[FrikgFeek]

Throwing the game is unsportsmanlike behaviour, and can mean serious trouble for a team. Playing extremely safe and only going on the offence only when it's 100% safe is perfectly legit though, just a tad boring to watch.

[swashmebuckle]

So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.

[FrikgFeek]

They don't have to try to win, they just have to play. But if they intentionally don't go for a goal that's 100% safe that's throwing. Or if they just shake hands and park their asses on the grass. They're free to play as defensively as they want as long as they're PLAYING. They don't have to convince FIFA that they're trying to win, just that they're actually playing.

[Luis Dias]

It's always weird to see americans bashing football's intrincacies... that last page was hilarious especially the OP.

People who don't understand football should be a little quieter about it. You don't see me bashing baseball for instance. Or cricket.

Yes, Germany and the US could just play boring and tie the game, except it's very rare for teams to do "just this" for 90 minutes. Eventually one team scores and all hell breaks loose. You have to understand that while this "we all tie" is the prison's dillema best outcome, you only need a "cheater" to ruin it altogether, and teams like to win. Both the US and the Germans have shown they have the spirit to win games, not "tie games".

Of course, if the clock is running 75 mark and they are still tied, it's quite likely the game will become really boring with mutual unwillingness to do much about it.

[Scotty]

As an avid watcher of sports in the US, baseball is boring as sin.  Bash baseball all you damn well please.

I think perhaps that part of my position has gotten lost in the talk:  I don't like games that end in ties.  This isn't to say that everyone should hate tie games, or that someone cannot find tie games interesting.  That's to say that I don't like tie games, and wish there was a provision for handling them in such a way as to render a tie a non-beneficial outcome.

[Luis Dias]

That already happens in the tournaments, where wins give you 3 points and ties only 1. It used to be that wins gave you the usual 2 points and if you tied, then the points would be shared between the teams. There's nothing wrong in ties, some of them are memorable, and they add some interesting maths to ponder in these tournaments. What I admit can be frustrating is watching boring teams playing and tieing the game, but that's it. Even swash's scenario is extremely unlikely. I used to wonder about that 20 years ago but then I got to watch many games of football and it just doesn't happen that way, it so happens that teams really want to win the games more than draw.

[MP-Ryan]

So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.

It's more crap tournament design than game design.  The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.

[Lorric]

So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.

It's more crap tournament design than game design.  The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.

Well the idea is that the group winner gets an easier match in the last 16. In theory.

[Mika]

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?

Soccer on snow is still relatively easy. Try swamp soccer for added randomness with completely unpredictable support.

It's probably the most popular soccer around here. And from what I've heard, it's darn fun to play!

This "sport" originated actually from here as far as I can tell,  and seems to have spread around the world relatively quickly.

[Klaustrophobia]

i've played swamp soccer.  in temperatures juuuuuuusssst high enough to prevent it from being snow soccer.  it seriously blows.  somehow, someone got a shot into the air.  when i tried to jump for the save, my feet stayed firmly planted (beneath) the ground.  damn near pulled my legs out of their sockets.  it was like when you stand at the edge of the surf for a long while at the beach and your feet slowly get buried in the hard sand.  luckily the shot went over.  then on the goal kick, it was like kicking a bowling ball.  that had been glued to the ground.  kicked the **** out of it, it moved maybe an inch in the bog.  hurt like hell. 

edit: i wrote this before watching the video.  i should note, the game described here was not intended to be swamp soccer.  it was an honest to god tournament.

[swashmebuckle]

So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.

It's more crap tournament design than game design.  The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.

Tournaments/seasons are also games! Potentially super cool games. In this case though it seems that the greater game should probably ruin the individual match if the players actually take winning the tournament seriously.

Yes, Germany and the US could just play boring and tie the game, except it's very rare for teams to do "just this" for 90 minutes. Eventually one team scores and all hell breaks loose. You have to understand that while this "we all tie" is the prison's dillema best outcome, you only need a "cheater" to ruin it altogether, and teams like to win. Both the US and the Germans have shown they have the spirit to win games, not "tie games".

Of course, if the clock is running 75 mark and they are still tied, it's quite likely the game will become really boring with mutual unwillingness to do much about it.

I guess I lack an appreciation for these more theatrical aspects of the game. All the potential outcomes for this match just seem embarrassing and awful. Thinking that the teams were operating on an "it's only stupid if we lose" attitude would lessen my respect for them, so I'll just assume they are only playing to appease the backward governing body which I guess is just another element of the soccer theater but oh well.

[Mikes]

Because if it's possible for neither team to come away with a victory both teams are disappointed.

There are teams who would actually be very satisfied with a loss as long as they felt they gave it all they got and played well...   never seen a weak/underdog team cheer after "only" losing 0:1 or 0:2 against a top tier team?

[Mongoose]

I certainly never have, unless you're talking about the platitudes one feeds to little kids when they're bummed about losing a game.  Again, if you're not out there playing to win, why are you even out there?

[General Battuta]

If you play your best, trying your hardest to win, and you lose to someone really elite, you'd advocate just...being miserable? Sulking? Developing erectile dysfunction? What would you suggest people do rather than celebrate a great game and a fair loss?

You've never seen teams shake hands after a hard-fought game, in any sport, in any context? You think that's a platitude for little kids?

Handling defeat in a way that drives future success isn't just good for sports, it's a great life skill. If you're not prepared to learn from and appreciate a defeat, why are you even out there?

[Mongoose]

I'm not advocating that you should mope about it for better, but yes, I expect people to feel ****ty for a little while after losing something of major importance.  When you invest your heart and soul into something big, and it winds up not going your way, that definitely hurts in the heat of the moment.  I don't see how acknowledging that precludes learning from it later, and it certainly doesn't preclude showing graciousness by shaking hands or the like.  However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.

[Lorric]

I've never seen a team happy with a defeat. In any sport. No matter the disparity between the two teams.

Claiming a draw with a superior opponent might be something to celebrate, you might be able to walk off with your head up if you know you gave your all in defeat, especially in close defeat to a far superior opponent, but I've never seen anyone pleased with such a thing or even heard of such a thing. The closest I think might be relief that a small team didn't get hammered by a big team.

[Flipside]

As I understand it, the 'Tie' came into play because of time restraints, and dates back to when football was more aggressive, with a far less rigid set of rules. A lunch break only lasted so long so if no team had a convincing win by the end of it, it was called a 'tie'. Somehow, there's never really been a reason to remove it entirely.

Traditionalism counts for a lot in Europe, and that's where the 'modern' rules were eventually defined.

[General Battuta]

However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.

That's weird. It happens all the time. You've never lost a board game at a party and said "Man, that was an amazing fight?" Never finished a multiplayer match and said "Awww, man, we lost but that was so cool." Or, more directly, never watched a postgame interview and heard "They just outplayed us. They brought it and we didn't. It was a great game."

I can't imagine what it's like to think that losing a game means you have to be unhappy.

[karajorma]

Claiming a draw with a superior opponent might be something to celebrate, you might be able to walk off with your head up if you know you gave your all in defeat, especially in close defeat to a far superior opponent, but I've never seen anyone pleased with such a thing or even heard of such a thing. The closest I think might be relief that a small team didn't get hammered by a big team.

Never seen a team lose a game but still qualify due to goal difference then?

If a 1-0 loss still means you qualify then a loss is still a victory in the overall scheme of things. Not as good as winning or even drawing but still something to be happy about. Cause you could have lost the game and the competition.

[Scotty]

However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.

That's weird. It happens all the time. You've never lost a board game at a party and said "Man, that was an amazing fight?" Never finished a multiplayer match and said "Awww, man, we lost but that was so cool." Or, more directly, never watched a postgame interview and heard "They just outplayed us. They brought it and we didn't. It was a great game."

I can't imagine what it's like to think that losing a game means you have to be unhappy.

I've also never played a boardgame that had implications beyond itself and the game table.   There's a gravitas that accompanies professional competitions wherein having fun is not the only criteria for a good or happy game.