reddogkev Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Quite a lot of modern football games are now tedious to behold, and about as entertaining as watching your nan watching her paint dry. For me, this is something that needs to change. Just wondering about a possible change to the game - if a team scores 3 goals in a match they earn an extra point. Could be trialled in the Championship or League 1 / 2 for example. Would you agree with it? If enough people agree, then I'll send a detailed proposal to the FA fao Mr Dyke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WsM-Red Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 It would certainly make games consistently more entertaining. Would you still get the point if you score 3 but lose 5-3 for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtanley Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 No. The only thing that need changing is the use of technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Said a few years ago that you could almost play a two legged game, whoever wins the aggregate score gets an extra point It's fine though, it works just fine the way it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Not for me, there can still be plenty of excitement even in a 0-0 if it's played with intent plus it would just push the premium for strikers even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 15 minutes ago, 29AR said: Not for me, there can still be plenty of excitement even in a 0-0 if it's played with intent plus it would just push the premium for strikers even further. Completely agree. The beauty of football for me is that you can have an exciting game which ends 0-0. I've never fathomed games like basketball where it seems a case of teams taking turns to score points. I'm afraid Rugby Union has got a bit like that in recent years. The scarcity of goals in football is what makes it so exciting. Yes we all remember the 5-4 at Mansfield, but the fact that results like that are so rare only adds to the excitement in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderMB Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Felix McGath recently came out and said that you should get zero points for a 0-0 draw, and 1 point for a draw with goals scored. He completely ignored the fact that two teams could score a goal at the start of a game to make it 1-1, ensuring that a draw will at least grant you a point. The points system makes perfect sense as it is. The second you start manipulating the points system for entertainment purposes, you lose the sport aspect of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bs4Red Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Personally find the tactical battles of two teams who even themselves out as sometimes better than a team who wins 6-0. Changing the point system would change this and the art of defending would be out the window with teams just trying to out score eachother. If you want lots of scores go and watch basketball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 The only change I would make is the playoff format, teams finishing 3rd and 4th should get some sort of advantage, for me one game with those two teams at home against the 5th and 6th place teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 In broad terms if it ain't broke , don't fix it. I think there have been attempts made to "improve " the game in particular prescriptive changes imposed on referees. The outlawing of the tackle from behind was a potentially good change because many of us can remember back in the day, that skilful players were butchered by hard man defenders. However, with most top flight players being trained at RADA, referees are too often being conned into decisions that aren't fouls. On a similar basis, I heard a pundit ask at the week-end when a foul is just a foul as almost any challenge seems to bring a yellow card. The same with the offside law - just when is a player not interfering with play ( as Brian Clough once said if he's not interfering with play then what's he doing on the pitch?) On the other side of the coin we had the penalty given against Palace for their defender holding an attacker at a corner. Pardew's defence wasn't that it was not an offence, but that they are never given. Every pundit agreed that it was a penalty, but we see the same offence perpetrated week in and week out but never given by the ref. It does;t need any change i the laws to stamp it out, just for refs to be diligent and keep given penalties ( or free kicks if attackers are holding defenders) and it would soon stop. The problem seems to be that referees need to be given a ruling by their governing body before they change anything. They all have the ability to make decisions but increasingly seem incapable of making the right decisions when it within their on the pitch powers. The one change that needs to be made is the correct use of technology to take pressure of referees. If managers and players would accept decisions it would not be a problem, but while so much pressure is exerted on refs both from within the game and by the microscopic attention of the media, then they need all the help possible. Retrospective television judgement on diving, with appropriate sanction against offending players would soon reduce that problem. Man City's recent goal when the ball clearly went over the goal line would easily be cancelled out with no dispute. Of course if these changes were introduced then Sky would have little need for highly paid pundits and no after match interviews, that only seem interested in contentious decisions and the like, so perhaps we have to accept that little will change for the foreseeable future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogkev Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, downendcity said: In broad terms if it ain't broke , don't fix it. I think there have been attempts made to "improve " the game in particular prescriptive changes imposed on referees. The outlawing of the tackle from behind was a potentially good change because many of us can remember back in the day, that skilful players were butchered by hard man defenders. However, with most top flight players being trained at RADA, referees are too often being conned into decisions that aren't fouls. On a similar basis, I heard a pundit ask at the week-end when a foul is just a foul as almost any challenge seems to bring a yellow card. The same with the offside law - just when is a player not interfering with play ( as Brian Clough once said if he's not interfering with play then what's he doing on the pitch?) On the other side of the coin we had the penalty given against Palace for their defender holding an attacker at a corner. Pardew's defence wasn't that it was not an offence, but that they are never given. Every pundit agreed that it was a penalty, but we see the same offence perpetrated week in and week out but never given by the ref. It does;t need any change i the laws to stamp it out, just for refs to be diligent and keep given penalties ( or free kicks if attackers are holding defenders) and it would soon stop. The problem seems to be that referees need to be given a ruling by their governing body before they change anything. They all have the ability to make decisions but increasingly seem incapable of making the right decisions when it within their on the pitch powers. The one change that needs to be made is the correct use of technology to take pressure of referees. If managers and players would accept decisions it would not be a problem, but while so much pressure is exerted on refs both from within the game and by the microscopic attention of the media, then they need all the help possible. Retrospective television judgement on diving, with appropriate sanction against offending players would soon reduce that problem. Man City's recent goal when the ball clearly went over the goal line would easily be cancelled out with no dispute. Of course if these changes were introduced then Sky would have little need for highly paid pundits and no after match interviews, that only seem interested in contentious decisions and the like, so perhaps we have to accept that little will change for the foreseeable future! Exceptional response, thanks for the time and detailed thought. So far, its a clear no from the ranks of OTIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlands Robin Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 If I was going to change anything I would make it 2 points for a score draw and not one. There's nothing worse than being 1-0 up with seconds to go and the other lot equalise costing you 2 points but gaining themselves only 1. I can see this working for a number of reasons. If teams park the bus and try and play out a 0-0 draw they only get a point so we are already encouraging attacking football. Secondly, it would encourage teams to push harder if they go a goal down because they are set to gain 2 points not 1 but it doesn't cost the team that were ahead for 89 minutes 2 points. So it rewards attacking play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Thank Christ this wasn't implemented whilst Cotts was here this season, we'd be 30 points adrift with all the drubbings we've had! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten minutes of rough Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 No.... 2 points win 1 draw, 0 loss. As you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Points mean prizes, so leave things as they are. Much as I would like City to score more goals, the recent 1-0 win over Middlesbrough was an exciting match and good value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WsM-Red Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said: If I was going to change anything I would make it 2 points for a score draw and not one. There's nothing worse than being 1-0 up with seconds to go and the other lot equalise costing you 2 points but gaining themselves only 1. I can see this working for a number of reasons. If teams park the bus and try and play out a 0-0 draw they only get a point so we are already encouraging attacking football. Secondly, it would encourage teams to push harder if they go a goal down because they are set to gain 2 points not 1 but it doesn't cost the team that were ahead for 89 minutes 2 points. So it rewards attacking play. This is the same as the issue mentioned above - both teams could score a goal immediately knowing that if they draw it's an extra point. Or if it's 0-0 with 5 mins to go they could both allow eachother to score to gain an extra point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 In rugby union where tries mean points. Teams dont allow each other to score so they both get bonus points. Though that said im not in favour of changing the point system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 We often hear of teams ' winning the first , or second half ' , of a game , how about a point for winning either half and two additionnel points for the overall win . it could mean that a team that got a tonking first half would have something to play for in the second and the Tonkers would n't be content just to sit on their lead but try to win the second half as well thus gaining 4 pts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Super said: The only change I would make is the playoff format, teams finishing 3rd and 4th should get some sort of advantage, for me one game with those two teams at home against the 5th and 6th place teams. Personally I'd ideally go a step further and have the play-off consisting of 3 matches. 5th at home to 6th 4th at home to winner of 5th versus 6th And then the final would be 3rd vs the winner of 4th vs 5th or 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: Personally I'd ideally go a step further and have the play-off consisting of 3 matches. 5th at home to 6th 4th at home to winner of 5th versus 6th And then the final would be 3rd vs the winner of 4th vs 5th or 6th. I wouldn't have a problem with that, a team that finishes 3rd at times can be 20+ points ahead of the 6th place team and surely should have an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 You get batting and bowling points in cricket for achieving certain criteria. If it ain't broke don't fix it but it would be exciting to get a point for scoring three or more away from home. So if you drew 3-3 you'd get two points... Imagine if you were losing 3-2 away from home in a game where you needed two points for promotion with a few minutes to go. Very unlikely to win it from there but still possible to get two points! Why not? Although, as said above I've seen some cracking 0-0 draws..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: Personally I'd ideally go a step further and have the play-off consisting of 3 matches. 5th at home to 6th 4th at home to winner of 5th versus 6th And then the final would be 3rd vs the winner of 4th vs 5th or 6th. We're on the same wavelength chief! I advocated exactly the same as this a few years ago. It means that the team finishing 5th or 6th has to bloody well earn their promotion the hard way and it's absolutely right that the team finishing 3rd goes straight into the final. Spot on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 32 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: Personally I'd ideally go a step further and have the play-off consisting of 3 matches. 5th at home to 6th 4th at home to winner of 5th versus 6th And then the final would be 3rd vs the winner of 4th vs 5th or 6th. A wonderful concept, but how would Sky make their millions from the extra games? Or, rather, Sky would lose millions due to the lack of extra games, and therein lies the problem (for Sky). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said: We're on the same wavelength chief! I advocated exactly the same as this a few years ago. It means that the team finishing 5th or 6th has to bloody well earn their promotion the hard way and it's absolutely right that the team finishing 3rd goes straight into the final. Spot on.... I like the playoff system used in another country (although I forget where) where the playoffs consist of teams from the lower division and 1 from the higher. This way the promoted side (if one does go up) has shown itself to be better than teams in the division above, and so should be capable of competing to stay in the division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Trouble with extra points allowed for number of goals is thst it adds more scope for deliberate manipulation. For example allowing soft goals to be conceded to harm a rival team. Imagine being relegated on goal difference because your bitter rival allowed your fellow strugglers to score a shedload on the last day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm not sure I would want to change the current system, but didn't somebody suggest (a few years ago) having a pen shootout for an extra point if the game was drawn, thus giving every game a 3 point total between the two teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, LondonBristolian said: Personally I'd ideally go a step further and have the play-off consisting of 3 matches. 5th at home to 6th 4th at home to winner of 5th versus 6th And then the final would be 3rd vs the winner of 4th vs 5th or 6th. This was a situation they used to do in rugby. I think it actually was unfair on the team finishing highest. The reason was the other teams had an extra game to hit 'form' whilst the other team just sat around for a week or so waiting to play the winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Not on an individual match basis, but maybe a bonus added point to a teams league points total based on reaching a level of positive goal difference (rewarding overall results reflecting good defences and attacks clean sheets and goals scored during course of a season). (admittedly I haven't thought this through in detail, just a quick two-penny worth in response to thread,... its merits or otherwise not determined) PS... Bonus points to be added at say the two thirds of season stage.. Not during final third to avoid last minute 'gamesmanship' by relegation threatened or promotion hopeful teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenkibby. Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 46 minutes ago, City169 said: I like the playoff system used in another country (although I forget where) where the playoffs consist of teams from the lower division and 1 from the higher. This way the promoted side (if one does go up) has shown itself to be better than teams in the division above, and so should be capable of competing to stay in the division. This was how our playoff system started, the year we lost to Walsall we first relegated Sheff Utd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said: This was how our playoff system started, the year we lost to Walsall we first relegated Sheff Utd. Didn't realise that, was just before my time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.