Euro 2016 thread

cj73

Rocker said:

I totally disagree with the playing of extra time.  Both teams have had 90 minutes to decide the match.  Then it should be straight into a penalty shootout.  Any team which has played 90 minutes + 30 minutes extra time is bound to be a little tired so they would be more 'beatable' in the next game.  Every team plays the same number of minutes but it is important to remember that each team can win the match in normal time.

Sort of agree.  Would defo do away with away goals counting double in the 2nd leg of a 2 leg tie

scrumhalf

In a knockout situation, if the teams are still level after 120 minutes then chuck them both out and bring in the teams they beat in the previous round.

Harsh but fair.

Either that or a game of three-and-in.

sinbaadi

I think after 90 they should take 8 players off the field and then a further 2 every couple of minutes until someone scores or you are left with 3-a-side to settle it.

Even without that they should also allow 2 extra subs if it goes to extra time, and it should immediately be a golden goal situation.

EricTheWeary

lloyd said:

EricTheWeary;1123973" said:

As there's no actual football for two days...

The half time rest and turnaround goes back to the early days of football (apparently before the days of set rules they would play by one team's rules in the first half and the other 's in the second). For TV purposes it would be hard to get rid of the half time break but I'm not sure why at a pro level they need to change ends. Fans are sectioned to one end or the other so if there was no changing of ends then there might be fewer crowd issues. It would also be less confusing on hilights shows. At an amateur level one end of the pitch might be better than the other but at a pro level that shouldn't be the case.

Pro footballers are still human though-they miss penalties in pressure situations that they never would back on the trading park.

Home and away results are skewed in favour of the home team, while it shouldn't really make a difference.

As a Liverpool fan I'm fairly certain that we as a team have scored more goals in the Kop End than the Anfield Road End.

Fans aren't totally sectioned either, at most grounds the away fans have a small section of one end.

At international level it can be different I guess but it's different every time.

I'm not really sure if this is a serious post or not....confusion during highlight shows? Really?

I know a couple days without footy is tough but I'm not sure inventing problems is needed?

I'm not sure how changing ends contributes to fan troubles?

One issue could be that you can and do get some areas of the pitch (less so at the highest level these days admittedly) that have differing grass coverage, eg one line has more mud down it and it's right that both wingers/full backs have a go on the good and te bad.

Not that serious I guess but for modern pro games the need to swap ends doesn't seem to achieve much. If a fan, for example, wants to be behind their team's goal then they only get to do so for one half. You wouldn't pay £50 for a theatre ticket and expect to be told to sit at the other end of the theatre after the intermission for example. If people are happier then less trouble. 

Pro level football has now made a few changes from the amateur game ( goal line technology in particular) so a bit of thinking outside the box might be in place.

lloyd

But they don't though....

If you're in te away stand yeah you don't get a view of both sides but club games basically have 95% home fans in there and away fans are given a small corner, usually ground level and a few rows back so you're fixing a problem* for away 5% of fans.....

*its not even a problem, not sure if you're someone who goes to games?

Yeah you want to see goals but that's not the be all and end all, won want great saves, see the oppositions star striker on the ball, see both wingers-ie the whole game, the best way of getting the best overall picture of a game is to have the teams change sides.

It's a no brainer from a fans view and from a sporting event view too, which is what it is, not a piece of theatre...

I'm not even sure why "thinking outside the box" is needed?

Soccer is the most successful sport out there going on viewing figures and participation.

There hasn't been any crowd trouble at an English game in years, there is basically no hooligan element in stadia these days.

lloyd

Not to mention weather conditions-wind direction and sun in the eyes

Placidcasual79

How can there be a world cup in Russia. 

I might be able to respect a footballer for the first time in a long time if someone stands up and actually boycotts the thing. 

Babones

Instead of penalties from the spot, how about ice hockey style penalties. The player dribbles from the half way line, taking on the keeper 1-on-1. No defined place to shoot from. Keeper has the chance to close the man down. After a full match, it could be interesting. I hate spot kicks.

lloyd

Think that MLS does (or did) dribbling and one on ones rather than penalties.

Good idea IMO but....in the same way as penalties it seems weird that a game can be won or lost on how good your centre back can shoot from 12 yards out (or his one on one ability).

Apart from playing for 8 hours there's no perfect way to choose a winner (they used to flip a coin and I think we can all get on board against that).

Golden Goal was there to promote attacking play but does the opposite.

Something that might be interesting but I wouldn't advocate it instead of penalties would be a 5 or 4 aside game half length of the pitch with first to 3 goals-the "legends" 5 a side games are always fun and would be different in a tournament but who knows?

You have to decide a winner somehow and pens are exciting, they're the best way of deciding matches for now-maybe is change to have only attacking players taking them or have teams pick their best 3 takers and then move the ball about and let them take "free kicks" with no walls from outside the box, inside, left side/right side etc...

BigLicks67

There is nothing wrong with penalties as a way of deciding a game. It's a question of skill and nerve under pressure and you cannot say it's not exciting. 

quarky

lloyd

BigLicks67;1125042" said:

There is nothing wrong with penalties as a way of deciding a game. It's a question of skill and nerve under pressure and you cannot say it's not exciting. 

I do t mind them, just musing-it's weird that defenders and attaches get asked to do the same skill, but I suppose you should have 5 Guys that can strike a ball cleanly.

scrumhalf

Some time ago there was a suggestion that all knockout games subject to penalty shootouts shouyld have the shootout before the game starts so that one team knows it cannot "play for penalties". Im not sure about this.

Given how crappy penalties are, maybe we should play around with extra-time.
1) Another substitution is permitted.
2) Anyone who has had a yellow card goes off in the second half.
3) Any yellow cards and the man goes off.
4) No offside outside the penalty area.
5) All free-kicks are direct.

Fretwired

Can anyone help a mate out ... ;-)

lloyd

Nerves are jangling for the Wales v NI game, on paper should be a Wales win shouldn't it? Would have preferred Turkey as this is going to be a derby game where anything can happen. One British team will be in the last 8 though, come on Wales!

lloyd

scrumhalf said:

Some time ago there was a suggestion that all knockout games subject to penalty shootouts shouyld have the shootout before the game starts so that one team knows it cannot "play for penalties". Im not sure about this.

Given how crappy penalties are, maybe we should play around with extra-time.
1) Another substitution is permitted.
2) Anyone who has had a yellow card goes off in the second half.
3) Any yellow cards and the man goes off.
4) No offside outside the penalty area.
5) All free-kicks are direct.

Problem is that the winning penalty taking team then knows that a draw is enough, which is crazy. I don't think penalty rules need changing, it has to stay football doesn't it? The golden goal thing just encouraged negativity-scoring is so hard less talented teams will always try to avoid conceding and try to get something on the break or through set pieces.

UnclePsychosis

There's absolutely nothing wrong with penalties as a way of deciding a match. It's not a lottery, it's the application of skill and technique under pressure.

People need to stop trying to fix things that aren't broken.

Fretwired

lloyd said:

scrumhalf said:

Some time ago there was a suggestion that all knockout games subject to penalty shootouts shouyld have the shootout before the game starts so that one team knows it cannot "play for penalties". Im not sure about this.

Given how crappy penalties are, maybe we should play around with extra-time.
1) Another substitution is permitted.
2) Anyone who has had a yellow card goes off in the second half.
3) Any yellow cards and the man goes off.
4) No offside outside the penalty area.
5) All free-kicks are direct.

Problem is that the winning penalty taking team then knows that a draw is enough, which is crazy. I don't think penalty rules need changing, it has to stay football doesn't it? The golden goal thing just encouraged negativity-scoring is so hard less talented teams will always try to avoid conceding and try to get something on the break or through set pieces.

Make extra time interesting with only 16 players on the pitch. There will be plenty of space and goals.

lloyd

Great goal from Shaqiri, worth a look.

Rocker

Come on Northern Ireland. From everyone in the Republic.