[FrikgFeek]

And I think playing to win applies to a tournament as a whole. Getting a tie while not over exhausting your players so that they can perform well in your next game seems smarter than forcing a win when you don't need it.

I think there's a fundamental difference between playing to win and playing to not lose.  What Kara's describing sounds significantly closer to the latter than the former.

That's true, but playing not to lose is often smarter. Playing for a good defence and waiting till the opponent opens up for a counter-attack has it's advantages, especially when you're already ahead. You call it cowardice, I call it strategy.

[Scotty]

I call it less interesting.  Sports are in this day and age almost by definition objects of spectacle (almost).  It should come as no surprise that I dislike things that make the game less 'action packed', as it were.

EDIT: I feel the need to make the special exception for sportsmanship.

[General Battuta]

If you want the game to be exciting and action-packed, then the rules should be designed to incentivize exciting, action-packed play. The onus to make a game exciting always lies on the designer. The only onus on the players is to play optimally. In good games, optimal play is also exciting and rewarding.

[Lorric]

EDIT: I feel the need to make the special exception for sportsmanship.

I could not support an unsportsmanlike team. Thankfully for me, England are one of the fairest teams on the planet, so I have respect for them. They're not angels, but the vast majority of the time, they play fair, play "the right way", with great sportsmanship. If they were rolling around on the grass to waste time, or cheating in other ways, like pretending something happened to get a player sent off or diving to win a penalty, then I couldn't respect a win they got, because it wouldn't have been earned. It would have been cheated to. It would be an empty win, and a source of shame to me rather than pride. I wouldn't respect the team, and I wouldn't respect the individuals on that team as men.

[Scotty]

This is true; that's a good deal of the reason I dislike the ability of a soccer game to end in a tie.  It gives much more expansive permission to optimal play being less exciting and rewarding.

Take a look at the Germany/US game coming up.  If those two teams tie each other, both of them advance, and Ghana and Portugal are both eliminated.  What incentive is there to take any risk whatsoever in that game?  The only way German and the US will play each other again after that is in the final match.  If either of them loses, they're likely to be eliminated.

Such is not a permissive atmosphere for exciting and rewarding play.

[FrikgFeek]

For me at least, a good defence can be just as exciting as a good offence.
But I guess that's why Americans like basketball, 100 baskets per game is a lot more exciting for them than the 2-3 goals you get in football. And speaking of basketball, I guess this idea of a "head to head contest of skill" is why man-to-man defence is preferred to zone in American basketball, yet almost all European teams use the team and stamina oriented zone(which leads to 20-30% less baskets per game).

[Lorric]

This is true; that's a good deal of the reason I dislike the ability of a soccer game to end in a tie.  It gives much more expansive permission to optimal play being less exciting and rewarding.

Take a look at the Germany/US game coming up.  If those two teams tie each other, both of them advance, and Ghana and Portugal are both eliminated.  What incentive is there to take any risk whatsoever in that game?  The only way German and the US will play each other again after that is in the final match.  If either of them loses, they're likely to be eliminated.

Such is not a permissive atmosphere for exciting and rewarding play.

Funnily enough, due to the extra attention on the game due to the US having a German coach, I think that will incentivize the teams to go for the win, to avoid the scrutiny that would come down on them for a draw, especially a tame one. The World will be paying close attention. No one would bother if they played out a balls to the wall draw like the Germany / Ghana match was. I also don't think it's in the character of either team, both are pretty well known for playing the game the right way. It would be beneath them.

[karajorma]

Playing for a draw is a stupid tactic anyway. It only takes a tiny mistake to turn a draw into a loss. As a result it's very rare you see a team trying to play for one the entire game. At worst you'll see it in the last 5-10 minutes at most.

Hell, I used to complain endlessly at England's dumb habit of trying to defend a 1-0 lead for 80 minutes. It's lost then numerous games. When the scores are level, it's even more stupid. (Oh and it's not something they only do when a tie is a suitable result for both teams. I've seen them do it in championship games where both teams need to win to advance).

If you want the game to be exciting and action-packed, then the rules should be designed to incentivize exciting, action-packed play. The onus to make a game exciting always lies on the designer. The only onus on the players is to play optimally. In good games, optimal play is also exciting and rewarding.

Exactly, this is why the golden goal is such a poor idea.

And I still haven't seen anyone counter my objection to the increase in penalties this would lead to.

[MP-Ryan]

Three pages?  On this?

I'm just going to do what should have been done on page 1:  our American friends don't understand the significance of a tie because they are culturally incapable of sophistication in sport.  Now, before you think this is insensitive, I'm going to point out that these are the people who took a game primary played with the hands and named it "football" (just to be bastards about it, seeing as proper football was already the most popular game on the planet), and the national past time of the adrenaline equivalent of watching paint dry, also known as "baseball," whose primary purpose is to bore people to death by forcing the game to take 9 innings without the chance of a tie in the first and calling it a day.



In all seriousness, football/soccer is a game about optimal play in both offense and defense.  Refusal to end a game in a tie punishes teams that have exemplary defense but weaker offensive capability, even if their opponent has no defense to speak of and gets by through purely offensive play.  It would make for a less exciting game, not more.  No one plays for a draw, but its a nice result for the defensive part of the team if a win isn't possible, and it therefore keeps them motivated.  It's very similar to hockey in this regard (which only invokes the no-tie rule in tournaments due to the nature of hockey playoff series).

[Lorric]

Who are you, and what have you done with MP-Ryan?

[FrikgFeek]

But  MP-ryan, you're from America too, just not the US. The Americanised spelling makes it obvious.

[MP-Ryan]

Who are you, and what have you done with MP-Ryan?

Have I neglected to mention that I played soccer (as it's called here) for 12 years?  In sunshine/rain/sleet/snow (2 inches of snow one game), while the pansies masquerading as "players" in the supposed "sport" known as baseball called their games off if they got so much as 3 drops of rain on the field?    I have marginally more respect for "football" players since they at least don't run for their mommies if the weather isn't 25°C and sunny, but let's face it, they're still way outclassed by rugby

[FrikgFeek]

Wait, how do you even play football in snow? You've got virtually no traction and the ball behaves more like a bowling ball than a football one. Long shots and hope the goalie trips up?

[Lorric]

Let's have our American friends show you. The blizzard gets going later into the video...

[MP-Ryan]

Wait, how do you even play football in snow? You've got virtually no traction and the ball behaves more like a bowling ball than a football one. Long shots and hope the goalie trips up?

First off, you spend most of the time on your face or your ass, because cleats are not designed to be used on snow-covered grass (when its deep enough to stick between the cleats, anyway).  Second, you quickly realize that short airborne passes are the only way the ball is getting anywhere productive.  Third and last, it is considerably easier to score if you do get in range of the goal, as goaltenders have a great deal of difficulty with a cold, wet, slippery ball.

But  MP-ryan, you're from America too, just not the US. The Americanised spelling makes it obvious.

If there is a way to get a Canadian up out of his house, march him/her halfway across a continent through an army in the field, all to look you in the eye and burn down the fanciest house in sight, it's to suggest that s/he is an American.

[FrikgFeek]

I must say that's quite amazing, although the pace was a bit slower and they went for a lot of attempts hoping the goalie would slip up(which is what happened on that 1st goal). The real problem with snow isn't the cold temperatures, it's the lack of traction. Also that line judge accurately calling the offside through the blizzard, he must have some very good eyes. We could use more good line judges at the world cup.

[Mongoose]

Now just to carry this cultural impasse further, I'm a rather fervent baseball fan who considers it far more engaging than soccer.  Hell, I find golf far more engaging than soccer, but then again we didn't invent that one.

[FrikgFeek]

Now just to carry this cultural impasse further, I'm a rather fervent baseball fan who considers it far more engaging than soccer.  Hell, I find golf far more engaging than soccer, but then again we didn't invent that one.

Baseball actually originated in France, and was played throughout northern Europe some few hundred years before Cartwright brought it over to the states. So... yeah, you didn't "invent" that one either, you just popularised it. And while I'm on that topic, basketball was invented by a Canadian, James Naismith. Most sports that came from the US are just variations on already existing sports(like American "football" is modified rugby).

[Mongoose]

If we want to pick nits, basketball could probably trace its roots to the Mesoamerican ball game, so just consider everything tagged "in its modern-day form."

[swashmebuckle]

Regarding ties, do Germany and the USA have any reason to do anything other than shake hands and have a seat for 90 minutes in their final group game? Looking for winning-related reasons here, not pride or other extrinsic factors.

As I understand it, Germany gains nothing by a win (compared to a tie) and could potentially be eliminated with a loss. America could improve its seeding with a win, but how could that possibly be worth taking the risk of elimination, especially given that they would be challenging a better team?

Am I missing something? Do they just address this with a "you have to look like you're trying" rule or something stupid like that?