Football rules
- Thread starter raedkuwait
- Start date
Meh. I think 36 games should matter more than 2, when level on points.
Dan1983
Prediction champion 2012-2013
So just because you scored more goals, you think that deserves a title more, rather than head to head, where you actually beat them over the course of the season?
I do, h2h is stupid, one team can win h2h by simple luck. You dont win on gd by luck when it is 36 other games, scoring more and conceding less is a good thing. Besides, you dont even have to "win" h2h, you can win it on away goals. I mean come on, you think a team who wins h2h on away goals is more deserving than the other team who had 20+ better gd?
Dan1983
Prediction champion 2012-2013
So you think it is all stupid do you? So your title win 2006/07 was stupid?
khaled_a_d
Senior Member
I totally agree with Morten in this one,if you are playing a league using h2h b4 goal difference is stupid. Can understand it in a cup group stage but not in a league.
A league is all about accumulative results. using h2h as 1st tie breaker isn't logical for me
A league is all about accumulative results. using h2h as 1st tie breaker isn't logical for me
Jenks
Senior Member
So you think it is all stupid do you? So your title win 2006/07 was stupid?
Trying to play on someone's biases isn't much of an argument. It could just as easily have gone the other way. Goal difference also has the added advantage of encouraging teams to be more attacking.
Blaugranaa
New member
Instead of goal difference or H2H you could add a final game. The final round between Barca - Atletico in 14/15 ended an unfortunatly trophyless season, but the way one game between 1 vs 2 could decide the race was pretty cool, I think. The problem with goal difference is that some clubs have nothing to play for with 4-5 rounds to go. I think an extra game would give, not only the right winner, but also a fantastic final.
A new rule I would love in the champions league especially. It could be used in other big games too, but the knockout-stage of the champions league has the most problems with this. When a team got the result they need/want it is easy to predict the last 10 minutes of a knockout-game. 5 min. of faking injuries, 5 min of executing a goal kick and 3 min. of subtituion. This ruins a lot for me. I would therefore wish that instead of stoppage time, the ref would simply stop the time when the players were down. This rule should start at 75-80 min. So if the time ticker is on 81:20 and a defender of the winning team is suddenly lying down for 1-2 min, the ref would have to stop the timer, and start it again when the ball is rolling. This would prevent players from trying to win a lot of valuable time. They do this in handball (and basket perhaps?), and it is wonderful to watch a sport without "dolphins". Last weekend we saw Man City winning a lot of time by keep shooting the ball into a United player. This was actually impressive and the kept the flow in the game.
A new rule I would love in the champions league especially. It could be used in other big games too, but the knockout-stage of the champions league has the most problems with this. When a team got the result they need/want it is easy to predict the last 10 minutes of a knockout-game. 5 min. of faking injuries, 5 min of executing a goal kick and 3 min. of subtituion. This ruins a lot for me. I would therefore wish that instead of stoppage time, the ref would simply stop the time when the players were down. This rule should start at 75-80 min. So if the time ticker is on 81:20 and a defender of the winning team is suddenly lying down for 1-2 min, the ref would have to stop the timer, and start it again when the ball is rolling. This would prevent players from trying to win a lot of valuable time. They do this in handball (and basket perhaps?), and it is wonderful to watch a sport without "dolphins". Last weekend we saw Man City winning a lot of time by keep shooting the ball into a United player. This was actually impressive and the kept the flow in the game.
Gilberto
New member
Yes, an extra game would be exciting. However, I don't think it would be a fair way to decide a competition consisting of around 40 games that are being played over the course of around 10 months. There are so many games over such a long period that the team on top should always be the deserved winner. The team in 2nd place that decides to peak at exactly the right time doesn't deserve to win over a team that managed to gather 15 more points.
Van Basten suggested something similar. He talked about effective playing time. This means the clock should be stopped whenever the ball "is not rolling". I like this idea.
BerkeleyBernie
Senior Member
1. I'd like to see something to penalize excessive "minor" fouling, like accumulated team fouls in basketball. After ten fouls (that's one allowed for every 9 minutes played), penalize with an ice hockey-ish power play- last player to commit foul sent off for 5 minutes. Repeat again after another accumulated 5 fouls. Or maybe after 12/6 (that's 2 per 15 minutes, or 6 per period per team).
2. Maybe have a second penalty spot further back for penalty shootouts, giving the keeper more of a chance. Maybe first round of 5 shots each at close range, then move to the second spot if still tied.
2. Maybe have a second penalty spot further back for penalty shootouts, giving the keeper more of a chance. Maybe first round of 5 shots each at close range, then move to the second spot if still tied.
Birdy
Senior Member
I would add to this:
Red card leading to player expulsion and punishment (next games), BUT not to team playing a man down.
The biggest injustices in contemporary football is pens (making an 0.01 xG chance into an 0.8) and having one team play man down
Home of Barca Fans
