Poll of the Day > Why don't they have sudden-death extra time in soccer (football)?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't see what harm there would be in having this since it's so low-scoring to begin with. I feel like it would add extra excitement and pressure to it. We have sudden death for American football (sort of) and hockey, and those already have more scoring than soccer (though to a lesser extent with hockey). I don't know if it's great for American football, but I like it in hockey, so I think for soccer it would translate well.

Yeah, I hate it. I'm betting it's because one of the whiner countries lost that way once and they had to change it.
---

Aren't there matches that go 0-0 after full game time?

Sudden Death should make goals incrementally bigger with time.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Yeah, I hate it. I'm betting it's because one of the whiner countries lost that way once and they had to change it.

But I bet that the team who scores first in extra time in the current format goes on to win the vast majority of the time anyway. Then I'd imagine the next likeliest outcome is it gets tied and (if applicable) goes to PKs, which are kind of lame. The amount of times the team that scored first still goes on to lose before it goes to PKs is probably rare.

They think it's all over...it is now!
---

because the game is 90 minutes and they try to keep it even for all. there isnt a point to introduce artificial game elements like ot unless absolutely necessary.

like they dont see a reason to force a team to win just to make it more exciting. if they could logistically have the world cup knockout rounds without OT they probably would.

the way most leagues work is each team plays eachother twice once home and once away. so everybody plays eachother the same number of times so its more even. ties are very important since the standings are most points, 3 per win 1 per tie

PKs are the worst as it stands. It wouldn't be as bad if it was 2 on 2 (incl. goalie), because there's a larger element of skill involved.
---

argonautweakend posted...

like they dont see a reason to force a team to win just to make it more exciting. if they could logistically have the world cup knockout rounds without OT they probably would.

the way most leagues work is each team plays eachother twice once home and once away. so everybody plays eachother the same number of times so its more even. ties are very important since the standings are most points, 3 per win 1 per tie

It sounds like you're talking arguments for/against having overtime at all. My argument is that since they have it, it should be sudden death.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

PKs are the worst as it stands. It wouldn't be as bad if it was 2 on 2 (incl. goalie), because there's a larger element of skill involved.

I like how the NHL tried to get away from shootouts because they're so stupid, and people loved the 3-on-3 overtime change. And the NHL also didn't use shootouts for playoffs, even before the 3-on-3 rule. I get PKs for smaller games (though I'm not sure if any league uses them, since they have ties), but elimination games IMO shouldn't come down to that. I think people just accept it for soccer since it's been that way for a long time.

Games go 0-0 for 90 minutes, sudden death wouldn't exactly be sudden, you go easily go another 90+ minutes with nobody scoring.
---

They do in college, actually.

No one would want to play soccer if you'd be prone to dying suddenly while playing.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Games go 0-0 for 90 minutes, sudden death wouldn't exactly be sudden, you go easily go another 90+ minutes with nobody scoring.

Having the OT be sudden-death has nothing to do with how long it is. They could make it the same length it is now. While true I expressed my dislike for PKs, that's a different argument entirely. If you had sudden death but kept the extra time the same length it is now, at least any time somebody scores it guarantees there won't be a tie or PKs. But without sudden death you can have a team score in extra time but still have to go to PKs if the opponent ties it back up. I just don't understand why they wouldn't want to take obvious steps towards making PKs as avoidable as possible.

i dont know what answer fifa or any other organisation would give but sudden death ot goes against the ethics of the game and is unfair if team b cannot get a chance to score. the regular game has no sudden death elements ao it seems illogical to force it in an ot period. having the first team to score be the winner isnt fair when every other time the other team does get a chance. arbitrary winner = bad. they so pks because you cant expect these dudes to run like that for more thsn 120 minutes so thats a health concern

Blue_Thunder posted...

No one would want to play soccer if you'd be prone to dying suddenly while playing.

I would be a lot more inclined to actually watch a game though.
---

But sudden death is "fair" in games like soccer and hockey with constantly-changing possessions, because they both have equal chances to possess and score throughout the period.

Unfair is the NFL, where even despite recent changes, a team could still end up not possessing the ball at all, which comes down to a dumb advantage determined by luck (coin toss).

Unfair would be if a baseball game ended when a team scored in the top half of extra innings, but luckily it isn't like that.

It is fair in the sense there is no specific offense and defense like american football or baseball, so each team essentially has equal chances, sure. It is not fair in that there is no other time they have OT or sudden death OT but for a playoff scenario(wc round of 16 on), so it takes the nature of the game and adds in an artificial element.

You can say OT in general does that, which is true to an extent, but they keep it as similar to the normal game as they can, such as no sudden death, and two halves albeit 15 minutes. They do PKs because after 120 minutes and likely all subs exhausted, they cant expect players to go much further without risk of injury. a PK is something that also happens in the normal game once in a while, so even there its parallel.

But soccer is like that, they want each stage of the game to be as equal as possible within whatever constraints they have.

Your argument makes no sense to me. Sudden death in soccer is fair and you're just making arbitrary distinctions on when it is or isn't okay to deviate from the normal behavior of the game.

its usually not okay to deviate from the norm. regular season games(and there are no playoffs in most leagues, but there are playoffs in international tournaments) do not have OT. there are ties. When forced, yes, they deviate from the norm but they do it as close as they can to the original form, with two halves and no sudden death, then if that fails penalty kicks which happen anyways and they kinda need a winner.

i dont think sudden death would be fair to both teams. lots of teams can and have tied it back up or at least made it interesting despite being down. I would imagine the team that scores first wins most often though.

They should add more positions as the game goes on.

Maybe one guy, each team, who can only use his hands to contact the ball. Another guy, each team, who cannot make contact with the ball, but can tackle other players who've made contact with the ball in the last ten seconds.

Add a second ball too. And some pitfalls and hills.

Maybe call the sport by a new name though.
---

argonautweakend posted...

i dont think sudden death would be fair to both teams. lots of teams can and have tied it back up or at least made it interesting despite being down.

Of course, I'm sure they've been on the other side where they scored first in extra time only to give it back up, so it probably about evens out. It might piss some people off for a while to change it, but sports are meant to evolve and do things better. The problem is that people are very resistant to big changes in sports, even if they could be beneficial (which I think it would be in this case). If they lose those comeback opportunities, tough shit - sometimes you have to let things so to make changes. And let's be real, I doubt that it's any team's strategy when they start extra time to get down and then come from behind.