2026 FIFA World Cup Thread

[the juiceman cometh]

Agreed. I think the OT should be golden goal with no offsides, followed immediately by a shootout.

It's basically what hockey did. They removed the red lines completely, went to 3 v 3 open ice in OT, followed by a shootout.

I really think that FIFA needs to revisit the offsides rule just like the NHL did with the red lines. If they open the game up, the viewership in the US, where our society embraces scoring and instant gratification.....will rise.

No offsides in soccer just doesn't work. Teams would camp out an attacker or two by the goal and then the other team would respond by moving defenders back. Both teams do this and essentially it just results in both teams launching long balls at the other team's goal hoping chaos in the box leads to a goal, with no midfield play. Boring. I think people underestimate the importance of offsides in soccer and just get frustrated about goals getting invalidated. The offsides rule is what encourages all the creativity in attack that makes soccer fun to watch.

And they had Golden Goal for a long time, it sucked, and there's a reason it's gone. It ultimately discouraged attacking as neither team wanted to risk getting hit on the counter-attack and immediately losing the game, so you ended up with a lot of cautious play.

And lastly, penalty shootouts suck. It's only slightly better than a coin flip as far as deciding a game, and after seeing enough of them I don't find them that exciting anymore. Goals from open play are so much more satisfying than penalty goals. Sometimes a penalty shootout results in goalkeeper heroics, which is awesome, but more often than not it becomes about who boots it over the bar or clangs it off the post.

 

[IlliniFaninHoosierLand]

Quarterfinal match-ups:

France-Morocco
Spain-Belgium
Norway-England
Argentina-Switzerland

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

No offsides in soccer just doesn't work. Teams would camp out an attacker or two by the goal and then the other team would respond by moving defenders back. Both teams do this and essentially it just results in both teams launching long balls at the other team's goal hoping chaos in the box leads to a goal, with no midfield play. Boring. I think people underestimate the importance of offsides in soccer and just get frustrated about goals getting invalidated. The offsides rule is what encourages all the creativity in attack that makes soccer fun to watch.

And they had Golden Goal for a long time, it sucked, and there's a reason it's gone. It ultimately discouraged attacking as neither team wanted to risk getting hit on the counter-attack and immediately losing the game, so you ended up with a lot of cautious play.

And lastly, penalty shootouts suck. It's only slightly better than a coin flip as far as deciding a game, and after seeing enough of them I don't find them that exciting anymore. Goals from open play are so much more satisfying than penalty goals. Sometimes a penalty shootout results in goalkeeper heroics, which is awesome, but more often than not it becomes about who boots it over the bar or clangs it off the post.

I am nowhere near any sort of expert on soccer. Admittedly, I'm on the World Cup bandwagon. After this tournament, I'll tune in again come qualifiers.

So, as a soccer novice, I would say that the shootouts are INTENSE. My heart is racing even if the US isn't involved. That's interesting that you don't like them!

 

[GrayGhost77]

Quarterfinal match-ups:

France-Morocco
Spain-Belgium
Norway-England
Argentina-Switzerland

One Africa, one South America, and six Europe.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

No offsides in soccer just doesn't work. Teams would camp out an attacker or two by the goal and then the other team would respond by moving defenders back. Both teams do this and essentially it just results in both teams launching long balls at the other team's goal hoping chaos in the box leads to a goal, with no midfield play. Boring. I think people underestimate the importance of offsides in soccer and just get frustrated about goals getting invalidated. The offsides rule is what encourages all the creativity in attack that makes soccer fun to watch.

And they had Golden Goal for a long time, it sucked, and there's a reason it's gone. It ultimately discouraged attacking as neither team wanted to risk getting hit on the counter-attack and immediately losing the game, so you ended up with a lot of cautious play.

And lastly, penalty shootouts suck. It's only slightly better than a coin flip as far as deciding a game, and after seeing enough of them I don't find them that exciting anymore. Goals from open play are so much more satisfying than penalty goals. Sometimes a penalty shootout results in goalkeeper heroics, which is awesome, but more often than not it becomes about who boots it over the bar or clangs it off the post.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

What no one is talking about in terms of the disallowed goal is that it actually would've hurt Egypt.

Argentina's mentality and urgency flipped a switch from the point it turned to 2-0. Egypt couldn't even hold that lead for 15 minutes and gave up THREE goals.

Had that goal counted, they would've had to defend that lead for THAT much longer. We really think everything plays out the same way, and they'd eventually be up 3-0? I don't think so. There's a circumstance/mental aspect that very much determines the game.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

No offsides in soccer just doesn't work. Teams would camp out an attacker or two by the goal and then the other team would respond by moving defenders back. Both teams do this and essentially it just results in both teams launching long balls at the other team's goal hoping chaos in the box leads to a goal, with no midfield play. Boring. I think people underestimate the importance of offsides in soccer and just get frustrated about goals getting invalidated. The offsides rule is what encourages all the creativity in attack that makes soccer fun to watch.

And they had Golden Goal for a long time, it sucked, and there's a reason it's gone. It ultimately discouraged attacking as neither team wanted to risk getting hit on the counter-attack and immediately losing the game, so you ended up with a lot of cautious play.

And lastly, penalty shootouts suck. It's only slightly better than a coin flip as far as deciding a game, and after seeing enough of them I don't find them that exciting anymore. Goals from open play are so much more satisfying than penalty goals. Sometimes a penalty shootout results in goalkeeper heroics, which is awesome, but more often than not it becomes about who boots it over the bar or clangs it off the post.

Penalty shootouts are the best. Every one of these games I find myself rooting for the tie all the way through.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Penalty shootouts are the best. Every one of these games I find myself rooting for the tie all the way through.

This just means you don't actually like soccer I think.

 

[Illinoise]

This just means you don't actually like soccer I think.

How no one has figured out that they should move the penalty spot farther away for shootouts hurts my brain. Stupefied as to how they let these games come down to a goalie guessing which way to dive. Move it to the 18 yard box and let’s see these guys have an actual sporting competition.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

How no one has figured out that they should move the penalty spot farther away for shootouts hurts my brain. Stupefied as to how they let these games come down to a goalie guessing which way to dive. Move it to the 18 yard box and let’s see these guys have an actual sporting competition.

If it were up to me they'd do what they used to do in early World Cups and what they do in early rounds of the FA cup and if it's tied at the end of 90, just replay the entire fixture the next day. That would incentivize teams to go for it, especially the favorites who don't want to get extra tired before their next opponent.

Obviously a ton of logistical reasons against so it'll never happen.

 

[bdutts]

Penalty shootouts are the best. Every one of these games I find myself rooting for the tie all the way through.

I call it the field goal kicking contest. I hate them. Same with penalty shootouts in hockey.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

I call it the field goal kicking contest. I hate them. Same with penalty shootouts in hockey.

imo, the outcome of a World Cup game should never come down to a penalty kick .
it’s a very hollow victory

 

[Roundball Sage]

Stupefied as to how they let these games come down to a goalie guessing which way to dive.

They had 90 minutes to win the match. Neither side did. Need a more sensible way to decide the outcomes than goalkeepers guessing and shooters making a big deal that they beat a mostly helpless goaltender.

Here's what to do: Take the goaltender OUT after 90 minutes. Let the remaining players have at it. No player is allowed to defend within five (or so) feet of the goal line. It will be an actual futbol play that settles the match. Sudden death. Last goals wins.

Everyone goes home knowing that both sides had a fair chance. No more 120-plus minutes with guys cramping up and begging for mercy.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Here's what to do: Take the goaltender OUT after 90 minutes. Let the remaining players have at it. No player is allowed to defend within five (or so) feet of the goal line. It will be an actual futbol play that settles the match. Sudden death. Last goals wins.

Everyone goes home knowing that both sides had a fair chance. No more 120-plus minutes with guys cramping up and begging for mercy.

So let's do away with a random way of deciding a winner that has little to do with soccer, and replace it with a random way of deciding a winner that has even less to do with soccer?

If something must be done, I think the best realistic proposal I've seen is incremental player reduction. Maybe after 90 minutes each side has to send a couple guys off so it becomes 9v9 (or less depending on red cards). At halftime in extra time another from each team for 8v8. Then if still tied, add on another 15 minutes at 7v7, etc.

The reason is that fewer players means more open space, means more goals. Sometimes you see this in games where each side has gotten red cards, it opens the game up a bit. Maybe also give each team an extra sub for each extra 15 minute interval, so fresh legs can exploit the extra open space.

 

[BWBW]

I think I have an idea as good or better than most posted so far.

By rule, all goaltenders must be midgets or shorter. Scoring will increase dramatically. Problem solved.

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

In extra time, add an additional ball every five minutes.

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo once suggested a second ball as a way to make soccer more exciting for the American audience.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

i’m in favor of 7 v 7 or 5 v 5 in overtime .

it’s just crazy having penalty kicks determine the outcome

 

[Illini92and96]

So let's do away with a random way of deciding a winner that has little to do with soccer, and replace it with a random way of deciding a winner that has even less to do with soccer?

If something must be done, I think the best realistic proposal I've seen is incremental player reduction. Maybe after 90 minutes each side has to send a couple guys off so it becomes 9v9 (or less depending on red cards). At halftime in extra time another from each team for 8v8. Then if still tied, add on another 15 minutes at 7v7, etc.

The reason is that fewer players means more open space, means more goals. Sometimes you see this in games where each side has gotten red cards, it opens the game up a bit. Maybe also give each team an extra sub for each extra 15 minute interval, so fresh legs can exploit the extra open space.

I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.

overall , the game will never catch on here with the masses if scoring doesnt increase . all these 1-0 or 2-1 games kinda bore me , tbh.

I’ve heard different ideas , some might work .
just asking , does MLS generally follow these same rules as FIFA ?

 

[gibb52]

I've got a good idea. We Americans just need to stay out of trying to "improve" soccer. It's the World's game. Let the rest of the world decide the rules.

 

[KBLEE]

I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.

You would have to add a ref just to make sure teams don't have too many players on the field.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

You would have to add a ref just to make sure teams don't have too many players on the field.

That’s one of the two key responsibilities of the fourth (reserve referee) and fifth (reserve assistant referee) officials. They manage the benches and subs.

 

[KBLEE]

That’s one of the two key responsibilities of the fourth (reserve referee) and fifth (reserve assistant referee) officials. They manage the benches and subs.

I understand, but if you allow "hockey subs" with twice the number of players (compared to hockey) for each team it would become chaotic. Just think of the NFL when teams have too many players on the field, except you have players constantly entering and leaving the pitch with no regular stoppages for the refs to count the players.

 

[bdutts]

I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.

I’d add “on the fly” subbing but only one at a time. If you really want to spice things up, allow subbed players to return after a certain time.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Guys, small tweaks are one thing but some of you seem to want to make soccer a fundamentally different sport.

If you want to watch soccer but also hockey, indoor soccer is already a thing! And it's pretty fun! Support your local team! (My dad used to take me to a bunch of St. Louis Ambush games growing up, it was great!)