How the mighty are fallen

[MajGenl.Meade]

As previously stated, NFL teams actually play the game for an average of 11 minutes and some seconds. They spend the rest of 3 hours walking about, huddling, mugging for cameras, sitting down and er... not playing at all. It's hardly surprising that they could play "extra time" which probably amounts to another 48 seconds of actual action.

It also helps that an NFL team consists of approximately 60,000 players, who can come in and out of the game whenever the coach decides
Real football teams consist of 11 players plus the possibility of 3 substitutes - once removed, no one can return. So that's 60,000 playing a maximum of 11 minutes - and 14 playing a maximum of 120 minutes. This is one reason that no one (no one) wants to watch exhausted athletes playing poorly after 120 minutes.

The likelihood of a draw is much reduced by the NFL scoring system of 6 points plus 1 or 2 and three-point field goals (plus safeties of course). If each team scores points three times (in whatever combination), given the variables of field position, the most likely result is a non-draw. In real football, if each team scores three times, that's a draw 100% of the time.

It might be fun if real football awarded 1 point for the first goal, 2 for the second one (by either team), 3 for the third and so on. It might encourage scoring - or encourage even fiercer defense! By that method, Real Madrid's recent 2-2 La Liga draw would have ended as a victory for Valencia by 6 points to 4

Of 134 World Cup knock-out round matches since 1978, forty-six ended in a draw. Those games went into 30 minutes of extra time (reminder: real football players play for 90 minutes plus extra time). Of those 46 games, twenty were decided by the extra time goal(s). Twenty-six games remained drawn and went to penalties. It is an unsatisfactory way to resolve a draw but, rather like democracy, other ways are so much worse.

Interestingly, only 71% of those penalty kicks were scored. Years of observation indicate that saves by the goal-keeper are outnumbered by sheer misses by the kicker. Putting the kick high/wide is the mark of tiredness and pressure.

What's the American football game where ties are (or were) decided by successive possessions by each team on the 20(?) yard line - four downs to get a touchdown or kick a field goal - then the other team gets the same chance? Is (was) that high school or college?

[Big RR]

What's the American football game where ties are (or were) decided by successive possessions by each team on the 20(?) yard line - four downs to get a touchdown or kick a field goal - then the other team gets the same chance? Is (was) that high school or college?

I don't recall it, but it sounds similar to the NCAA rules for college. I guess it could have been high school or college--never pro (at least in my memory).

As previously stated, NFL teams actually play the game for an average of 11 minutes and some seconds.

And soccer has less offensive play time--I'd bet about that or less of the 90 plus minutes they play--the rest is spent running back and forth (to no real effect on the game) or feigning injury.

But so what? They are two different games. I just think the shoot out is about the silliest way to decide a game; leave it at a tie and declare co champions, have a rematch if you don't want extra time. Even the worst US football tiebreaks involve the team--it's not seeing who can kick or throw the ball further.

If you don't like US football, fine; that's why there are different sports to watch and/or participate in. Same for soccer. All sports have silly rules. I just don't think that silliness is the way to judge a sport. Both are exciting in their own way when wel played, and dull as dirt when not. But IMHO, no other sport can touch a well played US Football game.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You have incorrect definitions there. In real football, the team with the ball is always on offense and trying to score - the other team is defending and trying to get the ball. I think that's the same basic idea as American football. The difference is that one version does it for 90 minutes while the other one does it for 11 (and takes three hours to do it)

How do you declare co-champions when it's the first of 16 games in a knock-out competition? The other seven game winners will be pissed off. Also too, how do you rematch when the next round is due to be played in a few days and the quarter finals, semi finals and final are all on a schedule?

But that's beside the point - there are no silly rules. Only rules. Unless you want to say all rules are silly and so are all games.

I like US football. NCAA mostly. The Browns cured me of liking NFL

[Big RR]

I agree Meade, my terms were imprecise; but when you're running back and forth playing keep away from the other side and not making any shots on goal, I just don't think of it as offense. In American football, one side has the ball and is almost always trying to advance toward the goal to score--in soccer, not so much.

As for "silly" rules, I don't see why you don't want to characterize rules in this way. One NFL player was recently fined because he had his socks below the prescribed amount of the calf. It is a rule of course, but IMHO "silly" because it has nothing to do with the conduct of the game.

Likewise, I think deciding a "must win" game by a shootout is pretty silly, because the ability of one or more single players to shoot a goal from a prescribed distance has nothing to do with the way the game was played. If the rule said the game would be decided by a coin flip, IMHO that would also be silly. Athletes work long and hard to develop skills and play the game--and deciding the outcome by something purely by chance or a questionable "skill" unrelated to how the team played the game is just silly, if not worse.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I agree Meade, my terms were imprecise; but when you're running back and forth playing keep away from the other side and not making any shots on goal, I just don't think of it as offense. In American football, one side has the ball and is almost always trying to advance toward the goal to score--in soccer, not so much. EXACTLY WRONG AS TO REAL FOOTBALL. BOTH SIDES ARE TRYING TO SCORE.

As for "silly" rules, I don't see why you don't want to characterize rules in this way. One NFL player was recently fined because he had his socks below the prescribed amount of the calf. It is a rule of course, but IMHO "silly" because it has nothing to do with the conduct of the game. NOT A GAME RULE - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAME AT ALL.

Likewise, I think deciding a "must win" game by a shootout is pretty silly, because the ability of one or more single players to shoot a goal from a prescribed distance has nothing to do with the way the game was played. If the rule said the game would be decided by a coin flip, IMHO that would also be silly. Athletes work long and hard to develop skills and play the game--and deciding the outcome by something purely by chance or a questionable "skill" unrelated to how the team played the game is just silly, if not worse. SEE OTHER THREAD HIJACK. ALL PLAYERS HAVE TO SHOOT PENALTIES - FIRST 6 NOMINATED TO GO FIRST AND IF THEY CAN'T DO IT, THEN THE OTHER 5 TAKE THEIR TURN. KICKING PENALTIES IS A GAME PLAY, DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU LIKE - ADVANCING ON GOAL.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...and another thing, in what way can "almost always trying to advance toward the goal" be justifiably applied to a the 11 minutes of playing time vs. 49 minutes of doing nothing at all? And taking three hours to do it?

In American Football, they are "almost always" standing around and not playing anything, forwards or backwards or sideways

[Big RR]

And in soccer they're almost always running back and forth and not doing much to advance the score. So?

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's the game! Team running forward with the ball seeking to score. Other team seeking to stop them, get the ball and score. The difference is they play for 120 minutes. Not 11 minutes.

Easy to "play until someone wins" when you've only played half of 11 minutes (assuming equal division between offense and defense). I'm surprised they are ever even tired, really. What we're discussing is the best method to determine who moves on in a knockout competition.

In real football, playing on and on is NOT the best way. It produces lousy football between two teams who can hardly put one foot in front of the other - mentally and physically it is not edifying to watch or to play. As in the NHL (with the one on one shoot out to break ties), another game in which people play more than 5 minutes, a game skill determines the outcome.

Penalty shootout is not "silly" - it's not ideal but there is no better way. Every criticism you've leveled is false. Oh and West Ham and Liverpool are tied at 1-1 after 115 minutes now - an excellent game. Terrific goalie saves, the woodwork hit three times from great shots. Some pretty rough tackling and tempers getting a little warm. Great stuff! Unfortunately - looks like penalties will decide it (after a total of 240 minutes played to get a winner). Pity someone has to lose.

ETA wrong I am! West Ham just won the game with a headed goal in the 122nd minute - officials added 2 minutes to account for injury time.

[Big RR]

Every criticism you've leveled is false

thank you oh great arbiter of truth. You disagree so it's false--I see.

Easy to "play until someone wins" when you've only played half of 11 minutes (assuming equal division between offense and defense). I'm surprised they are ever even tired, really.

Try playing the game yourself, even at the high school level, and you'd understand pretty quickly why they're tired. People can run for more than 26 miles straight, but the pounding and constant hitting of football during the plays--not so much. I guess boxers shouldn't be tired either as they only fight for 36 minutes, and then only throw punches for a part of that?

it's not ideal but there is no better way

No better way? Give the players a break and then play another 30 minutes; repeat as necessary. Tennis used to do something that; but the spectators can't sit still long enough to let a match end--they need immediate results, no matter how those results are generated. I guess soccer is the same.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I just think the shoot out is about the silliest way to decide a game; leave it at a tie and declare co champions, have a rematch if you don't want extra time. Even the worst US football tiebreaks involve the team--it's not seeing who can kick or throw the ball further

Your criticisms above:

1. you can't declare "co-champions" and "leave it as a tie" when you've still got other teams in the competition. How would that have worked for Denver if New England had tied with with Arizona in the playoffs and those two teams were declared "co-winners"? Silly.

2. There is always extra time - 30 minutes of it. In domestic competitions such as the FA Cup, there is always a second game if the first one (plus extra time) ends in a draw. In the World Cup (which let me remind, is played by many nations in the world - not just one nation that thinks it is the world)... in the World Cup there is neither time nor interest in playing additional games. Nor is there in American football - can you imagine the howls if the Superbowl ended in a tie and they played again a week later?

3. The penalty shootout involves the team. First, six players are designated to take the first 6 shots. If the score is still tied, the other 5 must take the shots. There is not a contest to see who can kick the ball further (no handling the ball either).

Getting it round the right way, I disagree with your 3 objections because they are false.

[Big RR]

How would that have worked for Denver if New England had tied with with Arizona in the playoffs and those two teams were declared "co-winners"? Silly.

True, which is why I'd be happy with extra time periods (no matter how long it takes, which appears to be the objection to playing extra time in successive periods) until someone wins, in situations where we cannot have a tie. But flipping a coin or having players try and kick field goals? Not so much.

in the World Cup there is neither time nor interest in playing additional games. Nor is there in American football - can you imagine the howls if the Superbowl ended in a tie and they played again a week later?

So again, play extra time until someone wins. Can you imagine the howls if the superbowl was decided on a coin toss or how far or accurate someone could kick. It's a team game and is to be decided by the teams playing the game.

The penalty shootout involves the team. First, six players are designated to take the first 6 shots. If the score is still tied, the other 5 must take the shots. There is not a contest to see who can kick the ball further (no handling the ball either).

OK, but it's still deciding the winning team based on individual effort, akin to see who can kick the furthest/most accurate. It's marginally better than flipping a coin, but not as useful as letting the teams play until someone wins (with appropriate rest periods if needed). I imagine there might be some interest in that (even in the world cup)--but then some people just want the game to finish and a winner declared so they can move on to something else.

which let me remind, is played by many nations in the world - not just one nation that thinks it is the world

Are we talking baseball now? Not many other world championships in the US with only US and Canadian teams. As for your swipe at the US, given the cordial nature of our discourse, I'm inclined to ignore it.

I disagree with your 3 objections because they are false

Except for your last 4 words, I have no argument with you.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So again, play extra time until someone wins

OFFS no! You seem to ignore that real football involves players playing 120 minutes (not 11). They've played the game - they've played overtime. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE 22 EXHAUSTED MEN playing terribly through physical and mental reductions in skill.

They don't want to play more. The fans don't want them to play more. They've played their best and can't get it decided. Penalties are actually an exciting and suspenseful undertaking by the whole team for the whole team and the spectators. The NHL does the same in regulation games after overtime - one on one. It favors the offense. Is that silly?

[Lord Jim]

And soccer has less offensive play time--I'd bet about that or less of the 90 plus minutes they play--the rest is spent running back and forth (to no real effect on the game) or feigning injury.

That's a very charitable interpretation...

For most of the players most of the time, it's not about "running" back and forth...

It's about slow trotting, walking, or standing around waiting for the ball to show up in the part of the field they are responsible for...

There are occasional bursts of speed by some players when a scoring attack on the goal is mounted, but these only last a few seconds at a time...

This idea of soccer players running constantly full tilt for 90 minutes is a laughable myth...

[Crackpot]

I'll say we all know 90% of the time is spent standing around while one guy rolls around on the ground pretending they're injured.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Philistines! Luddites! USians!

Watch and learn



Penalty shootout (a really fun one!)

[Long Run]

What's the American football game where ties are (or were) decided by successive possessions by each team on the 20(?) yard line - four downs to get a touchdown or kick a field goal - then the other team gets the same chance? Is (was) that high school or college?

Called the "Kansas Plan" as it originated there. Not crazy about it, and favor the way the NFL does there OT. In college, each team starts on the 25. High schools vary by state. As BigRR said, they still play football just like they have the whole game, except they have a greater chance of scoring by where they start on the field.

[Long Run]

The difference is that one version does it for 90 minutes while the other one does it for 11 (and takes three hours to do it)

Typical soccer player covers 7 miles in a 90 minute game, and midfielders will cover about 9 miles in a busy game. So 10 to 13 minute miles per hour on average (which really doesn't tell you anything, kind of like saying the NFL gets in 11 minutes of action). Given that they have a lot of bursts and 50-90 yard sprints, this means a lot of standing around, walking and jogging. Sounds a lot like the 11 minutes of action from American football, with the one difference being you know when there is going to be action in American football (since there is a play), whereas, soccer's action is much less predictable. Given the different sized bodies and different athletic types between the sports, athletes in both are getting tired by the end of regulation, so extra time is definitely a challenge in both sports.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Once again, rubbish. Real football is 90 minutes of action - you know it's going to take place when it starts and then it continues for 90 minutes (with a 15 minute half time, natch). 11 minutes is the average length of all action in an NFL game - that's it. 11 minutes.

And that's for both attack and defensive players. Really it's only 5.5 minutes each of actual movement and action. No getting around it. 11 minutes of actual playing - 49 minutes of dead ball time.

As Lincoln said of McClellan's excuse that his horses were too tired for combat, "Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?”

[Long Run]

Once again, rubbish. Real football is 90 minutes of action - you know it's going to take place when it starts and then it continues for 90 minutes (with a 15 minute half time, natch). 11 minutes is the average length of all action in an NFL game - that's it. 11 minutes.

And still, you put together a highlight reel of a soccer match and you have it covered in a minute or two, just like American football, baseball, basketball, etc.

[rubato]

As previously stated, NFL teams actually play the game for an average of 11 minutes and some seconds. They spend the rest of 3 hours walking about, huddling, mugging for cameras, sitting down and er... not playing at all. It's hardly surprising that they could play "extra time" which probably amounts to another 48 seconds of actual action.
... "

And Usain Bolt only runs less than 40 seconds in the Olympic 100 meter competition. (4 rounds x < 10 seconds each)


Do you have a point?


yrs,
rubato