2026 FIFA World Cup Thread

#426      
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.
 
#427      
PleaseMakeABowlGame
the juiceman cometh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Penalty shootouts are the best. Every one of these games I find myself rooting for the tie all the way through.
 
#429      
Illinoise
the juiceman cometh said:
This just means you don't actually like soccer I think.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#430      
the juiceman cometh
Illinoise said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#433      
Roundball Sage
Illinoise said:
Stupefied as to how they let these games come down to a goalie guessing which way to dive.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#434      
the juiceman cometh
Roundball Sage said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#435      
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.

:cool:
 
#437      
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
 
#438      
Illini92and96
the juiceman cometh said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.
 
#440      
OrangeBlue98
KBLEE said:
You would have to add a ref just to make sure teams don't have too many players on the field.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#441      
KBLEE
OrangeBlue98 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#442      
bdutts
Illini92and96 said:
I like that. Allow hockey subbing in and out and the pace would really pick up.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#443      
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!)
 
#444      
Second place is 1st loser
the juiceman cometh said:
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.
Click to expand...
I LOVE this idea and have run the thought by people who I've been watching these games with. 7 v 7 would be awesome, but man.......that's a LOT of field to cover with 7 guys. I'd think that you'd have to allow for subs more liberally?
 
#445      
Battle89
Second place is 1st loser said:
I LOVE this idea and have run the thought by people who I've been watching these games with. 7 v 7 would be awesome, but man.......that's a LOT of field to cover with 7 guys. I'd think that you'd have to allow for subs more liberally?
Click to expand...
Love all the creative thinking here, regardless of feasibility or personal feelings about the game. Fun discussion.

FWIW, my first thought was the same as yours, these guys are already exhausted and now they need to cover (individually) almost 2x the pitch?
 
#446      
bdutts
the juiceman cometh said:
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!)
Click to expand...
Allowing one on the fly change in extra time is a radical change but playing 7v7 isnt'?

It seems like ANY change to soccer ends up being a radical change to some people. When soccer changed from 2 points to 3 points for a win, some people were acting like it was a brand new sport. And of course, it was a change for the better. Anything different than the norm will cause people to panic/overreact instead of letting it sink in and see what the rule changes look like.

I doubt we'll see any change to the current rules because most people like them. And they certainly won't change the rules for the sole purpose of getting the game more "Americanized". They already have billions all over the world watching.
 
#447      
the juiceman cometh
Battle89 said:
Love all the creative thinking here, regardless of feasibility or personal feelings about the game. Fun discussion.

FWIW, my first thought was the same as yours, these guys are already exhausted and now they need to cover (individually) almost 2x the pitch?
Click to expand...
I do agree you'd probably have to increase the number of subs.

But keep in mind, until just a few years ago teams only had 3 subs per a game, including extra time. There are already more subs than there ever were before. At a certain point you're just going to run out of available subs anyway. Given that each squad carries 26 players (also expanded in 2022) and 3 of those are goalkeepers, there is an upper limit (and I'm just fundamentally opposed to any idea of allowing a previously subbed player back on - just changes the nature of the sport too much). Given that, I think allowing one additional sub per extra period is enough. You're taking off 2 tired players and putting in one set of fresh legs each time, that should help.
 
#448      
KBLEE
I was gonna propose playing extra time with no goalkeepers. 10 v 10 but nobody on the pitch can use their hands. It might make teams play a bit more defensively, but scoring should (in theory) be easier.
 
Back