[Archived] Crazy Proposal

[Al]

What, even the Riverside??????

Maybe even a Rangers v Celtic match??????

[USABlue]

May just as well start playing the Star Spngled Banner and have blokes walking around chucking peanuts into the crowd.

If this happens I am finished with football, for good. I am already sick of the way its gone.

I've enjoyed watching some vintage footy, hardnose tackles, no flopping, no play acting, no real arguing with the ref anyone remeber how it was, how it should be?

[Look4Me]

We actually had this in the Norwegian league 15 years ago or something. For some reason they stopped after 1 season ;-)

It was kinda exciting the first few times, but it really is a waste of time.

How it will make teams play more attacking, I will never know. You could put every man behind the ball and still end up with 2 points after a shootout. Nice to be able to end in the top10 without ever scoring a goal in regular play...

[Neil Weaver]

I was listening to the radio the other day and heard an interesting theory on why this was a stupid idea........

A team could go the whole season scoring no goals (and draw every game 0-0) then win all the shoot-outs and win the league, beating the team in second who won every game 3-0 but then drew the last game of the season and lost the shoot out. Justice eh?

[sijoco]

Didn't the FA come up with the idea of awarding more points to a team if they scored 3 or more goals?. Got a funny feeling this draw shoot out idea is going to end up in the same pile labeled "Who came up with this cr@p"

[American]

aka the Blatter pile...

[blue/white]

Speaking of Sepp Blather....

when's the next FIFA election? This troll is looking to kill football by Americanization!

Little Barsteward !

[McClarky]

Penalty shoot outs will only encourage teams to play for a draw, what a stupid idea. Like all other ideas to "improve" the game it is absolute nonesence and will have a negative effect. Why don't these Americans go and invent their own version and take all their stupid rules with them.

Another 1 is the so called "real time" proposal. This is so that you get 90 minutes actiuon in a game instead of what you have now. Does anyone thin this is a good idea? If a game lasts 90 minutes now but the ball is in play for 45 or so this would mean doubling the length of a game. Alos, as there would be no such thing as timewasting, there would be more time to be added on and the players would get really tired, so you would need to introduce more breaks. Hence we would be there till about 8pm for a 3pm kick-off. Imagine what that would do for gates and TV viewing figures.