• Welcome to Fearless Friday Bulletin Boards. Please login or sign up.

 FF is powered by:        Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Overtime

Started by Sir Alex, April 30, 2011, 07:31:54 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sir Alex

Bring back overtime.  Let the game be decided on the field.

Arbitro

April 30, 2011, 07:59:18 am #1 Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 08:01:57 am by Arbitro
Quote from: Sir Alex on April 30, 2011, 07:31:54 am
Bring back overtime.  Let the game be decided on the field.
I am guessing that AAA looked at this data when they decided to go straight to PKs, but I would like to see what percentage of games tied at the end of regulation were decided in overtime.  My guess is the majority of tied games ended up in PKs anyway.

I am really old school.  I'd like to see the games stand as ties during the regular season, and then switch to overtime and PKs during the playoffs when you need to have a winner.

LRfan

Quote from: Arbitro on April 30, 2011, 07:59:18 am
Quote from: Sir Alex on April 30, 2011, 07:31:54 am
Bring back overtime.  Let the game be decided on the field.
I am guessing that AAA looked at this data when they decided to go straight to PKs, but I would like to see what percentage of games tied at the end of regulation were decided in overtime.  My guess is the majority of tied games ended up in PKs anyway.

I am really old school.  I'd like to see the games stand as ties during the regular season, and then switch to overtime and PKs during the playoffs when you need to have a winner.

I doubt it. I have never seen so many games going to kicks. Catholic has had 3 out of 9 go to kicks. I think  Central (boys) have had 4 go to kicks. I also think that more games are ending in a tie at the end of regulation because the rule changes encourage weaker teams to play for a tie against stronger teams, knowing that if they make it to kicks it is like a coin-flip. ( I don't have any data, just an opinion.)

futboliac

Yes Central has had 4 games go to PKs and lost 3. They have missed 2 in each of their losses. If the rule stays the same then coaches will have to devote some time to "PK practice" kind of like free throw practice at the end of basketball practices. If AAA feels this works so well let's start deciding tie football games by kicking field goals!
A rule change that is purely designed to get the next game started, and people home on time. It has definitely changed how the game is being played. I agree that the best option if no true OTs is to allow the tie to stand in the regular season. An unsatisfying result that wil increase the intensity of play as the game's end gets closer instead of the opposite. And will satisfy AAA's desire to get the games finished in a timely manner.

Sir Alex

Quote from: LRfan on April 30, 2011, 09:21:34 am
Quote from: Arbitro on April 30, 2011, 07:59:18 am
Quote from: Sir Alex on April 30, 2011, 07:31:54 am
Bring back overtime.  Let the game be decided on the field.
I am guessing that AAA looked at this data when they decided to go straight to PKs, but I would like to see what percentage of games tied at the end of regulation were decided in overtime.  My guess is the majority of tied games ended up in PKs anyway.

I am really old school.  I'd like to see the games stand as ties during the regular season, and then switch to overtime and PKs during the playoffs when you need to have a winner.
So True....  I like the old method of 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie.... 

I doubt it. I have never seen so many games going to kicks. Catholic has had 3 out of 9 go to kicks. I think  Central (boys) have had 4 go to kicks. I also think that more games are ending in a tie at the end of regulation because the rule changes encourage weaker teams to play for a tie against stronger teams, knowing that if they make it to kicks it is like a coin-flip. ( I don't have any data, just an opinion.)

offside

Would I prefer a team to win during play? Yep.  But I kinda' like the drama of PKs.  It's sucks to be on the losing end but it's a blast to be on the winning side.  I'm sure some teams have tried to bunker in order to end in a tie but I think that's rare in Arkansas high school soccer.  There have been a lot of ties this season.  Just get 'er done in regulation.

Chosen 1

Quote from: offside on May 02, 2011, 04:54:39 pm
Would I prefer a team to win during play? Yep.  But I kinda' like the drama of PKs.  It's sucks to be on the losing end but it's a blast to be on the winning side.  I'm sure some teams have tried to bunker in order to end in a tie but I think that's rare in Arkansas high school soccer.  There have been a lot of ties this season.  Just get 'er done in regulation.
Watch some of the 6A east. Bunker down and play for a tie is the common strategy.

I HATE this rule. I've never seen anywhere else in soccer where a game ends and goes straight to PK's. Let it end in a draw or play out both overtime periods (silver goal) then PK's if needed.

You should not let an aspect of the game that is one of the more rare parts of the game (PK's) settle a game until last resort.

LRfan

Quote from: offside on May 02, 2011, 04:54:39 pm
Would I prefer a team to win during play? Yep.  But I kinda' like the drama of PKs.  It's sucks to be on the losing end but it's a blast to be on the winning side.  I'm sure some teams have tried to bunker in order to end in a tie but I think that's rare in Arkansas high school soccer.  There have been a lot of ties this season.  Just get 'er done in regulation.

You are right that ideally you get it done in regulation. However, I disagree with the statement that it is rare to play for a tie. This year I have seen coaches start subbing as early as 5 minutes into a match and continue to do it frequently the whole game. Surely their starters are in better shape than that. I have seen a weaker team take their time getting the ball in and sub more frequently late in tied games rather than pressing to try to score. It makes sense under the current rules. Shorten the game and come out with a tie and a weaker team has a 50/50 chance of winning in kicks. 

arksoc

C'mon, guys. Really? It can't be making that much difference, can it? Taking the maximum time from 100 minutes down to 80 shouldn't be enough to cause all this change in strategy. By this line of thinking, we should have seen at least as many teams that are going to PKs this year going to OT last year. Was that the case? Interestingly, after seeing a number of games go to OT (and most often, kicks) in both of the past two years, I've seen none even go to OT this year.

futboliac

Catholic has had 3, Central has had 4 and my experience has been that through the middle of the second half games are being played fairly straight up but if a "lesser" team is tied at this point I personally have seen the same soccer time killing tactics used that are typically used when 1 goal up in order to preserve the tie and go to PKs. Dropping players into the box, slow playing free kicks, punts and goal kicks, frequent subs and long injury time, blasting the ball into the stands etc. Definitely changes from pressing forward to attempt to win into dropping back to lengthen the game

United11

If neither team has played well enough to win, why not end the game in a tie?  If a poor team defends to the death, and a good team can't break them down...reward the one and don't punish the other.  I'd say AAA doesn't like complex math, but this years power system seems to suggest otherwise.

KCShinn21

I certainly understand those who prefer the traditional end to games but for generating pure excitement with players and fans nothing matches that of ending the game in PKs. It certainly requires teams to adapt their strategies but that is also part of the game. College football's overtime format has certainly not made the game less enjoyable and for many has added a certain element to the game.

For those of you fine gentlemen who are the soccer purists, I understand your anguish but this is part of the price you pay for allowing us barbarians inside the gate. I'd rather be Donald Trump's spiritual advisor than end a game in a tie. Smacks of communism to me. I'm not interested in being equal to anyone, I want to be their better. Of course, if we're getting spanked by Harrison and Siloam, I suppose playing for a tie does have its appeal.

futboliac

Quote from: KCShinn21 on May 04, 2011, 12:28:40 am
I certainly understand those who prefer the traditional end to games but for generating pure excitement with players and fans nothing matches that of ending the game in PKs. It certainly requires teams to adapt their strategies but that is also part of the game. College football's overtime format has certainly not made the game less enjoyable and for many has added a certain element to the game.

For those of you fine gentlemen who are the soccer purists, I understand your anguish but this is part of the price you pay for allowing us barbarians inside the gate. I'd rather be Donald Trump's spiritual advisor than end a game in a tie. Smacks of communism to me. I'm not interested in being equal to anyone, I want to be their better. Of course, if we're getting spanked by Harrison and Siloam, I suppose playing for a tie does have its appeal.

You pretty much make a couple of the points we've been talking about.
In college football they actually play to determine a winner. Team vs team playing real live football on the field. In this year's high school soccer it goes to 1 v 1. The closest equivalent in football, vs futbol, would be to have the kickers trot out and kick field goals against each other to determine a winner.
And exactly right with the Siloam/Harrison comment....the temptation against a team that may have a bit of an edge is to try and win initially of course but as time passes that tie looks darned attractive because a shootout gives you pretty much a literal 50/50 chance since your shooters have that same 80/20 advantage in PK's that the other side has.

United11

Yeah the football analogy doesn't work for me on a lot of levels.  I see the value in having an exciting end to the game, and if that's the goal, I guess pk's achieve that.  But, if what we're after is having the standings represent who is better, worse, or equivalent, then pks seem to fail pretty miserably.

I understand the aversion to ties, but winning in pks means you won, but doesn't mean youre better.  Not to step on toes, but would many people support the statement that Bryant is better than Catholic based on that PK win?   

Another example of AAA misunderstanding futbol.

soccer fan

Quote from: United11 on May 04, 2011, 09:12:45 am
Yeah the football analogy doesn't work for me on a lot of levels.  I see the value in having an exciting end to the game, and if that's the goal, I guess pk's achieve that.  But, if what we're after is having the standings represent who is better, worse, or equivalent, then pks seem to fail pretty miserably.

I understand the aversion to ties, but winning in pks means you won, but doesn't mean youre better.  Not to step on toes, but would many people support the statement that Bryant is better than Catholic based on that PK win?    Another example of AAA misunderstanding futbol.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is exactly correct.  How many teams that you know of practice PK'S on a daily basis hoping that it comes to that in a match?

arksoc

This is a problem that goes all the way to the highest levels of soccer. Far be it from me to defend the AAA, but if you say they don't understand soccer, I guess you have to say that FIFA doesn't understand soccer. Games at all levels are decide by kicks.

The issue is the minutes of play before going to kicks and I'm not convinced that dropping the two OT periods makes that much difference. If you're willing to kill the game for 80 minutes, why not try the same tactic through the OT periods, as well? If a team isn't good enough to overcome the stall tactics in 80 minutes, how much extra time should they be given to do so? Maybe there's just more parity in the 7A than usual this year and that's what's sending the games to kicks, not the lack of OT.

United11

Yeah, but the enormous difference is FIFA only has PKs in elimination games.  AAA has it in every single game.  I agree, if it's not decided after 80 minutes, why declare an arbitrary winner?

arksoc

You're right. That's where AAA can't get comfortable...with ties. If they could find a way to look past the "have to have a winner for a W or L" and move to a points system like the rest of the soccer world, it could work out. They'd have to be willing to change their scoring system for conference soccer play. I think I agree with you.

Chosen 1

Anybody remember the old shootout's that were hockey style from midfield??

futboliac

MLS Shootout I think it was called. Player with the ball attacking the goal with the keeper coming off the line to defend. 5 seconds to score I think.

Chosen 1

Quote from: futboliac on May 04, 2011, 03:15:43 pm
MLS Shootout I think it was called. Player with the ball attacking the goal with the keeper coming off the line to defend. 5 seconds to score I think.
Those were fun to watch... but the quickly realized it was dumb. Hopefully the AAA will gain some brain cells.

sirgiggs

What's wrong with a tie?

KCShinn21

Once again, I have to point out that ending games on PKs is great theater for the fans and a thrill for the winning team. I certainly understand how soccer purists dislike the change but for many of the rest of us, it is more fun.

LRfan

Quote from: KCShinn21 on May 06, 2011, 11:44:35 pm
Once again, I have to point out that ending games on PKs is great theater for the fans and a thrill for the winning team. I certainly understand how soccer purists dislike the change but for many of the rest of us, it is more fun.

Why not skip the 80 minutes of regulation time and go straight to kicks? Cut out all that boring stuff. Also, it would really make the season exciting because on any given night either team, no matter how untalented relative to their opponent, would have an equal chance to win. The fans of the less talented teams would love it.

PressBox-81

It sounds the like the coaches voted at the coaches meeting to go back to just 80 mins and let ties stand.  That way they can use the standard point system of 3 for win, 1 for draw, and 0 for loss.

Also, hear they want to go back to Tuesday and Friday games for 7A as opposed to Tuesday and Thursday.


LRfan

Quote from: WC-soccer dad on May 07, 2011, 08:36:36 am
It sounds the like the coaches voted at the coaches meeting to go back to just 80 mins and let ties stand.  That way they can use the standard point system of 3 for win, 1 for draw, and 0 for loss.

Also, hear they want to go back to Tuesday and Friday games for 7A as opposed to Tuesday and Thursday.

This has to be approved by the AAA, though. Right? Does anyone know how often the AAA goes along with the coaches' recommendations? Is it pretty much a done deal?

futboliac

Quote from: KCShinn21 on May 06, 2011, 11:44:35 pm
Once again, I have to point out that ending games on PKs is great theater for the fans and a thrill for the winning team. I certainly understand how soccer purists dislike the change but for many of the rest of us, it is more fun.

More fun? Maybe exciting but the result isn't decided by actually playing the game. In every other sport they actually play the game during some sort of overtime.
When tied at the end of regulation....In football they don't reduce it to a quarterback throwing the ball into the end zone to a single receiver vs a d back. In golf they don't determine the winner by standing on the tee and seeing which player hits it closest to the hole. In basketball they don't put a defender under the basket and have a single player drive against him. In baseball they don't put  just a pitcher on the mound and a batter in the box to determine the game by hits or home runs. 
In soccer they completely change the game. And yes it can be exciting (or gut wrenching if you're a keepers parent!). But if they're determined to have a winner and loser shouldn't they at least attempt to play the game for a little longer like every other sport does?...Before the tie or before PKs either way let the game be played in a real on the field overtime

Arbitro

Kicks from the penalty mark is an imperfect way of determining a winner, but the soccer world has yet to come up with a better one.  That's why this method of ending a game is reserved for situations where you have to have a winner (single elimination phase of tournaments).  Otherwise the games end in a tie.  For reasons that escape me some people in this country seem unable to deal with the concept of a contest ending in a tie (the old kissing your sister simile).  A tie may very well be the most representative result between two teams on a given day.  Why use an less-than-desirable method to pick a "winner" if you don't need to?

Regular season games that end regulation in a tie should stay as a tie.  Post-season games should go to overtimes and PKs if necessary.

Just my opinion, of course.  I'll ref games however the rules require.

KCShinn21

Quote from: LRfan on May 07, 2011, 07:13:12 am
Quote from: KCShinn21 on May 06, 2011, 11:44:35 pm
Once again, I have to point out that ending games on PKs is great theater for the fans and a thrill for the winning team. I certainly understand how soccer purists dislike the change but for many of the rest of us, it is more fun.

Why not skip the 80 minutes of regulation time and go straight to kicks? Cut out all that boring stuff. Also, it would really make the season exciting because on any given night either team, no matter how untalented relative to their opponent, would have an equal chance to win. The fans of the less talented teams would love it.

Weak arguments often slide into condescending tones. The rules of every sport evolve and the same is true for soccer. Few fans for any sport find ties positive. Therefore, most sports have designed some system for deciding games that remained tied at the end of regulation.
High school sports provide an extra element of consideration. We generally always play a varsity girls and boys game on the same night. As a result, on away game nights we rarely load the bus to return home before 9:00pm and frequently need to stop and allow our players to grab a bite to eat. Due to conferences and geographic concerns, our travel time is frequently two to three hours. That puts our student athletes getting home between midnight and 2:00am often on school nights. Playing the two Golden Goal overtime periods, as we have in the past, before going to the kicks can easily add another hour to the night for our kids.

As I have said before, I understand how many prefer ending games in ties, or extending the length of the game on the field to give teams added time to win. I respect that position while at the same time disagreeing with it. I love the game, even though I didn't play it as a kid myself. Once you tell me what the rules are, it is my job as a coach to prepare my players, the best that I can, to be successful within the limits of those rules. To profess that any method of ending the game is more legitimate than another ignores the various perspectives and therefore insults those holding differing ideas.

If those teams whose fans believe are more "talented" can't win in 80 minutes, I might suggest that their coaches develop better tactics and strategies and quit relying on simply having "better" players.

Whether we end games in Golden Goals or PKs, it is still a beautiful game that continues to grow in popularity. With growth comes changes and we all need to be prepared for it and learn to adapt as the game evolves.


United11

Valid points all around.  But, I disagree that we should accept evolution of the game, especially at the hands of the AAA who very rarely have legitimate interest of the sport in mind.  If excitement is what we're after, granted, pks are fine.  But as the earlier hyperbolic post suggested, AAA isn't after excitement, they're interested in getting teams home on time and keeping the math simple (ironically..). 

The vast majority of the soccer world accepts a tie, and its not a surprise that an organization that is relatively new to soccer (only since 1998...) hasn't come around to the natural conclusion of two teams not solving things in regulation.  If excitement is what we're after, then there's a host of things we can think of to accomplish that goal. 

I also disagree in that some solutions certainly ARE better than others, regardless of what other people's opinions are.  I see teams wanting pk shootouts, but its mostly teams that aren't strong teams, which says plenty.  But if AAA says we should start deciding games by coin-flip, it doesnt, or at least shouldn't make that a valid perspective on how games should end. 

As to a coach relying on better players, that seems to be quite an assumption.  There's certainly an argument for some teams to filibuster for 80 minutes, which, on some of the fields these games are played on, isn't that hard.  If there is more parity in the league this year, it makes it even easier to hold out for a tie, then take the coin toss that is a pk shootout, instead of going out and trying to play soccer.  If a better team can't break down a team that defends for 80 minutes, they don't deserve to win, even in a pk shootout.  But they don't deserve to lose, thus the tie.  Good post KC, some solid stuff, but I think some endings to soccer games simply are more legitimate in terms of history, fairness, and achieving the result of having better teams represent the conference come play-off time.

futboliac

Two excellent respectful posts. I don't agree however with essentially indicting coaches' ability or tactics or strategy when their team is unable to score against a team that is dropping 6+ into the box and using time consuming tactics to shorten the game. Implying that they just simply roll the ball out for better players and coach very little is I think a misrepresentation.
As a coach what are your unique tactics and strategies that allow your team to score against an opponent that is dropping enough players back to make getting a ball much less a player through on an attack?

KCShinn21

Quote from: United11 on May 07, 2011, 09:35:50 pm
Valid points all around.  But, I disagree that we should accept evolution of the game, especially at the hands of the AAA who very rarely have legitimate interest of the sport in mind.  If excitement is what we're after, granted, pks are fine.  But as the earlier hyperbolic post suggested, AAA isn't after excitement, they're interested in getting teams home on time and keeping the math simple (ironically..). 

The vast majority of the soccer world accepts a tie, and its not a surprise that an organization that is relatively new to soccer (only since 1998...) hasn't come around to the natural conclusion of two teams not solving things in regulation.  If excitement is what we're after, then there's a host of things we can think of to accomplish that goal. 

I also disagree in that some solutions certainly ARE better than others, regardless of what other people's opinions are.  I see teams wanting pk shootouts, but its mostly teams that aren't strong teams, which says plenty.  But if AAA says we should start deciding games by coin-flip, it doesnt, or at least shouldn't make that a valid perspective on how games should end. 

As to a coach relying on better players, that seems to be quite an assumption.  There's certainly an argument for some teams to filibuster for 80 minutes, which, on some of the fields these games are played on, isn't that hard.  If there is more parity in the league this year, it makes it even easier to hold out for a tie, then take the coin toss that is a pk shootout, instead of going out and trying to play soccer.  If a better team can't break down a team that defends for 80 minutes, they don't deserve to win, even in a pk shootout.  But they don't deserve to lose, thus the tie.  Good post KC, some solid stuff, but I think some endings to soccer games simply are more legitimate in terms of history, fairness, and achieving the result of having better teams represent the conference come play-off time.
United, my point concerning the manner in which we end games is that what is or is not appropriate is in the eye of the beholder. If a team could simply pack back and keep their opponent from scoring, it wouldn't matter how long the game is, they'd still either end up in PKs or in a tie.

Sir Alex

Quote from: LRfan on May 07, 2011, 08:42:24 am
Quote from: WC-soccer dad on May 07, 2011, 08:36:36 am
It sounds the like the coaches voted at the coaches meeting to go back to just 80 mins and let ties stand.  That way they can use the standard point system of 3 for win, 1 for draw, and 0 for loss.

Also, hear they want to go back to Tuesday and Friday games for 7A as opposed to Tuesday and Thursday.

This has to be approved by the AAA, though. Right? Does anyone know how often the AAA goes along with the coaches' recommendations? Is it pretty much a done deal?
Yes it does.  Not very often.  All of this began with a proposal by Cabot at their activity district meeting a few years ago.  I guess they did not make the state tournament or had a bad seed because they had too many ties.  If there where no proposals made by any of the activity districts to change the current system I am afraid we will be stuck with what we got.  There may be one last chance if the soccer advisory committee made up of some of the state coaches can get the AAA to put this up for a vote.



United11


[/quote]
United, my point concerning the manner in which we end games is that what is or is not appropriate is in the eye of the beholder. If a team could simply pack back and keep their opponent from scoring, it wouldn't matter how long the game is, they'd still either end up in PKs or in a tie.
[/quote]

I agree to some extent.  I'm not for an additional overtime either, I prefer a tie after regulation. 

LRfan

Quote from: United11 on May 08, 2011, 07:03:54 am

United, my point concerning the manner in which we end games is that what is or is not appropriate is in the eye of the beholder. If a team could simply pack back and keep their opponent from scoring, it wouldn't matter how long the game is, they'd still either end up in PKs or in a tie.
[/quote]

I agree to some extent.  I'm not for an additional overtime either, I prefer a tie after regulation.
[/quote]

Either ending in ties or playing overtimes followed by kicks, if necessary, would be better than the current system.

I disagree with the statement that it does not matter how long the game is. The longer the game, the more likely the better team will come out on top. A more talented team hurt by a PK after a flop in the box or some other unfortunate event that puts them down a goal, will have more time to recover from this and is more likely to come out on top the longer the game is played. Like any game, where one team is trying to score and the other is trying to shorten the game by frequent subbing, not hurrying to get the ball when it is out, etc., or when a team pulls back more players on defense to prevent the other team from scoring at the expense of sacrificing their own chance to score, there will continue to be tactics used. However, the longer the game, the more difficult it is to significantly shorten a game or employ such tactics flawlessly.

Also, if the stakes weren't so high and the reward not so great (If we did not go to kicks after a tie in regulation, which gives a weaker team a 50/50 chance to get a win, and getting the reward of currently 10 pts plus bonus pts for the purpose of tournament seeding,  but rather we ended in a tie -yielding the winning team 1 pt, only slightly more than the 0 for a loss, I suspect the motivation to play for a tie in regulation would not be as great for the underdog).

I apologize for my sarcasm in an earlier post with regard to this subject, but I feel that whatever rule is used for overtime it should not be decided upon to provide "great theater for the fans", but rather to maintain the competetive integrity of the game. So in summary, I don't care if they end in a tie or play OTs followed by kicks, but the current system is the worst of both worlds.

Go Postal

May 08, 2011, 09:15:39 am #35 Last Edit: May 08, 2011, 09:23:19 am by Go Postal
I count 5 PK game wins out of all of the conference games, so far, played (boys/girls) in the 5A West as follows:
In the boys:
Siloam Springs (L) vs Harrison (W)1st game
Greenwood (W) vs Siloam Springs (L) 1st game
Greenwood (W) vs Harrison (L) 2nd game
Greenbrier (W) vs Greenwood (L) 2nd game
In the girls:
Greenbrier (W) vs Greenwood (L) 2nd game

This has made an impact on seedings in playoffs for the boys in the West and as far as I know, is that all 5A West teams have played for the win, but with the new ruling, the clock has beaten them in regulation.  I know, "could of, should of, would of" but, IMHO, I do not like the new pk ruling.  Let the teams play it out, win/lose or tie, like the rest of the world.

Fox 16 Arkansas Fox 24 Arkansas