Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense if there are solid numbers suggesting the team that goes first wins more often than those going second, otherwise pointless

Aye, 60% of teams that go first win apparently

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense if there are solid numbers suggesting the team that goes first wins more often than those going second, otherwise pointless

Aye, 60% of teams that go first win apparently

 

:undecided: doesn't seem that overwhelming

 

guess that's what trials are for

 

btw have they ever trialled anything major that didn't get implemented in the end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

 

But a coin toss isn't fair. It's nothing to do with how good a team is at football [emoji38]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense if there are solid numbers suggesting the team that goes first wins more often than those going second, otherwise pointless

Aye, 60% of teams that go first win apparently

 

:undecided: doesn't seem that overwhelming

 

guess that's what trials are for

 

btw have they ever trialled anything major that didn't get implemented in the end?

 

Kick-ins were trialled in the Southern League some time in the 90s iirc

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

 

But a coin toss isn't fair. It's nothing to do with how good a team is at football [emoji38]

 

Do you really want to see the penalty shootout turned into a game of tennis tie break because of a percentage that sometimes says it might be unfair ?

 

I don't, it's nonsense. I have to ref the fucking things, it's ok when there's 5 fucking officials and Krytie TV helping, not when it's just me on me Jack Jones, with parents who think their little fuckwit diving spudfaced spacker has been treated unfairly. Fuck off with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is 60% first kick takers win that is hugely statistically significant actually and definitely deserves to be changed. Just because it's random which team gets the advantage doesn't mean that's fair. If you flipped a coin at the start of every game of football and gave 10% advantage to one team for teh whole match in any form it would be ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense if there are solid numbers suggesting the team that goes first wins more often than those going second, otherwise pointless

Aye, 60% of teams that go first win apparently

 

:undecided: doesn't seem that overwhelming

 

guess that's what trials are for

 

btw have they ever trialled anything major that didn't get implemented in the end?

 

Golden and silver goals

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw have they ever trialled anything major that didn't get implemented in the end?

 

Yeah, the rule where the ref could move a free kick ten yards closer to the goal for dissent etc. Everyone though it was a good idea, they trialed it and most people said it was successful. Then the referees forgot about it, it died a death and FIFA scrapped it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally forgot about that rule, recall it being a bit flawed at times with Beckham (iirc) not wanting the ball moved forward as it would make it harder for him to dip it over the wall.

 

I thought it was a great rule and iirc the initial response was almost all positive. In the Beckham situation it wouldn't have been too difficult to modify so the attacking team could decline the ball being moved. And years later abusing refs is still an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

 

But a coin toss isn't fair. It's nothing to do with how good a team is at football [emoji38]

 

Aye, but once this rule comes into force what happens if there is a statistic somewhere that says the team going second wins 60.3743% of the time? Do we now say it's unfair for the team going first and we now need to revert back to the old method?

 

Professional footballers not being able to cope with the stress of going second in a shootout, give me fucking strength - no wonder people say they are wrapped in cotton wool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...