crap, no problem. But then, that account started invading other discussions to make boring comments about them, and then normal posters start making boring comments and hash-tagging them "boringJoe" and then you're assaulted with intentional stupidity, but it's ironic so it's supposed to be funny or something.
This happens way too often. Give unfunny people an outlet to feel clever and they'll abuse the hell out of it.

[Thiros]

Jack-FM cutting good songs off early.

[barmar]

 Antrax, on 2014-July-03, 21:23, said:

This happens way too often. Give unfunny people an outlet to feel clever and they'll abuse the hell out of it.

Isn't that practically Twitter's entire business model?