2026 FIFA World Cup Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#476      
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?
 
#477      
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?
 
#478      
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.
 
#479      
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.
 
#480      
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.
 
#481      
the juiceman cometh
bdutts said:
Allowing one on the fly change in extra time is a radical change but playing 7v7 isnt'?
Click to expand...
Yes, because number of players on the field already fluctuates due to red cards. The game is still the same, just more open space for players to exploit. Less opportunity for defenders to crowd the box. But still the same game.

And tbh I'm proposing this thing but also not 100% sold on it myself. I just don't like the penalty shootout and want to see games decided during open play. I'd still rather the entire match be re-played but know that's a solution from a bygone era and will never happen.

But the principle that once a player is out, that player is done is fundamental. It's been a part of the strategy of the sport forever, to the degree that even in penalty shootouts you can't use a player that was previously subbed out.

Same with any of these bizarre proposals to not have a goalie. That's just a fundamentally different sport. No thanks.
 
#483      
the juiceman cometh
KBLEE said:
Penalties are already a different sport.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I prefer not to replace one thing that's dumb but at least has some tradition behind it with another thing that's dumb and has never been a thing in soccer (unless you're talking about playing with mini goals that you see in some youth soccer setups, in which case I'm game but that's not going to speed things up any).

No goalkeepers is a terrible idea unless you like the idea of each team camping three defenders on the goal line with their hands clasped behind their backs and trying to rocket shots in from far away and hoping to either get it past them, win a corner kick, or get a handball penalty (in which case what happens? do you shoot into an empty goal?). 30 minutes of that? I'll take the PKs, as much as I don't like them.
 
#484      
Carter Waller
KBLEE said:
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.
Click to expand...
They could use the jerseys I proposed that have no sleeves and keep the arms pinned inside. It would be a must-see.😀
 
#485      
Second place is 1st loser
the juiceman cometh said:
Yes, because number of players on the field already fluctuates due to red cards. The game is still the same, just more open space for players to exploit. Less opportunity for defenders to crowd the box. But still the same game.

And tbh I'm proposing this thing but also not 100% sold on it myself. I just don't like the penalty shootout and want to see games decided during open play. I'd still rather the entire match be re-played but know that's a solution from a bygone era and will never happen.

But the principle that once a player is out, that player is done is fundamental. It's been a part of the strategy of the sport forever, to the degree that even in penalty shootouts you can't use a player that was previously subbed out.

Same with any of these bizarre proposals to not have a goalie. That's just a fundamentally different sport. No thanks.
Click to expand...
For those who only watch soccer during the World Cup and are bringing up ideas that will keep them in front of the TV and potentially guide their child in that direction....I think that those in critical roles might want to listen. No idea is a bad idea.

One of this bigger frustrations for me are the penalty shots given, in regulation, for "fouls" that are incidental or even marginal. That is the most punitive call in sports. If a guy gets pulled down or forcefully tripped on plays that would be otherwise lead to point black shots, fine, award the penalty kick. Anything short of an absolutely egregious play....don't give away a goal. In a sport where every goal is celebrated like it was a 65 yard pass, as time expired, to win the Super Bowl.....you can't hand out a freebie.
 
#486      
wettsten
SuperintendentChalmers said:
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.
Click to expand...

j47CHs.gif
 
#487      
wettsten
KBLEE said:
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.
Click to expand...
add in no offensive players allowed in the 18 yard box and no defenders allowed in the 6 yard box
 
#491      
Illini92and96
KBLEE said:
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.
Click to expand...
You could limit it to the start of every minute, or even minutes, etc. Or even every 5 minutes. Point being you wouldn't have people totally out of gas on the field just trying to survive. Less people and more rested people would be quite exciting. This after playing for 90 minutes already, so why not the change of pace and tactics.
 
#492      
Illini92and96
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...
We're just talking about overtime, not regular time. After having already played 90 minutes. I get bored watching in the 115th minute of a 0-0 game.
 
#493      
the juiceman cometh
Illini92and96 said:
We're just talking about overtime, not regular time. After having already played 90 minutes. I get bored watching in the 115th minute of a 0-0 game.
Click to expand...
If this was basketball and I was proposing that OT be decided by having the shortest player from each team wear identical mascot suits and engage in a dunk contest judged by 5 fans chosen at random by seat number, and the winner is revealed by tearing the mask off the winner's costume Scooby Doo style, how seriously would you take that proposal?
 
#495      
Fly Illini Fly!
8:50 --


No one else thinks this was a dirty tackle? The Morroco player notices MBappe grimacing, and then immediately pounces on the opportunity to take him out.
 
#496      
KBLEE
Fly Illini Fly! said:
8:50 --


No one else thinks this was a dirty tackle? The Morroco player notices MBappe grimacing, and then immediately pounces on the opportunity to take him out.
Click to expand...

The tackle was worthy of a yellow and he was booked.
 
#497      
Fly Illini Fly!
KBLEE said:
Penalties are already a different sport.
Click to expand...
I mean we see penalties taken basically every game.

Is it the absolute best way to decide a winner in a setting like the WC? Perhaps not. But it's a lot more traditional than something like removing offsides.

.....

I personally think penalties are a lot better than away goals, which was the criteria in the champions league all those years if it were tied after 2 legs. (obviously there's only one match being played at the WC)

Now it's the same as the FIFA rules -- 30min extra game and then penalties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back