This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The beautiful game

1246

Comments

  • Do the players throwing punches in the ice hockey get sent of the ice for the rest of the game without a substitute?
    Do they get suspended for a number of games?
    That is what would happen in soccer.
    They have to sit in a box for five minutes. Both teams get the penalty at the same time.
  • I hate this aspect of my chosen game but I don't think it is because soccer players are more devious and/or less tough.
    Players play to win the game. There's little to be gained from drawing penalties in hockey, so there's little incentive to do it. However, players will trip, for example, on purpose to prevent a goal even knowing they'll face a penalty.

    Soccer, there is so much to gain from a penalty that you can make that a standard ploy to great effect. They are also playing to win the game.

    If, say, ANY fighting led to a penalty shot against the initiating team in hockey (to make up a lame example), you can bet your arse there would be extreme attempts by players to goad their opponents into taking a swing.
  • I hate this aspect of my chosen game but I don't think it is because soccer players are more devious and/or less tough.
    You could alway try to change the rules...oh wait. That would completely ruin soccer's long and storied tradition.
  • If, say, ANY fighting led to a penalty shot against the initiating team in hockey (to make up a lame example), you can bet your arse there would be extreme attempts by players to goad their opponents into taking a swing.
    Actually, you'd be surprised that this already happens, although not to the extreme.
    Skip to 1:20 in the video to see what I'm talking about.
  • I hate this aspect of my chosen game but I don't think it is because soccer players are more devious and/or less tough.
    You could alway try to change the rules...oh wait. That would completely ruin soccer's long and storied tradition.
    Soccer rules change to. We just pride ourselves in having so few of them. Offside rules have changed the most in my lifetime. Without more accurate determination of whether a foul is a foul or a fake it's difficult to see what rule changes would gain.

    We introduced rules to protect players and they were exploited but less players were seriously injured so it was a good thing.
    We introduced rules to prevent blatant cheating preventing goals and that was exploited too.
    We introduced rules to punish those exploitations and that has been difficult to officiate.
  • Introduce replay to solve all the problems.
  • Introduce replay to solve all the problems.
    Too much of an interruption. We like a flowing game, uninterrupted game where possible. Hockey seems to be the only major US sport that embraces that.
    And I've seen slow motion replays from multiple angles not resolve an issue.
  • edited January 2011
    Too much of an interruption. We like a flowing game, uninterrupted game where possible. Hockey seems to be the only major US sport that embraces that.
    And I've seen slow motion replays from multiple angles not resolve an issue.
    I already suggested a solution to where replay would not have to interrupt the game at all.

    Also, soccer has plenty of stoppages in play. Throw-ins, corner kicks, penalty kicks. I mean seriously, what is more important? It's ok guys, we gave the trophy to the wrong team. Don't worry, it's ok. The flow of the game was perfect.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Too much of an interruption. We like a flowing game, uninterrupted game where possible.
    ...oh wait, that would completely ruin soccer's long and storied tradition.
  • edited January 2011
    If you don't like it, don't watch it. Big fucking deal. The billions of soccer fans in existence care little for a few leaving their ranks.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • The number of times a bad call has significantly affected the outcome of a game versus the number of interruptions replays would cause does not justify the change.

    It's entertainment. The most important thing is pleasing the audience. They pay the wages.
  • It's entertainment. The most important thing is pleasing the audience. They pay the wages.
    So soccer might as well just be professional "wrestling" if it's just entertainment and the actual competition doesn't need to be fair.
  • I can't recall ever seeing a soccer call that I really, truly believed was entirely bullshit. Aside from some goal detection issues that wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway (and whose correction with some sort of goal detector I suppose I'd be in favor of), I've never seen someone get a red or yellow who didn't deserve it.
  • It's entertainment. The most important thing is pleasing the audience. They pay the wages.
    So soccer might as well just be professional "wrestling" if it's just entertainment and the actual competition doesn't need to be fair.
    (a) I don't find professional wrestling entertaining
    (b) A balance needs to be struck between competitive fairness and spectator enjoyment.

    The application of rules can be entertaining right?
  • I can't recall ever seeing a soccer call that I really, truly believed was entirely bullshit. Aside from some goal detection issues that wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway (and whose correction with some sort of goal detector I suppose I'd be in favor of), I've never seen someone get a red or yellow who didn't deserve it.
    The most famous play in all of soccer is "the hand of god." Don't give me that bullshit.
  • I said I've never seen one personally. The Hand of God was always bullshit, everyone knows that.
  • RymRym
    edited January 2011
    The Hand of God was always bullshit, everyone knows that.
    It's a perfectly legitimate tactic. If officiating is fallible (with no means of correction), you take a calculated risk when you break a rule. If you successfully break the rule without getting caught, you have not really cheated, as the rules themselves allow for such sneakery by having no way to undo it.

    Board games, for example, typically have no officiating, yet are designed such that it is basically impossible for someone to cheat. If someone is caught cheating, it is almost always outside of the rules of the game, and ends said game unresolved.

    Some games have rules to handle a "cheating" event and continue the game. Soccer, for example, doesn't let you score if you pull a handball and are caught. If you don't get caught, awesome. If you do get caught, it's handled by the rules and play continues. Is it "cheating" or "bullshit" if you are offsides and get caught? Or is it just a call? If it's not cheating to be caught messing up, then how is it cheating to not be caught messing up?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • It's a perfectly legitimate tactic. If officiating is fallible (with no means of correction), you take a calculated risk when you break a rule. If you successfully break the rule without getting caught, you have not really cheated, as the rules themselves allow for such sneakery by having no way to undo it.
    So, soccer's method of officiating is a valid set of rules. Glad we solved that.
  • So, soccer's method of officiating is a valid set of rules. Glad we solved that.
    Yeap. And good players should use those rules to the fullest and cheapest extent to win. If you can pull off a handball, go for it. If you can play form an illegal offsides, go for it. Fake an injury and get a penalty shot? Awesome.
  • You see, I always thought human fallibility was the point. For just that reason.
  • Just because they are valid doesn't make them good.
  • So, soccer's method of officiating is a valid set of rules. Glad we solved that.
    Yeap. And good players should use those rules to the fullest and cheapest extent to win. If you can pull off a handball, go for it. If you can play form an illegal offsides, go for it. Fake an injury and get a penalty shot? Awesome.
    Absolutely from a player's perspective. Do everything you can to win the game. But as a spectator, why should I have any interest in a game where cheating is so rampant? Why should I care about the result of a game where the best team doesn't necessarily win? Championships don't mean anything if the game itself has no integrity.
  • RymRym
    edited January 2011
    You see, I always thought human fallibility was the point. For just that reason.
    Then no one can complain if someone successfully walks in with the ball. ;^)
    Just because they are valid doesn't make them good.
    You play to win the game. If we all agree that that sort of behavior isn't "good," then we need to change the rules of the game to prevent it. Is it "not good" to captain immediately after my opponent crafts in Puerto Rico? If you are aware of an option in a game that is advantageous to you, is it "not good" to take said option? If so, then why do we care who wins?

    If something is OK in the rules, yet perceived as "not good" or "cheap," then why is it allowed in the rules in the first place? Why do we even have rules? Who's to say I or anyone has to follow the "unwritten rules" of any competition?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • The most famous play in all of soccer is "the hand of god." Don't give me that bullshit.
    That statement is bullshit. Unless you are English.
    If you successfully break the rule without getting caught, you have not really cheated
    That is also bullshit. This is why we Scots have a not-proven verdict!
  • Noble folk, the Scots.
  • edited January 2011
    You play to win the game. If we all agree that that sort of behavior isn't "good," then we need to change the rules of the game to prevent it. Is it "not good" to captain immediately after my opponent crafts inPuerto Rico? If you are aware of an option in a game that is advantageous to you, is it "not good" to take said option? If so, then why do we care who wins?
    Just because a rule exists doesn't mean that the rule is fair or creates an equitable playing field. Furthermore it doesn't make the game interesting to watch or participate in.

    Additionally, I would argue that even though you can get away with breaking rules without penalties, that doesn't imply some meta-rule exists which can be considered a fair strategy.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • I would argue that just because you can get away with breaking rules without penalties, that doesn't imply some meta-rule exists which can be considered a fair strategy.
    It does if the game handles the exception. Soccer handles it by ignoring it. Board games handle it by ruining/ending the game. Football and hockey handle it by backing up and verifying what happened.
  • Just because a rule exists doesn't mean that the rule is fair or creates an equitable playing field.
    No, but that means the game isn't fair or doesn't create an equitable playing field. The game is nothing more than the sum of it's written rules.
  • Additionally, I would argue that even though you can get away with breaking rules without penalties, that doesn't imply some meta-rule exists which can be considered a fair strategy.
    It absolutely does imply that, in games and in real life.

    In real life we have copyright law, but everyone gets away with it constantly. Speeding is the same way.

    Many video games have glitches. Since the code of a video game is the rules of the game, you absolutely should take advantage of any and all glitches in order to win. Some tournaments might eliminate you if you exploit a glitch, but I'm almost positive that Twin Galaxies expects you to exploit every glitch you can. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If you don't want people to snake in Mario Kart DS, then remove snaking. Otherwise, if you want to win, then snake like hell.
  • edited January 2011
    In real life we have copyright law, but everyone gets away with it constantly. Speeding is the same way.
    In order for this to be true, the most blatant examples of said violations have to be ignored openly by the courts. These both fail that test. Millions of people get fines for speeding and piracy charges are handled in out of court settlements. You're statements show a willful ignorance of the legal system.
    Post edited by Andrew on
Sign In or Register to comment.